A fun 'B' swashbucker


This is kind of a fun "B" level swashbuckler- yet another twist on the Robin Hood story. It is sort of a sequel to the Flynn film, in some ways. Though made at a different studio- Columbia- than the famous 1938 film, it continues the story, in some ways. The Flynn Robin was set in 1189, when Prince John was sitting in for his absent brother, King Richard the Lionheart. This film takes the story to 1215, when John is now king, and causing more trouble for the English citizenry. He is quarreling with the English nobility, too, and is eventually forced to sign the Magna Carta. Real history mixed in with fanciful Hollywood history. John Derek is the new Earl of Huntington, the 'son of Robin Hood,' and takes up where his father left off. No mention is made of Robin Sr.'s fate, but we presume he has passed on. The Merrie Men are still alive and well, though, and they re-unite to help the new Robin. They return to Sherwood Forest, and carry on as before.

One of the reasons I wanted to see this film is because Alan Hale plays Little John, for the third time. Everyone knows that he played the role in the Douglas Fairbanks film in 1922, and the Flynn version in 1938. Here he is again, and still in high spirits. I believe it was Hale's last film, as he died early in 1950, and it's nice to see that he went out with a spirited last performance. Hale has always been one of my favorite Old Hollywood character actors, as he always gave entertaining and amusing performances. He's good here, too, though not quite as good as he was in the classic "The Adventures of Robin Hood." It would be nigh impossible to match any of the performances in that definitive, classic version of the tale, however.

Lester Matthews, who plays Alan-a-Dale, was also in the Flynn version, playing one of the knights, Sir Ivor. He has a much bigger part here. The other famous Merrie Men are played by different actors. Will Scarlet has morphed from handsome, Flynn look-a-like Patric Knowles, into rotund, comedic Billy Bevan. Quite a shift in characters! In the Flynn film, he was sort of a second lead, but here he's more the comedy relief. Friar Tuck is played by Billy House, who is pretty good, but absent the great growly voice of Eugene Pallette. You can't complain, though, as it IS only a movie, and they did the best they could with a "B" level budget, and available actors.

I think George Macready is good as King John. He always made a wonderful villain, and he doesn't disappoint here. Claude Rains is still the definitive John, it seems to me, but, again, these are different movies. I kind of like how they have continued the story, with him now in charge. I always felt a little unsettled when Good King Richard (Ian Hunter) banished John at the end of the 1938 film, with the words, "I banish you from England for the remainder of my lifetime," or words to that effect. I always thought that Richard screwed up with "for the remainder of MY lifetime." Big mistake, as that is exactly what happened, and, unfortunately, John outlived Richard, so he then became king. Those lines always made me feel that the situation was never completely resolved. As these were historical figures, they couldn't kill John off, but it does make you feel that Richard should have been less understanding of his troublesome brother. I read somewhere that Warners had thought of making a sequel to the Flynn film, and perhaps they had that in mind with those lines. Sort of a Darth Vader thing. Though history tells us that that is what happened, so they really couldn't do it any other way, I guess.

The people who made this film must have studied the Flynn film very carefully, as many of the shots are set up the same way, and the Sherwood Forest action scenes could come right out of that earlier film. The way the Merrie Men jump out of the trees onto the King's troops, the way Derek swings down on a vine, just like Errol did, etc. Almost shot-for-shot recreations. And the music sometimes sounds like it's trying to become Korngold. As Flynn's movie is generally accepted as the definitive version of the story, they couldn't have chosen better source material.

Derek is pretty good, I think, and really looks the part. And he jumps around, swings out of trees, and flashes a sword with the best of them. He looks like he could be the son of Errol, with the mustache, hands on hips, and spry movements. I think his American accent detracts a little from his performance, however. There were other Americans in the various film versions- Alan Hale, Eugene Pallette, etc., but somehow their accents/voices didn't seem out of place. Derek has a very distinctive American accent, which makes him a little less effective. But he's still pretty good, and has real flair.

I enjoyed the film a lot. Not a real classic, but a good second-tier version of the story. The color, costumes and sets are excellent, and it has lots of fine actors. And you get Alan Hale playing Little John for the third time.

reply