MovieChat Forums > The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) Discussion > Why do people slam this movie?

Why do people slam this movie?

posted 14 years ago by angmc43
60 replies | jump to latest

I had fallen in love with this movie back in the spring of 1991, right when the Kevin Costner version came out. Costner quoted about his distaste for '38's 'feathered caps and green tights' and other people sided with the view that the original film, with its Technicolor and romantic depiction was not serious enough compared to PRINCE OF THIEVES. I remember clashing with my siblings, who thought Costner's version was cooler (Whatever...)
And recently, Ridley Scott also slammed the original versions because they deviated from authenticity and portrayed Robin as some dainty Technicolor fop.
I feel this criticism is unfair. It's not like Warner Brothers made some mistake in treatment. This was one of their first Technicolor films, and so wanted to use the color at its best potential. And their source were romantic storybook with their lush illustrations of Knights, maidens, and Robin Hood. They were not looking for historical accuracy (which brings up the question: should Robin Hood- with his unrealistic distribution of wealth and atmosphere of fun & adventure- be treated in a real-life fashion?); they were making a movie, not a history lesson.
Furthermore, the backlash is a disservice to Flynn's performance. Yes, green tights and a feathered cap is a ridiculous getup to take seriously...BUT Flynn makes it work! That he does make it work shows REAL talent, and makes his Robin cooler than Costner's (that guy's talents had better use in modern-day roles). I could bet Russel Crowe would have been just as successful with a feathered cap! So what's the deal?

[–] PillowRock 14 years ago

The deal is that you are talking about people who have a vested interest (monetarily) in getting as many people as possible to pay to see their new movie.

So, it pays them (literally) to make theirs appear to be THE must-see version of Robin Hood.

That means that they have an ulterior motive to make the 1938 version seem to be inferior to their new version in some way.

[–] cabbageboy316 14 years ago

The irony is that Costner's film flat out sucks and no one likes it anymore, it being a sad relic of the ultra PC early 90s. And the new one doesn't even look good now.

[–] irishaspaddyspig 14 years ago

I'll take Flynn's dashing daring-do over Costner's laconic, California surf-dude any day. And I'm a Costner fan.

"a malcontent who knows how to spell"

[–] PoppyTransfusion 11 years ago

The Costner film will never be a relic thanks to Alan Rickman.

I'm not trying to break your heart,
I'm just trying hard not to fall apart

[–] mathknapp 14 years ago

Oh, let's face it. A movie like the '38 Robin Hood, if released today, would be considered a bad comedy. Think of the recent rash of comic book/superhero movies. Why doesn't Wolverine where the gaudy yellow outfit in the movies? It would look ridiculous. In today's era people are more concerned with realism and want to make action/adventure movies that have a dark side, a mature complex side, and can be taken seriously.

This version is too fun for today. The costuming IS ridiculous. Some of the dialogue IS ridiculous. The action scenes are NOT realistic, and often cut away from parts instead of giving the "good show" (ex. arrows appearing in someone's chest without ever seeing blood, hearing a scream, or seeing the attacker).

Now, please don't mistake me. I liked this movie a lot. I can see the influence of this movie on modern day films. The tone and pace of this movie are matched by only a few action/adventure movies (Star Wars Ep. 4, the first three Indiana Jones films, perhaps the first Pirates of the Caribbean (but not the sequels)). It's a great show, and especially when you consider when it was made, I think that modern day criticisms of the movie didn't apply in that era. And I would have to think that someday, the pendulum will swing again, and people will criticize this era of film for trying to be so serious about such a ridiculous premise (as in a movie like The Dark Night or, from what I understand though I haven't seen it yet, District 9), and wonder why they didn't make films that were more lighthearted and enjoyable.

I think (as with so many things on IMDB boards ... why do I bother posting here?) the ony people that would really slam this movie are closed minded people that have expectations of what a movie should be set in stone, and don't want to hear other ideas. Someone coming here and saying they didn't like the Errol Flynn version for the above reasons I'm OK with. Someone coming in for those reasons and calling the movie trash needs to get a life.

[–] PrestF4 14 years ago

I actually think this movie is a better portrayal of Robin Hood then more recent attempts. Robin Hood was a series of legends, not an historical figure. He was a whimsical trickster who laughed in the face of danger, neither Costner nor Crowe meet that standard.

Anyways, the bottom line is this movie was well made. The dialogue is clever even if campy by today's standards, the score was magnificent, the action sequences were very large for the day (if not gory enough for some) and the acting in my opinion is superb. I would watch any movie that had either Errol Flynn, Basil Rathbone or Claude Raines in it, all three in the same movie is spectacular.

[–] mathknapp 14 years ago

Agreed. The movie is "good" because it's a good movie. If you take the other view, the movie is "bad" because it's dated. That is in some way limiting, but it doesn't undo all the good stuff in this film.

[–] PillowRock 14 years ago

This version is too fun for today.

I find this to be a ludicrous statement.

"Fun will not be tolerated in our movie theaters."

"You must not plan on having any fun while watching a movie."

It sounds like the world is being run by Burgermeister Meisterburger and the movie theaters now all exist in Sombertown.

[–] DodgersRule 14 years ago

Not to mention, Flynn and DeHavlin had a WONDERFUL romantic chemistry. She more then any of his other leading ladies -- of course, it helped that they both had a crush on one another too.

