Robin des Bois

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/

...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.

The definitive version of Robin Hood will always be the Errol Flynn version to me. There are shortcomings to this 1922 film, it does take too long to get going and Wallace Beery for personal tastes plays Richard too broadly with the laughter overdone, but it is the second best of a mostly entertaining bunch of Robin Hood films. The film looks big and grand as well as lavish and detailed, one of the best-looking Douglas Fairbanks films, even without Technicolor it looks absolutely great. The music is appropriately rousing and really enhances the action, if admittedly not in the same league as Korngold's for the Errol Flynn film, which is one of the greatest films scores of all time as far as I'm concerned. The story is a lot of fun on the whole, the first 45 minutes or so are rather ponderous but once we get to Sherwood the pace really picks up without a single complaint really to be had. That we know more than any other version of how Robin Hood came to be is one of the film's biggest interest points. The action, while none as classic as the climatic sword-fight in the Flynn version, is hugely exciting and sometimes nail-biting, just love the game of conkers using the noblemen on ropes, and the stunts are just as dazzling. Douglas Fairbanks is as gallant and athletic as ever, showing a huge amount of charisma and bravado and an infectious smile. Enid Bennett is both charming and affecting as Maid Marion though with not a lot to do. Alan Hale's Little John here and in the Flynn film is unmatched, his imposing height(very true to character) helps while being hearty and loyal. Paul Dickey is appropriately loathsome as Guy of Gisborne, if not as much as Basil Rathbone, and William Lowery enjoys himself as the Sheriff of Nottingham. But other than Fairbanks the best performance comes from Sam de Grasse, whose snide and despicable nature as Prince John makes him a worthy predecessor to Claude Rains. Allan Dwan's direction has little fault as well. In conclusion, a terrific amount of fun and compares very favourably to the Robin Hood films out there, much of the Sherwood scenes are very imaginatively handled. 9/10 Bethany Cox

This early silent epic was actually the sixth version of the classic English fable to reach the screen, and it remains, even today, by far the biggest. Every shot is framed to highlight the extraordinary production design, which included a full-scale medieval castle built just off Santa Monica Blvd in Los Angeles, reportedly the largest set ever constructed for a motion picture. The film draws heavily on the romantic heritage of chivalry, and favors the origins of the character over his legendary exploits, following the Earl of Huntingdon (not Locksley, as in later films) into the Crusades, where he and King Richard are marked for death by the treacherous Sir Guy of Gisbourne. It isn't until the fourth (or fifth) reel that Douglas Fairbanks (in one of his definitive roles) finally exchanges his suit of armor for Robin's trademark feathered cap, and goes (literally) skipping through Sherwood Forest. Viewers more accustomed to the Errol Flynn archetype may find it an odd interpretation of the role, depicting Robin Hood as a girl-shy, over-age adolescent, liberated when he turns outlaw. And Fairbanks, always more acrobat than actor, all but dances through the part.

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!