Hey everybody! im proud to say that my dad is sam resnick and wrote this wonderful film! unfortunately due to costners TOTAL PIECE OF CRAP this did not get even close to as much credit as it deserves. whose with me on that one? the dramatics that went in to the making of this are pretty ridiculous. basically the bottom line is that it should have been with out a doubt released in theaters and at least on DVD. BEST VERSION EVER MADE! EVERYONE GO SEE IT! :D
shareCongrats Lexie your father wrote and excellent film!
This film didn't get released here in theaters because Costner was a much bigger name back then than Bergin and they knew the film could not compete against that even though it had a superior cast and story. I bet now a days though this film would do better since Costner is no longer the name he once was.
Robin of Sherwood is ALSO an excelent RH rendition.
I actually went looking for this on imdb this evening to tell someone some details about it. Mostly praising it's qualities. I really enjoyed the grittiness of this although I only saw it once. For me it is the best version made (again, it's the sheer dirt of the whole thing making it more realistic).
shareI've just seen this for the first time on TV - I'd never even heard of it and I thought I knew all the versions of Robin Hood. It's definitely a good re-telling of the legend and it is better than the Kevin Costner one (I think you're being too kind by calling it a piece of crap - it wasn't that good). I really like the costumes and the lack of american accents. It's a shame it wasn't given any promotion but that seems to happen a lot - great films don't get noticed (take for example Terry Gilliam's Tideland).
The definitive version, however, is still Richard Carpenter's Robin of Sherwood with Michael Praed as Robin - it has yet to be bettered.
I completely disagree with quivered-1 about Richard Carpenter's 'Robin of Sherwood' being the definitive version of the legend as, although it was good at times, it was very cheesey and was also Celticist propaganda half of the time (and I am not on about Herne, who is most likely derived from Woden when you compare their legends, despite his name sounding a bit like Cernenos, his name is probably just from 'Horn' and his horns fit a common Anglo-Saxon depiction of Woden...one of the roots of the belief in horned-helmeted Vikings oddly enough...nor am I on about Wayland as he is a Germanic god) filled with Irish deities (Crom Cruach) and other such out of place nonesense in a Christian, ex-Germanic Heathen, England.
Sorry it just really bugs me when genuine English folklore is stolen to make campy (because it was very camp at times) and revisionist Celtic fair...and I say that as someone who is half-Highlander!
"Nothings gonna change my world!"
Parts of this movie were filmed in and around Peckforton Castle near where I live in Cheshire. After the film crew moved on they left the village set standing at the foot castle which became a local attraction for a short while. When I visited it was apparent that this was a low budget movie but having said that I prefer this version than the Kevin Costner one as the conflict between Saxons and Normans in this movie is depicted a lot clearer. Of course I also like the fact it was filmed near my home. Bye the way Peckforton castle (built in the 19th century) has had several owners and I think is now a hotel.
share[deleted]
It was either Peckforton Castle, or Beeston Castle ...I was an extra in this film and can confirm it was realistic....I pulled a thigh muscle charging the castle!
The original poster should be proud of his dad...its a very good movie.
I have to agree with you on this being a much superior version of Robin Hood. Your dad's writing for this movie was brilliant!
shareRobin Hood: Prince of Thieves was an ok film, nothing more. Haven't seen this version yet, but I sure will if I have the chance. Can't say no to a great story and a cast including Edward Fox, Jürgen Prochnow, Jeroen Krabbé and Uma Thurman.
You wanna play rough! OK. Say hallo to my little friend !
Al Pacino, Scarface (1983)
I think this is the one my brother told me about. Said he saw on tv and it was released at the same time as the Costner one. Said he was suprised at how much better this one was.
shareWell you should be proud. It was a Robin Hood that at least attempted to add weight to the story by showing that England's division was not that of just serf and nobility but of a foreign ruling class and a native people who mostly toiled in it. Other Robin Hoods side step the more historical parts of the legend to make time for characters or action scenes. I found the story to be strong and the casting of Robin Hood and Marian to be excellent as well as the villains. As a kid I loved the "Prince of Thieves" and in truth the film still holds some affection due to the film's whimsical and thrilling action scenes as well as the romanticism (mostly from the cinematography and the music.) However, now older, I do realize that their are elements in POT's that are more akin to Saturday morning cartoons and comic books then to the actual legend. It is unfortunate that your father's work went up against the Warner Brother's machine who acted, because of the 30's classic film, that they owned the franchise. 20th Century Fox use to cower before the other studios before Murdoch took it over. Had Murdoch been around I'm sure he would have increased the budgets of the film and would at least save face and stood ground instead of tuck tail and airing the low budget version on television. Still with that being said the version your father wrote for was a fine adaptation whose only real weakness is not so much anything more than scale. Though it is apparent that this version of Robin Hood is not a high budget, choreographed, adventure fare, primed for selling tickets and popcorn, it is a version to be enjoyed for a quiet evening of relaxation and escapism into a world that is both legendary and yet not so far removed from the history's of our ancestors. I'd give it two thumbs up!
shareI agree that Prince of Thieves wasn't really all that bad. We're all bashing it now but at the time we sort of liked it. Of course that has to do a lot with the marketing machine of Warner Bros. and also to the fact that like it or not Costner was a huge star at the time who made more then a few girls swoon. It's the kind of movie 10 year old boys love because of the action and 13 year old girls love because of the romance. And then, of course, there's Alan Rickman who, as one reviewer put it, made it seem that Nottingham Castle was a much more fun place to be then Sherwood Forest. And don't even get me started on the song! LOL
That being said ... this movie is a real gem. Bergin is perfect as Robin Hood and he's the kind of guy women like at 20 as much as at 40, Uma Thurman has never looked more lovely and the whole story is filled with gritt, romance and realism. Without a doubt my favorite retelling of the Robin Hood legend.
ask the spokesperson, I don't have a brain
Personally, I would LOVE to see (and would buy a copy of) the original 150 minute version of this film. I've only seen the 116 minute US video release.
shareHarlequin Forest! Nice!
shareThis is the best version by far, quite nice use of longbow history along with the use of "corn" as it was once in the lexicon. Very well done.
shareI am NOT a big fan of Costner. I know this one will be far better to watch. I am a BIG fan of the classic version of RH myself. Nothing will beat it!
share