classicalsteve
The legend of Robin Hood's exploits may have occurred in the 13th century (i.e. 1200's) and the earliest known written account is from the 14th century via "Piers Ploughman" by William Langland. So essentially it is a very medieval story/legend. Disney's animated take on the legend is a fairly enjoyable family experience. It does have one glaring shortcoming which I'll relate later in my review.In typical Disney fashion, the characters are all anthropomorphized animals, i.e. animals which are human-like. Robin Hood is a fox, Little John is a bear, Friar Tuck is a badger, Maid Marion is a vixen, King John is a lion, etc. The story is told by Alan-a-Dale a rooster-minstrel play by Phil Harris. The characters are generally true to those of the original legend, and to give it credit. The friendship between Robin and Little John is legendary and of course the love affair between him and Maid Marion. Friar Tuck provides the voice of morality to the story, very similar to Friar Laurence of "Romeo and Juliet". And it does include the famous archery contest which is missing in many screen renditions of the story. Although most kids have heard of Robin Hood, American kids generally don't know when the Middle Ages occurred let alone it's cultural heritage. When I saw this film, I knew of Robin Hood but I don't believe I quite understand that the story was supposed to take place in the 1200's.While I can buy into the anthropomorphized take on the characters, "Disney's Robin Hood" is weak in one glaring respect. The filmmakers opted for songs by American songwriters, particularly Phil Harris and Roger Miller, known for country-western pop tunes such as "King of the Road". When I saw this Disney's offering of the medieval legend as a kid, I didn't know anything about medieval secular music. Not until I was in college I found out there are quite a number of secular tunes which survive from the late Middle Ages. I think Disney missed out on a golden opportunity to use medieval music rather than late 20th century country-style tunes. Phil Harris tells the story in a gruff American country voice with an acoustic guitar. The guitar wouldn't be invented for another 500 years from around the time of the events. In other words, medieval minstrels wouldn't use guitars. So sadly, the music style fails to bring us into the 13th century. (Roger Miller would a decade later write the score for a Broadway production of "Huckleberry Finn" called "Big River" which was a much more appropriate use of his talents. He would win awards for the music.) Still, all things considered, Disney's "Robin Hood" stays truer to the story than many other offerings. The later "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" is not as well written as the Disney animated film, in particular they cut out the archery contest. The best in recent years is probably "Robin Hood" starring Russell Crowe and directed by Ridley Scott. However, even that offering is only about half the story as he doesn't become "Robin Hood" until the very end.
ClycanSlider
When I was young, I loved watching Disney films with my family. From Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs to Brother Bear, I loved every film. So, with Robin Hood being one of their classics, you'd think I'd like it too! Unfortunately, even when I was young, I never cared much for this film...but I couldn't stop watching it either. Why is that? Was it the animation? The characters? The story? The anthro characters?Let's talk about the story. If you know the legend of Robin Hood, then this movie is nothing new. It's basically Robin Hood and his buddy Little John robbing the rich and giving to the poor. It's a classic Robin Hood story that's been told many of times, but Disney does manage to find a way to make it creative, which is the use of anthropomorphic characters. Sadly, the story does fall apart near the middle once half of the villagers are jailed, cause by then it seems like the story is on fast-forward as it races towards a, surprisingly, tense action- packed finale. The ending also suffers from being classic Disney fare, UNLESS you look at the alternate ending, which actually ends the story a bit better and a better explanation pertaining to Prince John's punishment.Thankfully, the characters save this movie from being almost boring. First, you got the main man himself, Robin Hood. Portrayed as a fox, he is the prince of thieves, but not your standard thief. Instead of going for the poor, he goes for the rich to give to the poor. His design is decent for the time, though he suffers from the 'Disney Big Eye Syndrome' at times, especially when the film focuses on his face straight-on. There's also his friend and cohort, Little John, whom I'm just gonna say this, is a straight copy of Baloo from The Jungle Book in terms of both design and characteristics. Yes, I know this film does copy from the aforementioned Jungle Book and I will touch on it in a bit, but if you want to know what Little John is like, watch Baloo in that film and you'll see tons of similarities. Moving on, we got Maid Marian, who is sadly very