Robin Hood

...and may never want to see it again.

My biggest problem with the movie was the strange pace. In the beginning, before the Earl of Huntingdon becomes Robin Hood, things move as slowly as a snail. The movie is just over two hours long and could have been much shorter. For example, it opens with a long jousting tournament that could have been completely removed. But after Huntingdon goes AWOL on King Richard's Crusades (which are disturbingly glorified in this movie) to protect England from the tyranny of evil Prince John and adopts the alias Robin Hood, things suddenly start moving at break-neck speed.

Douglas Fairbanks shines in this film, creating a Robin Hood with surprising heart and humanity for a silent movie. But in a movie that was a big-budget blockbuster for the 1920s, Fairbanks's star is often eclipsed by needless pageantry, as well as by his own less-talented co-stars, particularly Wallace Beery as King Richard, the so-called "lion hearted" king who spends most of the movie laughing. He laughs when he sees that Earl of Huntingdon (Robin Hood) is scared of women, he laughs when he defeats the Muslims in the Crusades, he laughs when he discovers that Robin Hood is Huntingdon is disguise, and he laughs as he tries to barge in on Robin and Marian's wedding night in the final scene. Before long, you'll be wondering why the heck everyone in Nottingham reveres this guy, or you'll be asking the question I heard someone sitting near me in the theater whisper: "What is so funny, anyway?" Enid Bennett, playing Lady Marian, seems like a good actress, but it is hard to tell, as she's given little more to do than faint whenever a fight starts and wake up once the action's over. Her romance with Robin Hood, however, is definitely worth watching. My favorite scene in the whole movie was their first kiss: When Robin leans in toward her, she modestly turns away, and he settles with kissing the hem of her sleeve instead.

I am a history teacher, so on one level, films like "Robin Hood" make me a bit crazy. However, it is so entertaining and fun that, for once, I need to just chill out and enjoy the film--and keep pesky reality from interfering with enjoying a darn fine film! Let's briefly talk about the film's MANY historical inaccuracies. Like all Robin Hood films as well as the various Ivanhoe films, King Richard I (a.k.a. "the Lion Hearted") is shown as a virtuous and good king, while his brother, John, is shown as a conniving dog. While history has not been kind to John (and it probably shouldn't be--especially as he unwisely took on the Church and lost as well as the Barons), it has somehow created a myth about Richard totally undeserved. In my opinion, he was the worst kind in English history and I assume most historians would agree that he at least was in the top 2 or 3 of the worst. He cared less about ruling England and spent almost his entire reign in his French territories or out massacring people in the Crusades. Now this does NOT mean that Richard was any sort of religious zealot. Instead, he was an opportunistic maniac who simply liked killing people!! His atrocities while on the Crusades are simply amazing for a supposedly Christian king--massacring entire towns and breaking pretty much every one of the 10 Commandments!! He was a horrible, horrible person in every respect--and NOT the hero he's portrayed to be in films.

As for Robin Hood, he didn't exactly exist. Now there was a crook who was similar in some ways--though he lived later than the hero of legends and had the pesky habit of stealing from the rich and giving to himself!! Instead, the Robin we know about is passed down from legends and songs and as a result, there are many differing (and often diametrically opposed) stories about this swell guy--all of which are pure hogwash.

Now you'd think after my complaints that I couldn't have possibly liked the film. Well, this isn't the case simply because apart from the historical license, this is a perfect film--and as good a silent film as you can find. While I have some doubts as to the truth of contemporary stories that Douglas Fairbanks did ALL his own stunts, the stunt-work in this film is as good as any silent film--and better than what you'll even find today. That's because whether it's always Fairbanks or not, the physicality of the stunts is amazing--and even better than Fairbanks' other great films. Plus, if it ISN'T always him doing the stunts, it's integrated so well that you could swear it was! Now if all the film consisted of were great stunts, it would not be a great film. I personally hate films that are all stunts and with lousy plots ("Mission: Impossible" is a great example of this). Howeverr, the film also features some of the loveliest film work I've ever seen--with cinematography that is breathtaking and highly artistic. For you artists out there, the camera work, sets, costumes and style is pure art nouveau come to life--like it was lifted right off a painting from this craze of the 1890s and early 1900s. The plot is pretty good as well--and I especially like how the lion's share (nice choice of words, huh?) is about how Robin came to be an outlaw--something even the wonderful Errol Flynn version failed to do (though it, too, is a classic). In addition, grand acting, a huge cast and a well-spent budget all worked together to make a perfect film...provided you can ignore the historical inaccuracies. Any person who considers themselves a connoisseur of silent films must see this film--it is that important and that ground-breaking. A delight from start to finish.