[–] mathknapp 14 years ago

I think you are taking me too literally there. Of course movies today are allowed to be fun. But take a look at action/adventure style movies that are popular/critically acclaimed these days. The Dark Knight. District 9. Inception. Avatar. Are these escapist, light-hearted films? Or are they films that try to set the action adventure amidst a serious setting and attempt to make larger statements on society, politics, morality? Of the 4 I mentioned, Avatar is the only one that comes close to the former.

Now, look at recent films that are similar in tone to RH. The Sorceror's Apprentice. Knight and Day. National Treasure. These movies tend to get lukewarm critical response and have lukewarm box office results. Certainly none of these movies were flops or total disasters. National Treasure movies have had reasonable commercial success, but they are easily watched and easily forgotton.

The old Robin Hood was an excellent film, but it's lighthearted style is not one that is currently in fashion with critics or viewers for its genre of movie. That's what I meant.

Oh, and excellent Burgermeister Meisterburger reference, by the way.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Phillip Marlowe 13 years ago

I find the statement that the 1938 action sequences are less realistic than such scenes in modern movies to be both ironic and amusing. While surely using various tricks, cheats, clever editing, and crude (by today's standards) photographic effects, the stunts in 1938 by and large were done practically--i.e., they were done for real by stuntmen (and often by Flynn himself). Modern action sequences (with some exceptions--Fast Five's stunts were supposedly done practically) are virtually animated movies produced with CGI.

[–] MitchConnor24 12 years ago

Great username and great comment. I totally agree with you, I love watching the old historical epics because the stunts are amazing. Whilst I also like modern action movies that implement CGI, I think stunts like those seen in the films Stagecoach, Robin Hood and Ben Hur are much more of an accomplishment.

I only saw this film for the first time yesterday. I'm a big fan of the Costner version, which I find really fun. But Errol Flynn is the quintessential Robin Hood. I never saw the 1950's series or Robin of Sherwood, but always grew up with the theme song, so don't know how they compares. Never seen the Sean Connery or Russell Crowe films either, don't intend to really, would rather watch Flynn or Costner again.

[–] PillowRock 12 years ago

The Connery film Robin and Marion is worth checking out some time. It's really not the same story at all. It's all set 20 or 25 years later when the principals are all pushing 50 and confronting middle age.

Besides, there are limits as to how wrong you can go when the top 4 billed actors are Sean Connery, Audrey Hepburn, Robert Shaw, and Richard Harris ........ even if it turns out that the only thing has going for it is watching that group act opposite each other.

[–] this_is_the_way_the_world_ends 14 years ago

ha, it's funny. I LOVED prince of theives. But while I was watching this I thought, Kevin Costner's great, but he's no Errol Flynn.

Who would I pick to be an "Errol Flynn" today? Johnny Depp and Dennis Quaid for magnetism, talent and sex appeal. (But then I'm 35, so these aren't exactly newbies)

_______
The night Max wore his wolf suit and made mischief of one kind and another

[–] MetFanMac 14 years ago

I'd say either Depp or Leonardo DiCaprio (provided the latter's athletic enough).

Supermodels...spoiled stupid little stick figures mit poofy lips who sink only about zemselves.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] joe_538 11 years ago

Ewan McGregor. He's English and he's done a swashbuckler or two.

[–] cdunbar-3 14 years ago

I completely agree with your point of view and take issue with those who judge a 1938 film by 2010 standards. A more educated response would be to judge it by the standards of the day, which puts a film in its proper context. Adventures of Robin Hood was a hit when released despite its imperfections, which were as visible then as they are now. Yesterday I watched the Russell Crowe version and was dissapointed. Crowe was too old to portray Robin Hood in his pre-Hood days...but I guess that sentiment belongs in another post.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Vanessa248 13 years ago

I want to watch this old version again if i can find it. I don't like kevin costner's version or russel crowe's.

* Natural vitamins http://www.naturalcholesterolsupplements.com *

[–] alywin 13 years ago

It's as daft as trying to claim that Laurence Olivier's Henry V is a poorer version than Kenneth Branagh's because it's less authentic. They're both of their time: it's just that we don't make them that way any more.

[–] BatStarIndyFreak 13 years ago

In 1938 'talkies' had begun only about a decade ago, and many movie goers still had stage plays fresh in their mind. It was only natural that a period piece like this take the 'Shakespearean' approach to dialogue. I myself am quite the sucker for that when it flows right and we get some good (pardon my Bugs Bunny/Yosemite Sam) "fightin' words." So this movie was just the thing for me. I'll admit that movie made in the same fashion would not feel the same, because it's easy for me to put myself into the mentality of the given movie era. I've been wanting to watch Costner's 'Hood' as of late, because it's been almost 20 years since I last watched it, but I remember liking it and wonder, as my taste in movies has evolved, if I would still like it. I was forewarned before watching Crowe's not expect the same familiar flavor as had been depicted before, but when I watched it it didn't even feel like I needed that warning. The backstory was interesting, and seemed fitting for the character of Robin Hood, and had enough longbow action, and swashbuckling to feel in the right spirit. And while Norman kings did have contempt for the Saxons in that they did not like the English language--there's a reason Tom Cruise didn't speak German in 'Valkyrie.'

But yes, overall this one is my favorite Robin Hood movie.

[–] TheRedEyedMonster 12 years ago

It hasn't aged that well I think. It's still a classic though, they don't make movies like this anymore. I'd just like to add that thank god that "most homoerotic movie ever" topic I made got deleted, I'm so embarrassed by that you have no idea....

----------------------------
Rise Dopethrone. Rise.