Robin Hood
Tags: cult, action, murder, violence

Plot synopsis:
Alan-a-Dale introduces the story of Robin Hood and Little John, two outlaws living in Sherwood Forest, where they rob from the rich and give to the poor townsfolk of Nottingham, despite the efforts of the Sheriff of Nottingham to stop them. Meanwhile, Prince John and his assistant Sir Hiss arrive in Nottingham on a tour of the kingdom. Knowing the royal coach is laden with riches, Robin and Little John rob Prince John by disguising themselves as fortune tellers. The embarrassed Prince John then puts a bounty on their heads and makes the Sheriff his personal tax collector, who takes pleasure in collecting funds from the townsfolk including hidden money from the crippled blacksmith Otto and a single farthing from a young rabbit, Skippy, who had just received it as a birthday present. However, Robin Hood, disguised as a beggar, sneaks in and gives back some money to the family, as well as his hat and a bow to Skippy in honor of his birthday.
Skippy and his friends test out the bow, but Skippy fires an arrow into the grounds of Maid Marian's castle. The children sneak inside, meeting Maid Marian and her attendant Lady Kluck. Skippy "rescues" Marian from Lady Kluck, who pretends to be a pompous Prince John. Later, when she is alone with Kluck, Maid Marian reveals she and Robin were childhood sweethearts but they have not seen one another for years, and Kluck consoles her not to give up on her love for Robin. Meanwhile, Friar Tuck visits Robin and Little John, explaining that Prince John is hosting an archery tournament, and the winner will receive a kiss from Maid Marian. Robin decides to participate in the tournament disguised as a stork whilst Little John disguises himself as the Duke of Chutney to get near Prince John. Sir Hiss discovers Robin's identity but is trapped in a barrel of ale by Friar Tuck and Alan-a-Dale. Robin wins the tournament, but Prince John exposes him and has him arrested for execution despite Maid Marian's pleas. Little John threatens Prince John in order to release Robin, which leads to a fight between Prince John's soldiers and the townsfolk, all of which escape to Sherwood Forest.
As Robin and Maid Marian fall in love again, the townsfolk have a troubadour festival spoofing Prince John, describing him as the "Phony King of England", and the song soon becomes popular with John's soldiers. Enraged by the insult, Prince John triples the taxes, imprisoning most of the townsfolk who cannot pay. A paltry coin gets deposited into the poor box at Friar Tuck's church, which gets seized by the Sheriff. Enraged that government has meddled in his church, Friar Tuck lashes out at the Sheriff, to which he is quickly arrested for "attacking a lawman, interfering with the Sheriff's legal duties and high treason to the Crown". Prince John orders Friar Tuck hung, knowing Robin Hood will come out of hiding to rescue his friend and give the potential for Robin to be caught and a "double hanging".
Robin and Little John, having learned of the plot, chose to sneak in during the night, with Little John managing to free all of the prisoners whilst Robin steals Prince John's taxes, but Sir Hiss awakens to find Robin fleeing. Chaos follows as Robin and the others try to escape to Sherwood Forest. The Sheriff corners Robin after he is forced to return to rescue Tagalong, Skippy's little sister. During the chase, Prince John's castle catches fire and the Sheriff figures he has Robin where he wants, either to be captured, burned, or make a risky jump into the moat. Robin Hood elects to jump. Little John and Skippy fear Robin is lost, but he surfaces safely after using a reed as a breathing tube. Sir Hiss says he tried to warn Prince John, and now look what he did to his mother's castle, causing the Prince to exclaim "Mummy!" and suck his thumb and chase the terrified snake into the burning castle.
Later, King Richard returns to England, placing his brother, Sir Hiss and the Sheriff under arrest and allows his niece Maid Marian to marry Robin Hood, turning the former outlaw into an in-law.
