Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Spidersecu Don't Believe the Hype

MusicChat It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

sykespj Judging by existing reviews, individual opinion seems to rely very heavily on the views of fans of the 50s TV series (i.e. old blokes like me), versus those who came in cold and took it on face value. It is important to note that the film was never intended to have any relationship to the TV version. Richard Greene, of course, starred in both... and that's about the extent of it.The Sapphire Films television series was a whole different kettle of fish. American writers blacklisted in the McCarthy era wrote under pseudonyms and packed the first two seasons with subtle left-wing ideology. The last two seasons fell into a more formulaic adventure groove, but still managed the occasional political overtone.The movie was typical of the Hammer production philosophy... take what little budget there was, invest heavily in production costs (vivid colour, widescreen ratios), and hire a passable cast with what's leftover (including at least one bonza babe). I'm betting Greene came pretty cheap and had the added bonus of drawing in fans of TV series.What you see is what you get. It still looks great, the storyline is good enough to last out the whole 77min, and there isn't a political statement in sight. For mine, 6.5 stars out of ten.

one-nine-eighty A Hammer film unlike a Hammer film; based on the cult 1950's TV series "The Adventures of Robin Hood" Richard Green reprises his role as the famous fictitious outlaw in a cheap film spin off movie. While the main star of the series stayed the majority of the cast where replaced, when you consider what they appeared in it makes this seem a whole lot more amusing: Peter Cushing, one time Dr Baron Von Frankenstein and also Sherlock Holmes, stars as the Sheriff of Nottingham meaning that the main face off is one time Sherlock Holmes chasing one time Dr Henry Baskerville. Various other actors don tights and join the story, including: Nigel Green who once played Hercules in Jason and the Argonauts (as Little John) , Jack Gwillim who once played King Aeetes in Jason and the Argonauts (is the Archbishop of Canterbury), Niall MacGinnis who played Zeus in Jason and the Argonauts (playing Friar Tuck). With other stars of famous films littered in this, if you are a fan of film you may certainly recognise a face or two. Hell, even Oliver Reed (Leon "The Curse of the Werewolf", and Athos one of "the three musketeers") features in this despite being overdubbed throughout.Don't expect something epic or convincing as this is a pretty poor rendition of the Outlaw by today's standards but for the time it was well created and received. Like so many other versions this film avoids telling an origin story of Robin Hood, the only origin situation is in meeting Maid Marion (Sara Branch). The film itself though takes a situation from the time line of Robin Hood and runs with that instead, in this instance there are two main focal stories, Martin of Eastwood's (Derren Nesbitt) requital and a plot to kill the Archbishop of Canterbury (Jack Willim) from a deadly plot devised and set in motion by the Earl of Newark (Richard Pasco) and the Earl of Mowbray (played by, not but not credited, Oliver Reed). It all starts with a stranger being chased and killed by the Sheriff's men, he has in his possession a brooch showing a falcon with a daisy in it's talons. Robin try's to find out what the brooch symbolises but before he can find out he takes a job working for Newark as this may or may not help his detection work. This all goes wrong when the Sheriff turns up one day. It transpires that the Sheriff is in league with Newark and Mowbray. Can Robin save the Archbishop, England and the day? Probably with him being the hero of the film ;) This is not the greatest Hammer film by a long way but an easy film to watch on a lazy Sunday - although there are a lot better. This is one of the poorest film's I've seen bearing Terence Fisher's name as director unfortunately. The plot is easy to guess and the script doesn't improve the story in any way. The acting is hammy at best and it's only Cushing that delivers with any authenticity making the Sheriff scheming and sneaky while giving him a regal presence. Despite the downfalls the filming techniques used makes this a very bright and colourful rendition of the outlaw of Sherwood. One thing that baffled me was the title, in the film Robin mentions that his weapon of choice it the long bow and he's seen with it throughout, then why is the film called "The Sword of Sherwood Forest"? He does use a sword, more so towards the end of the film but not much, certainly not enough to warrant the film being called "The Sword of Sherwood Forest". Again this is just a minor thing and you'll soon forget the title when you start watching. 4 out of 10

Neil Doyle This is Robin Hood without any zest...just plain dull.If you're going to do the Robin Hood story, at least a filmmaker should blend in all the proper elements that make the legendary story so popular, as the 1938 film did with Errol Flynn. But here we have Hammer trying to justice to the tale and unable to disguise the fact that it's done on a low-budget scale with less than impressive actors in all the important character roles.RICHARD GREENE would have been a suitable choice if he'd played the role on the big screen some fifteen years earlier, but he's clearly too mature (and a bit tired looking) to be the dashing outlaw of Sherwood Forest and this faulty bit of casting extends to the other roles too. I never saw the television series starring Greene so I can't comment on it or make a comparison.It gets off to a dull start with a meeting between Robin and Marian (SARAH BRANCH) that (as in the Flynn film) has them on less than amicable terms at first sight. The difference here is that she's been bathing in the nude before Robin and his men come along but quickly dresses modestly and has her first rude encounter with the outlaw.There's no "ye olde English" flavor to the dialog--it sounds more 20th Century than anything else. PETER CUSHING turns up as the Sheriff of Nottingham who wants a wanted criminal that Robin Hood is sheltering. He promises Robin a free pardon if he delivers the criminal to him, but Robin refuses the bargain.Just as well. The Sheriff turns out to be untrustworthy and never keeps his word. NIALL MacGINNIS doesn't seem rotund enough to play Friar Tuck but he shows up midway through the film to form an alliance with Robin. A further plot device involves the Archbishop of Canterbury, but it's a muddled bit of plotting that seems insufficiently interesting and takes attention away from Robin and Marian.Summing up: Handsomely photographed in color with some interesting archery scenes, but a lackluster script and so-so performances do nothing to make the film anything but plodding and dull. The story simply has no focal point.Trivia note: SARAH BRANCH's hair-style and make-up looks straight out of the 1960s--a very modern looking Maid Marian.

The_Void Hammer studios are, obviously, most famous for their horror films; but the best of those tend to be the ones that are based on a classic story, so, technically, this take on the Robin Hood legend isn't a far cry away from what Hammer do best. Technicalities aside, however, this definitely isn't one of the great studio's finer hours. The film is flawed to oblivion, and it doesn't capture that Hammer essence that the studio's better films did so well. I go into Hammer films expecting a good time, but this one actually managed to be boring. There's still some camp on offer, but the story plays out in a way that is neither interesting nor fun. As usual with Hammer, elements of the story have been changed; but unlike usual, they've been changed for the worse and the script fails to deliver a story that even comes close to matching the original. This is one of the rare times when Hammer would have been better off simply filming the story that had been doing the rounds for years before this film was ever put out.The dull and muddled plot follows Robin Hood and his merry men who, after finding a man nearly dead, take him in. It soon becomes apparent that the dastardly Sheriff of Nottingham wants this outlaw, and gives Robin Hood a dubious offer of a full pardon. Robin is having none of it, and ends up joining in a plot to assassinate someone or other. The plot isn't overly complicated, but it's not very well handled and because the film is rather boring, it makes it very hard to follow what's going on. The best thing about this film is the fact that Hammer's finest asset, Peter Cushing is in it. Under the direction of Hammer's most punctual director, Terence Fisher, Cushing once again turns in an excellent performance and shows that he can make good of even the lamest material. Oliver Reed also has a small role, but the fact that the lead went to Richard Greene brings it down. For a start, he's too old to play Robin Hood; and secondly, he just doesn't have the charisma to carry the film off. When you're cheering for the baddie because a better actor is playing him, you know you're in the wrong movie. All in all - Hammer completists only!