Rating: 
Sir Robert, earl of Huntington, a Saxon noble, offends a more powerful Norman noble and loses his lands, so he finds refuge in Sherwood Forest with a band of outlaws, adopting the name Robin. To his surprise, he finds himself leading a revolt against the Norman occupiers. A moderately accurate look at the period, it is an entertaining film with a number of strange but beautiful scenes. Read More…
Rating: 
Unlike the majority of movies about Robin Hood, Robin and Marian is basically a romance. With a lot of action. Director Richard Lester was comfortable with swashbucklers, having made The Three Musketeers (1973), The Four Musketeers (1974) and Royal Flash (1975), but while he kept the action and humor, he added more mature scenes, providing an honest portrayal of men who try to relive their glory days, unwilling to admit that their best days are behind them. Read More…
Rating:
Learning that King Richard was captured by Duke Leopold of Austria on his way home from the crusade, his brother John seizes the throne of England. However, his tyrannical rule is opposed by a revolt led by the astonishingly merry Robin of Locksley. While Errol Flynn was born to play the role of Robin Hood, the decision to switch directors during filming resulted in an uneven movie. Read More…
Rating:
Prince John seizes control of England while King Richard is absent on crusade. Aware that the king would abandon the crusade if he knew, the earl of Huntington returns to England and becomes the robber chief Robin Hood to oppose John’s harsh rule. Although the movie was a grueling experience, the stunts are wicked, and worthy of Jackie Chan. To be fair, there is some history, but this is for silent film buffs only. Read More…
Rating:
The recent death of his heir forces King Henry II of England to re-arrange his succession plans, so he invites his two eldest sons Richard and Geoffrey, and his captive queen, Eleanor of Aquitaine, as well as King Philip II of France, to spend Christmas with him, his youngest son John and his ward Alice, Philip’s half-sister. Compressing years of plotting into a single weekend, the movie is a correct description of the countless plots and revolts that produced numerous burned farms and dead peasants simply to improve the relative position of one family member. Read More…
Rating:
Even though it is called Robin Hood, I honestly have the impression that director Ridley Scott wanted to make a movie about England during WWII, since all of the men are away fighting in France, and everyone fears invasion. The story of an archer who convinces King John to sign a charter granting equal rights to all Englishmen, but becomes too popular and is declared an outlaw, the film is filled with an astonishing number of historical inaccuracies. In particular, the decision to transform a nasty squabble between two rival families over territory in Europe into a conflict between the English and the French produces a movie that has little to do with history. Read More…
Rating:
Viewers of Ironclad may believe that the film is about the fight between King John, who wished to reclaim the absolute power that had been taken from him when he had been forced to sign the Magna Carta, and the barons, who were fighting to preserve the rights of the common people and the nation itself. Cynics may complain that the barons were simply concerned with their own rights, not the rights of the smelly peasants. However, the film is really the struggle of the sex-starved young wife of the castle’s lord to persuade a Templar knight to break his vow of celibacy and satisfy her carnal needs. The story of a leader who gathers a group of disillusioned warriors, preferably seven, to defend a place against huge odds is not new in film history, and Ironclad is not a notable addition to the record. Filled with a cast of solid character actors who have all done better work, the film needed a better script. Still, it is relatively enjoyable and relatively accurate. Read More…