Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Wyatt There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

trz1951 I watched it again last night after reading an unfavorable review. I thought it was very entertaining and very well acted. Who cares if Richard Todd wasn't 6'2"? He was indeed athletic (in his autobiography, Caught in the Act, Todd said he did his own stunts), handsome, possessed a beautiful speaking voice, had a twinkle in his eye and had daggers in them when he confronted Peter Finch at the drawbridge. Excellent job.Errol Flynn's Robin was excellent, too. But the '38 version was big budget. Disney was able to do a lot with a lot less. I love both versions. Flynn is king of the big-budget Robins; Todd is king of the smaller production. Richard Greene was a good television Robin.Another reason I call it a draw is because of what Todd's Robin, Rob Roy, Dambuster meant to me as a kid. He indeed was a role model. And Disney's productions were wonderful. Others I still consider heroes of the 50s include Gordon Scott and Steve Reeves. I'm sure millions of other kids from that decade would agree.In those days, adventure, fair play and knowing right from wrong were big themes. Todd et al sure knew how to convey them.

Henri Bronsgeest This is an excellent film. One I remember fondly from my youth and have purchased on VHS and laser. I now have it on DVD, but this is where Disney has done us wrong. You can only buy this DVD through their Movie Club. This is outrages. Several of the other Disney live-action features are sold this way. Kidnapped, Zorro. This is keeping these films from the general public. Disney should know better.This is probably the only Robin Hood film that sticks close to the original legend. It is well acted and Joan Rice is beautiful as Maid Marian. Having been to Sherwood Forest, Nottingham, and the surrounding area, it is nice to see that this film was actually filmed in England, not in California like Flynn's movie. And, of course, the war hero Richard Todd (he was one of the first on Omaha beach) is excellent as Robin Hood.

tobisteiner62 A winner in every way. Lush Technicolor costumes and sets (featuring matte work by Peter Ellenshaw), crisp pacing, convincing--i.e., non-hammy--acting, all highlighted by vivid dialogue.Now, as to specifics, here are some of my favorite aspects of this undeservedly overlooked classic. First (and most obvious, but hey, it's pretty important): Richard Todd's Robin. I fell in love with him when I saw the movie on Wonderful World of Disney (I was born the year it was released, 1952), and have followed his career with interest ever since. His archery and other swashbuckling actions are persuasive but not gimmicky, his romantic aura is compelling but not slick, his leadership qualities are authoritative and incisive but not overbearing. And he has a sense of humor! Some of the less obvious reasons I rate this film a "10": The framing device of Allan-a-Dale (and the lovely singing/playing of Elton Hayes); within that, I love the small, unassuming, sweet-natured dog who follows the minstrel wherever he goes. The dialogue and business shared by the Archbishop of Canterbury (Anthony Eustrel, I believe), Prince John (Hubert Gregg), and Queen Eleanor (Martita Hunt). The childhood friendship of Robin and Marian that gradually ripens into romance. Thus, when she disguises herself as a page in order to seek out Robin Fitzooth to prove his loyalty to king and country, her emotional stake lends sympathy and believability to her actions. The economical scene-shifting that takes Robin from his quarterstaff skirmish with Little John to his brook-side battle with Friar Tuck--which in turn leads, seamlessly, to an ambush by the Sheriff of Nottingham and his goons. Spoiler Alert (in case another is needed)! Check out the grisly but tastefully handled demise of the Sheriff--getting squashed and/or bisected between an inexorably closing drawbridge and the castle wall! No matter how many times I see this film (and it's been quite a few), this scene always makes me rub my hands and cackle gleefully.I could cite many other reasons why I love this film, but if you ask for one quality that sets it apart from every other Robin Hood film I've seen--including one very famous (and in my opinion, vastly overrated) supposed classic--I would say: Heart. As in warm, true, and loyal. And it will warm the hearts of viewers not jaded by overblown yet hollow swashbucklers and pompous, pretentious epics.

loza-1 This is a later version of Robin Hood, made a decade and a half after The Adventures of Robin Hood. It follows the Disney formula of using good actors rather than well-known stars, and a terrific attention to detail.This film does not take as many liberties with known history as does The Adventures. If you are an expert historian, you can find faults, but they are kept to a minimum.In many places, this film is as good as, and sometimes surpasses The Adventures. But it lacks Michael Curtiz's touch, and - sorry to say - Richard Todd is no match for Errol Flynn.