Men of Sherwood Forest (1954) Reviewed

Men of Sherwood Forest from 1954 was the first of several Robin Hood movies from Hammer Films. As such, it is a standard adventure tale that follows the usual path of Merry Men being merry, Merry Men being unjustly accused, and Merry Men having to save the life of Good King Richard. The titular "Men" in the case of this movie are really just Robin Hood (Don Taylor), Friar Tuck (Reginald Beckwith), Little John (Leslie Linder), and Lady Alys (Eileen Moore) who periodically appears dressed as a man (as convincingly as might be expected). The other Merry Men are little more than extras.

The music (composed by Doreen Carwithen) is probably the best aspect of the film. It enhances the mood and supports the action without being distracting, which is not as common as one would hope. If only the rest of the film were worthy of it...

The basic plot involves the murder of a knight who is carrying an object that holds the secret plan for King Richard's return to England after his imprisonment in Germany. Robin Hood is made aware of this and engages in various acts of skullduggery and stealth to try to learn the secret plan and rescue King Richard before he can be assassinated by Prince John's fan club.

The pacing is adequate, but there is no perceptible character development. Regardless of the merry shenanigans heaped upon the plot, the whole is rather flattened by the characters' two-dimensionality. And whilst the highlight of the movie is perhaps Robin Hood's sneaky escapades and impersonations, the lowest points are surely Robin Hood's other pillar: swashbuckling. The fight choreography is amongst the most sluggish in the genre and the swordplay is entirely unconvincing.

That being said, Men of Sherwood Forest is not entirely without merit. The combination of music, set, costuming, and cinematography go far in establishing a sense of place, time, and an appropriate ambience. At least Hammer Films' first color film was successful in its visual (and musical) presentation.

Writing: Mediocre/Fair
Directing: Fair
Acting: Fair
Cinematography: Good
Stunts: Fair
Swordplay: Poor
Panache: Good

Overall Rating: Fair
Swashbuckling Rank: Fair

Written by: Allan MacKinnon
Directed by: Val Guest
Performed by: Don Taylor, Reginald Beckwith, Eileen Moore, David King-Wood, Douglas Wilmer, Harold Lang, Ballard Berkeley, Patrick Holt, Wensley Pithey, Leslie Linder, et al.

The Son of Robin Hood (1958) Reviewed

The Son of Robin Hood (1958) is a semi-romantic, semi-comedic, semi-dramatic, semi-adventurous romp through a setting reminiscent of many other faux medieval sets that were all the rage in the 1950s.

When the late Robin Hood's band of merry men discover a plot to usurp the throne of England by the ruthless Des Roches (David Farrar), they send an urgent message to Robin's only descendant, who resides in Spain. They are heartened by the reply and eagerly await the arrival of Robin Hood's son to lead them to victory. Alas, Robin Hood had no son, and it is his daughter, Deering Hood (June Laverick), who answers their call. This will not do according to Little John (George Woodbridge), for surely the merry men would never accept a woman to lead them even if she is the daughter of Robin Hood and can shoot as well as or better than he. Enter Jamie (David Hedison), with whom Deering had an encounter when she first landed. Jamie already has an axe to grind with the villains as they have imprisoned his elder brother, and it is decided that he will assume the name of Deering and pretend to be the son of Robin Hood. The real Deering may tag along.

With Jamie pretending to be Deering and Deering pretending to be his page, and eventually Jamie pretending to be Deering pretending to be a French nobleman and Deering pretending to be his page pretending to be a French noblewoman, the film devolves into a poor imitation of the Doris Day and Rock Hudson school of romantic comedy.

The spirit of Robin Hood is a faint echo in this tawdry pantomime that fails to render history or legendry with any accuracy or sense of adventure. It fails in every regard except possibly cinematography, but since it was filmed in Cinemascope and I can only find it in the wrong aspect ratio, I shall refrain from judging it in that category. Perhaps someday, if I can watch it in its original aspect ratio, I'll revisit this review, but for now the sentence is banishment.

Writing: Poor
Directing: Poor/Mediocre
Acting: Mediocre
Cinematography: n/a
Stunts: Poor
Swordplay: Poor
Panache: Mediocre

Overall Rating: Poor
Swashbuckling Rank: Poor

Written by: George George and George Slavin
Directed by: George Sherman
Performed by: David Hedison (as Al Hedison), June Laverick, David Farrar, Marius Goring, Philip Friend, Delphi Lawrence, George Coulouris, George Woodbridge, et al.

