The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)

We interrupt the impromptu tour through the movies of Martin Scorsese to bring you this golden oldie from 1938 - Errol Flynn in the vivaciously colorful The Adventures of Robin Hood. And now for something completely different...

Having previously enjoyed the 2010 Ridley Scott/Russell Crowe rendition of the Robin Hood legend, I retreated to the vaults for a helping of one of the earliest film versions and indeed perhaps the definitive one (aside from that Disney one with the foxes). In this one, swashbuckler Errol Flynn is the titular robber hero, battling the evil Prince John (Claude Rains, with the world's worst haircut) and his lackey Sir Guy of Gisborne (Basil Rathbone) for the freedom of England and the hand of the beautiful Maid Marion (Olivia de Havilland).

I'm aware that I have readers out there who enjoy reading reviews of movies definitively established as classics, and so I will try to overcome the challenge of saying something new regarding a movie about which so much has been said already. The Adventures of Robin Hood is regarded as the definitive Robin Hood story, the standard against which all others are to be measured (yes, even the Disney version, which seems to have borrowed liberally from this one). Modern first-time viewers may feel a strong sense of deja vu, then, because there's much in this film that's been deployed by subsequent entries in pop culture. The motif of the film smacks of V for Vendetta, such that I'm surprised the latter film's director chose to use The Count of Monte Cristo instead of this one for the protagonist's favorite movie. Robin Hood's escape from the gallows is reminiscent of a similar getaway employed by one Jack Sparrow in the first Pirates of the Caribbean film. The green costume has become synonymous with Robin Hood, and the splitting-an-arrow trick has been used ad infinitum to indicate an archer's prowess.

Yet, remarkably, much about this movie feels fresh. Errol Flynn's vibrantly joyful performance is a welcome change-up from modern films, whose protagonists are often conflicted and bogged down by cultural ennui (I'm looking at you, Spotless Mind); thankfully, this Robin Hood is charming and confident in the rightness of his mission, unflinching in his devotion to his cause. More surprising are the rousing action scenes directed by Michael Curtiz and William Keighley; I've been bored before by action scenes that rely too heavily on quick cuts and special effects to grab an audience's attention, so imagine my surprise when the most entertaining action moments since The A-Team come retroactively, from a film more than 70 years old. These and other scenes in the film are entertaining beyond anticipation, with daring rescues and improvised ambushes takign up most of the movie's runtime.

And of course, the colors, Duke, the colors. (Anyone remember that ad?) The film is just gosh darn pretty. Though the colors are probably brutally anachronistic (I have a hard time believing Robin Hood had a pristine suit at all times while living in, of all places, a forest), they look astounding - particularly on the DVD, which is surprisingly cleaned up for such an old piece of work. Maid Marion's dresses quite literally sparkle, and there's not a band of the visual spectrum that goes unused here - the result being a visual spectacle that, if nothing else, gives your home entertainment system a workout.

But the standout feature of The Adventures of Robin Hood is the fact that it asks no heavy lifting from its audience: just sit back, relax, and enjoy the next hour and forty minutes. Good conquers over evil and has a good time doing it. The Adventures of Robin Hood, then, is pure, unadulterated, guilt- and angst-free fun, rousing escapism for all.
Finally rated in 2003 after being merely "Approved," The Adventures of Robin Hood now bears a PG rating "for adventure violence." I was actually surprised by the film's action; though there's very little blood, there is a surprising amount of arrow wounds and clubbings (most of which come off as comedic, even if that wasn't the initial intent). It's definitely more than appropriate, though.

Robin Hood (2010)

One can always count on Ridley Scott, Russell Crowe, and historical epics to combine for a reasonably solid summer blockbuster. And that's precisely what Robin Hood is: reasonably solid.

As a concept, the "truth behind the legend" genre is starting to limp on its last legs; King Arthur was a bit of a dud, and prequels in general are often a bad idea. But with Scott directing Crowe as the famous outlaw before he donned his famous hood and led a band of merry men in Sherwood Forest, something clicks. In this incarnation, Robin Longstride is an archer in the army of crusade-happy King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston). When things take a turn for the worse, Robin and his comrades return to England in time for Prince John's (Oscar Isaac) coronation as the new king. Posing as a knight, Robin meets Marion (Cate Blanchett) and her father-in-law Walter Loxley (Max von Sydow) before becoming embroiled in a French invasion scheme piloted by the nefarious Sir Godfrey (Mark Strong).

