SoTrumpBelieve Must See Movie...

Beanbioca As Good As It Gets

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

JohnHowardReid Made at a staggering cost - every penny of which is up there on the screen in the superb, full-length Alpha DVD which runs 120 minutes (equivalent to around 140 minutes at theatrical speed) - "Robin Hood" is a movie that simply cannot be surpassed for acting, characterization, plot and spectacle.At first glance, producer Douglas Fairbanks may seem to be an odd choice for Robin Hood, but this of course is a silent movie and Fairbanks is not hampered by his American voice and his somewhat strange and rather stagey delivery. In fact, he seems to fit the role perfectly.Wallace Beery is also ideally cast as the murderous Prince John, while Alan Hale enacts the first of his three performances as Little John. Hale repeated the role in both the 1938 "Adventures of Robin Hood" and the 1950 "Rogues of Sherwood Forest".This action-full movie actually cost $1,500,000 to make - and it's all up there on the screen! Nonetheless, this was a really staggering sum way back in 1922 - but fortunately, the movie was super-popular (and so it deserved to be). Rentals returned more than $2,500,000 in the USA alone.This movie is available world-wide on an excellent Alpha DVD.

TwoTooth Douglas Fairbanks's Robin Hood starts with more than an hour of backstory, ponderously paced with heroes and villains alike hulking around in chain mail declaiming in mime that is way over the top. Sets and costumes are ludicrous (people would freeze to death in the main castle's great hall, which looks like it takes up a couple of sound stages and is virtually empty). Lady Marian trails looooong veils and trains, which it's a wonder she doesn't trip over. Wallace Beery is horribly miscast as King Richard; the actor playing Prince John, Sam de Grasse, is actually pretty good, though he too indulges in occasional broad mime. Douglas Fairbanks transforms from a galumphing knight who's afraid of women to a jumping bean when he removes the chain mail and becomes Robin Hood. The Robin Hood parts of the movie are few and far between; we get barely a nodding acquaintance with the usual cronies--Little John, Friar Tuck et al. Favorite absurdity: Robin Hood bouncing around, climbing down a castle wall holding a bag of gold between his teeth. Must be great teeth. There've been a lot of better Robin Hoods since this flatfooted film (Errol Flynn and Richard Greene to name my two reference points). Of minor historical interest only.

MartinHafer I am a history teacher, so on one level, films like "Robin Hood" make me a bit crazy. However, it is so entertaining and fun that, for once, I need to just chill out and enjoy the film--and keep pesky reality from interfering with enjoying a darn fine film! Let's briefly talk about the film's MANY historical inaccuracies. Like all Robin Hood films as well as the various Ivanhoe films, King Richard I (a.k.a. "the Lion Hearted") is shown as a virtuous and good king, while his brother, John, is shown as a conniving dog. While history has not been kind to John (and it probably shouldn't be--especially as he unwisely took on the Church and lost as well as the Barons), it has somehow created a myth about Richard totally undeserved. In my opinion, he was the worst kind in English history and I assume most historians would agree that he at least was in the top 2 or 3 of the worst. He cared less about ruling England and spent almost his entire reign in his French territories or out massacring people in the Crusades. Now this does NOT mean that Richard was any sort of religious zealot. Instead, he was an opportunistic maniac who simply liked killing people!! His atrocities while on the Crusades are simply amazing for a supposedly Christian king--massacring entire towns and breaking pretty much every one of the 10 Commandments!! He was a horrible, horrible person in every respect--and NOT the hero he's portrayed to be in films.As for Robin Hood, he didn't exactly exist. Now there was a crook who was similar in some ways--though he lived later than the hero of legends and had the pesky habit of stealing from the rich and giving to himself!! Instead, the Robin we know about is passed down from legends and songs and as a result, there are many differing (and often diametrically opposed) stories about this swell guy--all of which are pure hogwash.Now you'd think after my complaints that I couldn't have possibly liked the film. Well, this isn't the case simply because apart from the historical license, this is a perfect film--and as good a silent film as you can find. While I have some doubts as to the truth of contemporary stories that Douglas Fairbanks did ALL his own stunts, the stunt-work in this film is as good as any silent film--and better than what you'll even find today. That's because whether it's always Fairbanks or not, the physicality of the stunts is amazing--and even better than Fairbanks' other great films. Plus, if it ISN'T always him doing the stunts, it's integrated so well that you could swear it was! Now if all the film consisted of were great stunts, it would not be a great film. I personally hate films that are all stunts and with lousy plots ("Mission: Impossible" is a great example of this). Howeverr, the film also features some of the loveliest film work I've ever seen--with cinematography that is breathtaking and highly artistic. For you artists out there, the camera work, sets, costumes and style is pure art nouveau come to life--like it was lifted right off a painting from this craze of the 1890s and early 1900s. The plot is pretty good as well--and I especially like how the lion's share (nice choice of words, huh?) is about how Robin came to be an outlaw--something even the wonderful Errol Flynn version failed to do (though it, too, is a classic). In addition, grand acting, a huge cast and a well-spent budget all worked together to make a perfect film...provided you can ignore the historical inaccuracies. Any person who considers themselves a connoisseur of silent films must see this film--it is that important and that ground-breaking. A delight from start to finish.By the way, that IS Wallace Beery as King Richard!

