It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Yes to every single word of you.
Thinking of watching it but thinking also ...not.
https://www.ladybirdeducation.co.uk/ladybird-books/robin-hood/
...and read it by myself. It has an episodic feel, but I enjoyed it.
Will watch this ASAP. It looks vaguely familiar.
On a side note, am I the only one that gets irritated when Robin Hood doesn't wear Lincoln green in an adaptation?
No i think it's different. It's pretty much the ancestor of camo colour.
Whatever that may be.
Robin Hood 1922 Douglas Fairbanks
Fairbanks invented parkour without even knowing it.
Impressive and inventive display of athleticism from the great swashbuckler, but being a silent movie can make it a tough watch for the modern viewer.
Alan Hale plays Little John, as he would again over a decade later.
The Adventures Of Robin Hood 1935 Errol Flynn
Still the benchmark for any Robin Hood movie. in colour when that wasn't a common thing and starring Errol Flynn at his most charismatic.
Basil Rathbone as Guy of Gisbourne, Olivia de Havilland as Marion, Claude Rains as Prince John, Eugene Pallette as Friar Tuck... everyone defines their character for future generations to follow
The Bandit Of Sherwood 1946 Cornel Wilde
Very respectable Flynn imitation, in bright colour
The Black Arrow 1948 Louis Hayward
Robin Hood in all but name, another respectable Errol Flynn clone
The Rogue Of Sherwood Forest 1950 John Derek
Another sold effort, this time featuring the future husband of the once infamous Bo Derek (10).
A now visibly aged Alan Hale makes his record third (and final) appearance as Little John.
For variety Robin gets to do some jousting in his Earl Of Huntington alter ego
The Story Of Robin Hood 1952 Richard Todd
The UK finally gets to make a decent big budget colour version of their own folk hero, thanks to financial assistance from Disney.
James Roberston Justice makes for an impressive Little John, Alan-a-Dale gets a more prominent role than usual, as he is played by an actual guitarist in Elton Hayes, Peter Finch plays the Sheriff and there are plenty of other quality UK character actors on board.
The Adventures Of Robin Hood 1955-59 Richard Greene
I enjoyed seeing repeats of it as a kid
Robin Hood 1973 an animated Fox
Fine for a cartoon from 1973
Robin & Marion 1976 Sean Connery
Before he played "Old James Bond" he played "Old Robin Hood" with Audrey Hepburn as maid Marion. A completely different take altogether and very good
Robin Of Sherwood 1984-86 Michael Praed / Jason Connery
A very different take, with mystical, hippy, druidy elements and accompanying sound track by Clannad.
Ray Winstone plays Will Scarlett and the show is the first to feature a Saracen character as one of the Merry Men.
Robin Hood - Prince Of Thieves 1991 Kevin Costner
On the whole I enjoy it, because it has the right swashbuckling spirit of fun.
Alan Rickman is outstanding. They come up with a plausible scenario for including a significant black character and Morgan Freeman does an excellent job in the role (a Muslem traveller in Western Europe, particularly one returning in the company of a Crusader, is highly unlikely but perhaps not entirely impossible). Costner is... himself and Christian Slater is... awful.
Robin Hood 2010 Russell Crowe
Ridley and Rascal try to come up with a new angle and fail miserably.
The original plot is completely abandoned, actual historical events are bastardised in it's place and we get Socialist Robin Hood.
Inserting modern ideas into the head of medieval men is very distasteful to me. Re-interpreting history to fit a modern political agenda is not helpful.
We need to learn from history and understand what actually happened, not try and rewrite it to fit what we might like it to be now. The man who saved England from the French and ensured the propogation of the Magna Carta was William Marshall and it's about time someone made a decent movie or mini series about him.
Robin Hood 2018 Taron Edgerton
In which Jamie Foxx trys to combine Little John and Morgan Freeman into one.
Otherwise another example of ignoring everything that made the original story the legend that it is and substituting a completely different plot, seemingly stealing elements from other storys like the Scarlett Pimpernel, Zorro, The Three Musketeers, The Karate Kid etc
Dreadful
The Death Of Robin Hood ???? Hugh Jackman
"Robin Hood grapples with his past life of crime and murder while in the hands of a mysterious woman after being critically injured."
