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?

[–] Helpfan65 12 years ago

Costner can spout off all he wants, but in the end there is only ONE Robin Hood and that is Errol Flynn, tights and all. And with legs like Flynn's I'll take those tights any day over Costner's outfit.

________________________________________
Get me a bromide - and put some gin in it!

[–] patabarca 12 years ago

Indeed Errol Flynn is the one and only Robin Hood. Kevin Costner won a Razzie for his portrayal of Robin Hood, and Christian Slayter was also nominated for his acting in the movie. How many times have you watched Costner's Robin Hood compared with Errol Flynn's Robin Hood? I've watched it a few times, but not nearly as many times as I've watched the classic.

Some simpleton said something about the classic coming out in the theaters now. The Adventures of Robin Hood is 75 years old! How many other 75 year olds have held up so well? (Gone With the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, and a few others.) The costumes are gorgeous, as are Errol Flynn's tight-clad legs. The music is wonderful. The acting is fine. All in all, this movie is superb.

[–] chiluvr1228 12 years ago

I watched this for the first time today and couldn't figure out if it was supposed to be a comedy or a drama? The costumes were ridiculous (check out "Robin Hood - Men in Tights"), the acting was silly and the entire movie was just lame.

I normally love old movies but this was just too campy for me.

[–] pol-edra 12 years ago

What other "old" movies have you watched and loved? Are you sure they can be compared to this one, i.e a medieval movie from the 30s?

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

[–] cwente2 12 years ago

chiluvr,

Sir (or Madam), . . . you sound as if you were weaned on a pickle.

[–] shred-com 11 years ago

This movie's great fun. It was nominated for Best Picture for a reason I might add. It moves at a great pace too.
It's not lame and it's not stupid.

[–] robble-1 11 years ago

This has always been one of my favorite movies. And it's much closer in spirit to the book than any of the others I've seen, although I also enjoy the Disney version.

I also enjoy Cary Elwes homage to Errol Flynn and this movie in Men in Tights.

Also, they knew how to film a sword fight in those days. These days, they think it's cool to get right on swords for a you are there, chaotic feeling and you can't get an appreciation for the choreography of the fight or the great sword moves. Super annoying.

There's something here that doesn't make sense. Let's go and poke it with a stick.-The Doctor

[–] pol-edra 11 years ago

Which book do you have in mind? I wasn't aware it was supposed to be an adaptation.

Agree with you on the choreography of the swordfights, it certainly has a lot of charm. Nowadays, therre's a lot of shaky-cam going on in swordfighting scenes, and it ends up being just messy. I love LOTR, but even I tire of the shaky-cam effects in some of the battle-scenes (the arrival of the goblins in Moria comes to mind). It makes me feel sea-sick and frustrated because I can't see a bloody thing.

"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."

[–] robble-1 11 years ago

Not sure which adaptation, I would have to go back and look. It was in a collection of other Reader's Digest Classics: King Arthur (from Le Morte D'Arthur), Tom Sawyer, selected Arabian Nights tales, and my personal favorite: The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood. May be by Howard Pyle. Not sure. That's just from trying to google it. It has lots of familiar tales that are echoed in the movie: such as how Robin meets Friar Tuck and Little John.

However, the part with Maid Marian is somewhat different; you get Alan A Dale's romantic story; Guy of Gisborne is more of a bounty hunter and quite dangerous; the movie ignores the knights putting Much in the skin of the deer he caught, which is quite painful and potentially lethal as the skin tightens around the victim as the day progresses. The book also recounts how Robin dies, which is quite sad.

There's something here that doesn't make sense. Let's go and poke it with a stick.-The Doctor

[–] SamoanJoes 9 years ago

I didn't look at the film as a comedy. I think Errol Flynn played the role terribly. The art-direction was okay but the entire movie is just a mess. The costumes looked unauthentic and too new, the fight choreography was too staged, title cards were coming up on screen to progress the story instead of developing it.

Really, it's an average film.

[–] vinidici 8 years ago

I think Errol Flynn played the role terribly.

Wow, are you EVER in the minority, with THAT assessment! Not that you're not entitled to your opinion, of course.

But pray tell, who else would do in 1938 for the role of Robin of Locksley? Got any other actor in mind?

I used to chat with a hateful troll on these boards (one of his sockpuppet usernames was JuanMacready) who posted and spewed all manner of evil against practically EVERY Old Hollywood star that ever was, INCLUDING Errol Flynn; but even HE granted that Flynn was the greatest of all Robin Hoods, would you believe that?

Secret Message, HERE!--->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!

[–] cwente2 11 years ago

"... it doesn't have to take itself THAT seriously."

No, it doesn't. The problem is, Hollywood today takes itself too seriously. We live in a grimmer by the day society. A shame.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nickm2 11 years ago

Wait...there are people who exist who 'slam' this movie?????

Unthinkable!

[–] MetFanMac 11 years ago

Well, considering that so far 1,525 IMDb users have rated this 4/10 and down... (For the record, the worst demographic is females under 18 with an average 7.5/10 score.)

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

[–] PoppyTransfusion 11 years ago

This film is what it is - a great romp in splendid technicolour. Everyone looks gorgeous and the costumes, especially Marion's, are fantastic. The good people are dashing and witty. The bad people take themselves far too seriously although I rather enjoyed Prince John and his dastardly sense of amusement!

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

[–] dailyshampoo48 11 years ago

People slam this movie because it's boring. The Mel Brooks version is the ultimate Robin Hood film.

[–] cwente2 11 years ago

Uh-huh.

[–] dailyshampoo48 11 years ago

no, I really mean that. at least the mel brooks version was entertaining.

[–] cwente2 11 years ago

Well . . . it takes all kinds to make a world. Some find a pie-eating contest "entertaining" -- others find the throwing-up afterwards more entertaining.

[–] dailyshampoo48 11 years ago

sorry to say reality tv has never succeeded in holding my attention. and you?

[–] lizcarlo87 11 years ago

People think everything has to be serious. If not its no good. I enjoy serious movies. I like light hearted ones as well. Its fun movie with comedy mixed in. The acting, costumes, color ect are excellent.