Cyke 032: Robin Hood (1922) - released 10/18/1922; viewed 1/24/06.Mohandes Gandhi is arrested in Bombay and sentenced to six years for sedition. Construction begins on Yankees Stadium in the Bronx. The Lincoln Memorial is dedicated. The Irish Civil War begins.BIRTHS: Carl Reiner, Ray Goulding, Christopher Lee, Judy Garland, Sid Caesar, Jackie Cooper. DEATHS: Hermann Rorschach, Alexander Graham Bell, Michael Collins, Bob Elliott.DOUG: We watched a featurette about this movie narrated by Rudy Behlmer that came with the DVD for Errol Flynn's 'Hood.' I didn't enjoy this one as much as Zorro. One thing that bothered me is how long the movie spends with the Earl at the Crusades before he becomes Robin Hood. When Robin Hood finally arrives (roughly two thirds in), the movie comes alive with Fairbanks' trademark swordfights, stuntwork, and bravado. My favorite moment had Robin battling one of the Sheriff's henchmen, and he strangles him against a rail. Big Bad Wallace Beery makes a good King Richard, and this film spends more time with Richard than any other I've seen, but his subplot failed to capture my interest. It was a pleasure to see Alan Hale as Little John (he would reprise the role in Adventures, and again in Rogues of Sherwood Forest), but was disappointed that he and the other Merry Men receive little introduction.KEVIN: I definitely did not enjoy Robin Hood as much as Zorro, and of all the versions of Robin Hood that I've seen, I think I enjoyed this one the least. The real problem was that it took far too long to really get going. Huntingdon (as he is known in this version) doesn't become Robin Hood until two-thirds into the film. Up to that point I had a lot of trouble staying awake. However, the moment Robin Hood comes into the story that bares his name, everything is fantastic. Fairbanks inhabits the character as well as any I've seen, leaping and bounding and fighting bad guys at every turn. That's what I wanted to see! Also, this is the only version I've seen that chronicles Prince John's takeover within the narrative, as the film starts with King Richard (Wallace Beery) leaving for the Crusades. That's something I've never seen before. I guess I can forgive the film's shortcomings, as this was the earliest production of the legend I've seen and there was much room and many chances for improvement in the years to come.Last film viewed: Mark of Zorro (1920). Last film chronologically: Nosferatu (1922). Next film: Safety Last (1923).The Movie Odyssey is an exhaustive, chronological project where we watch as many milestone films as possible, starting with D.W. Griffith's Intolerance in 1916 and working our way through, year by year, one film at a time. We also write a short review for each film before we watch the next, never reading the other's review before we finish our own. In this project, we hope to gain a deeper understanding of the time period, the films of the era, and each film in context, while at the same time just watching a lot of great movies, most of which we never would have watched otherwise.