The Prince of Thieves (1948) Reviewed

The Prince of Thieves (1948), based vaguely on Alexandre Dumas' Le Prince des voleurs, begins with a jolly outing by Sir Allan Claire (Michael Duane) and his sister, Lady Marian Claire (Patricia Morison), which is rudely interrupted by an assassination attempt by an anonymous bowman (I. Stanford Jolley). Luckily for the plot, Robin Hood (Jon Hall) just happens to be in the vicinity and is soon drawn into it. Hall's Robin Hood has the charm and bravado of a middle manager, which is apparently enough to lead a band of half-lucid merry layabouts. Sir Allan was promised the hand of Lady Christabel (Adele Jergens), but she is now a prisoner being forced to marry a villainous nobleman who is a supporter of King John. Naturally, Robin agrees to help Sir Allan win her hand, which results in a breakneck series of battles, jailbreaks, rescues, and predictable cheers upon any mention of "Good King Richard."

Filmed, ironically, in Cinecolor, a technique infamous for its inability to accurately render the color green, The Prince of Thieves is dazzling only in the vividness of its earth tones, which may be appropriate for a film that has more in common with a western than an English folktale. A handful of British actors lend a hint of legitimacy, but the American cast does little to dispel the pervading artificiality. The acting and writing are equally uninspired, the directing and fight choreography are equally clumsy, the music is bland (and usually mismatched to the scenes), and the humor is stale. This film has nothing to recommend it except, perhaps, to completionist fans of Alan Mowbray, who is adequate as Friar Tuck.

Writing: Poor
Directing: Poor
Acting: Poor
Cinematography: Mediocre
Stunts: Mediocre
Swordplay: Poor
Panache: Mediocre

Overall Rating: Poor
Swashbuckling Rank: Mediocre

Written by: Charles H. Schneer and Maurice Tombragel
Based on: Le Prince des voleurs by Alexandre Dumas
Directed by: Howard Bretherton
Performed by: Jon Hall, Patricia Morison, Adele Jergens, Alan Mowbray, Michael Duane, H.B. Warner, Lowell Gilmore, Gavin Muir, I. Stanford Jolley, et al.

Tales of Robin Hood (1951) Reviewed

Tales of Robin Hood, an American film from 1951, was originally intended to be the pilot for a television series. Fortunately, it did not come to pass. Unfortunately, the film survived, and I had the misfortune of watching it out of a sense of obligation to report on all manner of things that are theoretically swashbuckling in nature. You, of course, are under no such obligation, and this review serves as your fair warning.

Apparently, those responsible for this travesty thought the title was not enough to inform viewers what this film might possibly be about, so it begins with a narrator announcing "Merrie England in the Twelfth Century [this part appeared in writing so we know it's "merrie" and not merely "merry"] gave to the world the mysterious figure of Robin Hood. Forester or nobleman, thief or benefactor, all or any of these names befitted him. Our story begins in Loxley Castle, the home of the Earl of Chester, one of the few Saxon nobles who refused to bow meekly to the arrogance of the Norman conquerors. Attended by his son and faithful retainers, he's giving audience to Sir Alan Beaulieu, representative of Gui de Clairmont, Norman overlord of Nottinghamshire." And with that introduction sheepish acting ensues. Expository dialogue is vomited in every scene in service to the script/ipecac. The regurgitation is periodically interrupted by action scenes on par with the playacting of schoolchildren at recess. Exterior shots are of paintings with unskillfully constructed model trees and shrubbery. The pacing is that of a last-minute school play. Does anything redeem Tales of Robin Hood? Anything at all? One actor with a bit part is all that comes to mind. I know neither the name of the actor nor the part he played, but mark my words, if you pay close attention, you might catch a glimpse of some actual living, breathing talent like a single spark in the wilderness under a starless sky (approximately at the 29-minute mark). If you blink, you will miss it. Better to miss the entire movie.

Writing: Poor
Directing: Poor
Acting: Poor
Cinematography: Mediocre
Stunts: Terrible
Swordplay: Terrible
Panache: Mediocre

Overall Rating: Poor
Swashbuckling Rank: Terrible/Poor

Written by: Leroy H. Zehren
Directed by: James Tinling
Performed by: Robert Clarke, Mary Hatcher, Paul Cavanagh, et al.

