Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Alan Benfield Jr (alanbenfieldjr) What an amazing experience to see The Adventures Of Robin Hood 80 years after its original release. How can one explain the longevity of its relevance. Relevant in every department. Acting to start with. Errol Flynn was not considered a great actor, never an Oscar nomination or anything like that. Bette Davis was always frustrated for having to work opposite him rather that Laurence Olivier. But, look at him now, 80 years later - Erroll Flynn' s performance is as fresh today as the day he filmed it. Compare that with Oscar winner Russell Crowe's Robin Hood (2010) - Russell Crowe even had the impertinence of mocking Erroll Flynn's version. This bit of tribia kuind of depressed me after the high of seeing again this Michael Curtiz's masterpiece. Here, everything works. Other than Erroll Flynn - even if when's he is on the screen is difficult to pay attention to anyone else - we do. Mostly because Claude Rains, Olivia de Havilland, Basil Rathbone and the rest of the sensational cast. This adventure film will continue to captivate audiences for years, decades, centuries to come.

TheBigSick The film "The Adventures of Robin Hood", a box office hit in 1938, is in fact entertaining and technologically advanced, particularly in the use of Technicolor. Nonetheless, the plot is just easily predictable and formulaic. When you watched the first ten minutes, you could tell the result of the film. In other words, the film is not that successful in dramatic or narrative aspect.

JohnHowardReid Executive producer: Hal B. Wallis. In charge of production: Jack L. Warner. Copyright 14 March 1938 by Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. New York opening at the Radio City Music Hall, 12 May 1938 (ran 3 weeks). U.S. release: 14 May 1938. Australian release: 15 September 1938. 11 reels. 9,177 feet. 102 minutes. (Available on a superb Warner DVD). SYNOPSIS: England, 1194. Loyal "outlaw" defeats the ambitions of usurping Prince John.NOTES: "Unfortunately, the action scenes were ineffective, and I was forced to replace the director in mid-production. I felt that only Mike Curtiz could give the picture the color and scope it needed. Why hadn't we used him in the first place? Errol wanted Keighley (who had directed him in The Prince and The Pauper)." — Hal B. Wallis.Dawson, Weyl and Korngold all won awards in their various categories. Also nominated for Best Picture (lost to You Can't Take It With You). Number 8 on the New York Times Ten Best list. Number 7 on the Film Daily Ten Best. Shooting commenced 27 September 1937, finished 15 January 1938. Negative cost: $1,900,000.COMMENT: We can be thankful that Warners saw the error of their ways. Fortunately, there is far more Curtiz than Keighley in the picture. It starts off with Curtiz in the great castle confrontation between Flynn and Rains and then goes into the weaker Keighley stuff in which Una O'Connor is allowed to put on her usual tiresome antics as Maid Marian's maid and Herbert Mundin is encouraged to overact atrociously.Olivia de Havilland is also extremely wet — a fact that Keighley seems to have realized. He asked the photographer to give her some extra allure by soft lensing her reaction shots. Patric Knowles is likewise a far too colorless a Will Scarlett, and even Rathbone seems somewhat bland in the Keighley segments. He's much more powerful under Curtiz where he really delivers his lines with as much relish as he wields his sword. What a shame Curtiz wasn't permitted to re-shoot more of the Keighley material! Richard is weak too, while Littlejohn and Friar Tuck are also disappointing — Curtiz would have given them far greater impact. But Flynn is always perfect — a dashing Robin Hood whom it takes no less than three villains to balance: Rathbone as the fastest swordsman in the north, deliciously blustering Melville Cooper, sublimely egocentric Claude Rains. Fed with some marvelous lines, these three are absolutely admirable in nastiness. As for all the action with its stupendous climactic duel between Flynn and Rathbone, plus the sumptuous music score, the gorgeous sets, pacey film editing, exuberant color . . . Robin Hood is simply unbeatable.

Antonius Block Wow, for star power, it's hard to beat Errol Flynn as Robin Hood and Olivia de Havilland as Maid Marion. Flynn had the perfect devil may care attitude for the part of Robin, and his impudence towards the pretender to the English throne is fantastic. de Havilland is absolutely stunning and plays her part well as the noble who is offended by Robin at first, but is then slowly won over to his humanity and righteousness. The movie features all of the standard sorts of things we've come to expect in productions of Robin Hood - camaraderie, swordplay, honor, and daring escapes, among other things. I loved the stunts, including Flynn cutting the rope to a gate, and then being pulled upwards by its pulley in order to get over it while leaving his pursuers trapped on the other side. The cast is strong throughout, from the main villains (Basil Rathbone and Claude Rains) to charming characters like Marion's old nurse, played by Una O'Connor, who has a little romance of her own.The film is in color and quite a production for 1938, really showing how far movies came over the course of the 1930's. I loved the costumes from Milo Anderson, particularly those for the 22-year-old de Havilland, who directors Curtiz and Keighley wisely took every opportunity to shoot close up, allowing her beauty to shine, and her eyes to display fear, annoyance, anger, and love. Her scenes with Flynn are magical. The only thing I fault the film for is the soundtrack, which I found too jaunty and intrusive, even for scenes which had a lot of action in them, but that's a bit of a quibble. The only reason I don't rate it higher is because the story itself has been done so often that it's lost its shine for me personally, but if classic adventure stories with romance in them are your thing, I think you'll love this film.