Robin Hood - Ein Leben für Richard Löwenherz

This has just been run on British TV. What a pleasure to see something from Hollywood that feels realistic when referring to something over here (no US cavalry riding to the rescue at the critical moment!!). Apart from that it is also well made, enjoyable and I'm just sorry I didn't start the recorder at the beginning. Uma Thurman is not the most gorgeous Marion I have seen (not too bad either though), but she was believable and that counts for a lot. 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>). All round, a film I will watch next time it is screened and I hope I manage to get the DVD recorder going in time next time.

Robin Hood has come to the big screen in many ways and with many faces. Errol Flynn in 1938 remains the classic, although it is a little dated by modern standards. Kevin Costner starred in a big-budget 1991 version, notable for an outstanding Alan Rickman as an over-the-top sheriff but otherwise fairly forgettable. (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. Patrick Bergin is a dynamic Robin Hood, hitting the mark with the perfect mix of arrogance, compassion, charm and devil-may-care, hell-bent glory-seeking. 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. But let's face it, Robin is a hero who enjoys what he does. He loves nothing more than laughing at danger and tweaking the nose of authority. It's easy to see that Bergin enjoyed the part, and his pleasure translates to the screen, making it an enjoyable romp for viewers. Bergin shares Sherwood with a fine cast. Uma Thurman is a surprisingly strong Marian. Owen Teale is an excellent, fun-loving Will Scarlett, and David Morrissey is the best Little John I've seen yet. Jeff Nuttall is also a picture-perfect Friar Tuck. 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. There's a brief, but impressive, appearance of Edward Fox as the would-be King John. The movie boasts excellent swordplay, good costuming, authentic-sounding accents (Are you listening, Kevin?) and some great pagan symbolism. This film also has immense respect for the history behind the legend. While we may not know much about the real Robin Hood -- if there even was one -- we do know a lot about the time period in question, and Irvin keeps his cameras focused on the truth of feudal Britain. This is a Robin Hood I can believe in without reservation.

Don't be put off by the "TV" in the title-this is a full-blown, first-class movie. Patrick Bergin gives his Robin a sense of humor and a spark of humanity. Uma Thurman, though not the most beautiful girl in the world (that honor still remains with Olivia), is sexy, vivacious, and definitely post-modern. A few scenes don't quite develop as far as they can, but all is forgiven by the Parade of Fools in the climactic moments. One big difference between this movie and Flynn's is that here they use broadswords rather than rapiers (more realistically). Instead of the "tck tck tck" of swordplay, here there are loud "Clangs" when the blades miss their target. It makes for a really good setpiece battle between Robin and his fierce (here, French) enemy. Nothing will replace the Errol Flynn Robin Hood, but this account is vigorous, funny, and filled with little surprises.

Action? Adventure? Swashbuckling excitement? Well you have come to the WRONG Robin Hood for that. The choreography is non-existent. But that's okay.

There are other reasons to watch this movie, especially for aficionados and romantics. The costumes and sets are beautiful, delicately balanced between realism and romanticism. The greenery is lush, the settings are well chosen. There is a poetry in the dialogue, and the acting is heart-felt. This movie makes you think a little bit, including a moving, moral ending.

The classic trope scenes of the Robin Hood fairy tale are a let down. Little Jon on the river is painful to watch, and not in a good way. The bow staff fight is a yawn, as is the absurd "action" scene of Robin floating down a gentle river. If you seek excitement, again, this is the wrong movie.

On the other hand, you are treated to a version of the Robin Hood tale that offers an educational slant. Unlike Prince of Thieves, this Robin Hood dives into the Saxon-Norman antagonism that characterized the centuries following the successful invasion by the Normans under William the Conqueror. Set one to two hundred years after, this Robin Hood takes place in an England that is hosts to a ruling class of French/Viking descent. (There is even a clever allusion to the French Baron being a descendant of pirates).

As mentioned, the acting is quite good, as is the script. The characters, which at the start of the film seem one-dimensional, become infused with real humanity as the movie progresses. No cartoon villains here, just flawed humans from a vicious era, and a meditation on the attractiveness and seductiveness of simple decency when presented as a possibility.

Okay, let's get this straight: just because ROBIN HOOD is more realistic and less bombastic than Kevin Costner's ROBIN HOOD: PRINCE OF THIEVES from the same year, that doesn't make it any good. 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. That's particularly true of Patrick Bergin, whose Hood, all wild eyes and wilder hair, appears to be something of a sociopath instead of the folk hero of old; I just can't buy Bergin in good-guy roles, and that's the same here. Stick to SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY, buddy.

The supporting actors are better, with one exception. Jurgen Prochnow is less hammy but no less amusing than Alan Rickman in the Costner version, and it's always good to see Jeroen Krabbe in Hollywood fare. Owen Teale, Danny Webb and David Morrissey are all good choices as Merry Men. The exception is Uma Thurman, who's terribly miscast as Marian; the scenes in which she disguises herself as a boy are excruciating.

Other than that, the script is overlong and underwritten and the action scenes just aren't very exciting. The sets and costumes are decent though, so it's just a shame that more effort couldn't have gone into making this a rousing swashbuckler of old. Instead it's a dour, uninspiring and ultimately forgettable version of a classic story.