It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

I thought that I was seeing the 2010 version of "Robin Hood" or possibly "Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves", but actually it was another movie called "Robin Hood" made in 1991. I guess there wasn't much point in me seeing this. Well, I was confused as I watched this, but I guess at least I got to see a movie of some sort. It was about as uh, mediocre as I thought it would be. Well, I thought I'd be watching the 2010 version or...whatever. Anyway, this version of "Robin Hood" is actually at a pretty good length. I admit that I'm not very familiar with the whole Robin Hood mythos.Are there any actual novels that first depict Robin Hood? Then again, a lot of us aren't even sure if he was real or not. I guess there is a pretty basic common plot with Robin rescuing Maid Marian and them getting married. I thought Friar Tuck was pretty good. I guess I haven't seen that many Robin Hood films, but this one at least had a very well known actress, Uma Thurman, in it. There was nothing that special for me and I feel weird having watch it thinking it was something else. It at least looks like it was made in 2010! **1/2

I grew up with these old classics, when we sort of had to picture the story in our minds as we read it. This is by far the most authentic version of a Robin Hood tale I've seen. No special-effects, no magic, just real life in the woods of medieval England. The characters are believable and the casting was spot-on. The timing of the release was unfortunate due to the publicity being generated for Costner's version (which I won't even waste my time reviewing), but if you're looking for a real genuine and human rendition of this timeless classic, set a few hours aside to watch Umma Thurman set the eternal bar for Maid Marianne. Better set a few more hours aside... you might want to watch it twice!!

Few subjects for a movie have been more thoroughly worked over than the (hi)story of Robin Hood. Yes, he was a real historical figure, but it is the legends rather than the history which are most remembered today. True histories, serious books, children's books, comic strips and magazine articles galore have been thick on the ground ever since before I was born. Probably the very name contributes to this - 'Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robbing the rich to help the poor' was a story which appealed greatly to generations of children. Would it ever have achieved such a grip if he had been named Richard Hong or even Robert Homer? Picking which of the available movies to watch is therefore not easy. Some guidance is important and writers of User Comments here should provide this by indicating whether a particular film is a historical study, a comedy or just a parody, and whether it is more suitable for children than adults, as well as expressing their opinion on the overall quality of the final work. Looking through the very crowded page of the IMDb database listing films with Robin Hood in the title we can see that they fall into several different groups - some were prepared for the cinema and others for TV. Not surprisingly most of the latter are episodic, like the many books which concentrate on the legends rather than known history and devote separate chapters to a series of separate largely fictitious adventures of Robin and his band of Merry Men. With many such texts available to provide the necessary raw material, it is not surprising how many TV series have been created over the years.How should we start commenting? In fairness any reviewer should first give some indication of what he or she is looking for - apart from the essentials of a movie with good film-script, acting, direction, lighting, and camera work. I am one of those with strong childhood memories of reading about Robin Hood - I enjoy watching any good swashbuckler film, but I do not like watching when it misleads me about a real and not unimportant historical character. The various Robin Hood films I saw many years ago differed greatly in the story they told, and were often very skimpy about the historical background that is so necessary to make the story meaningful. This film was shown by a local TV station recently and, as many IMDb users clearly admire it greatly, I decided to watch and compare it with what I remembered of these earlier films. Concurrently I also reviewed other available DVD's to see whether there was anything listed that might provide a more worthwhile home movie. First I deleted from consideration all films which were clearly intended to present the entire story as a lightweight comedy. One cannot expect anything better than a chuckle - and a feeling of having wasted time - from films such as "The Ribald adventures of Robin Hood", "Robin Hood - Men in Tights", "Robin Hood - Prince of Thieves", "Robin Hood - Thief of Wives" etc. Equally I rejected Walt Disney's 1973 animated version. which portrays Robin Hood as a fox and other characters as various animals. His company has the ability to create animated films about real characters that are very popular and often command considerable respect, but for me their subjects should be restricted to fantasies, myths or legends. "Robin and Marian" and Robin Hood and the Sorcerer" were rejected because I was not looking for either a romance or a film about wizardry. Meanwhile Patrick Bergin's name drew me to this film - He is a great but often under-rated actor. He was perhaps a little old (40 I believe) when playing Robin Hood (perhaps the epitome of a youthful adventurer), but I correctly trusted his acting ability and the work of the makeup department would minimise this problem.Make no mistake, this is a fine film, not a great one but it belongs in the same stable as the 1922 version by Douglas Firbanks and the Errol Flynn version of 1938 (which is still widely regarded as the one to beat). It was filmed in Europe for release in two forms; a serial for TV viewing, and this cinema version the budget for which was slashed when it became clear that the release date would inevitably be very close to that of Hollywood's Kevin Costner version, so Fox decided not to release it in North America. Critics have noted a few rough edges when the separate episodes were merged to create the DVD and the cinema version that was screened only in Europe, Asia and Australia. The only other widespread criticism appears to have been that Uma Thurman (Maid Marian) played her part in too feisty a manner for a woman of the period. I am not sure this is valid. Our image of women in history is coloured by Victorian expectations of quiet demure behaviour. From Boudeccia through Queens Elizabeth and Anne, on to Lady Hamilton, I think British history rather shows the reverse.Comparing versions; for my taste Errol Flynn's is great fun to watch but somewhat erratic in presentation (e.g. fighting with rapiers rather than the broadswords of the period). I still rate the 1922 Douglas Fairbanks silent version as the best. Admittedly it starts slowly but it is one of the few films to give adequate attention to the history of the period, and in the second half Douglas is spectacular, exactly portraying the character I somewhat romantically like to think Robin Hood would have had. But, as other IMDb users have acknowledged, this 1991 film has an exceptional capacity for drawing viewers back into the period in which it was set, and I would certainly rank it as the second best Robin Hood film - for those no longer in tune with silent B/W films, the best.

This is by far the best Robin Hood I have seen (since the flashy classic with Errol Flynn). This movie depicts people with feelings and flaws instead of the usual stereotypes. E.g. Robin Hood and Falconet start off as friends and when the break up occurs you actually feel with the "evil" Norman who tries to help Robin but is forced by Robin's pride to outlaw him. The movie has a much more medieval and believable atmosphere than any other I have seen. Together with the interesting characters it just brings you back there into the story. And as things don't always go smoothly and effortlessly for the hero in this movie, it remains interesting and entertaining the whole time. A definite recommendation.