La justicia de Robin Hood

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.

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 thing I did learn about Sword Of Sherwood Forest is that it's no compilation film made from the British TV series Robin Hood. Other than Richard Greene in the title role none of the regulars appear from TV appear in the film.

The plot has Robin Hood getting involved in a dispute with a certain lord who feels cheated and none other than the Archbishop Of Canterbury and King's Chancellor Hubert Walter.

The British show was syndicated here and Richard Greene's American public was used to seeing him in the part. Greene was very popular as Robin Hood on this side of the pond. In my generation he was the real Robin Hood.

Fans of the TV series here and in the United Kingdom won't be disappointed.

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.