=== Alternate ending ===
The alternate ending (included in the "Most Wanted Edition" DVD) is a deleted version of the story's conclusion, primarily utilizing still images from Ken Anderson's original storyboard drawings of the sequence. As Robin Hood leaps off of the castle and into the moat, he is wounded (presumably by one of the arrows shot into the water after him) and carried away to the church for safety. Prince John, enraged that he has once again been outwitted by Robin Hood, finds Little John leaving the church, and suspects the outlaw to be there as well. Sure enough, he finds Maid Marian tending to an unconscious Robin Hood, and draws a dagger to kill them both. Before Prince John can strike, however, he is stopped by his brother, King Richard, having returned from the Crusades. King Richard is appalled to find that Prince John has left his kingdom bleak and oppressed. Abiding his mother's wishes, King Richard decides he cannot banish Prince John from the kingdom, but does grant him severe punishment (which explained how Prince John, Sir Hiss, and the Sheriff ended up in the Royal Rock Pile). King Richard returns Nottingham to its former glory (before leaving for the Third Crusade), knights Robin Hood as Sir Robin of Locksley, and orders Friar Tuck to marry Robin Hood and Maid Marian.
A short finished scene from the planned original ending, featuring King Richard and revealing himself to vulture henchmen Trigger and Nutsy, appeared in the Ken Anderson episode of the 1980s Disney Channel documentary series Disney Family Album. This scene, at least in animated form, does not appear on the Most Wanted Edition DVD.

Review: Everyone knows that Costner's Hood was a bomb, but  too few people have seen this superior version, shown on TV and then perversely released only on VHS by Fox.
Patrick Bergin is spot-on as a darkly-mooded Robin, and the backstory on his loss of rank and property is both historically plausible and dramatically effective -- a welcome change from other film versions.
The supporting case is excellent, particularly Uma Thurman as a liberated Maid Marian -- handy with a broadsword -- and Jeff Nuttall as the best Friar Tuck I've ever seen.
The highly underrated Patrick Bergin makes a fine Robin Hood, a worthy successor to Errol Flynn -- he is a flawed man (when it comes down to it, it is his pride that gets him outlawed), but still noble and heroic.
Uma Thurman is a dream as Marian, and the rest of the cast slip comfortably into their roles.But the thing I really love out this movie is the way the villain, Falconet, meets his end.
This version focuses on the Norman - Saxon struggle at that time in history and that is the pervasive influence throughout this superb motion picture....Most of the characters are quite different from those you've come to expect from the afore-telling of this story, in particular Uma Thurman's very special Maid Marian and Patrick Bergen's unique and coup d'etat performance in the title role...The cinematography is outstanding, giving the story a somewhat darker but more realistic tone and feel, and the direction is about as flawless as I have seen in this type historically-based film...Unfortunately, this film was conceived and distributed around the same time as the AWFUL Kevin Costner version and consequently was swept aside by that highly marketed but substantially inferior 'Hollywood' version released in the same year and about the same time...
One can only imagine what a masterpiece this film would had been if the circumstances surrounding its release had been different...It was said in the print media that when the English producers of this film learned Hollywood was producing a similar movie on the same subject, they pared their losses, and opted for this final product that even with a lower budget than originally planned, is a MUCH better and more accurate re-telling of the classic Sir Robert Hode, 4th Earl of Huntington (a real person) legend...Well written and adapted for the screen, expertly cast, and superbly directed by English director John Irvin, this relatively low budget production has never received the accolades it deserves...Look for some stellar performances by Uma Thurman as Maid Marian, Patrick Bergin as Robin Hood, Jürgen Prochnow as Sir Miles Folcanet, Owen Teale as Will Scarlett and an unforgettable performance by Dutch actor Jeroen Krabbe as Baron Roger Daguerre...Also worthy of mention was a brief but commanding performance by Edward Fox as Prince John, and memorable performances by David Morrissey as Little John and Carolyn Backhouse as Nicole, Roger's Mistress...If you have seen the "Hollywood formula", American version of this story with Kevin Costner, but not this one, or if you have seen neither, do yourself a tremendous favor and see this film....This movie will transport you back to another time and place, to see an accurate glimpse of medieval history come alive on film...
(If you're lucky.) I've seen most of them, and the best by far is Robin Hood, directed by John Irvin and likewise released in 1991.
Sure, there's a list of noble reasons why Robin Hood takes to the forest to fight Norman oppression and protect the unfortunate Saxon serfs from tyranny.
On the Norman side, Jurgen Prochnow is the malicious knight, Sir Miles Folcanet, who pursues Robin through the forest, and Jeroen Krabbe is Baron Daguerre, a greedy lord with a conscience.
One, at least to me, has always been that, while each new version will be watchable, no remake of Robin Hood will be the equal of Michael Curtiz' and William Keighley's 1938 masterpiece.Richard Green would make the story a weekly part of childhood.
