ulht1 Besides this being a very entertaining film and a real classic, I recently found out about a character in it who I cannot find in it. She played the young maid at the end of the 1953 Scrooge movie who a lot of people wanted to know about - she was found finally a very few years ago - Theresa Darlington and her only other film was this one . Problem is I have run the film more than once and there are very few small part women in it and none has any visible connection with geese that I can spot. If anyone knows more about that, please post it.

dwpollar 1st watched 9/13/2013 -- 7 out of 10(Dir-Ken Annakin): *DVD I watched entitled just "The Story of Robin Hood"* Entertaining and informative telling of the Robin Hood story does a good job of keeping your interest and helping the viewer to understand why Robin became the outlaw Hood, and placed himself in the position of the leader of the group in the Sherwood Forest.(Aka. The Merrie Men) This is a Disney live action movie that actually has less fluff than others and is pretty straight-forward in the telling of the tale. Richard Todd plays the main character as a playful yet purposeful hero of the poor folk in the area after King Richard goes on a crusade and his brother takes advantage of his position by over-taxing everyone and trying to rid the forest of what he considers riff-raff(the Forresting folk). The first culprit of his arrows is Robin's father(thus providing the primary purpose of Robin's exile and revenge mindset initially). Quickly though the stealing from the rich and giving to the poor became a necessity for the poor folk to survive. The sheriff of Nottingham is the primary vehicle for brother Richard's type of thievery and justice, and eventually Maid Marion(played by Joan Rice) finds out what's going on and begins to help the Merrie Men. This live action piece seems to be a possible guide to the later animated Disney film, but some of the stronger emotional pieces were removed. I haven't viewed many of the versions of this story, but this is the best I've encountered so far because you understand Mr. Hood's plight and purpose. There is a little fun to be had with the Merrie Men and Robin & Marion's teasing, but primarily the completeness and clarity of the story is what makes this film work.

screenman Richard Todd's first full-length outing into the world of medieval England isn't half bad. There's a great all-British cast featuring Peter Finch as a very believable baddie in the form of Nottingham's Sheriff, whilst James Robertson Justice weighs-in as John Little.The script is quite good for such an otherwise heroic tub-thumper. There's one or two nice subtle exchanges, reminiscent of a more academic work like 'Becket'. There's some fine castle set-pieces that are obviously 'worked' with a little imagination. Colours are vibrant, with sly little shifts from sepia B&W intros.Action scenes and sword fights are a wee bit stilted. They lack the enthusiasm of Errol Flynn's version, and Todd himself seems a little reticent in the athletics department. One or two scenes are needlessly long, like the introductory sparring between Robin & Friar Tuck at the river. Whereas the archery contest, which could have been much more fun, passed in a bit of a flash. That's an editing/directing/production issue. There were probably worthy pieces that finished-up on the cutting-room floor.All in all, not a bad version, if a little bit pedestrian in the swash-buckling department.

Igenlode Wordsmith Now, this is actually worth going to some trouble to see. Probably not to everyone's taste -- the opening sequence, with a nimble-footed and saturnine Alan-a-Dale strumming the theme-song ballad, will sort out the sheep from the goats of those who simply can't stand this sort of thing -- but despite the live-action Disney label, it stands up well amongst all its predecessors and successors.It steers a skillful and essential line between tendentious over-seriousness and pie-in-the-face humour, and contrives a fresh view on the familiar set-pieces -- the shivered arrow on the bull's-eye, Friar Tuck and the river crossing, the recruitment of Little John -- with, unusually, a sizable part for the formidable Eleanor of Aquitaine as the mother of the King and Prince John. In the title role, Richard Todd makes a charming curly-headed rogue, whose merry eyes betray his identity beneath the most enveloping of disguises, and he brings the necessary charisma and impudence to the character: this is the recognisable Robin Hood of legend, whom men follow for freedom and for the fun of it. A little easy-going, perhaps, with little of the passion against injustice that flashes beneath the laughter of Errol Flynn, but this is Disney after all.Joan Rice is a spitfire wilful Marian, whose involvement is plausibly scripted without any anachronism; she also provides a couple of the best moments in the film, whether belabouring Robin on her fellow-travellers' behalf or silencing him with an athletic embrace at the end. James Hayter as Friar Tuck and Peter Finch as the black-avised Sheriff of Nottingham also give memorable performances -- and could that really have been avuncular Hubert Gregg, of all people, convincing us as Prince John?My main source of irritation about this film lay in some of the archery embellishments. Every arrow-shot we see zips past with the whine of a ricocheted bullet, presumably in order to make the fights sound more exciting in the absence of gunfire, and the system of signalling by firing colour-coded arrows in relays at one another seemed not only out of place but highly risky (credibility not helped by what I surely didn't imagine as people turning round to look as they hear the arrow coming!) The distinctly unpleasant fate of the forsworn Sheriff, on the other hand, was glossed over in suspicious silence, without so much as a cry.But caveats aside, the film scores well on sheer energy, with a healthy dash of humour. The 1967 "A Challenge for Robin Hood" (despite featuring Hayter as Friar Tuck again!) is an over-bright and sanitised Ladybird rendition; the 1990 "Robin Hood" (the non-Costner version) went the other way and overdid the historical grime. The latter is the better film, but neither of them has the enjoyability and spirit of the 1952 offering. This isn't on the same scale as the Curtiz/Keighley classic of 1938, and Todd remains an engaging boy rather than a rollicking leader of men, but it perhaps comes closest to matching the verve of its illustrious predecessor.