Robin Hood

Believe it or not but this isn't actually even the first Robin Hood movie ever made. Robin Hood movies already got made back in the 1910's both those movies are of course now days hard to come buy. This Robin Hood movie version was also presumed to be lost, until a print reappeared again somewhere in the '60's. It's the first Robin Hood adaptation though which featured many of the elements of the legend that would be featured in most later movie versions. So in many ways this was an unique and renewing movie for its time.

Still it's a slightly different movie version than you would expect for instance now days (we'll still have to wait how the Ridley Scott/Russell Crowe version will turn out to be though, if it ever gets off the ground). The difference is mostly notable in the movie its first halve, which focuses mostly on the crusades Earl of Huntingdon/Robin Hood with King Richard the Lion-Hearted ventures on. Basically the movie its first halve is one big introduction till the movie hits the point at which the Earl of Huntingdon finally becomes the courageous and honorable thief with the good intentions Robin Hood. This is also when the fun mostly kicks in.

The movie features some grand sets and mass sequences. It's a very detailed made movie, that looks perfect and spectacular in basically every shot, with its costumes, set dressing and large castles. The castle as featured in this movie is actually the largest ever built set in a silent Hollywood production. It also was the most expensive movie ever made at its time with its $1.4 million budget. The movie was also the first to get a large Hollywood release at its time, in the Grauman's Egyptian Theatre, which is still around now days.

It's a movie that very skillfully got directed by already very experienced director Allan Dwan, who during his career directed a total of 404 movies, starting in 1911 and ending his career in 1961. He even directed plenty more films (about 3 times as much), when also considering his one-reeler's. He could had directed plenty of more movies though, when considering that he didn't died until 1981. But he must had probably been fed up with film-making or modern film-making anyway. He directed mostly adventurous and swashbucklers, so he truly was a perfect pick for this movie. It was the last movie he did with Douglas Fairbanks. They made a total of 11 movies together, of which this one and "The Iron Mask" are the best known ones which they did together.

It stars Douglas Fairbanks as the main lead, so of course this movie is a swashbuckler with plenty of action in it but what sort of disappointed me about the movie was that it wasn't really always an entertaining one. It seems to me that the movie is a bit too serious at times, instead of adventurous, entertaining and action filled. The movie is often more emotional and dramatic than fun to watch really. This is mostly why I still prefer the 1938 Errol Flynn Robin Hood movie version above this one, no matter how great it's all looking.

It's really the movie its second halve which still makes this such a fun movie to watch. The story becomes more light and even a bit comical. It's fun seeing Robin Hood being chased around in a castle by a bunch of soldiers. Of course Douglas Fairbanks was doing all of his own stunts again and he shows some dangerous antics again in this movie, like only he could back in his days. The movie is quite long though and the movie just never gets fully over its contract between its first and second halve.

A wonderful looking and great, yet really not perfect, swashbuckling entertainment from the 1920's.

8/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

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!

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!

Watching Robin Hood today, I realized that I had seen it in the only venue for it to be shown, on the big screen with organ accompaniment. A film like Robin Hood loses so much on the small tube.

It was one of the most expensive films ever done during the silent era, the castle set for King Richard the Lion Hearted must have been cost a mint or two. But given the popularity of Douglas Fairbanks, probably at the height of his career, the producer knew they'd get their money back and then some. The producer being Fairbanks himself had infinite faith in his prowess at the box office.

Alan Hale made the first of three appearances as Little John in various Robin Hood films. He was also Little John with Errol Flynn in the Adventures of Robin Hood and with John Derek in Rogue of Sherwood Forest. Little John here has a very extensive and different part, Hale is first seen as Fairbanks's squire before circumstances force Doug into outlawry.

Fairbanks is the Earl of Huntingdon, favored knight of Richard the Lion Hearted. But the usual Robin Hood villains Sir Guy of Gisborne and Prince John are doing their worst. John as played by Sam DeGrasse covets his brother's throne and Gisborne played by Paul Dickey has designs on Lady Marian Fitzwalter (Enid Bennett) beloved of Fairbanks.

Fairbanks and Dickey go along on the Crusade with DeGrasse left to mind the store and steal the kingdom. Fairbanks gets word about the stuff John's pulling from Lady Marian and tries to leave. King Richard imprisons him for desertion. Of course Fairbanks escapes and the real meat of the film begins.

All the sidebar stories about the various characters among the Merry Men join Robin are not included in this film. Fairbanks and Hale escape and go back to England where he becomes the legendary Robin Hood.

Wallace Beery is a most unusual Richard. He's quite the merrymaking king indeed. Of course the closest Richard has been played in real life is by Anthony Hopkins in The Lion in Winter.

Millions throughout the world fell under the sway of Doug's charm and athleticism. This Fairbanks film as did the others he made had a great message about right coming out on top, good triumphing over evil and good embodied in the clean living physical specimen of Douglas Fairbanks.

It's hard to imagine, but in the silent screen era as in no other, movie stars were placed on a pedestal as they aren't now. Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford were the closest thing to royalty we had in America. Tom Cruise&Katie Holmes, Brad Pitt&Angelina Jolie, don't rate anything close to those two. They even lived in a magic castle known the world over as Pickfair. Mary lived in it in fact until she died in 1979 after the fairy tale marriage fell apart in the more sobering decade of the Thirties.

I could not have had the experience of Robin Hood that I did had I not seen the film at a special screening in Shea's Theater in my city of Buffalo. The musical score as played by a live orchestra in some places or even the single organist as the audience heard in this case. Andrew Wos, who is president of the Buffalo Chapter of the American Theater Organ Society played his own score in accompaniment to the film. I asked him afterward whether he was playing the original score from Robin Hood and he said it was his own composition. If it wasn't the original score, it should have been. He told me that it was easier for him to do his own score than learn something else.

Hopefully this score will accompany even a television viewing of Robin Hood to heighten your experience. And you will get some idea in watching Robin Hood as to why Douglas Fairbanks was the ideal man of his times.

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.