Sounds like a complete betrayal of the legend
Appalling!
I do remember another filmed version which was overshadowed by Costners film, starring Patrick Bergin as Robin and Uma Thurman as Marian, which wasn't bad! I dislike Costners film for a lot of reasons, one of which is that bloody awful song that was played everywhere!!!!
Yes I hate the Costner film too. Terrible soppy theme song, a cowardly Robin Hood, rigged with gross historical inaccuracies, the list goes on.
And can someone explain to me how the sheriff of Nottingham can even hope to become King of England, even as an usurper?
Ask William the Conqueror?
Simon de Montfort nearly pulled it off
Roger Mortimer also came close
William the Conqueror actually had claims to the throne. He believed it was his by right. Roger Mortimer had no claims, but was the de facto ruler in part because he was the lover of the Queen, but Edward III was still king. Simon de Montfort I don't know enough about him to comment, but in any case, what's the context in Prince of Thieves? Does the unnamed Sheriff come off as even a mildly competent ruler, competent warlord, or a Machiavellian schemer? I never bought that.
IMHO you're over thinking it, it's only a movie, but for the sake of discussion
Do you know what the Sheriff's lineage was?
Perhaps he got his Sheriff job because he was a relative of the King?
Simon married a daughter of the King, that was his ticket to the ball
As you mention, Roger hoped to eventually marry the Queen in order to cement his spot
William was an illegitimate son, which is a pretty shaky claim
"The Sheriff's agenda is apparently to supplant Richard the Lionheart by marrying into royalty, eventually becoming king, or at least ensuring his future descendants would assume the throne. He is the leader of a cult of Devil Worshipers, that include several English barons who would support his claim, if successful."
But you're right, it's only a movie, and certainly not one that claims to be historically accurate.
There you go, he was following the Simon de Montfort blueprint
It's not exactly stated though. There's mention of Marion being related to Richard, but it's in passing. Also, I had forgotten the Devil Worshipper bit, which was utterly ridiculous.
As I said you're way over thinking it
Going into detail about what William or Roger ot Simon did is beside the point, I only sited them as examples of men who tried to usurp the throne despite not having a strong personal blood connection, which makes Sheriff Alan Rickman's scheme acceptably plausible for a Robin Hood movie IMO.
I'm very much in favour of historical accuracy, but although RH has a historical setting, it's still a folk legend designed for entertainment, like King Arthur's knights of the round table, and so I don't think it should be held to the same standard of accuracy as a film about say, Richard 1 or Henry V.
Except it's not overthinking: it's a plot hole that isn't even a little bit lampshaded. I can appreciate that a folk legend doesn't have to be 100% historically accurate, but the amount of mistakes are a bit glaring. I mean, Pagan Celts in Scotland? The sheriff as a Devil worshipping cultist? Please.
Yes. I think in the end, it has to feel genuine, even if it isn't. Richard Lionheart is judged far more severely by historians than his legend would let you believe. He barely spent any time in England, in fact he probably didn't speak English. He was a valiant Knight, but anyway aloof ruler at best. But of course I'd expect him to be seen in a much kinder light in the legend of Robin Hood.
IMO only by those modern historians who choose to judge Richard by current morale standards, rather than by the standards of the time in which he lived. Reinterpreting past history to suit a modern agenda will always be wrong.
As with most media, we all have to try and read a cross section of views and then make up our own minds.
Personally I regard Richard as a great medieval King. He spoke French and was raised to be Duke of Aquitaine, while his brother, Henry the young King was intended to rule England. His family came from Norman France but did not arrive with William, they remained in Anjou. Perhaps he was not a great King of England per se, but that should not be taken in isolation, he ruled over half of France as well as England, so had other priorities to juggle, as well as those of his Christian faith, which should not be dismissed or under estimated by modern secular scholars.
Maybe I didn't express myself very well, because I was not referring to modern morality used as a framework to judge olderI'm a medievalist (although specialised in Arthurian literature, not history), so I understand the importance of context when analysing this time period. But depicting Richard Lionheart as this emblematic figure of English patriotism is pretty much pure fantasy. But it works in the context of the Robin Hood legend.