Rogues of Sherwood Forest (1950) Reviewed

Rogues of Sherwood Forest (1950) begins with the following statement:

The Bill of Rights and the Liberty and Justice we enjoy today stem from the Magna Carta, the great charter which the oppressed people of England forced from their tyrannical King John. In the year 1215, King John was secretly planning to crush all who stood in the way of his ruthless ambition.

The statement itself is ambitious, but the film falls short of being anything other than a vehicle for the son of Robin Hood to influence the course of British history and, as a result, American history as well. We'll return to that in a moment.

Robin Hood's son is played rather like an American athlete in a high school play by John Derek, and his love interest (and stand-in for Maid Marian), Lady Marianne de Beaudray, is played like a character from Father Knows Best by Diana Lynn. George Macready gives a standard villainous performance as King John. And for the third time in his life, Alan Hale plays Alan Hale as Little John.

It begins with a fiendish plot by King John to slay the son of Robin Hood (also known as Robin) in what Robin thinks is an innocent joust for sport against a Flemish knight. We also learn that Robin is besotted with Lady Marianne de Beaudray, that he and Little John have recently returned from the Crusades, and that King John is negotiating with the Count of Flanders for the use of Flemish mercenaries for suitably villainous purposes. King John blames his ills on Robin Hood, Sr. and the "democratic reign" of his late brother, King Richard. Once again, Richard the Lion-Hearted becomes the nucleus of a fantasy Golden Age, when in reality he was largely absent from England and couldn't be bothered by his subjects except when they needed to be taxed to fund his ransom. In this tale, however, he is apparently the father of democracy. By failing to be assassinated, Robin Hood, Jr. earns the further ire of King John and hastens to return to Nottingham, but not before igniting a classic love-hate misunderstanding between himself and Lady Marianne.

I shan't recount the typical goings-on that went about, but I will say that it took me three or four nights to get through this relatively short film. I could have done it in one night, but I would have slept through 75% of it. It is, to put it bluntly, boring by any measure.

Writing: Poor
Directing: Mediocre
Acting: Mediocre
Cinematography: Mediocre
Stunts: Mediocre
Swordplay: Poor
Panache: Mediocre

Overall Rating: Poor/Mediocre
Swashbuckling Rank: Poor/Mediocre

Written by: George Bruce and Ralph Gilbert Bettison
Directed by: Gordon Douglas
Performed by: John Derek, Diana Lynn, George Macready, Alan Hale, et al.

Robin Hood (1912) Reviewed

The first depiction of Robin Hood on screen occurred in 1912 in the short film Robin Hood. Filmed in Fort Lee, New Jersey with a runtime of 30 minutes, it amounts to little more than a pantomime with its simplistic plot, cartoonish characters, and rudimentary fight choreography (which one might suspect was limited to instructions on the order of, "Just wave your sword about and try not to hurt anyone"). Cinematography was still in its relative infancy, but there is nothing remotely innovative or adventurous on display here. The camera is stationary in every scene, indoors or outdoors, as if the viewer is attending a play, except a play would flow more naturally and be easier to follow. The acting is exaggerated, the pacing is awkward, the scene changes are jarring, and the action sequences are laughable. In one static scene, Robin Hood's merry men hastily arrange an ambush for their pursuers by holding up tree branches and lying down behind them in an open field. I doubt it would fool a blindfolded man, let alone a mounted man-at-arms, but the ambush succeeds, there's a general kerfuffle of pulling soldiers off their horses, and soon their antagonists are all tied to trees. All of the conflict in this version of Robin Hood's adventures is caused by Guy de Gisbourne's unrequited lust for Maid Marian and her father's disapproval of Marian and Robin's dalliances. So much does he disapprove of Robin that he informs Guy that if he can apprehend Robin, he is more than welcome to his daughter. Fights and flights ensue. The characters are all caricatures, and the revelation that the unknown personage is King Richard the Lion-Hearted is clumsy and anticlimactic. Fortunately, the legend of Robin Hood is too powerful to be consigned to oblivion by this half-hearted effort. The only value this film holds is historical. It was the first, and may well be the worst (or one of the worst). At least it is short.

Writing: Poor
Directing: Poor
Acting: Poor
Cinematography: Poor
Stunts: Poor
Swordplay: Terrible
Panache: Poor

Overall Rating: Poor
Swashbuckling Rank: Terrible/Poor

Written by: Eustace Hale Ball
Directed by: Étienne Arnaud
Performed by: Robert Frazer, Barbara Tennant, Alec B. Francis, Lamar Johnstone, Arthur Hollingsworth, et al.

