Movie review - "The Rogues of Sherwood Forest" (1950) **1/2

 Columbia had a big hit with a son of Rob Hood story, The Bandit of Sherwood Forest, so they remade it (basically) as a vehicle for their new hearthrob star, John Derek. He's Robert Jnr, back from the Crusades, fighting King John. Alan Hale is Little John, Diana Lynn the Lady Marian type.

It's a little stock, competently handled by Gordon Douglas, with some historical touches at the end with King John sealing the Magna Carta. Derek is alright - his pretty looks and moustache are reminiscent of Errol Flynn though he doesn't have Flynn's swagger. Diana Lynn is an average Marian type. George Macready shines as King John with that great noice. There's some nice Cardinal.

It's all quick and competent rather than inspired - you feel they're rushing through the tropes (" now he's back from the Crusades", "now he's with Prince John", "now there's torture") but it is in colour.

This was Alan Hale's final film and he gets the last line of dialogue "Everything has been said, and everything has been done." (It doesn't seem like his last film because his lookalike son continued to play Alan Hale type parts).

Movie review - "Robin and Marian" (1976) ***1/2 (warning: spoilers)

 After revitalising Dumas with The Musketeers films, Richard Lester turned his eye to Robin Hood. At one stage Lester was going to film The Princess Bride by William Goldman and the script for this was written by Goldman's brother James.

It's got a wonderful cast - Sean Connery is a perfect old Robin Hood, all foolish muscularity, ditto Audrey Hepburn as Marian, a little fed up. Both sexy oldies. I wish they didn't have the moment where he knocks her out. And TBH she doesn't seem that into him or he into her. Like, she's really keen to poison him instead of seeing if he'll recover.

Nicol Williamson is wonderful as Little John ditto Richard Harris as King Richard I and Robert Shaw as the Sheriff. They all sparkle in their roles. Williamson, Harris and Shaw are great at doing "turns". So are Ronnie Barker (Friar Tuck) and Denholm Elliot (Will Scarlet).

It's cynical and realistic, I guess. Richard I is killed by a stray arrow, as he was IRL. Robin talks about Richard's massacres at Acre, which happened. 

Robin doesn't really do anything that noble. He just helps some nuns escape. He leads a revolt just cause, basically. John doesn't get his comeuppance. I wish he'd had a more noble cause. It's a downer ending, not just because Robin and Marian die, but because Friar Tuck and Will Scarlet get captured. The Sheriff fights Robin more for old times sake rather than a cause.

And yet the film has integrity. It feels real. Fantastic cast. Great moments. The final duel between Robin and the Sheriff feels like a real, exhaustive duel.

The character with the most integrity is Little John. He's loyal to Robin, wants to kill the Sheriff even if the Sheriff wins the duel, he loves Marian and says he never would've gone on a crusade if she'd been his girl, he kills the big villain (apart from King Richard I guess) played by Ken Haigh, he tries to stop the murder suicide at the end.

The film has the power to shock. The talk of Richard's massacre at Acre, as I've mentioned, but also showing King John horny for his wife... who is shown to be 12. A 12 year old sex pot played by a young Victoria Abril.

I'm a bit all over the shop when it comes to my feelings for this film. It's got some fantastic stuff. I wish... the sense of romance between Robin and Marian was stronger and Robin fought for a more noble cause. I know that's not what the filmmakers wanted to do though and respect that.

Movie review - "Robin Hood" (2018) **

Much maligned movie, which flopped for good reason - it isn't that good. But it could have been good, which is frustrating.

I think it was an excellent idea to reboot it as a parallel to the War on Terror, with Robin as a veteran of wars in the Middle East - the opening sequence of fighting in back alleys is very well done, and I liked the concept of Ben Mendhelson bagging the Muslims as part of his scare campaign. I think it was fantastic to have Robin Hood decide to be a Scarlet Pimpernel figure and befriend Nottingham while secretly doing what's right. It was good to have Little John be a former enemy from the crusades.

But having set up this, the film doesn't do anything with it.

The parallels to the War on Terror are dropped. There's no Muslim stuff after the first act. There's no fun with Robin Hood befriending the baddy - no alter ago to contrast.

Jamie Foxx's John could be cut out of the film. I mean, he does suggest the plan and train him but really Robin could have thought of that himself... and the training montage feels superfluous because Robin's already a soldier. He doesn't influence the plot after that. I guess he gets captured and then escapes somehow and helps Robin live but... ugh.

Maid Marian basically just serves water. I mean, really she does nothing. Traditional Mary at least was a spy. This one just hangs around. It's a terrible role.