Robin meeting up with Richard is only an incidental event so I have no problem with it
Nor with fictional stories like "Ivahoe" or "20 Years After" (the Dumas novel), which involve more significant events but do not seek to fundamentally change them in a misleading way.
Where I dislike it is in films like the Ridley Scott / Rascal Crowe version, where they bring in pivotal historical events that fall outside of the Robin Hood legend, like the Magna Carta and the the French invasion of 1216.
In the movie
"Robin proposes that King John agree to a charter of rights to ensure the rights of every Englishman and to unite his country."
"As the main French expeditionary force begins its invasion of England on a beach below the cliffs of Dover, Robin leads the now united English army against them."
"In London, King John reneges on his promise to sign the charter and declares Robin an outlaw to be hunted throughout the kingdom. Marian narrates their new life in the greenwood, noting that they live in equality as they right the many wrongs in the kingdom of King John."
In real life
"The Arch Bishop of Canterbury Stephen Langdon became a leader in the struggle against King John. Stephen's energetic leadership and the barons' military strength forced John to grant his seal to Magna Carta."
"Upon the death of King John, William Marshal was named by the king's council to serve as protector of the nine-year-old King Henry III, and regent of the kingdom."
"In spite of his advanced age (around 70) he prosecuted the war against Prince Louis and the rebel barons with remarkable energy. In the battle of Lincoln he charged and fought at the head of the young King's army, leading them to victory. He was preparing to besiege Louis in London when the war was terminated by the naval victory of Hubert de Burgh in the straits of Dover."
"Self-restraint and compromise were the keynotes of Marshal's policy, hoping to secure peace and stability for his young liege. Both before and after the peace of 1217 he reissued Magna Carta, in which he is a signatory as one of the witnessing barons."
Not all silents are tough sledding--some are livelier than modern films--but the 1922 Robin Hood is slower and longer than many of Fairbanks' other swashbucklers, such as The Mark of Zorro, The Black Pirate, The Thief of Baghdad, The Iron Mask, etc. I prefer all those to his Robin Hood, which I rewatched recently. It's a good but flawed film.
Fairbanks was initially more interested in making a film about King Richard and the Crusades and the movie reflects that. Like a lot of modern superhero films, Robin Hood spends too much time on the origin story, giving us too much of King Richard and his bromance with the Earl of Huntington. We have to sit through the slow set-up of Richard preparing to leave for the crusades while Sir Guy and Prince John plot behind his back.
None of the good stuff we expect from a Robin Hood story occurs until after the half-way point. There's not enough of Sherwood forest, and the sheriff of Nottingham is an afterthought (he's introduced three times in the intertitles, in case we've forgotten what he looks like). Maid Marian is a simpering near-non-entity.
The film comes to life when Robin Hood slides down the endless castle tapestry, which decorates what might be the largest set ever built for a motion picture. Director Allan Dwan was a skilled pro, and with cinematographer Arthur Edeson he created captivating shots of the characters interacting with (or getting dwarfed by) the gargantuan sets. Robin Hood is at least a masterpiece of art direction. The film was released on Blu-Ray by Cohen Media a year or so ago and can be streamed on Kanopy.
Incidentally, Fairbanks was not only the first and greatest movie action hero, but also an influence on James Bond. In YOLT Bond has "a flashback to one of the old Douglas Fairbanks films" that allows him to escape from Blofeld's imploding castle.
Up to recent times Richard was often dismissed by as a bad king, but the publication of John Gillingham's definitive biography (first in 1978, followed by a revised edition in 2002) marked a change in historian's assessments. Richard's reputation was very good through the middle ages and then suffered in the early modern period, when he was judged in more nationalistic terms. But England was just one part of the Angevin empire and Richard was often away from it because he had to defend parts more at risk from foreign enemies. He left England in the good hands of carefully chosen administrators and took care of the things medieval kings were expected to do, like defending the realm and going on crusades. Unfortunately his incompetent brother John proved a poor successor and lost many of the Angevin holdings. Not surprisingly, John's reputation has always been in the toilet, regardless of period.
It probably was. That said, I think the worst Robin Hood was probably the BBC, an absolute comedy of errors: a modern take (the first of many BBC offenders), cheap look, amateurish fights, Guy of Gisburn played by a a better looking and more charismatic actor than the lead, as fit Friar Tuck...