dane11

I saw this movie a long time ago and parts of it really stuck with me, but I couldn't even remember the name until I came across it recently. I think, part of the effect of the movie was the sultry Marlene Dietrich, but what I didn't realize is that this movie is so full of atmosphere and rich in texture that it stays with you no matter who is in it. To be honest, most of the acting in this film is pretty wooden. Dietrich rises above all others with her ability to convey her feelings through the camera. More than anything, this film's look and feel are what really make this film work; and to some degree the lighting and directing aid Dietrich's acting. Joseph Von Sternberg directed this film about a group of passengers traveling via train during a Chinese civil war. The passengers all have their own stories, but none is as interesting as the story of Shanghai Lilly (Dietrich) and her romance with the British officer Captain "Doc" Harvey (Clive Brook). Von Sternberg uses light and shadow to highlight different characters and the character's feelings long before anyone else used this technique to such a large degree. There are marvelous images of Dietrich, Anna May Wong and Warner Oland as a rather mysterious and possibly sinister train passenger that really make this movie click. Film students should be required to see this movie for the simplicity of the story and the complexity of the filming. I'd like to say no scene is wasted, but there are a couple scenes that seemed extraneous. Overall though, this is a classic movie that was way ahead of it's time. I wasn't really familiar with Von Sternberg until I went back and watched this movie again. Now I own the DVD and I watch it periodically to remind myself of Dietrich's allure and Von Sternberg's masterful direction.

I need to tell you, I am a fan of Robin Hood. I read the stories of Robin Hood as a child/young adult. I've watched every Robin Hood movie and TV Show (TV Show's in re-runs, with the exception of When Things Were Rotten). Robin Hood is a character who is worthy of legend. He is a character that few can really compare to. And, after seeing Errol Flynn in green tights and cap, I realized, there would never be another Robin Hood.

The Adventures of Robin Hood, from Warner Brothers in glorious Technicolor is a visual masterpiece. From the green forests to the dark, castle of the would-be King, Prince John, the colors and textures really come to life. The excellent direction by Michael Curtiz allows the film to fire on all cylinders. But it is the character of Robin, portrayed by Flynn with a great smile and amazing athleticism that really wins over the viewer. We cannot deny that Flynn's smile will win over the heart of Maid Marian. Nor do we doubt when he casts his smile on his victims that they too would be overwhelmed by his charm and style. Flynn's Robin Hood is not threatening. Flynn's Robin Hood comes across as happy and carefree, fighting for what he believes in. When the time comes for Robin to be serious and fight it out with his enemies, we are equally drawn in, ready to believe that we're watching the greatest hero/anti-hero ever imagined.

No hero is complete without a great adversary. For Robin, his enemy has always been the Sheriff of Nottingham, but here we have, Sir Guy of Gisbourne, perfectly portrayed by Basil Rathbone. Naturally, Sir Guy takes his orders from Prince John, the great Claude Rains showing a slightly feminine side of a would-be-king. Prince John's associates are all evil and conniving, the Sheriff of Nottingham is played for laughs by Melville Cooper, allowing Sir Guy to be the really bad guy that hates Robin Hood.

There is too much about this movie to like -- Robin's "Merry Men" are robustly and warmly portrayed by Alan Hale, Patrick Knowles and Eugene Palette as Little John, Will Scarlet and Friar Tuck, respectively. The glorious Technicolor vision of Sherwood Forest and the complete cast of characters that includes the Una O'Connor in a fun role as Maid Marian's guardian. There is humor and action and, of course, romance as only old Hollywood could make it. Michael Curtiz deftly moves between humor and action with an amazing style so the view hardly notices the difference.

I've watched Douglas Fairbanks, Kevin Costner and Patrick Bergin try their hand at the character, I've watched the old TV series, the Disney cartoon and Mel Brooks satirical "Robin Hood: Men in Tights", right down to Ridley Scott's great retelling of the story with Russel Crowe. None of these compare to Errol Flynn in the Adventures of Robin Hood. Costner was way too wooden to be a true swashbuckler. Bergin was a little too uptight to be interesting. The TV show was... well, it was a 1950's TV show... Even Richard Lester's "Robin and Marian" falls a little short, though Connery is great as an older Robin Hood, complete with a winning, fun-loving smile. Flynn was fun and adventurous. We believe he could split the other archer's arrow. We believe that he could win the heart of Maid Marian and that his men would gladly follow him in to the Lion's den. We cheered for him because he was fun and he looked upon everything with a grin. We believe that he will protect the throne for good King Richard and save all of England, because we see that spark in his eyes telling us nothing is impossible.

I'm a huge fan of Robin Hood. If the old stories of Robin Hood did not make me a fan, Errol Flynn did. There will never be another Robin Hood to compare with what Flynn brought to the screen. If you're checking out the Kevin Costner Robin Hood or the Russel Crowe version, take a look at what Flynn did first and you will be amazed by what you see. Allow yourself to go back in time and meet this man who was charming and fun and so full of life that all would gladly follow him. You too will become a fan of Robin Hood -- and probably a fan of Errol Flynn.

I'll keep this simple -- this movie could have been great, but it wanted to be too much. It wanted to be epic, it wanted to be about friends and it wanted to be an anti-war movie and on top of that, it wanted to be about WWII and the underground work. I wanted to like this movie and while it's not impossible to watch, it is slow and plodding some times. This is a movie that really could have hit the audience hard, but it just kind of laid there instead.

We go through a long, long development of the relationship between the two main characters Charlize Theron and Stuart Townsend. This could have been story enough, but no, we have to follow them over a 10 or 15 year period and go all the way through WWII. Early on, we are introduced to Penelope Cruz who is a good friend to Theron's character. And from this we kind of slip into a pseudo-three-way that never fully develops. Then there is the Spanish Civil War that Cruz's character feels she must partake in as well as Townsend. Again, this could have been an interesting story all on its own. Finally, we get into WWII and it drags on and on and I started to lose interest in the characters and the story.

It's all just too much of a BIG story and, at the same time, not enough of a story to really hold our interest. The actors were okay, though sometimes I felt like Theron was just reading her lines. Townsend, for the most part fits the role, but other times he comes across as too modern for the time period.

There are a few twists and turns here that keep the viewer interested, but overall, its not as good as it could have been. A shorter version, about one of the many story lines could make this a really, really good film.