under-used. Unlike other adaptations of the tale, here she is literally only in three scenes: The beginning where she is playing bad-mitten and kisses one of the rabbit kids, the archery scene and finally the ending. You'd think she would have a good amount of screen time, but she ends up being wasted in her role (Though, I'll give the film this: Her design does make her cute). As for the villains, they are some of the funniest villains Disney had made in a while. I like how Prince John, while ruthless, is more or less reduced to a momma's boy and when stuff doesn't go to plan, ends up sucking his thumb. His assistant Sir Hiss, though, ends up being much like Maid Marian as in being wasted potential. As for the Sheriff Of Nottingham, well, dude's a douche. I was tempted to peg him as the worst character but he is saved by one thing: His voice actor. Voiced by the late Pat Buttram, he manages to bring a bit of goofiness to the character and, at times, a bit of Mister Haney in there as well. With the rest of the characters, they're just there and somewhat forgettable, with a few having some cool moments, so there is not much to say.Like all of Disney's classic animated films, the animation here is beautiful at times. The backgrounds are a treat to look at and the characters are animated realistically but keeping their animal traits in the movement as well. But, there is a problem with the animation. The problem being is that it, well, is infamously known for copying a lot of sequences and animation cells from the previously released films 'Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs', 'The Aristocats', and 'The Jungle Book', with the most infamous scene in the film being the Dance Scene near the middle of the film. Not only are moves reused from the previous aforementioned films, but it is a shot-for-shot remake of all the dance scenes from those films. Sure, you can attribute this to a smaller budget, but they could've at least made some newer dance animation cells for this film instead of reusing so many from those films.Now let us return to a question I asked earlier: Why did I return to watch this film so many times even though I never cared for the film? Well, it wasn't because of the anthro characters, the story, nor the animation. It was because it was a Disney film that, to me, didn't feel like the usual Disney fare. Unlike their previous films, this one felt more like a live-action film then a animated film, if that makes sense. I think that's why I returned to watch it constantly. It felt like a mature Disney film then what they were known for back in the day.In conclusion, Robin Hood, while it has it faults, ranks up there as one of Disney classic animated films, I still do recommend this film to any Disney fan out there.
tomgillespie2002
Robin Hood rarely features on many people's favourite Disney movies, and there's a good reason why. Disney's original concept was an adaptation of Reynard the Fox, a collection of allegorical fables from Europe. The deceptive fox was seen as an amoral leading figure for their squeaky-clean and child-friendly output, so the plan was abolished in favour of adapting a more familiar folk-tale, Robin Hood and his Merry Men. This sudden change of plan causes Robin Hood to feel almost like an afterthought, written in such a hurry that the plot seems to shift around without focus, and characters feel like abandoned first draft's of the classic Disney heroes and villains.With King Richard away fighting his crusade, the kingdom is left in the hands of his thumb-sucking, mommy's-boy younger brother Prince John (Peter Ustinov). Our narrator Allan-a-Dale (Roger Miller) informs us that the poor are being bled dry by the astronomical taxes set by the Sheriff of Nottingham (Pat Buttram), and rely on the exploits of local hero Robin Hood (Brian Bedford) and his companion Little John (Phil Harris), who routinely steal from the rich to give to the poor. Robin enters into an archery tournament dressed as a stork in the hope of winning the heart of old flame Maid Marian (Monica Evans), under the watchful eye of Prince John and his hypnotic sidekick Sir Hiss (Terry-Thomas), who want Robin's head.Despite the mediocrity of the final film, Robin Hood is certainly bolstered by the impressive array of vocal talent. Bedford provides the charming twang of an English gent and Terry-Thomas is suitably and simultaneously reptilian and hilarious, but Peter Ustinov walks away with the film - his whiny rich-boy Prince John is one the greatest characters Disney have ever created. The presence of such quality British talent makes it strange that a lot of the cast sound like cowboys who have somehow wandered into a distinctly English setting. Some sequences are recycled directly from Disney classics such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) and The Jungle Book (1967), and some characters are even borrowed and simply re-named. It's an up-and- down experience, where the plot occasionally wanders and lingers without any sense of narrative, but when Bedford, Thomas and Ustinov share a scene, that familiar Disney magic re-emerges.
