Robin Hood (1973) Reviews

Robin Hood mayn't have the direct charm or the memorable songs of the later Disney movies, but it is solid entertainment nonetheless. The animation is generally lovely, if slightly archaic which is a style I kind of like, but the story sometimes fails to engage being fairly episodic but this is only occasionally. But the action highlight was the archery contest, which was so funny, as was the witty and delightful script. The songs are not as memorable as the ones in Beauty and the Beast, but they are still lovely. "Love" is a beautiful song, but my favourite was "Phony King of England" because of the funny lyrics. The only song I didn't like as such was the rather annoying song in the opening credits, which were a bit long. As for the characters, I loved the fact, the animators made the legendary characters animals. The best ones were Prince John and Sir Hiss, who were an absolutely hilarious double act, especially when Prince John sucks his thumb, the only villain to do that. Peter Ustinov and Terry Thomas were superb supplying the voice overs. Robin and Little John were also entertaining, as well as the Sheriff of Nottingham. Casting Phil Harris as Little John was genius, after his incredible voice-over as Baloo in the Jungle Book. I particularly loved the line "I'm Sir Reginald, duke of Chutney". I know in some scenes, they looked as though they were running out of ideas, but they weren't. They were just looking for a bit of inspiration. In conclusion, a really entertaining animation, that couldn't really live up to the Jungle Book. 8/10 Bethany Cox

An anthropomorphic adaptation of the classic English legend, Robin Hood plays fast and loose in retelling this well-known story, even by the already loose standards of Disney. In fact, the film spends more time with Prince John and Sir Hiss, a pair of effete bitchy gay-coded villains that are more amusing than dangerous, than it does with the titular hero. When it does focus in on Robin Hood and his Merry Men, the film zips by with an energy and spritely demeanor that is refreshing, yet it still can’t cover up the numerous deficiencies in animation and narrative.

 

Perhaps it’s appropriate that the characters in Robin Hood come the closest to looking dirty and dingy. Much of the animation hasn’t been cleaned up, and everyone looks hairy and matted. It was distracting for the aristocratic matriarch of The Aristocats, but works much better here. I guess since the film seems tailored so heavily towards the Summer of Love generation, this dirtiness and sub-par animation plays as charming. Shame the studio never tackled this tale during, say, the Silver Era or the Renaissance and produced some truly beautiful images to go along with it.

 

Or even a decent villain, as so many memorable Disney films are made on the strengths of their villains. Peter Ustinov’s preening, thumb-sucking cry-baby Prince John is funny, but he’s never a real threat. Ustinov’s rolling vowels and clipped tones given more life to the character than the uninspired animation or plot mechanics. In fact, there’s never much at stake, no sense of menace or danger in Robin Hood. The closest we get to a real bad guy is the Sherriff of Nottingham, who sounds like a southern Confederate that’s wandered into the British countryside. Granted, Prince John is entertaining, but his queer bitchiness can’t come within spitting distance of the drag queen melodramatics of Aladdin’s Jafar or The Lion King’s Scar.

 

I know this version of the story has its ardent defenders, but I’ve never been one of them. The disjointed narrative simply moves from one Saturday-morning cartoon scenario to another, never developing its characters beyond bland-but-noble heroics or prissy villainy. There’s a very strong missed opportunity here to re-energize the myth, and the film had the most potential of any of the various classical adaptations in the Bronze Era to be something truly special. What emerged was a mostly average action-adventure film with a fox shooting arrows at a lion, a wolf, and a python. Admittedly, this is a lackadaisical diversion.

Even though it is probably not considered as one of the greatest classics made by Disney, I actually always had a weak spot for this movie. Indeed, even though the animation was decent, back in those days, these guys were struggling. Apparently they were looking for some ways to make their animated features without spending so much money and, as a result, most of their movie released at the time did look cheaper than their best work. On top of that, this movie must have had the most messy story they ever gave, in fact, there was not even a real plot but a succession of episodes involving all these famous characters. And yet, somehow, most of it did work for me. Indeed, I kinda of liked how chaotic the whole thing was and I also enjoyed most of these laid-back tunes. It was also a masterstroke to have Peter Ustinov voicing Prince John and he gave here a fine performance. In my opinion, Prince John eventually turned out to be one of the most fun villains ever produced by Disney. Anyway, to conclude, even though it is far from being a masterpiece, I still think it is a decent animated feature and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre. 

'Robin Hood' is not a bad Disney animated classic; the animation is good, the plot is faithful to the original story but why is Robin Hood (Brian Bedford) a fox? I just find it overrated which is a shame because it could actually be a lot better!

I can't exactly call Robin Hood an obscure film. This is Disney after all. But it is one of their lesser known films, which is due to it being a worse film than other Disney films. It's not bad, by any means. It's another solid Disney film, I just can't call it a masterpiece.

This is basically an adaption of Robin Hood, but with animals portraying the characters. Robin Hood steals from the rich, gives to the poor (with the help of not-so Little John), while King John and his henchmen attempt to arrest and execute him.

There are three things that Disney is known for in their animated films: Good songs, memorable characters, and romance. Unfortunately, Robin Hood doesn't completely deliver.

The songs are a major disappointment compared to Disney's previous work. One or two are decent, but most are forgettable, and unoriginal. The songs are partially saved, however, by a fantastic score, courtesy of George Bruns who previously scored The Jungle Book.

The characters are often stereotypes. The King John is cowardly, Robin Hood is cunning and cocky, the sheriff is generically evil, etc. We've seen many of these characters before, and Little John is just WAY too similar to Baloo for comfort (it doesn't help that Phil Harris voices both).

But is there romance? Well, yes, but it's not very good. Like the characters, it's very stereotypical, but it still helps to move the story along.

So, you're probably asking yourself, right about now, what IS good about Robin Hood? Well, I'm glad you asked.

While the characters are stereotypes, the voice acting is superb. Characters are often funny. The action is decent for an animated film. And I already mentioned the fabulous musical score.

Robin Hood manages to entertain from start to finish.

The best part of Robin Hood, though, is the first act. It's not complex; Robin Hood and Little John rob Prince John. That's all there is to it. But it's funny, and extremely entertaining. In the end, nothing else in the film tops the first act.

The animation, is obviously cut-rate. We see repeated character animations, and it's all just very lazy looking. I didn't mind too much, though.

Robin Hood is geared more to kids than other Disney entries, but this is still solid fun. Just don't expect a Beauty and the Beast or an Aladdin.

Fantastigliardico, il più migliore!