Will Scarlett has some potential - setting up for the sequel. But really I think Scarlet should have gone bad earlier.

Friar Tuck just kind of hangs out. There's a villainous cardinal, F Murray Abraham, but I missed Prince John. The point of the original is to raise money for King Richard but there's no Richard here - Robin Hood isn't for anything except "the people", who are random extras.

I was willing to give this a fair shake. The opening moments were very iffy - unnecessary narration, unnecessary showing of how Robin met Marian, the silly "draft notice" - then it recovered well for a strong action sequence, then got progressively sillier.

Movie review - "A Challenge for Robin Hood" (1967) **

Hammer films reboot the Robin Hood story but the final result is a long way from Batman Begins. A cast of no-names (seriously, even Michael Ripper isn't in this) - the crew aren't familiar either. Barrie Ingham is one in a series of uninspiring middle aged stars for Hammer around this time (well, he was 35) - Edward Judd being another one. In this version Robin is a Norman who is distrusted by the Saxons even though he does things like stopping a little boy be skewered with an arrow. However, they start to come around after he becomes an outlaw due to his nasty brother wanting him out of the will. They go to live in Sherwood forest, he decides on the name Robin Hood, makes easy friends with Friar Tuck but it takes longer for Little John (Leon Free) to come around.

There's a brunette Maid Marian, a sing-a-long around the campsite from the merrie men, Australia's own Reg Lye as Much. Robin is given command of the gang very easily, Robin rescues Will Scarlet rather than Maid Marian (this film is big on bromance), the finale is reminiscent of The Prisoner of Zenda with Robin storming a castle via swimming through the swamp, Alan a Dale has a bigger part than usual, the villain is smart.

It's a bit bland a lot of the time and the low budget hurts - you really want teams of extras in a Robin Hood movie. It also lacks star power and zing. It does have a nice shade of dark green.

Movie review - “Sword of Sherwood Forrest” (1960) **1/2

Hammer were famous for their horror films but they actually had a longer history of adapting stories from TV and radio into films – Dick Barton, Quatermass, Man About the House, etc. Here we have Richard Greene reprising his role as Robin Hood, which he played to great success during the 50s. Its bright and colourful, with a bland Maid Marian and undercooked plot, but plenty of action, impressive production design and a support cat that includes Peter Cushing (as the Sheriff of Nottingham – killed off too early) and Oliver Reed.

Movie review – “Robin Hood” (2009) **1/2

Originally this was to be called Nottingham and have the Sheriff as the hero – which totally went against the DNA of what is one of the all time popular stories in the English language. Then they replaced it with a new story which also goes against that DNA.

 

I think why Robin Hood always works is that every little boy (and girl) at some stage dreamed of living in the forest with your mates, robbing from the rich to give to the poor, and fighting in a good cause. Here Robin is an archer, getting on a bit in years, fighting for Richard in Europe – who pretends to be a knight in order to get home (shades of A Knight’s Tale, also written by Brian Hegeland), including hooking up with the dead knight’s wife (Cate Blanchett, who gives a good performance – but honestly who cares if Maid Marian is played by a good actor, it’s a waste). There’s only one incident of robbing from the rich to give to the poor – he doesn’t get outlawed until the very end. Richard I dies at the beginning so Robin isn’t fighting for restoration of the monarchy, but rather a bill of rights – the Magna Carta (used in Bandit of Sherwood Forest); as presented here it feels a bit tacked on. 

 

It’s hard to tell some of the support cast apart, although the quality of acting is strong (William Hurt makes a surprisingly effective decent noble). Mark Strong, a bald Andy Garcia look a like, is a good villain. Plenty of action including a brilliant final battle and Rusty is a great tough guy hero but it never quite comes alive.

Movie review – “The Story of Robin Hood” (1952) **

Robin Hood is one of those stories which always seem to work – based in part on the appeal of running off into the forest to rob from the rich and give to the poor (which is why it will be interesting to see the response to the new Ridley Scott version, where apparently Nottingham is the hero and Robin Hood a sort of terrorist)

This one has Robin rob from the rich to give to the poor for a bit – then he starts using the money for stupid King Richard’s ransom. Why is that money well spent? Sounds like just another tax to me. Also there is far too much singing – there is a minstrel who keeps playing songs (couldn’t stop thinking about the Minstrel who winds up being eaten in Monty Python and the Holy Grail). And there’s not enough action. On the sunny side at least its colourful and its nice to see the story done shot in England with an all-English cast for a change.

Richard Todd’s Robin is like Joan Rice’s Maid Marian – cheery enough but second rate. Peter Finch’s Nottingham is better, if purely by virtue of his hawk like features; ditto James Robertson Justice’s Little John.

