Simply A Masterpiece

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

I've seen this movie, the Kevin Costner movie and the Russell Crowe movie. They each have their good points but of the three the Costner movie was by far the worst. I'd rate it a 4/10. The Russell Crowe movie clearly pointed out that King Richard never returned from the crusades. I rate the Russell Crowe movie a 7/10. The Patrick Bergin movie is by far more historically accurate. For this time period was a struggle between Normans who came from Normandy and Saxons who came from Saxony (Germany). Both of these countries of course were influenced by Viking heritage. Norman and Saxons were also influenced by the Celts who we were steadily pushed westward by Roman expansion. So as can be seen there was much influence present at the time of this movie. At the time of this movie England consisted of Wales, England and Scotland. Further this movie also clearly noted that King Richard never returned from the crusades and that Prince John urssuuped the crown and became King John and signed the Magna Charta.

Patrick Bergin displays just the right blend of charisma and intelligence as Robin, but I join many other reviewers in pointing out the woeful miscasting of Uma Thurman, an actress of limited range who's perfectly suited to embody Quentin Tarantino's cartoon characterizations. The rest of the cast do their best in a vain attempt to had some heat and light in an overly drab period re-creation made worse by its sluggish plot. One almost begins to yearn for the unrealistic Technicolor and bogus Sherwood Forest of the old Flynn/Rathbone version. Even the castle interiors in this film are so dark and misty that they might as well have filmed those scenes in a London pub clogged with tobacco smoke. The ideal situation, in my view, would have been for Director Kevin Reynolds to have swapped Bergin for Costner, who was as badly miscast in the contemporaneous "Prince of Thieves" as Uma Thurman was in this one.

There are some legendary heroes, whose stories you can tell a hundred of times and every time it is different. There are the three Musketeers, King Arthur, Sherlock Holmes and of course Robin Hood.In the history of movies are so many adaptions of this legend and each is different in what style and atmosphere they set the piece.There f.e. is the flamboyant, tight wearing Robin of Errol Flynn (and Cary Elwes), who takes his life as an outlaw with jest and humour.There is the avenging Robin, out for revenge to some slights done to him and/or family and friends like the Costner Robin Hood.There are some, really trying to help the poor while having some fun and laugh at the cost of the ruling government as in the Disney cartoon version.There are many differences in the opponents who are battled by Robin, though the Sheriff of Nottingham is the constant one. There are sometimes John Lackland (King John), Guy of Gisbourne (in the legend he is only a mercenary quickly disposed and then impersonated by Robin) and others.This version looks at it a new way. They show a country divided into an anglo-saxon populace and norman ruling class. Only a few saxon nobles exist. One of this noble families are the Hodes. Though Robert Hode is normally a friend of his norman Baron, Daguerre, a visiting norman nobleman insists on Hode being punished for some slight offense. Pride Hode does not comply and flees. Thus he is being outlawed and his family stripped of title, claims and life. This way his fight begins....The look of this movie is the darkest and bleakest Robin Hood there ever was. The forest looks not friendly, many scenes play at night, and the merry men get real dirty (unlike the Flynn Hood). The story behind the whole movie may be the most "political" ever, because of that division of being saxon or norman.The acting is very good, in my opinion it even supersedes the Costner Robin Hood from the same year. Especially the three leads (Bergin, Krabbé and Prochnow) are great. But down to the smallest role you get fine acting.The swordfights (as another commentator mentioned, real swords not rapiers) are really nice to watch and the finale...well, you better see it for yourself.All in all, if this movie runs on TV or is available on DVD, get it.

When it came out, I read something about Patrick Bergen ACTUALLY SPLITTING an ARROW on the target during practice. I would love to know whether there were any eyewitnesses to this, because the Mythbusters busted that idea recently and I was just crestfallen. (Is that a pun? it should be).Lexie, if you're out there anywhere, ask your dad.I remember seeing the movie when it came out on TV and really did like it. It was refreshing to see the Middle Ages looking worn down at the heels rather than the usual polyester Technicolor Court Jester look. The peasants benefited from the recent release of Monty Python and the Holy Grail in that they really did look like they had s... all over them. Bergin's moustache is an unfortunate artifact of Hollywood costuming, but it's no worse than Flynn's wig in the 1939 version (which was utterly splendid in its own way) (I mean the movie, not the wig) (Did you know that Flynn was a descendant of Fletcher Christian?). And one of the funniest things I've ever seen: Uma Thurman, "Diguised as a Boy". That's like saying you can disguise a raven as a writing desk... there's really no confusing the two.In terms of comparison, Flynn's a 10, Bergen's a 7, Costner's a 3 for this role.But if I had to choose between Basil Rathbone and Alan Rickman... oh, Lord, can't I just have them both? purrr.