 | |
List Price: $9.98 | | Label: 20th Century Fox
Salesrank: 15045
Released: May 11, 2004 |
| Our Price: $4.11 |
| Used Price: $4.86 |
|
MPAA Rating: NR (Not Rated)
Media: DVD |
|
Editorial Review:
The Swashbuckling legend of Robin Hood unfolds in the 12th century when the mighty Normans ruled England with an iron fist.
Description of Robin Hood:
Film buffs may remember the tangled tale of competing Robin Hood projects in 1991. Kevin Costner, riding high from his Oscar wins for Dances with Wolves, had his pick of projects at the time, and he juggled his interest in parallel Hood films that were under development at different studios. Costner chose Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, of course, directed by his friend Kevin Reynolds, while the other production (the one described here), attached to veteran British director John Irvin (The Dogs of War), ended up on cable television with another Yank, Patrick Bergin, in the lead. Comparisons were inevitable, even though the two films were very different from one another. A little harder edged and more surprising than Reynolds's work, the Irvin-Bergin movie made all that medieval heroism seem more an effort of the heart than previous versions. Roughing things up a bit is Uma Thurman as a bratty Maid Marion, not quite the traditional damsel in distress of yesteryear. Irvin keeps the adventure quotient up, but this is simply a darker, grittier variation on the old tale. With Jürgen Prochnow, Jeroen Krabbé, and Conrad Asquith. --Tom Keogh
Robin Hood Reviews:
Fair. Not the best Robin Hood movie, but fair. 
2008-09-11 - This is not the best Robin Hood, but it's better than the Costner version.
If you read a reviewer telling you it was just clean fun, don't buy it (what the reviewer says; the movie purchase is up to you). There's a lot of of innuendo in it, a little ribaldry, and so-on. There is one scene of indecency. The violence is above the mild level, but not by too much.
While historically informed (iffy on the accurate)and (generally) well-performed, it (excluding that hideous Costner version) is probably the least true to the Ballads of the Robin Hoods. It prefers to pick the later legends (we're talking English Renaissance [15th-16th century]) of Robin Hood, which depict him as wronged nobility. It also makes the Saxon-Norman conflict the primary, instead of tertiary or quaternary, theme. There is little issue of race in the original ballads. In this vein, it is much more like _Ivanhoe_.
If you prefer something completely clean, fairly historically accurate, and generally true to the ballads, I recommend the Errol Flynn and Richard Todd versions. If you prefer something even truer to the ballads, I recommend, severally, the Green, Pyle, and Finnemore (my personal favourite) prose renditions. And, if you're desperate, you can actually find the ballads pretty easily, especially online.
This is really, really good
2008-09-08 - This is a really, really good film. It's a shame that this got short shrift as the "other" Robin Hood film of 1991 because it's vastly superior to the mediocre Kevin Costner version. Unfortunately this film was never released theatrically in the U.S. and was relegated to T.V. movie of the week status. Comparisons to the 1938 classic are also inevitable, and against that yardstick it measures up quite well. It's less swashbuckling and more naturalistic than the Errol Flynn version, but it still has a charm all its own. In many respects it has more in common with "Robin and Marian" (1976), the Richard Lester film about Robin Hood and Maid Marian at the end of their lives.
I had zero expectations for this film before I watched and was quite pleasantly surprised. Give it a chance. I think you may enjoy it.
Best Robin Hood Movie of its Generation
2008-06-21 - This version of Robin Hood is by far the best and most realistic of the 1980s versions. It goes back to the classic Saxon vs Norman tale that we remember from the old Errol Flynn version. Instead of Prince John as the main villian, we have the noble Baron Brian DeGuerre, Robin's old friend. The interesting twist of the story and why it is so realistic compared to the others is the fact that at first, Robin is not waging some kind of guerilla war against the Norman overlords. No, he is just surviving as an outlaw. The reason he gives to the poor is to prevent them from selling him out. His motivations and his decisions are based in the gritty realism of this medieval world. Also of note, is Uma Thurman's protrayal of Marion, DeGuerre's niece. She is not the victim or prize that the previous Marion's have been. She, well, watch the movie and see for yourself. Like the mini-series Invanhoe, this movie shows more of how the medieval world really was without the whole modern perspective of "free men" and social equality being thrown in. The ending is a little trite, but overall the movie is a great adventure escape. Patrick Bergin is a charming Robin Hood and does a great job in the title role. Not quite the classic that the Errol Flynn version was, but much better than the Kevin Cosner version.
This is for the PATRICK BERGIN version, NOT the Kevin Costner version!!! 
2008-02-05 - Does anyone (including Amazon's editors) notice that most of the 200 other interviews are actually for the KEVIN COSTNER version, and NOT THIS VERSION!
This is actually a pretty good film and Patrick Bergin and Uma Thurman deserve more stars for their work here that what reviewers are giving (but, again, they are reviewing another movie)!
It helped me for my Western Civilizations class.....
2007-12-17 - I purchased this movie to help me get in the mind frame of the Middle Ages for my Western Civilizations class, and I am glad that I did!
This is a very realistic account of Robin Hood and his merrymen. The actors are believable, and the set scenery is incredible! It's just the right mix of drama and action, loved it!