The Bandit of Sherwood Forest (1946) Reviewed

The Bandit of Sherwood Forest (1946) is a passable and largely forgettable tale in the history of Robin Hood's various modern-concocted progeny, which, in this case, is Robert of Nottingham (played by Cornel Wilde). Early in the film, the master plan is revealed. The King's Regent, William of Pembroke (Henry Daniell), is plotting the assassination of the young King Henry III (Maurice Tauzin) and his own ascension to the throne, which will culminate in the destruction of the Magna Carta and anything else that stands in the way of his assumption of absolute power. The threat of autocratic rule was painfully fresh in the memories of those who survived the Second World War, and this is by far the most powerful and memorable scene in the film. Unfortunately, the film devolves rapidly into a series of standard genre clichés conveyed with generic adequacy (except for Henry Daniell's outlandish scenery-chewing that may have directly inspired Henry Polic's Sheriff of Nottingham in When Things Were Rotten and Edgar Buchanan's wiley prospector take on Friar Tuck). The only surprise is the quality of Cornel's fencing (which wouldn't surprise those who know that Cornel once turned down a place in the U.S. Olympic fencing team), but it is, alas, compromised by its brevity. Other action scenes are rendered less effective by being shrouded in darkness. What could have been a rousing swashbuckling parable against tyranny is instead a hasty romp through the usual Robin Hood wardrobe and sets.

[Slightly edited on 15 March 2025.]

Writing: Mediocre
Directing: Mediocre
Acting: Mediocre
Cinematography: Mediocre/Fair
Stunts: Fair
Swordplay: Good
Panache: Mediocre

Overall Rating: Mediocre
Swashbuckling Rank: Fair

Written by: Wilfrid H. Pettitt and Melvin Levy
Based on: Son of Robin Hood by Paul A. Castleton
Directed by: Henry Levin and George Sherman
Performed by: Cornel Wilde, Anita Louise, Jill Esmond, Henry Daniell, Russell Hicks, Edgar Buchanan, George Macready, Maurice Tauzin, et al.

Princess of Thieves (2001) Reviewed

Princess of Thieves (2001), a made-for-television movie produced by Granada Entertainment (and distributed in some parts of the world by Disney), asks the multi-part question: What if Robin Hood and Marian had a daughter, Marian died, Robin was an absent father for years, and his daughter grew up to follow in his footsteps as a great archer who robs from the rich, gives to the poor, and has an unfaltering sense of justice? It goes on to answer this and other unasked questions, such as: Will she ever forgive her father for his absence, will she fall in love, and will she join her father in further adventures?

Gwyn (Keira Knightley) is the aforementioned daughter, who is riled to reckless bravery early and often. Luckily, her backstory of intensive training and inborn talent is established in a throwaway line. Despite the flimsiness of the writing (which strives for novelty, but wallows in predictability), Knightley's conviction shines and is the only interesting element in the movie. Malcolm McDowell's Sheriff of Nottingham and Jonathan Hyde's Prince John are unsurprisingly unsubtle in their incompetent villainy. Stephen Moyer's Prince Phillip and Adam Ryan's Conrad (Phillip's valet) are moderately dashing. Stuart Wilson's Robin and Crispin Letts's Will Scarlett are probably reasonably accurate as weary folk heroes long past their prime. The scenes of combat seem to have been coordinated as an afterthought, the feats of archery lack suspense, and the political intrigue is laughable. Nearly everything except the shooting location (Romania) seems to be a shortcut, as if it were multiple episodes of a television show inexpertly edited down to a movie.

Princess of Thieves largely fails as a swashbuckling movie, but Knightley saves it (just barely) from the oblivion of utter mediocrity.

Writing: Poor
Directing: Mediocre
Acting: Mediocre
Cinematography: Mediocre
Stunts: Mediocre
Fight Choreography: Mediocre
Panache: Good

Overall Rating: Mediocre
Swashbuckling Rank: Mediocre/Fair

Written by: Robin Lerner
Directed by: Peter Hewitt
Performed by: Keira Knightley, Malcolm McDowell, Jonathan Hyde, Del Synnott, Stephen Moyer, Adam Ryan, Stuart Wilson, Crispin Letts, et al.