Movie review - "The Bandit of Sherwood Forrest" (1946) **

Cornel Wilde hit it big in a drama A Song to Remember but his next few films indicates his employers thought "yes, well, he was in a drama but he can't really act so why push our luck - let's put him in swashbucklers". 

Here he plays the son of Robin Hood and although there's nothing wrong with his fencing his performance is extremely wooden - he got better at the feisty flirting and hearty back-slapping stuff, but here it's pretty dire and drags down the film. Perhaps this is why his appearance is delayed.

There are some good things here - the colour, the ever-reliable Henry Daniell as the villain, the concept of having Daniell starve Wilde before a duel to ensure he'll win - but far too many dud moments - the love interest is bland, its uncomfortable when Robin Jnr meets her and he basically sexually assaults her (forcing himself on her for a kiss - when he later finds out she's royalty he apologises... so its only OK to molest the lower orders?); there's a clunky climax while Robin and his merry men and the baddy's henchmen just sit around and watch while Wilde duels Daniell; Wilde isn't allowed any new friends, he has to deal with old Little John, Friar Tuck, etc so there's no real camaraderie between him and the Merrie Men, he's just a son taking over dad's business, including dad's old hack support gang (which might have provided rich fodder for dramatic conflict but isn't exploited at all here); the young Henry III is a big wimp, not someone worth fighting for, and you'll laugh at his prince valiant haircut and habit of bursting into tears.

Movie review - "Ivanhoe" (1952) **1/2

The enormous success of Quo Vadis revived Robert Taylor's career and saw him cast in a series of big budget adventure spectaculars in which you could unanimously say his performances were "OK". 

You don't think of Taylor when discussing the great 50s swashbucklers, like Errol Flynn, Stewart Granger, Doug Fairbanks Jnr, or even Cornel Wilde, Louis Hayward, Richard Greene and Tony Curtis - all of whom were alive when this film was made, and all of whom would have been better as Ivanhoe. The non-casting of Granger is especially bewildering as he was under contract to MGM at the time and had just hit big in King Solomon's Mines - maybe there was a scheduling problem or something.

Of course, Taylor had just made Quo Vadis, so who knows. George MacDonald Fraser once argued that Taylor did make a contribution of a kind to these movies, a"stern but gentle good natured-ness" or something. I guess that's true - it's not much of a contribution. You do get used to him, he suits the beard - but you just wish it had been someone else.

Anyway, taken from Sir Walter Scott's novel, Ivanhoe has a very simple plot. It's set during the Middle Ages and Ivanhoe returns from the Crusades to raise money for Richard I's ransom. You might be thinking "hang on - wasn't that Robin Hood's job?" - and sure enough Robin turns up to help out Ivanhoe, only as a supporting actor which is kind of weird.

I don't know how Robin reconciles his stealing-from-the-rich-to-give-to-the-poor with the raising-money-for-Richard thing - maybe he charges a "ransom tax". He borrows most of the money off a Jewish family, gets kidnapped, gets rescued, and fights the baddy in a duel to save Elizabeth Taylor from being burned as a witch. Then Richard arrives to make things right.

Ivanhoe has no character (its not Taylor's fault) - no humour, or rebellious swagger even seemingly much interest in what is going on, he is brave and dutiful and that is pretty much it. (The best swashbucklers eg Robin Hood, Zorro, were far more rebellious). The character of Rowena (Joan Fontaine) does nothing in the story - I mean nothing. OK she helps count the money towards the end and is kidnapped and looks smug when Ivanhoe picks her over Rebecca (Elisabeth Taylor).

Rebecca is a far more interesting character - not only is she better looking, she's actually useful: she's the one who raises money for Ivanhoe, makes him better when he is injured, and gets put on trial. And she loses the guy at the end!

The Jewish factor in this story does give it a tang. Even more interesting is the "villain" Sir Boris (George Sanders, wonderful presence and voice - NB the sound design on this is very good with great drum sand swords and stuff - but not really the physically believable in the sword fights in the way say Basil Rathbone or Robert Douglas were) - he's really just an efficient hired hand for King John, but he falls for Rebecca and has this beautiful moment where he's willing to give it all up for her. Jeffrey Richards points out in his book on swashbucklers that the character isn't really done justice in the writing or playing to which I'd tentatively agree (you really could have made something of this) but he's still the most interesting character on screen, certainly more so than Ivanhoe and Rowena. Sanders and Liz Taylor are what keep the film going.

