La espada del bosque de Sherwood

This is Robin Hood without any zest...just plain dull.

If you're going to do the Robin Hood story, at least a filmmaker should blend in all the proper elements that make the legendary story so popular, as the 1938 film did with Errol Flynn. But here we have Hammer trying to justice to the tale and unable to disguise the fact that it's done on a low-budget scale with less than impressive actors in all the important character roles.

RICHARD GREENE would have been a suitable choice if he'd played the role on the big screen some fifteen years earlier, but he's clearly too mature (and a bit tired looking) to be the dashing outlaw of Sherwood Forest and this faulty bit of casting extends to the other roles too. I never saw the television series starring Greene so I can't comment on it or make a comparison.

It gets off to a dull start with a meeting between Robin and Marian (SARAH BRANCH) that (as in the Flynn film) has them on less than amicable terms at first sight. The difference here is that she's been bathing in the nude before Robin and his men come along but quickly dresses modestly and has her first rude encounter with the outlaw.

There's no "ye olde English" flavor to the dialog--it sounds more 20th Century than anything else. PETER CUSHING turns up as the Sheriff of Nottingham who wants a wanted criminal that Robin Hood is sheltering. He promises Robin a free pardon if he delivers the criminal to him, but Robin refuses the bargain.

Just as well. The Sheriff turns out to be untrustworthy and never keeps his word. NIALL MacGINNIS doesn't seem rotund enough to play Friar Tuck but he shows up midway through the film to form an alliance with Robin. A further plot device involves the Archbishop of Canterbury, but it's a muddled bit of plotting that seems insufficiently interesting and takes attention away from Robin and Marian.

Summing up: Handsomely photographed in color with some interesting archery scenes, but a lackluster script and so-so performances do nothing to make the film anything but plodding and dull. The story simply has no focal point.

Trivia note: SARAH BRANCH's hair-style and make-up looks straight out of the 1960s--a very modern looking Maid Marian.

This is not as bad as all that. Terence Fisher as ever does a competent job, there are reasonable production values and some rather fetching photography. I always thought Richard Greene a little too schoolmasterly for an outlaw, and he is here rather portly, but he can certainly handle a bow. Nigel Greene and Niall McGinnis are well cast as Little John and Tuck, Peter Cushing is an excellent Sheriff, and Richard Pasco does well as the ambiguous Lord Newark. Oliver Reed's camp henchman is perhaps less successful.

The conspiracy plot unfolds at a relaxed pace and resolves satisfyingly. The weakest element is the tacked on romance with Sarah Branch's rather bland Maid Marion.

All in all a rather charming period piece, that gets closer to the spirit of the original ballads than most versions.

One of the big disappointments of my then very young life was setting off with my pocket money to view this one many, many years ago. I was a terrific fan of the Richard Greene TV series and used to gurgle and splutter out the theme song from my first conscious days of television viewing. When I learnt that a full FILM version was therefore showing at the local Odeon, I was expecting great things. I have watched the film now about four or five times since as it has appeared on afternoon TV and must say that my disappointment has still been quite strong every time I have viewed it! So what is the problem, (or, rather, what are the problemS)? Firslty, the whole thing must have been made on the then financial equivalent of 75 pence, i.e. the production values are STILL those of the TV series and while shaky scenery and a small number of bushes CAN be taken as a castle or a large forest in a half hour TV programme, (with a break for commercials), it will not work over one and a half hours on the big screen. Secondly, the acting is on a par with the scenery. Richard Greene moves fairly effortlessly from the small screen to the big, (mind you, he had had quite a few previous roles in the cinema, such as in the 1939 Basil Rathbone version of "The Hound of the Baskervilles"), but the rest of the cast, (with the possible exception of Peter Cushing as the Sheriff of Nottingham), are quite forgettable and it seems strange that NONE of the "familiar faces" from the TV series was prevailed upon to appear in the film version as well. At least it would have provided some continuity and, presumably, would have made the inter-action between the actors come to life more than is the case with the film that emerged. Finally, one hardly expects Marlowe or Schiller in terms of plot development with this kind of thing, (in fact I doubt if I had any idea of plot when I first saw the film, probably just waiting more for the next fight scene!), but, even so, this really is feeble in terms of story and makes the Kostner and Flynn versions seem like high literature in comparison. Mix in fairly flaccid direction, poor editing and continuity and a "bargain basement" music score and what have you got? Something to view while shelling peas or waiting for the rain to clear on a Thursday afternoon or, if you saw the 1950s TV series, a clear reminder of HOW really difficult it is apparently to transfer a TV hit to one on the big screen. If you want Robin Hood for the LATTER, then without question it is, (in ascending order of merit), still: Kostner's "Prince of Thieves", the made-for-TV British version of the same year as Kostner's, (and which was totally overshadowed by the latter), and, (of course - you know already, don't you?), the Errol Flynn 1939 film, (still unsurpassable as a talkie version).

I'm a great fan of Robin Hood and maybe being too critical of this film given its time of making. But it was hard work, it reminded me of a school play, it was enjoyable purely from a look back at how they used to do films sort of way. Peter Cushing and Oliver Reed will certainly have looked back at this film and have a quiet chuckle on how bad it was and ameteur. I'm trying not to be too critical and let it get away with being an innocent and OK film but the more i think about it the more i find myself wandering why i bothered to watch it. I suppose the reason being that after watching an hour i thought i might as well see it through. The language sorted of drifted from modern day to olde English, if its raining and there's nothing else to watch then give it a go but don't get too comfy or you will drift off.

Judging by existing reviews, individual opinion seems to rely very heavily on the views of fans of the 50s TV series (i.e. old blokes like me), versus those who came in cold and took it on face value. It is important to note that the film was never intended to have any relationship to the TV version. Richard Greene, of course, starred in both... and that's about the extent of it.

The Sapphire Films television series was a whole different kettle of fish. American writers blacklisted in the McCarthy era wrote under pseudonyms and packed the first two seasons with subtle left-wing ideology. The last two seasons fell into a more formulaic adventure groove, but still managed the occasional political overtone.

The movie was typical of the Hammer production philosophy... take what little budget there was, invest heavily in production costs (vivid colour, widescreen ratios), and hire a passable cast with what's leftover (including at least one bonza babe). I'm betting Greene came pretty cheap and had the added bonus of drawing in fans of TV series.

What you see is what you get. It still looks great, the storyline is good enough to last out the whole 77min, and there isn't a political statement in sight. For mine, 6.5 stars out of ten.