Robin of Sherwood (1984-1986) Semi-Reviewed

For some reason, I can't bring myself to write a formal review of Robin of Sherwood. I watched too many episodes in too short a span too long ago to compose a comprehensive review. So, what follows will be a jumble of thoughts. I apologize to my handful of readers for the lack of thoroughness. Perhaps, if I ever have access to the entire series without commercial interruptions, I shall one day share my observations in greater detail.

Robin of Sherwood, a British television show first broadcast in the mid-1980s, is a tantalizing mixture of history, folklore, and fairytale. In this incarnation, Robin Hood is motivated equally by a personal moral vision shaped by circumstances and by a sacred bond to a pagan deity, Herne (John Albineri). There is, of course, highway robbery, political intrigue, daring rescues, and well-intentioned swashbuckling aplenty, but there is also an impressive variety of magic. The addition of the fantastical brings something new and, perhaps more importantly, something unpredictable to the legend of Robin Hood. One of the most impressive examples is the character of the Baron de Belleme (Anthony Valentine), about whom no more will be said lest ye watch it...

For the first two seasons, Robin (of Loxley) is played exceptionally well by Michael Praed. He is replaced in the third season rather less ably by Jason Connery, who plays the other version of Robin Hood, Robin of Huntingdon. It's a clever solution to Praed's departure, but the execution was less than satisfactory. The story seemed to lose momentum and the characters became tired caricatures. Before the end of the third season, I found myself wishing it had ended with the second.

My least favorite aspect of Robin of Sherwood, apart from the third season, is the music, which was scored by the Irish band Clannad. I have enjoyed some of their music and even some of their film scores, but their music for Robin of Sherwood is monotonous and more reminiscent of New Age—not the Middle Ages. At one point, there's a scene where the characters are actually supposed to be dancing to music being performed in their midst, but instead of music appropriate to the time period, the musicians are somehow producing sounds that could only be created by synthesizers. If it were a Blake Edwards production (or a Mel Brooks production), I would understand. In a drama, the choice is a failure. It would have been better to have cast real folk musicians in the scene playing period appropriate instruments.

Overall, I enjoyed the first two seasons immensely and found the third to be a disappointment. The score is regrettable, but at least I can mute the theme music.

Writing: Good (S1-2); Poor (S3)
Directing: Good (S1-2); Fair (S3)
Acting: Good (S1-2); Fair (S3)
Cinematography: Good
Stunts: Good
Swordplay: Fair
Panache: Great (S1-2); Mediocre (S3)

Overall Rating: Good (S1-2); Fair (S3)
Swashbuckling Rank: Good (S1-2); Fair (S3)

Written by: various
Directed by: various
Performed by: Michael Praed, Judi Trott, Phil Rose, Clive Mantle, Mark Ryan, Ray Winstone, Peter Llewellyn Williams, Jason Connery, et al.

[Read this article from The History Files for more information about Robin of Sherwood.]

The Adventures of Robin Hood (1955-1960) Reviewed

Series/Season 1

The early episodes of The Adventures of Robin Hood (of which there were 39) ran from September 1955 to July 1956 and give an account of the legendary figure's career beginning with his return from the Crusades. Unjustly deprived of his land and title, he becomes an outlaw and retreats to Sherwood Forest, gradually gathering a band of misfits who share his vision of wealth redistribution. Made for family viewing, the violence is mild and the romance is tame, but there is an earnest subversiveness in its writing due partly to its source material and partly (perhaps) to the fact that two of the writers were blacklisted in Hollywood during the communist witchhunt of the 1950s.

Robin Hood (Richard Greene) is portrayed with self-assurance, a sense of humor, and a consistent concern for the welfare of others regardless of their station or background. You would be forgiven if you mistook him for an archtypical father figure of 1950s family television rather than a swashbuckling adventurer, for he could easily pass as such with a change of costume, but he is cunning and quick to act when an innocent life is in danger or a rich purse is in need of lightening for a good cause.

Archie Duncan and Alexander Gauge are fine as Little John and Friar Tuck respectively, but Bernadette O'Farrell is especially good as a courageous and clever Maid Marian. The camaraderie of Robin's band of outlaws is believable, although the frequent re-use of actors in different roles is less so.

The first season (series) of The Adventures of Robin Hood is an entertaining and intelligent re-telling of the tales suitable for all ages. With any luck, the later seasons are equally enjoyable. Someday, perchance, I'll be able to watch them and review them.

