pweddell

Although the premise is the same the movie very much strays from the book. For example, how the group actually come to search for the lost city, how they get there. The colour of Ayesha's hair is black in the book and very Egyptian but in the film she is a blonde! And the Egyptain link is played down. If you are after a movie version of the book this is not it!

But as a film in its own right it does have its attractions (notably Ursula Andress). Fairly typical 1960s fare.

You could be cynical and suggest that this is an answer to 20th Century Fox's Cleopatra, although very much shorter of course.

Peter O'Toole gives a marvellous performance as a film director in this film which looks (to an extent) behind the scenes of movie making. I originally saw this one Sunday afternoon at the cinema and I remember how enthralled I was. There were a few surprises when something turned out to be something else like a model maybe. But it wasn't until I got the DVD that I realised there were many layers to the film.

The director had great difficulty with the studios in various stages of making the movie and although it was originally intended as an anti-Vietnam film, that had to be changed as production got further away from the war years. So although it may have lost something along the way it gained other things in the process. To my mind this makes it a stronger and more intriguing film.

If you watch the documentary that accompanies the DVD a lot is explained which you don't actually realise whilst watching the movie. Watch the film again and you will probably have a renewed interest. You will probably see it a little differently. It's not an Academy Award winner (and I don't think it should have been). But it's a drama, a romance, a comedy and a lot more besides. It has its fans and friends as well as detractors. I liked it and still see it as good fun.

As a film in itself this is OK but it strays very much from the Robin Hood story being one of the filmmakers themselves. The only real connection with Robin Hood is the name, the era and the fact that Hood robs the rich to give to the poor. Oh and he is an outlaw with the Sherrif of Nottingham after him. The events are very different. For example, Little John in the film is met with a band of outlaws behind him whereas the original story has him alone and on a bridge. Originally there were no tree houses and there was no one in the camp who was against Robin. There are many departures like this such that this is not a film for the true fan of Robin Hood.

As a film in itself it tends to be rather padded and a bit slow in places. The length of the film could have been cut to make it much tighter. The sword fights are rather tame compared to the 1938 version with Eroll Flynn. Visually, however, the film has its moments.