User reviews

I remember as a small lad seeing this on Walt Disney's hour television show where he regularly segmented his feature films for broadcast. Unfortunately this Robin Hood gets overlooked next to Errol Flynn's and the silent with Douglas Fairbanks, Sr. but it has enough merit to stand on its own.

Richard Todd is a dashing Robin Hood and he was at the height of his career when he did this film for Walt Disney. Todd was a fine performer and should have had a much bigger career than he did.

The cast is filled out with a fine group of British performers. Two in my opinion really stand out. Peter Finch gets his first real exposure to American audiences as the villainous Sheriff of Nottingham. He probably had the biggest career of all the cast members.

Secondly the booming James Robertson Justice as Little John is never bad in any film he was ever in. The classic battle between Robin Hood and Little John with staffs on a log bridge was never done better.

During the 1950s this version also had competition from television where Richard Greene had a successful series for about seven years. The TV series was a good one, but this film doesn't have to yield to it either.

A fine adventure film, the kind just not being made any more.

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.

I had watched this just once growing up, as opposed to the numerous viewings allotted to the definitive 1938 Errol Flynn version, so I was curious to know how it has held up (particularly since I recently enjoyed another Walt Disney epic starring the recently-deceased Richard Todd i.e. ROB ROY, THE HIGHLAND ROGUE [1953]). As can be intimated from the rating above, my reaction to it was by and large a positive one; to begin with, the copy I acquired – even if viewed on a small TV screen – was gorgeous, making this surely among the studio's most handsome-looking live-action efforts. Another immediately striking element is the casting – modest in comparison to the earlier Warner Bros. super-production perhaps but no less capable and, more importantly, fitting to each respective character: Todd, one of the few Robins not to sport a beard(!), is suitably dashing and good-natured (though lacking the athleticism of Flynn and Douglas Fairbanks before him); incidentally, having mentioned Fairbanks – whose 1922 ROBIN HOOD was treated with such rigor as to have the semblance of authenticity – this one too would appear to want to present the 'true' story (not merely picking up from the moment King Richard – played by an unrecognizable Patrick Barr – left for the Crusades but also insisting on providing a back-story and a noble heritage for our hero – even the famous archery contest occurs prior to his having turned outlaw and, what's more, Robin is beaten by his own dad in it?!). Anyway, to get back to Todd's fellow actors, pretty Joan Rice makes for one of the youngest yet most spirited Maid Marians; among the "Merrie Men", typically, the ones to get most prominence are Little John (James Robertson Justice – who else? – but with hair dyed blond!), Friar Tuck (James Hayter and, for some odd reason, fancying himself a singer in the film's corniest scene!) – both of their introductions at least stick to the legend – and Allen-a-Dale (Elton Hayes, whose brief cinematic career seemed to be stuck playing minstrels in historical efforts!); for what it is worth, the presence of the last two mentioned constitute the film's severest drawbacks to this viewer. On the side of the wrongdoers, we get Hubert Gregg as a particularly sly (though rather youthful) Prince John and, surprisingly, Peter Finch as the Sheriff of Nottingham (effective apart from an unbecoming coiffure – incidentally, I may be watching his one other film in this vein i.e. THE DARK AVANGER aka THE WARRIORS [1955], with Errol Flynn no less, this coming week-end); by the way, another novelty to the lore which turns up here but hardly anywhere else is that of having a benign but obviously ineffective Queen Mother (a suitably regal Martita Hunt). While there is not quite the emphasis on spectacle or elaborate action set-pieces we find in other versions (though the drawbridge climax is undeniably thrilling), the film – which, at a mere 84 minutes, does not run the risk of overstaying its welcome – is very entertaining for the most part and, as I said, looks good enough to smooth over the occasional deficiency.

This was an outstanding film, with superb acting, a wonderful musical score, and colourful scenes that unfold from the Disney picture book of life in the middle ages. I remember seeing it around 1956 as a 10 yer old, and was fascinated by the lives of the outlaws, sheltering in the glades of Sherwood Forest from the wicked Prince John and his cunning assistant the Sheriff of Nottingham.

The script was tight and delivered in impeccable olde English by actors who often went on to become household names in the acting profession later on in life. The beautiful scenes of woodland glades, the sun shimmering brightly as it cascaded through the trees into the outlaws' camp, brought to life the story of their fight for freedom and justice, and added a strangely surreal visual effect.

There are a number of memorable scenes, friar tuck singing with himself as he munched his capon pie among the most notable. The most captivating for me, however, was the sight of Tuck walking behind Robin and Marian out of an eerie Sherwood Forest, with the lilt of Alan A Dale's voice as he sang a pleasant, melodic little tune .