Writing: Good
Directing: Good
Acting: Good
Cinematography: Fair
Stunts: Fair
Swordplay: Fair
Panache: Good

Overall Rating: Good
Swashbuckling Rank: Fair/Good

Written by: various
Directed by: various
Performed by: Richard Greene, Bernadette O'Farrell, Victor Woolf, Archie Duncan, Alexander Gauge, Alan Wheatley, et al.

Robin Hood (2010) Reviewed

First, let it be stated that Robin Hood, the film directed by Ridley Scott, is less a swashbuckling adventure in the traditional sense than an attempt to reimagine the legendary hero's origin in an historical context that discards much of the romantic mythology surrounding the reign of Richard Coeur-de-Lion. Inasmuch as the earliest legends of Robin Hood place his activities during the reign of an unspecified King Edward, the retelling of the story with an accurate portrayal of King Richard's reign is hardly less faithful than a purely fanciful portrayal of the same. Naturally, much of the conflict arises from King John's depredations, but unlike the popular reinterpretations of the Robin Hood myth that began in the 16th century, the return of Good King Richard, crusading in the Holy Land, is not awaited like the Second Coming of Christ to deliver England from evil. Unlike the myth as it has evolved in later centuries, Robin Hood is not a dispossessed nobleman, but a yeoman, a commoner, just as he was in the earliest tales. Unlike the character as it has been portrayed in film since the beginning (with the exception of Robin and Marian), Robin Hood in this film is a man, albeit a remarkable one, whom one could plausibly believe really lived.

Russell Crowe, as Robin Hood, is eminently qualified to imbue the character with a degree of realism almost without precedent. His is a Robin Hood with a lifetime's worth of experiences even before he has embarked on the path that will bring him immortality in folklore. Cate Blanchett, as Marian, has perhaps the more daunting challenge of giving life to a character who is not only entirely fictional, but was not even originally part of the Robin Hood legend. The script gives Marian a better grounding than she has ever enjoyed in any other telling, and Blanchett adds believability and strength to the character's noted beauty. Together, Crowe and Blanchett create a Robin and Marian who are individuals with their own complexity, whose relationship evolves humanly rather than arbitrarily. This is no small achievement for anyone tackling a story with such a long history and an audience with such deeply-ingrained expectations.

Although the trappings of this film suggest the pursuit of historical accuracy, there is also an allegiance to the spirit of the tales of Robin Hood, from the inclusion of such fictional characters as Marian and Alan-a-Dale, to the sentiments of true justice, compassion, and opposition to hypocrisy and tyranny. By choosing to set the film during the latter part of King John's regency and the early part of his reign, it was possible to link Robin Hood directly to historic events that epitomize a rejection of the absolute rule of monarchs and the rise of a unique English identity beyond Saxon and Norman divisions.

All in all, Scott's Robin Hood is the greatest film adaptation of the legend since Robin and Marian, and certainly the greatest film depicting Robin Hood at either the beginning or height of his career as the bandit who "steals from the rich to give to the poor."

Writing: Great
Directing: Great
Acting: Superb
Cinematography: Great
Stunts: Good
Swordplay: Good
Panache: Great

Overall Rating: Great
Swashbuckling Rank: Good


[Originally posted in Cuparius.com on 11 June 2010.]


Addendum

Written by: Brian Helgeland, Ethan Reiff, and Cyrus Voris
Directed by: Ridley Scott
Performed by: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Max von Sydow, William Hurt, Mark Strong, Oscar Isaac, et al.

Robin and Marian (1976) Reviewed

Robin and Marian (1976) is a different kind of Robin Hood tale. It is the story of an older Robin Hood, one who left his Marian twenty years ago to follow his king, Richard Lionheart, in the Crusade to free the Holy Land. The film begins with the last siege of Robin's military career, against a ruined castle with no soldiers to defend it, to appease King Richard's mad hunger for gold. The setting here is clear. Although Robin Hood is folkloric, the film presents an historical context for his later years, one in which King Richard was a bloody tyrant whose sole concern for England was to bleed her of her wealth to pay for his expeditions (and his ransoms when he was captured) and bleed her of her able-bodied men, most of whom would die in the Crusades far from their native land.