Two Kevins (Reynolds and Costner) would add an interesting back story and Mary Elizabeth a fetching Marian as Morgan integrated the tale.But who could compete with Errol Flynn as the most dashing hero ever to stand before a camera, Basil Rathbone as the most compelling villain, or Olivia de Havilland as the most winsome damsel ever to be in distress?
Certainly not Patrick Bergin, at best a journeyman actor, Uma Thurman, a pulp film star, or John Irvin, a second tier British director.Then I finally saw their 1991 effort, and the truism is true no more.Bergin's hero is less perfect and less disarmingly charming than Flynn's, yet more compelling and much less comic bookish.
The good guys triumph because of their wit and ability, not just inevitability.This Robin is a hero fighting for his downtrodden people, not Richard Coeur de Lion, who ruled from Aquitaine, spoke no English and seldom set foot on English soil.I still love Errol and Olivia and will always treasure an hour and a half spent watching the Adventures of Robin Hood.
Uma Thurman is absolutely spectacular as an ass-kicking Marian, and the actor who plays Robin Hood is by far the best yet.
This is by far the most authentic version of a Robin Hood tale I've seen.
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.
This is an unfairly overlooked version of the Robin Hood story, with the misfortune of coming out in the same year as the bloated Kevin Costner film.
What makes this movie work -- and what makes it unusual -- is that it combines gritty, dirty medieval settings with charm, wit, and the feel of a great swashbuckler.More so than any other Robin Hood film, this one delivers a degree of realism.
Patrick Bergen is an odd choice for Robin, being neither English nor particularly well-known, but he makes the role a lot of fun to watch.This is certainly not the biggest or most expensive version of the story, being outspent by Errol Flynn, Kevin Costner, and now Russell Crowe.
The action scenes had a touch of authenticity about them that is all too often missing (for example when Robin was handed a staff by Will to battle with John Little it was a thick branch, forked at one end and obviously from a tree, not a martial arts supplier - just the sort of thing that might have been picked up in a real situation <accepting that something like that might well not have been lying around unless it was rotten>).
This version is my second best one of Robin Hood tales on screen after "Robin and Marian."Though the direction is uninspired, the performances are notable.
Modern recounting in which some Hood aficionados will appreciate the painstaking effort taken to adapt the vintage story to recent times ; including great action scenes with some fun images about the Merry Men .
In 13th century England , Robin is a noble Xaxon , he escapes from a nasty baron , the powerful Normand called Roger Daguerre (Jeroen Krabbé who had previously worked with John Irvin in Turtle Diary ,1985) , and the extremely villain Sir Miles Folcanet (Jürgen Prochnow) .
The legendary Sherwood forest's hero Robin Locksly and again the graceful Lady Marian (Uma Thurman) along with his Merrie Men , Will Scarlett (Owen Teale) , Friar Tuck (Jeff Nuttal) and Little John (David Morrissey), facing off the really malicious Daguerre and Sir Miles , two extremely crazed , wicked Normands .
Although is a little revisionist about characters , history , townsfolk , and time when is developed the action in a dirty , gritty Middle Age , as spectators generally disapproved the changes of Robin Hood's classic canon .
Please don't waste your time with that other film if you want camp that is aware it is camp then watch the much Better Errol Flynn RH if you want history and fantasy combined brilliantly with a superb cast and well thought out version of the mythos then see this version or the BBC Lionheart TV series.
I thought this was a wonderful version of the Robin Hood story.
Few subjects for a movie have been more thoroughly worked over than the (hi)story of Robin Hood.
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.
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.
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).
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.
My response is so what?) and you'd be especially better off with the Flynn version, which is the most accurate representation of both the Robin legends and history (making mention of Richard's regent Longchamps and his capture by Leopold of Austria.).
Whilst nearly keeping close to the traditional Robin Hood Theme apart from the missing Sheriff of Nottingham (Replaced by a Baron for some reason) this film starts well but is of course sadly lacking in any real acting talent apart from the actor playing Much The Miller and perhaps Ms Thurman.However for those that like to see really really badly directed movies then there's a treat for you in the last five minutes of the film.
- (To Uma) "you are the most beautiful bride in England" followed by a cut to Uma looking more like a rejected model for ET.Certainly the worst ever Robin Hood film EVER made, even the many TV series put this in the shade..