Yes, a very pleasant, uncomplicated film.

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.

Regular, the legend (or historical reality) is always attractive, and here very charismatic, however it did not enchant as much as I supposed, despite being totally focused on the romance between Robin and Lady Marian ...

Having recently visited Britain to make a Technicolor version of 'Treasure Island' Uncle Walt returned to make a follow-up which boasted the distinction of being the first screen version of Robin Hood actually shot in the original Sherwood Forest; with interiors shot at Denham and matte work by Peter Ellenshaw, which for him marked the beginning of a long association with Disney.

Inevitably not in the same league as the versions starring Douglas Fairbanks or Errol Flynn, Disney however prided the film on its greater fidelity to the original tales, while Peter Finch supplies his usual class as the Sheriff of Nottingham, Elton Hayes as Alan-a-Dale almost certainly inspired the minstrel in 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail' and the sight of Joan Rice as Maid Marian in tights and pixie boots is alone reason enough to see it.

As with 1938's "The Adventures of Robin Hood" w/ Errol Flynn and Olivia de Haviland Disney tries at making it's own version of the famous Robin Hood legend and succeeds admirably! Richard Todd is the perfect Robin Hood being a classic 1950s heartthrob and sporting a 50s haircut to boot and Joan Rice is a sweet and convincing Maid Marian. The script also presents a clever touch at including a wandering minstrel who weaves the story together in song. The only flaw I found was the overly-bright lighting causing the cinematography to be suffering a budget. But other than that, "The Story of Robin Hood" is very well-written, well-directed, well-acted and well worth the purchase of the video.

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.

This live action Walt Disney produced Robin Hood adaptation is among the best in the genre, perhaps second only to the outstanding Errol Flynn version of 1938 ("The Adventures of Robin Hood"). The cast is solid, led by the energetic and charismatic Richard Todd as Robin Hood.

This version has a few features not commonly found in Robin Hood films. Eleanor of Aquitaine (the Queen of England and mother to both King Richard and Prince John) is a major supporting character and is played by veteran actress Martita Hunt. The real-life Eleanor is one of the most famous and powerful women of medieval English history and one that is (unfortunately) only rarely portrayed in film. Another historic figure that is represented is the Archbishop of Canterbury (played by Antony Eustral). Absent from this version is the traditional conflict between Normans and Saxons, but there is plenty of evil-doing on the part of Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham for Robin to deal with.

This rousing adventure is not to be missed, particularly by those who profess to have an interest in classic adventure. Don't let the association with Walt Disney Studios fool you. Though the film isn't brutally violent, there is sufficient 1950s death and mayhem to satisfy most fans of the genre.

A good, if not enthralling, Robin Hood adventure.

'The Story of Robin Hood and His Merrie Men' has pros and cons to it, there's a lot to be enjoyed but also a few things that could've been done differently.

Firstly, the cast. Richard Todd isn't, at least in my opinion, amazing in the main role. His performance is perfectly fine, but I just feel he lacks the charisma and charm that I expect of Hood. Elsewhere, Joan Rice (Marian), Martita Hunt (Queen) and Patrick Barr (King Richard) are solid.

Peter Finch and James Robertson Justice are, however, my favourites from this film. Finch portrays the Sheriff of Nottingham fantastically, while Justice is entertaining as Little John. Those two are fun to watch.

The premise is good, as you'd expect. It's the pacing that bothers me, despite running for just 84 minutes some parts are kinda slow; not to the point where it drags per se, things just go down a gear or two.

I do like this more than the 1973 Disney animation, I must say that.

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.

This Walt Disney version of Robin Hood, yes, before the animated version, is quite colorful and the story keeps moving at a leisurely pace. Not quite convinced at Richard Todd's Robin Hood though, and the sheriff of Nottingham is not as evil as he should be. The supporting players are good though. This looks to be Disney's attempt to make lightning strike twice after the Flynn version. Close, but no cigar.

Not the best movie adaption of the adventures of Robin Hood but easy better than that terrible disastrous piece made in 2018 (directed by Otto Bathurst) and some peculiar cheap made Italian works I (thankfully) just remember dimly. What we get is the eye-balm called technicolor, a lot of fun and witty scenes, and a lot of swashbuckling, and some skillful archery and romance of course. I watched The Story of Robin Hood and His Merrie Men a couple of times and was never bored. What else? Cast and production are pro, and no doubt, The Adventures of Robin Hood, starring Errol Flynn is the better one, but this one will do anytime.