Robin returns to England intent to put the horror and disillusionment of the last two decades behind him and retire, as it were, from the battlefield, but events lead him to return also to his former life as a hero of the oppressed when he learns of the plight of his true love, Marian, who is now the abbess of a convent. Robin is still valiant and idealistic, but alas he is also twenty years older. Fortunately, so is his archenemy, the Sheriff of Nottingham. There is action and adventure aplenty, but the challenges are greater (and perhaps a bit more humorous) when met by men of their age.

Sean Connery gives one of his best performances as a Robin Hood at the end of his career, and Audrey Hepburn gives an equally excellent performance as Marian in a role that had previously never been endowed with so much humanity. Nicol Williamson (who would later play Merlin in Excalibur) gives a sober, subtle performance as Robin's loyal comrade, Little John. Robert Shaw's Sheriff of Nottingham is both formidable and approachable as a character with believable motives and discernable virtues even in his opposition to Robin. Richard Harris deserves especial mention for his portrayal of the last king of England to rule before the adoption of the Magna Carta. Harris simmers with the omnipotence and instability of absolute monarchs harkening back to the Roman emperors, and it is his interaction with Robin that best enables the audience to envision the hardship and insanity that consumed twenty years of Robin's life abroad.

Director Richard Lester once again proves his mettle as one of the greatest directors of period action movies of the 20th century. If this film has a weakness, it is John Barry's score, which is both unambitious and overwrought.

Although there are moments of levity bordering on swashbuckling parody, Robin and Marian is a serious film that confronts issues of war, religion, class, and, perhaps most of all, love's endurance.

Writing: Great
Directing: Great
Acting: Great
Cinematography: Great
Stunts: Good
Swordplay: Good
Panache: Good

Overall Rating: Great
Swashbuckling Rank: Good


[Originally posted in Cuparius.com on 7 October 2011.]


Addendum

Written by: James Goldman
Directed by: Richard Lester
Performed by: Sean Connery, Audrey Hepburn, Robert Shaw, Nicol Williamson, Denholm Elliott, Ronnie Barker, Kenneth Haigh, Ian Holm, Richard Harris, et al.

Robin Hood (1922) Reviewed

Robin Hood was one of the great swashbuckling epics of its time when it was made in 1922. Its production values are lavish, its scale is huge, and it's long. In fact, it's a bit too long. Fifty percent of the film is devoted to the story of Richard the Lion-Hearted (Wallace Beery), the nefarious Prince John (Sam De Grasse), and how the loyal Earl of Huntingdon (Douglas Fairbanks) just wants to do what is right, but is misunderstood. The story, to put it with merciful brevity, meanders, stalls, and meanders again throughout the first half of the film. The audience is, however, treated with views of truly magnificent sets and impressive pageantry with a cast of hundreds if not thousands. After a seemingly interminable prologue dominated by pomp, evil posturing, and kingly presidings, the Earl of Huntingdon finally becomes Robin Hood, fighting for justice in England until King Richard can return from the Crusade and liberate his land from the usurper.

Let us ignore the historical facts concerning King Richard I, his brother John, the Crusades, and England under both rulers for the purpose of this review, for the legends of Robin Hood are themselves steeped in a mythical interpretation of the period.

The film certainly picks up pace during its second half when Robin Hood is "born." Immediately, there is a spring to its step. I mean that literally. Robin Hood and his Merry Men spring into the scene and spring all throughout the rest of the film, until one thinks one is watching a stage production of Peter Pan. It's a little too springy for my taste. The stunts are amazing as always whenever Fairbanks is around, and he carries himself as the usual happy-go-lucky god of derring-do, but he and his Merry Men just seem a little too merry. I am not exaggerating this! It sounds like an exaggeration, but there is entirely too much frolicking hither and thither to be taken seriously as a grand adventure. They are simply over-the-top full of merriment. If it were a musical, it would be more appropriate, but it's a silent film. Don't misunderstand me; it's very entertaining, and it's funny, and I think the humor of it is intentional, but I'm not quite sure.

The DVD includes a short subject by Will Rogers in which he good-naturedly pokes fun at the smash hit film, and his portrayal of the Merry Men rather confirms my description. It is truly hilarious.

Without intending any disrespect to Fairbanks' work, it is one of his more amusing efforts...

Writing: Fair
Directing: Good
Acting: Fair
Cinematography: Great
Stunts: Great
Swordplay: Mediocre
Panache: Good

Overall Rating: Good
Swashbuckling Rank: Good


[Originally posted in Cuparius.com on 21 August 2006.]


