User Reviews

This virtually forgotten Hammer film is a real treat for fans; being as it is a fast-paced, action-packed and excellently-made little adventure film, which, while lacking any familiar faces in the cast, still manages to impress in all areas. The film visually looks as good as the best of the Hammer horrors; the photography is crisp and clear, it's very colourful, and the action scenes are well filmed and choreographed. This is just the kind of old fashioned adventure yarn for kids that they used to make in the '60s, of course replaced today by bloated blockbusters packed with dumb special effects, too much comedy and a lack of effort all round. Bitter, me? Despite the fact that only a couple of familiar Hammer names pop up in the cast and crew of this film, all involved are uniformly good. While Barrie Ingham may lack the same charisma as other famous Robin Hoods of the cinema, he looks the part and at least brings a good nature and a sense of justice and honour to the role of Robin, all important factors for me. The real scene stealer is James Hayter, who plays his Friar Tuck as comic relief. Hayter is excellent and frequently has very funny lines. Peter Blythe and John Arnatt make for a pair of thoroughly wicked villains, and the only character who's really underused is Maid Marian. Gay Hamilton is fine, fragile and beautiful in the role, but she's given nothing to do except stand in the background, be kidnapped or do old-fashioned "womanly" tasks, i.e. tending wounds etc.

As per usual for a Hammer picture, the sets are authentic and the costumes are fine. You can really lose yourself in this film and totally forget about real life, which of course happens with all the best adventures. There is plenty of action and child-friendly violence, and the finale sees the hero battling the villain in the best ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD-style swashbuckling sense. Downsides? Only two I can think of. Rather too many of the bad guys all die exactly the same death, i.e. getting shot in the back with arrows. Maybe this was a cheap, non-violent effect but seeing it repeated a dozen times (albeit from a different angle each time) is kind of disappointing, and I'm sure a little imagination would have gone a long way. The sole other disappointment is the ending, which sees the evil Nottingham escape on horseback. This was obviously done to leave room for a possible sequel, although none materialised and indeed this turned out to be the last of Hammer's Robin Hood pictures. But I think a sequel to this film would have been stretching ideas a bit, and it sits proudly as a stand-alone movie as being one of the liveliest, colourful adaptations of the legend since the classic Errol Flynn film.

A different approach to the legendary Robin Hood story but a decent stab at it with lots of incidents and fighting. Robin here is dispossessed from his inheritance by a villainous cousin Roger de Courtenay and flees to Sherwood Forest after being falsely accused of murdering another cousin. The film is light in tone which means the merry men are merry and laugh and sing as they should. The cast are adequate. Standing out for me in the thespians are John Arnatt as the libidinous Sheriff of Nottingham and James Hayter as the always hungry Friar Tuck. Unfortunately lovely Gay Hamilton is given little to do as Maid Marian. I enjoyed it, after all there can't be too many Robin Hood inspired films with a pie fight!

The third and final movie from Hammer Productions based on the legendary folk hero of Nottinghamshire, Robin Hood. As said before these movies are not connected, no story arc is contained within this trilogy. Thing is, there is no Robin Hood in this feature, so why does the title contain the name? (obviously name recognition).

In this film we are actually given more of an origin tale. Things are changed up a bit to offer a more fresh approach and this is admittedly a welcome angle as there are only so many times you can tell the same old story which everyone knows by heart. In this take Robin Hood is called Robin De Courtenay, the cousin of Henry (somewhat good) and Roger (downright evil) De Courtenay whose dying elderly father Sir John is a wealthy Norman nobleman. Upon his death bed Sir John divides his castle and wealth between the three men which unsurprisingly angers the dastardly Roger. Roger proceeds to murder Henry using Robin's knife in order to lay the blame on Robin. Robin thusly flees into the forest and joins up with a band of Saxons whom he had helped earlier on at the start of the film.

There are mentions of Richard the Lionheart, there is no Prince John. Robin is part of a wealthy Norman family. Will Scarlet and Little John appear to be servants or retainers of Sir John and not part of the merry men. Robin's main enemies are Roger De Courtenay and the Sheriff of Nottingham. And Maid Marian has a slight name alteration and initially isn't the object of Robin's affection! Marian's own maid appears to take that role. Other characters such as Much, Tuck, and Alan-a-Dale are present and correct.

So they take some liberties with the story which is fine, but what about everything else? Well firstly casting for me was a bit of a mixed bag really. Barrie Ingham as Robin visually speaking was way off for me. This guy looked more like a smooth 60's lounge singer and far too clean-cut for the role. Sure I get he's supposed to be a nobleman here but the hair, sideburns etc...it all looked too modern-day (for the time). Obviously Friar Tuck's gonna Friar Tuck and Marion isn't hard to get right, but the rest of the gang all looked pretty generic to me, nothing really unique going on here. Don't get me wrong I'm not expecting 'Mad Max' in Sherwood but maybe something to distinguish the odd outlaw. Villain wise again it's pretty standard fair but with Peter Blythe looking a bit Freddie Mercury-esque as Roger De Courtenay but suitably dastardly. This was always one of Hammer's problems in my opinion, the era tended to shine through too much in their casting. You could easily guess this was probably made in the 60's down to the way the cast looks, a major negative for any historical feature.