It might be a more traditional film, but I actually prefer the Costner version, despite the many faults, errors and cheesiness, purely because it's a lot more fun.ROBIN HOOD gets a lot more of the facts right but it's lacking as a decent piece of drama, mainly because the characters, although carefully depicted, are all rather unlikeable.
Another of the many film takes on the legend of Robin Hood, from my point of view, two essential things were missing from this version: proper character development and any real sense of nobility.
In regards to the latter point, I didn't feel that Robin came across as particularly noble in this movie (although he does decide to return the taxes to the common folk) but rather he seemed interested primarily in Marian (Uma Thurman).
The only truly noble scene in the movie (aside perhaps from the decision to return the taxes) was the exchange near the end of the film between Will Scarlett (Owen Teale) and Daguerre (Jeroen Krabbe) about the future of England.
1991 was the year which saw two films on the legend of Robin Hood.
"Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves", a big-budget Hollywood blockbuster starring Kevin Costner, is by far the better-known of the two.
As in "Prince of Thieves" and several other films on this subject, Robin is portrayed as a Saxon earl, here named Robert Hode.
The film includes all the usual cast of Merry Men, including Little John, Will Scarlett, Friar Tuck and Much the Miller, as well as Maid Marian, but, oddly, not the normal villains.
One similarity which links this film with the Russell Crowe version is that both aim at a more "naturalistic" view of the Middle Ages to the romanticised "Merrie England" view presented in the Errol Flynn classic "The Adventures of Robin Hood" from 1938 and, to some extent, in "Prince of Thieves".
There is nothing particularly wrong with the performances of Jeroen Krabbé as Daguerre or Jürgen Prochnow as Folcanet, but neither of them makes as memorable a villain as Basil Rathbone's Gisborne in "The Adventures of Robin Hood" or Alan Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham in "Prince of Thieves".
This "Robin Hood" is certainly better than "Robin and Marian" from the seventies, which manages to be both dull and unrealistic, but I would not rate it as highly as either the 2010 version or "Prince of Thieves", both of which could generate greater excitement.
As for "The Adventures of Robin Hood", that set a very high standard, and in my view none of the versions since 1938 have really lived up to it.
For those that say this version that came out the same time as the Kevin Costner version was better, I don't know what movie you saw.
While Patrick Bergin's Robin Hood might have been more enjoyable on it's own and Marian a stronger character in this version, the overall movie wasn't good enough to make it better than the Kevin Costner version.
In Robin Hood - Prince of Thieves, the story and Alan Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham were VERY entertaining as was Little John, Friar Tuck and the other members of Sherwood Forest much more so than the ones in this film.
I think if it had been about something other than Robin Hood and been more a historical focus on the Norman and Saxon struggle, I would enjoyed it more.
Like I said, this movie by itself is decent but if someone said I had to watch a Robin Hood movie and gave me a choice between this one and Kevin Costner's, I would pick KC's every time.
Whether or not this film portrays English life at the time as "historically accurate" is completely overshadowed by thew dismal acting performances I've seen from any of the main characters.
because we can hardly imagine Thurman turning Prochnow down.Sorry to all, it is like that, admit it or not.To me, every second of the first two series of "Robin of Sherwood" is totally convincing, this series (maybe not the third one with that Connery-son), I took up into my heart's deepest regions.I cannot do that with this movie, sadly.
It is well done is many, many aspects, but the display of all the important personal relations is making a joke out of the whole movie.Many here said it was "WAY" better than Costner's Version.
Anyway, this version of "Robin Hood" is actually at a pretty good length.
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.
A different version of "Robin Hood" that came out the same year (1991) as that Kevin Costner version, so nobody saw it.
One of the best Robin Hood movies.
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.
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.
This is by far the best Robin Hood I have seen (since the flashy classic with Errol Flynn).
this movie is the most worst robin hood ever made bad choice of cast!
Patrick Bergin and Uma Thurman's acting looks quite decent (if it weren't for Costner and Mary Mastrantonio, I'd say even "defining", though that's really arguable).Baron Daguerre (Robin's main enemy in the film) is not that bad, he's just been insulted and needs to gain his former friend's trust once more.
For example, the celebration in the end (led by the Baron, not by the King!) Naked fat men in a so-called "garment" of branches and leaves -- Ah and Aw for all that Celtic stuff...The film is good to watch, and if you want to compare which of the 1991 versions was better, I think it senseless.