Addendum

Written by: Douglas Fairbanks (as Elton Thomas), et al.
Directed by: Allan Dwan
Performed by: Douglas Fairbanks, Wallace Beery, Sam De Grasse, Enid Bennett, Paul Dickey, William Lowery, et al.

The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) Reviewed

Original Review

The Adventures of Robin Hood from 1938 is a film that owes its reputation, I believe, to faulty memories. This is a film I would like to like. But I can't. It ought to be a great film. But it isn't. Errol Flynn as Robin Hood and Basil Rathbone as Sir Guy of Gisbourne are both excellent in their roles, and the legend of Robin Hood is rich with possibilities for tales of adventure, romance, treachery, and heroism. Alas, this version is a drudgery to behold, nay, a torture. Claude Rains' talent as a general anaesthetic permeates the film until the last scene. Flynn may be charming as the hero, but the combat scenes defy believability even for swashbuckling fare. I'm sure the garish Technicolor was dazzling in its day, but the film never gives one a sense of place other than that of a Hollywood set. The writing is unforgivably bland, the directing is uninspired, and the all-around inferior quality of the acting is a sad consequence of both. Somehow, though, Flynn's panache shines through the dismal shambles in which he finds himself, and perhaps it is this alone that has contributed to this film's undeserved status as a classic. At all other levels, one can't help thinking it could have been done better—much better.

Writing: Terrible
Directing: Poor
Acting: Mediocre
Cinematography: Fair
Stunts: Fair
Swordplay: Fair
Panache: Great

Overall Rating: Mediocre
Swashbuckling Rank: Fair Good


[Originally posted in Cuparius.com on 21 August 2006.]

Extended Review

It has been 17 years since I wrote my first review of The Adventures of Robin Hood, and in the interest of fairness and an awareness of how my perception may have changed after having seen many more swashbuckling movies in the intervening years, I thought it would be wise to give it another viewing. My opinion of it has indeed changed. I chuckle now at the offense I took at its shortcomings—as if it ever aspired to be anything more than what it proclaimed itself to be (and succeeded at being): a romantic adventure movie clothed in legendry. It really is better than I remembered, and I'm not sure whether it's because I've seen so many more movies that fall short of it or because I have greater understanding of the importance of it in the context of the era in which it was made: a world in the grip of the Great Depression and on the brink of another World War. It truly was an inspirational movie as well as an escapist one. And it was genuinely well made. In many regards, it was good enough, but in others it was excellent. It is a marvel of set design and, in some scenes, fight choreography. The final duel between Robin Hood and Sir Guy is spectacular. It's an exciting and heartfelt movie that may not be the best swashbuckling movie or the best Robin Hood movie or the best Errol Flynn movie, but it's a good movie in all of those categories. I can appreciate it now.

Writing: Fair
Directing: Fair
Acting: Fair
Cinematography: Good
Stunts: Good
Swordplay: Good
Panache: Great

Overall Rating: Good
Swashbuckling Rank: Good/Great

Written by: Norman Reilly Raine and Seton I. Miller
Directed by: Michael Curtiz and William Keighley
Performed by: Errol Flynn, Olivia de Havilland, Basil Rathbone, Claude Rains, et al.

The Story of Robin Hood and His Merrie Men (1952) Reviewed

In 1952, Walt Disney Productions released its second live-action film, The Story of Robin Hood and His Merrie Men. It is a colorful and well-produced spectacle to be sure, with good pacing and excellent music (thanks largely to Elton Hayes as the minstrel Allan-a-Dale), but the story is stale and much of the acting workmanlike. "Good King Richard," whose absence from England as he participates in the Crusades sets the stage for Prince John's ambitious plans to seize power, is predictably placed on a pedestal as the popular champion of the people. Yes, it's propaganda. Yes, it's lazy. Yes, it diminishes Robin Hood's story. Richard Todd is unremarkable as Robin Hood, which is unfortunate, but it's hard to imagine any actor being able to do much with the script provided. The film may be a feast for the eyes and ears, but it lacks flavor and offers little food for thought. As an escapist adventure, it is moderately entertaining.

Writing: Fair
Directing: Good
Acting: Fair
Cinematography: Good
Stunts: Good
Fight Choreography: Good
Panache: Fair

Overall Rating: Fair/Good
Swashbuckling Rank: Good

Written by: Lawrence Edward Watkin
Directed by: Ken Annakin
Performed by: Richard Todd, Joan Rice, Peter Finch, Martita Hunt, et al.