In a nutshell, Robin Hood can be boiled down to "Gladiator meets Braveheart." It's a facile comparison, and it's not particularly thorough, but you get the point. Robin Hood takes all the classic Ridley Scott themes and imagery - one man at the epicenter of national political crisis, with dazzling explosions and battles that encompass an entire populace - and throws in that Braveheart-esque battle cry of "FREEDOM!" There's nothing particularly surprising about the film - we know Marion and Robin will fall in love, even if they don't - but it's staged well, even if it doesn't play by the normal rules.

The film plays fast and loose with historical fact and with the legend itself, but it's all in good fun and none of it is too disconcerting. The Magna Carta plays a pivotal role as a kind of MacGuffin, though it gets a new backstory. There's a French invasion which doesn't quite jive with the history of Anglo-French conflict, but the only problematic creative liberty is Marion's presence on the battlefield during the climactic fight scene; it's in there to appease the PC crowd, to be sure, but it's distracting and feels incredibly forced. The film also casts Robin Hood as a kind of Jack Bauer figure - a perfect shot, always right, and distrusted by most authorities until he's proven to be always right. But for the most part the story is the one we know; Kevin Durand plays a streetwise Little John, and Mark Addy is perfectly and impeccably cast as Friar Tuck.

What's refreshing about Robin Hood is the presence of a new villain, Sir Godfrey. It's become almost a cliche to pit Robin Hood against the Sheriff of Nottingham, so it's a breath of fresh air when Matthew Macfadyen stumbles onto the screen as an inept Sheriff who is helpless in the face of farmers who won't pony up their (un)fair share of taxation. Enter Mark Strong, who's become awfully popular in the past few years - mostly as a villain, as in Kick-Ass, Sherlock Holmes, and RocknRolla, to name a few. His Sir Godfrey is menacing in the first degree, with a penchant for brutal sacking and a battle wound that gives him a perpetual sneer. As the climax hurtles toward us, it's impossible not to cheer for him to meet vicious vengeance.

There is a significant misstep, however, in the middle of the film. In true Ridley Scott style, the film opens and closes with knockout battle sequences, but the middle third of the film slows to what appears to be an actual halt in the narrative flow. As Robin is introduced to Nottingham, the film becomes an odd combination of Dark Ages domestic sitcom and bawdy soldiers-on-shore-leave humor, such that one almost expects Cyndi Lauper to come in on the soundtrack with "Archers Just Wanna Have Fun." All the while, the merriment is tempered by continued reminders that "The French are coming! The French are coming!" as personified by William Hurt's character William (easy name) Marshall, who seems to exist only to give an emotional tether for the audience to the political drama. But it doesn't quite work because we don't know who William is when we meet him, nor is his plotline particularly gripping. Of course, at this moment, Robin's plot isn't going anywhere at all, since he's nowhere near outlaw status in Nottingham just yet, and so the film falls into about a twenty-minute lull.

But the film rebounds nicely. Just as it opened with a bang, Robin Hood closes with an even bigger one. It won't be spoiling anything to say that the film closes with a (fairly obvious) nod toward a sequel, but the conclusion of the film wraps up all the major conflicts in an abundantly satisfying manner. Robin Hood is, I'm sure, the best new release out this weekend (really, competition from Letters to Juliet and Queen Latifah's Just Wright? Please.). A solid cast and crew turn out a solid production which might not be particularly memorable but at least is more than enjoyable.

At any rate, it's better than that 1991 Kevin Costner trainwreck Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, which could only boast the combined presence of Morgan Freeman and Alan Rickman.Robin Hood is, fortuitously for moviegoers with younger kinfolk, rated "PG-13 for violence including intense sequences of warfare, and some sexual content." The violence is standard stylized Ridley Scott fare, though most of it plays out bloodlessly and involves more clubbing than slicing; arrows fly quickly and almost never miss their fleshy targets. As for sexual content, bawdy dialogue (as is typical in most Middle Ages flicks) ensues but might fly over the heads of some young'uns.