Most of the time watching this I couldn't help but think what a better movie The Adventures of Robin Hood was, a similar show piece extravaganza. Richard Thorpe's direction is a bit pedestrian, lacks the leads, and the supporting cast is irritatingly erratic - while there are some good performers, eg Felix Aylmer, and I got used to the actor who plays King John, others are just nothings (eg the guy who plays Robin).

The whole film lacks a bit of magic and seems to have been made by people who lack a real feel for its topic (cf David O Selznick's version of The Prisoner of Zenda). Having said that once it gets to the siege of the castle it starts to improve - this fight is a good sequence, as is the earlier joust and the final duel. And it certainly ticks boxes for a colourful kiddy town medieval movie: there's a damsel in distress (actually two), evil knights, good knights, minstrels, witch trials, the throwing down of the gauntlet, jousts, trial by combat, chivalry (I love the "referees" during the final fight - if you do something chivalrous you get shot by an arrow! Certainly a lot tougher than the mid-week judiciary), castles with drawbridges and moats and people who pour cauldrons of rocks down the side, sieges with ladders.

 

I was going to give it three stars - but at the ending Richard I just rocks up with his troops, no intro or build up, just arrives in deux ex machina style and I thought "stuff it, no". Still some fun - just could have been so much better.

Movie review - Errol #11 - "The Adventures of Robin Hood" (1938) *****

Some stories never seem to find audiences when they're filmed - Ned Kelly, Eureka Stockade, Alice in Wonderland - whereas others always seem to - Titanic, Robin Hood, romantic comedies involving deception. You couldn't say this was the definitive Robin Hood but its the definitive classical Hollywood version.

It's hard to imagine a more perfect fairytale Robin than Errol Flynn, all sparking teeth and green tights, bursting into the castle with a stag over his shoulders throwing it on the table. He's more than matched by Olivia de Havilland, exquisite as Maid Marian, a little imperious but basically nice, very brave in a trembling school virgin way, but with a twinkle in her eye to match Flynn's.

The support cast is dazzling: the silky villainy of Claude Rains as King John (he has some lovely justifications for the things he does and his look on the end - "but I'm your brother" - is priceless), the smooth Basil Rathbone, bluff hearty Alan Hale as Little John, fat spunky Eugene Palatte as Friar Tuck.

The film keeps hitting bullseyes all the way through: the scene where King John and company are wondering about how to find Robin and he just saunters in, the fight on the log between Little John and Robin, the meeting with Friar Tuck, the balcony scene between Robin and Marian, the archery competition, the reveal of King Richard's identity (what a thrill to see Ian Hunter pull back his cloack to show who he is), the final battle (for some reason the sword fight between Flynn and Rathbone here isn't as highly regarded amongst coineussuers as Captain Blood and The Sea Hawk maybe because it doesn't involve rapiers but I love it just as much), the sumptuous music.

Occasionally there are what surely must be unintended laughs: the Merry Men are a bit too Merry at times, Will Scarlett (Patric Knowles) tooks totally wimpy playing his lute and laughing on the bank while Robin fights Little John; I also think it was a mistake for the Merry Men to capture Basil Rathbone then let him go - it devalues him as an antogonist.

Melvile C Cooper's Sherriff of Nottingham is more buffoonish than a threat - though the filmmakers probably figured with Rathbone and Rains they could afford a more comic villain, and Nottingham does come up with the clever archery tournament trap - and there is an extra villain most people forget, the cardinal played by Montagu Love. (People sometimes forget, too, Herbert Mundin as Much the Miller's Son, who gets quite a long sequence towards the end when he has to kill a henchman of Rathbone's). Considering all the hands that went into this - two directors, several writers (Seton I Miller is one of the forgotten heroes of Errol Flynn's career) its a tribute to the Hollywood factory. And only 98 minutes, too!

Play review – “The Lion in Winter” by James Goldman

Crackerjack play about Christmas at the house of Henry II – it was not very successful in its original run despite theatre draws Robert Preston and Rosemary Harris in the lead, but was turned into a film which did well and has run ever since. I can’t believe this didn’t do better on Broadway – maybe Americans were uncomfortable with an American view of history (the language is very contemporary, though it seems highly appropriate). It’s a fascinating period of time, if Henry II isn’t that well known outside of England (though he clashed with Becket), his sons, Richard and John were, because of Robin Hood. Goldman writes in his introduction he’s not sure why the play has proved so popular – he guesses it’s a family play (sons squabbling over succession of the family business, in this case England and bits of France); it also has the historical stuff, plenty of great lines and twists and turns (everyone betrays everyone else – just when you think Henry’s down he comes back with a win), subtext of family. Perhaps a bit too cruel and harsh at times – this gives scope to the directors and cast. Wonderful.