Funny how people tend to assume that, when two movies on the same subject are released competing with each other, one of them has to be "the good one". It happened in 1998 with 'Armageddon' and 'Deep Impact', it happened in 1992 with 'Christopher Columbus: The Discovery' and '1492: Conquest of Paradise', and it happened in 1991 with 'Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves' and this one. In all the aforementioned cases the second item of each couple is considered "the good one". Well, in my opinion, if the first halves of these couples suck marginally worse, the second halves are also all bad. And this Robin Hood is no exception.<br /><br />Having been cut from a longer print (which it shows) and adapted for TV, this looks every bit of a TV-movie it ultimately is, with unremarkable cinematography and choppy editing. And where do all the comments about its supposed seriousness and realism come from? This is just as silly and cheesy as 'Prince of Thieves', if only a bit less showy thanks to the lower budget. I have read director John Irvin was offered to remake the Errol Flynn classic and he turned it down unless he was allowed to do a more true to the facts and historically accurate version. If so, why is this one so tributary to Flynn (much more so than the Costner), specially towards the end? Even the look of the main character is quite Flynn-like, complete with (horrible modern-looking) mustache. Nothing that suggests a Middle Ages look.<br /><br />And the acting? Say what you like about 'Prince of Thieves', which will be all true. But at least that one had Morgan Freeman and Alan Rickman. The actors in this one, with the exception of Jürgen Prochnow (who isn't that great either, just merely adequate) and not counting the great Edward Fox since he's wasted in a pointless cameo, are all horrible. Patrick Bergin is always as dull as it gets, and here's no exception. Uma? This could very well be her worst performance this side of 'Batman + Robin', but to be fair, the script doesn't help her by writing Marian as a woman of the 1990s. But the worst offender is the ever hammy Jeroen Krabbé, who does nothing but kicking and screaming and embarrassing himself.<br /><br />OK, the writing isn't as horrible here as in the Costner, but it comes fairly close. The only bright spots are clever ideas like the mocking of the relics of saints (showing them as they really were), a disguised Marian discovering the ambush via the story Robin is telling her, and the fact that the boys decide to share with the poor as a way to outdo the reward the villains are offering for Robin's capture. Nice touches in an otherwise garbage script full of plot holes (how to justify Robert Hode's name change to Robin Hood? They don't bother) and very poor in character development, even the basic kind (the chief of the band of thieves appears to be Little John, yet suddenly it's Robin. Why?).<br /><br />3/10. Stick to Flynn.