Too hokey for serious analysis?

I preety much disagree or am sceptical with everything you just said, but especially with your second point: I don't know many 10 year olds who are into old-fashioned movies. They've seen far better swordfights in LOTR.

"Sometimes I'm callous and strange."

There is nothing wrong with a little bit of Hokey-ness in my opinion. I do enjoy this film alot and no i did not see it when i was 10 and i don't enjoy it just for the sword fights (although you have to admit they still look good even today). It is fun, colourful, brash, totally camp and over the top but awesomely so. I agree it is not Flynn, de Havilland, Rathbone or Raines finest performances but enjoyable nonetheless.






A Freudian slip is when you mean one thing, but you say your mother

My suspicion is actually the opposite. That many of those giving it a 10 are movie buffs appreciating the history.

I watched this movie for the first time last night, and I have to agree with you ... it is pure escapism and it is rather hokey. But now try to imagine what this movie was like 70 years ago! I can see so many cliches in this movie that probably became cliches because of this movie. The 1-on-100 fight scenes, the use of tables and candlesticks, and anything else in the fight, the witty banter during exciting scenes, the was people meet as enemies, fight and turn into best friends. These are staples now of superhoero movies, of Indiana Jones, of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Heck, of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, which is old in and of itself.

Not all of the movie has aged well (your criticisms definitely have merit), but its a fun fun ride and an influential one at that.

"This movie is pure escapism, nothing more."

So what? What's wrong with escapism? That was the purpose of this film when it was made, and it does a wonderful job accomplishing what it sets out to do.

"It just doesn't hold up to repeated viewings."

For whom? You? You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but many people, including myself, find it one of those movies that can be watched over and over again.

"I would bet that almost all of those who are giving this movie a 10 rating ..."

I am a middle-aged man, not a "youngster", and my like for this film has nothing to do with getting "excited watching a sword fight". It's a classic technicolor film from the golden age of Hollywood that was very lushly and richly photographed, and some fine performances by the cast (especially Basil Rathbone). I find your remark rather snide and patronizing.

I know a poster who has an on-again, off-again thing with IMDb ( translation: he keeps getting banned for trollish behavior!) and is known for "hating on" almost every "Old Hollywood" actor, including Errol Flynn.

But even THAT guy concedes there has never been a Robin Hood flick since 1938 that can touch "The Adventures of Robin Hood!"

As for my own "IMO," the only other version of Robin Hood I rank above 6-out-of-10 is the old '50's British TV series (starring Richard Greene), the re-runs of which, they used to air in syndication here in the US when I was a kid.

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

Plenty of the "old" Hollywood movies, particularly the adventure/action ones like this one, were hokey escapism--and insofar as they are immensely entertaining, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

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

It's still one of the best films ever made in my book. I first saw it 45 years ago or so. I give it a 10.

What we have here is failure to communicate!

There are plenty of purely escapist films made today and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Its still a tremendously entertaining film, as its supposed to be. It can be analyzed just as much as Star Wars, Indiana Jones, or any other number of "hokey" but highly fun flicks.