This was the first version of Robin Hood that I and my siblings saw, so we judged other versions based on this Disney take. I was 9 when I saw it with my younger brother. We loved the whistling arrows warning system used in this film and we found Richard Todd, a dashing, swashbuckling Robin, in fact we became huge fans of all his works. One of our favorites was Disney's "Rob Roy, The Highland Rogue" actually filmed in Scotland. Disney was not a miser when it came to his "pet projects" and Rob Roy was one of them. The Story of Robin Hood was no exception and it was filmed on location in England, even though some shots look like matte prints. The cast, too was impressive, with James Robertson Justice a perfect, burly 'Little John', Martita Hunt as Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine, James Hayter a robust 'Friar Tuck', Peter Finch as the nasty Sheriff of Nottingham, Elton Hale a charming 'Allan-a-Dale', the great Michael Hordern in a small role as 'Scathelock' and Bill Owen as 'Stutely'. The production is top notch and the film very memorable, and to me, very nostalgic.

Personally I do not think it is as good as The Adventures of Robin Hood with Errol Flynn which is the epitome of what an adventure film should be. However, it is solid and truly excellent family entertainment, if a tad too short. The locations are authentic and the Technicolour photography is very fine. The score is suitably rousing, and the script has its fair moments of wit and light-hearted humour while the story never meanders or feels dull. Ken Annakin directs briskly and there is some lively sword-fighting as well. The Story of Robin Hood and His Merrie Men also benefits from a fine cast. Richard Todd is enjoyable as Robin Hood, and there is a tuneful Allan-a-Dale. And Joan Rice is an alluring Maid Marion. However, the best of the lot are a stately Martita Hunt, a robust James Robertson-Justice, a wicked Peter Finch and a delightful Hubert Gregg. On the whole, not quite classic status but great fun and recommended. 8/10 Bethany Cox

...for many serious reasons. first, for its ingenuity after so many adaptations of the legend of Robin Hood. no the less, for the impressive cast. and for a smart simplicity, remembering the flavour and the spirit of an age of Hollywood. so, a pure lovely film, in which, recognozing the ingredients of the classic story, you discover the youth freshness of a vision about values, virtues and heroes.

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.

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.

Before you watch this or any movie about Robin Hood, there are a few things you should know. First, he is a fictional character. Sure, he was inspired by some real life folks (some of which lived far later than the fictional Robin) but essentially it's all a work of fiction. Second, the greatest fiction in these Robin Hood stories is the notion that King Richard the Lionhearted was a good king. He was, in fact, among the very worst. He had little interest in governing the country and was much more interested in fighting and killing. His expedition to the Crusades was simply filled with appalling savagery and violence...with little regard to the countless civilians he and his soldiers killed, raped and maimed. He was simply terrible as a king and as a person. So, when you keep hearing about his brother, John, being godawful....well, these brothers were not exactly the Hardy Boys! They were more like if Damian from "The Omen" had sons! And, finally, this is the first Robin Hood film I have seen with Queen Eleanor in it. Although she adores Richard in the film, the woman had about as much maternal instinct as a rabid wolverine! Clearly the film is mostly fiction.

The story begins with Richard and a bunch of other folks heading off for the Crusades...complete with pageantry and huzzahs. Soon after he departs, the acting king, John, appoints the Sheriff...who then spends his time looting the kingdom and approving of all sorts of nastiness against the people. And, following a nice performance at an archery contest, the evil Sheriff (Peter Finch) decides to kill Robin (Richard Todd) and his friend...and he succeeds in killing one and declares Robin to be an outlaw! And, after assembling a group of 'Merrie Men', they take to the forest to avoid capture. Assorted hi-jinx, intrigue, and action follows.

So is this any good? Well as a history lesson, no...but frankly most folks couldn't care less about this. So is it good entertainment? Yes. the film is quite different from the Warner Brothers "Robin Hood"...darker and less comical but still quite good...which surprised me a bit since the film was made by Disney. However, Richard Todd was a fine actor and he and the rest of the cast were quite good in the movie. Well worth seeing.

Surprisingly enjoyable. It takes the story of Robin Hood and his fight against King John and the Sheriff of Nottingham, and it's weird to say, gives it a fresh perspective because the movie is really old. I liked that there were a couple of interesting special effects. I like also that the evil characters are definitely evil but they have motivations and their motivations are pretty clear. The actor who is playing Robin Hood, Richard Todd had a lot of charisma. I like also how in this story, Robin Hood and Maid Marion know each other before the events of the story, it makes it less creepy. It may not be the best version of Robin Hood, but it's definitely worth a watch.