There is swashbuckling aplenty for sure but it certainly lacks the spritely gloss of the famous Errol Flynn picture and their own second feature 'Sword of Sherwood Forest'; but it does easily defeat their first foray into the woods with the weak 'Men of Sherwood Forest'. The film starts off quite dark with Roger evilly shooting a man in the back with an arrow and then his servant trying to murder the child witness, but it all quickly devolves into the inevitable hammy affair you'd come to expect. Not much blood (if any) and plenty of fake-looking swords, heck they even battle it out with a pie fight in one scene! Don't get me wrong it all looks terrific as Hammer features often did, very reliable on that front, but boy are some of those Norman troops useless.

I think the one thing that kinda threw me here was the altering of the classic folklore. I get the need for a change as you can't remake the same old Robin Hood story every time but there was something about this that felt off, like a poor man's equivalent that didn't have the full rights to the story. A lot of it for me was the casting which I just didn't really connect with. They also take the odd bit of classic lore and just give it a spin such as Robin's fight against Little John now takes place inside the castle. There is also no archery tournament here but a similar setup (a fair) which sees said Robin fight against Little John, whereupon he collects a prize (not a golden arrow). They also give a small bit of backstory for how they all end up wearing green (as up until then they are all wearing various period attire) which was cool. Shame all their attire is always spotlessly clean, ugh!

Well they're definitely men in green tights that's for sure, but there isn't a great deal of robbing from the rich to give to the poor this time. A dash of period-era political intrigue and a whole lot of Robin's gang versus Roger's gang. The bad guys are easily the more interesting whilst lounge lizard Robin's boys are all a bit cookie-cutter. I didn't hate this but I didn't really like it either. It just didn't really feel like Robin Hood. I should also point out that they appeared to film outdoor locations at Bodiam Castle, the same as they did for 'The Men of Sherwood Forest'. A bit silly as you can clearly tell it's the same location and this might fool some into thinking the films are connected. Oh well.

This is an excellent and underrated Robin Hood adventure. I really enjoyed it as a child, and it is interesting how well it stands up when viewing it as an adult.

It has a lot of good scenes, even involving minor characters (such as Robin's cousin Henry, who is killed off early on but has several good scenes before he goes). The cinematography and costumes are also first rate. The story has several impressive twists on the familiar tale, which help it avoid being stale. And I do think Barrie Ingham does well in the lead role, although some disagree.

Altogether, a highly enjoyable romp.

Production manager: Bryan Coates. Producer: Clifford Parkes. Executive producer: Michael Carreras. A Hammer Film, released by Warner-Pathe in the U.K., by 20th Century Fox in Australia and the U.S.A. Australian and U.S. prints in color by DeLuxe. 8,641 feet. 96 minutes. Registered: July 1967. "U" certificate. (An excellent Optimum DVD).

Copyright 31 December 1967 by Hammer Film Productions — Seven Arts Productions. No New York opening. U.S. release: June 1968. U.K. release: 24 December 1967. Australian release: 2 May 1968. Cut to 85 minutes in the U.S.A.

NOTES: A rare cinema role for prolific TV actor, Barrie Ingham, plus a school holiday hit in many capital cities, "A Challenge for Robin Hood" drew surprisingly enthusiastic crowds.

VIEWERS' GUIDE: Although the censors all regard this movie as immensely suitable for general exhibition, I think otherwise. I would rate this attraction as borderline.

COMMENT: One would think it impossible to offer any new embellishments of the Robin Hood legend, but screenwriter Peter Bryan has done just that. More time is spent establishing the characters than in previous versions, there is another brother (well played by Eric Woolfe) and the familiar characters are all introduced in an unusual way.

I particularly like Maid Marian's entrance and the deft way the director and his astute film editor penetrate her disguise. The conclusion, too, with its note of further peril to come is in marked contrast to all other versions and is probably unique for this sort of period adventure. Mind you, it was probably inspired by the demands of television, but nonetheless…

The acting is uniformly pleasing, with John Arnatt as the Sheriff of Nottingham taking over the mantle of the late Basil Rathbone and wearing it with ease. He has some sharp dialogue and he handles it impeccably.

As might be expected in a Hammer production, the film is loaded with violent action, most of it well done. The climax is superbly staged. We like the way the director keeps the aged steward crouching in the background, watching on, and the sheriff picking his way carefully through the outskirts of the action.

The fighting itself is handled with considerable relish and is most convincingly and excitingly staged. The vibrant Color by Technicolor photography is a decided asset and the music score rates as excitingly melodious.