Solid, but soooo dull

I think part of it was casting Bergin in the role. He's an excellent actor, but he didn't seem to really embrace the role of Robin. I'm not sure what could have been done. He looked like a Saxon, and I suspect that's why he was cast, because he didn't really seem to want to be in the role, but did his best. A reluctant yeoman, so to speak. That's how I saw it.

Great production values, though. Exceedingly well shot, though not always well staged.

while Patrick Bergen is certainly more convincing as a Saxon nobleman than Kevin Costner, I could not get past his big bushy moustache
Errol Flynn had a 'stache, but it was thin and had a wicked goatee to compliment it

the history lover in me appreciates the acknowledgement of the ethnic tensions between the Saxons and the Normans, but I prefer the tried & true formula of Robin and his perennial adversary, the Sherriff of Nottingham (who's role in this film is little more than a cameo)
Jurgen Prochnow is indeed an amazing actor (and great as a villain) but I don't understand the casting of a German actor who has always played a German as a Frenchman
Alan Rickman is so deliciously over-the-top, I gotta give him the the edge

also, the Merry Men were mostly devoid of any personality traits

Uma Thurman (goddess) and Mary Elizabeth Magstrontonio are about equal in their portray of Marian


2010 Academy Awards:
Best Picture: Up
Best Animated Feature: Coraline

I have just watched this as I had heard good things about it.

But what a dreary telling of the Robin Hood legend. Patrick Bergin just didn't fit the role of Robin.
Although Uma Thurman made a credible Maid Marion. The rest was just a muddle.

I too would rather watch the Kevin Costner version with all it's faults.

However neither can match the TV series 'Robin of Sherwood' with Michael Praed as Robin,.


The Witch is back!

I also found this version very dull and stopped watching it after about an hour. I thought that Patrick Bergin and Uma Thurman were both miscast and if they had cast more appropriate actors in these parts it might have been worth watching.
I also preferred the Alan Richman version and am looking forward to seeing Russell Crowe as Robin Hood

Agreed. Dreadfully flat. Left it on in background just to see what would
happen and to see Uma. Done in stagey manner of worse sort and with a kind
of static photo realism feeling popular back then.
It just flew by holding no human interest. Sad waste.
As mentioned, this is weakest Robin of them all. Can you imagine this if it
had commercials!

I don't remember enough of the Kevin Costner version (I've only seen it once, and that was a few years ago) to say which one is better. I saw this one the other day though, and I really liked it.

Intelligence and purity.

Have to agree with the OP one hundred percent, Bergin is a good actor but just doesn't fit the part -- and for god's sake, how can anyone take him seriously with that 70's porn-mustache and perm?

Not to mention Jürgen Prochnow, also an actor who's done some excellent work. His accent here had me giggling every time he opened his mouth, it's like the director told him to copy Peter Sellers as inspector Clouseau with a hint of John Cleese as the french soldier in "Search For the Holy Grail". No matter the faults of the Kevin Costner version (and yes, there are many) it's really not a mystery that this one didn't have the same appeal. Blaming it solely on lower production values and a lack of the Costner version's marketing budget, like some tend to do, is a bit naive I think.

Personally, I thought the acting was pretty bad too. No one seemed convinced of their own characters except the Baron actor and Uma. A lot spoke too fast, mumbled lines. I couldn't even finish. Agreed though. This film has really no entertainment value. It doesn't know what it wants to be or do.