By the way, that IS Wallace Beery as King Richard!

The Douglas Fairbanks version of "Robin Hood" is still good entertainment despite showing its age at times. The role gives Fairbanks a perfect chance to display his energy and charisma, and he is helped by lavish sets and scenery that recreate the world of medieval England. Wallace Beery as King Richard also is a nice complement to Fairbanks. Later versions, such as the Errol Flynn version which is still the best of all the Robin Hood movies, had many resources available to them that this one didn't, but this older version works well and is more enjoyable than most of the more recent movies based on the legend.

The story and characters are familiar from many other books and movies. But it includes some interesting scenes that cover or add parts of the legend that are not in a lot of other versions - for example, about the first half of this movie takes place before any of the events in the Flynn movie. It makes it interesting to watch even if you've already seen plenty of other "Robin Hoods", and amongst other things it gives Beery as Richard a lot more screen time. It is acted in the somewhat exaggerated style of many of the silent melodramas of the era, but in this case that tone, while perhaps providing an occasional unintentional chuckle, fits rather well with the subject matter. It's also worth paying attention to the grand sets that were constructed for the film. They were apparently rather renowned in their day, and they still do a good job of evoking the right background. Overall, it was a very good film for its time and one worth watching today.

Fantastic production design which set the standard, and still probably does for Medieval epics. The Castle Fairbanks had constructed stone by stone, the costumes and the literal "cast of thousands" in the opening hour are second to none. Great attention to detail. The story itself however is half and half. Fairbanks was a great choice to play Robin Hood, it's just too bad we don't get to see him swing into action as the bandit of Sherwood until after a long, drawn-out first half concerning King Richard and Huntingdon (Robin) heading off for the Crusades. There is just too much time spent setting up how/why Huntingdon becomes Robin Hood to make it enjoyable as a purely Robin Hood movie. Errol Flynn's version improved on it by a mile in 1938, leaving out the fat and concerning itself only with Robin's adventures in Sherwood, and adding more heart and humor if not replicating the grand scale of pageantry depicted in this version.

Providing a link between both films, of course, is Alan Hale Sr. playing Little John. Again, his most preferable portrayal is in the '38 version. As far as other cast members, Wallace Beery is memorable as King Richard and Sam de Grasse is a perfectly snide Prince John. The other cast members are adequate enough.

The DVD edition of this film provides a very nice print and is well worth viewing if you enjoy old silents, or are a fan of the Robin Hood legend as I am. Many purists have complained about the musical soundtrack but not being an aesthete of Silent films myself I found it to be not too bad.

Not the classic version of Robin Hood on film but still, there are many things to like about it.

I have seen many Robin Hood-films and this is definitely one of the better ones. It has lavish production values and some great acting, notably by Wallace Beery (King Richard) and Douglas Fairbanks (Robin). I also liked Enid Bennett as Maid Marian. The one weak point is the plot, or rather, part of the plot. The film consists of two distinct parts of about equal length. The first concerns what most other Robin Hood picture treat at best in passing: the backstory that explains how the earl of Huntingdon becomes the eponymous outlaw. The second part is about the exploits of Robin and his merry men up to the return of King Richard. This part is excellent; it is fun and fast-paced. By contrast, the first half drags and fails to generate much suspense (on the upside, it offers Beery more screen time, and he is definitely worth watching). Still, I am rating this part 6 stars. The second half gets 8 stars, which gives me an average of 7. Good film, all in all, and definitely worth watching 100 years after it came out!