Robin Hood

Arguably the best pre-"Little Mermaid" Disney film, "Robin Hood" takes the characters from past Disney films and features such as Baloo (Jungle Book) and Rabbit (the Pooh films) and casts them in a classic re-telling of the popular Robin Hood fable. While not as historical as Kevin Costner's big to-do, nor always as laugh-out-loud ridiculous as Mel Brooks' affair, Disney's effort comes off as amiable and very likable. It's very much a product of its times but has a timeless quality that is unmatched, really, and the humor doesn't date itself as quickly as some of the jokes in recent Disney features have. The voice acting (as in almost every Disney film) is superb, but contains very few outstanding stars (Peter Ustinov's role is especially well-done, however). All in all, a film well-deserving of all the praise it receives.

The opening credits present us with all of the animals who will later appear in the film (the very same footage, in fact), parading themselves in front of a white background and a rather catchy tune. We see a fox dressed as Robin Hood. ROBIN HOOD, reads the credits. And in smaller letters underneath, in brackets: (a fox). We see a badger in a monk's outfit. FRIAR TUCK, says the credits. (a bear). I find this highly amusing. I love it. Don't ask me why. I think, though, that it demonstrates two things: that "Robin Hood" was made under the same cost cutting Disney regime that made "The Aristocats" three years earlier and "The Rescuers" three years later; and that it has far more life than both of these films put together.

It IS the cost-cutting that would damn this film, and it's liveliness that redeems it. (That, and Peter Ustinov's vocal performance as Prince John.) I can't even find it in my heart to condemn the Southern voices scattered throughout Sherwood Forest and Nottingham - replacing a human sheriff with a lupine one is such a violent change that the use of expressions like, "Aw, geez, Nutsy," seems trivial by comparison. At any rate I found the voices far less irritating than Kevin Costner's drawl in HIS version of Robin Hood.

The animation is mostly good but without the stand-out brilliance of, say, "The Jungle Book". There are a few scenes that look as if they belong on television (which is a problem shared with the next five animated features that Disney made). The children are more cloying than usual with Disney and we see too much of them. That's about it with the carping. All in all it's cheerful, it's shameless, it's hard to resist.

I've watched this video so many times, I can no longer count, and every time, I wind up laughing my head off! I really think this is one of the most underrated Disney movies out there.

This version of Robin Hood has animals in the roles of the characters, and it works marvelously! It would be natural for Robin Hood to be a fox if he was an animal, for both the fox and Robin are very clever. And if Robin Hood is a fox, naturally, Maid Marian would be a vixen. Also, having Prince John and King Richard as lions are natural choices, since the lion is the King of the Jungle.

What I loved most about the film, as I hinted at earlier, is the humor, most of it provided by Prince John, Sir Hiss (a snake), Trigger, and Nutsy (both vultures). Prince John's habit of sucking his thumb whenever anyone mentions his mother is priceless! And he's so vain it's little trouble for Robin Hood and Little John (a bear) to rob him when they're disguised as fortune-tellers! Sir Hiss is smarter than any of the other bad guys, but the humor with him is that Prince John never believes him until it's too late, and abuses him afterwards. Trigger's "old Betsy" (a crossbow) provides plenty of laughs, especially when it goes off! And Nutsy is so stupid he says "One o'clock and all's well!" when it's three o'clock, and when told to set his brain ahead a couple hours, he doesn't know if he has to add or subtract two hours! That's a scream!

If there's any real fault, it lies in the animation. It is really substandard, and I have noticed reused or inaccurate footage in the film. But it is a minor flaw in the film, and it doesn't take away from my enjoyment of it.

So, rent or buy "Robin Hood" today! It's a scream!

Belle Book

When I was about four or five years old I used to watch this film almost every day in my day care. Then a couple of weeks ago I was discussing with my friend about animation movies and it came up that he had this important piece of my childhood on VHS. So of course I borrowed it and watched it for the first time in about 13 years. I remembered surprisingly many scenes.

Watching this movie wasn't as big event as it was years ago, but I still find it quite enjoyable. There were some funny mistakes in the translation from English to Finnish, but nothing crucial. I think I'll watch this a couple of times again for the old times sake before I give the tape back to my friend. :) 8/10

It is strange how many people damn the Disney version of "Robin Hood" for rough and repetitious animation, one-dimensional characters, and weak pacing. After all, A LOT of animated films suffer from this syndrome, even "landmark" productions like "Anastasia" and "Shrek." The characters are stereotypes, but they act believably: Prince John is silly, but with a truly evil undercurrent ("Squeeze every last drop out of those insolent...musical...peasants."), the Sheriff is deliciously nasty ("Upsy-daisy"), and Robin Hood is very affable. The music is, quite simply, fantastic. "Not in Nottingham" is easily the best Disney song ever (barring "When She Loved Me" in Toy Story 2), the opening theme and song are catchy and appropriate for the movie's tone, and the movie's action scenes are clever, chaotic, and action-packed but not gory. This is a movie you can show your kids without being embarrassed upon seeing that the movie is one long commercial for action figures and plush toys.