Leofwine_draca This straightforward Robin Hood yarn is a simple and effective tale of good vs. evil and right vs. wrong. Beautifully shot and directed with flair and style by Terence Fisher, this is a film worth watching for the cast alone. First up is one of the best Robin Hoods of all, Richard Greene, reprising his role from the '50s television series and slipping back into the part with effortless ease. His heroic character is a charismatic, talented and above all believable creation and Greene deserves praise.But let us not forget the rest of the cast: two splendidly wicked villains are here in the form of the dead-eyed Richard Pasco and the inimitable Peter Cushing, playing the Sheriff of Nottingham as a dastardly, black-hearted old-school villain who gets a surprising death. Behind a fake beard and eyebrows lurks a young Oliver Reed, all scowls and bad temper; fleshing out the roles of the Merry Men are Nigel Green, Niall MacGinnis, and even a young Derren Nesbitt. James Bond fans may note a pre-Q Desmond Llewelyn playing a wounded man. It's a veritable who's who of British talent from the period.The story is very basic action-orientated stuff, easy viewing to the extreme. Excellent wooded locations serve as a backdrop for the action and the camera is awash with lush greens and beautiful colours. Costumes and production values are top-notch and the script authentic. The sword-fights and various battles are well-handled, especially the spectacular and brutal showdown in a nunnery which finishes off the film. On top of this, there's a good score and a fast pace. A fine swashbuckler and Hammer's best version of the Robin Hood legend.

aramis-112-804880 Hammer Film Productions delivered more than great horror. It produced this (short) movie based on the 1950's television series, "The Adventures of Robin Hood." Most of the television cast were dumped. Richard Greene reprises his role as Robin Hood. Little John is Nigel Green and the Sheriff of Nottingham is Peter Cushing, looking weird in a mod wig. Maid Marian changed from a brunette on television to a blonde (Sarah Branch). The one television cast member who is missed is Alexander Gauge's Friar Tuck; he has been replaced by Niall MacGinnis.Also of note in the cast are Richard Pasco, and a very young Oliver Reed. Reed plays such an effete character he even affects a lisp. Derrin Nesbitt, my favorite no. 2 from "The Prisoner", has a small but pivotal part in this movie as Martin of Eastwood.The amazing thing is that this movie does not try to track Robin Hood's tale from his outlawry to the arrival of King Richard. This is just one incident in Robin's life. Robin has to secure a pardon for Martin of Eastwood so his family can inherit his lands. But the Sheriff of Nottingham wants the land to revert to himself. There is also a sub-plot, involving Richard Pasco and Oliver Reed, about an attempt to assassinate the Archbishop of Canterbury. For a movie of less than ninety minutes long, it has a lot going on.Though it is not another life of Robin Hood "Sword of Sherwood Forest" does include the obligatory meeting with Marian. This time, she's bathing in a river (in a strangely exposed place).But why "Sword of Sherwood Forest" when Robin's favorite weapon is the longbow? If you are familiar with Richard Greene's Robin Hood, this movie is worth checking out. The color is gorgeous after all this time.

brownish33 ...and that is looking at the main actress Sarah branch who plays maid Marian. she is just oh so beautiful and its a shame she didn't do much acting work, even if she wasn't that great, i thought she was one of the most beautiful hammer women and i wish she did more films. other then that, the film like others have said is not nearly on par with other hammer productions. this was pretty boring and at times just plain silly. but I'm glad i got to see this for peter cushing cuz he is always good. i think this must have been one of his few villain roles, i always see him as the hero. anyway, thats all, worth a watch if you like these films, which i do.

csrothwec One of the big disappointments of my then very young life was setting off with my pocket money to view this one many, many years ago. I was a terrific fan of the Richard Greene TV series and used to gurgle and splutter out the theme song from my first conscious days of television viewing. When I learnt that a full FILM version was therefore showing at the local Odeon, I was expecting great things. I have watched the film now about four or five times since as it has appeared on afternoon TV and must say that my disappointment has still been quite strong every time I have viewed it! So what is the problem, (or, rather, what are the problemS)? Firslty, the whole thing must have been made on the then financial equivalent of 75 pence, i.e. the production values are STILL those of the TV series and while shaky scenery and a small number of bushes CAN be taken as a castle or a large forest in a half hour TV programme, (with a break for commercials), it will not work over one and a half hours on the big screen. Secondly, the acting is on a par with the scenery. Richard Greene moves fairly effortlessly from the small screen to the big, (mind you, he had had quite a few previous roles in the cinema, such as in the 1939 Basil Rathbone version of "The Hound of the Baskervilles"), but the rest of the cast, (with the possible exception of Peter Cushing as the Sheriff of Nottingham), are quite forgettable and it seems strange that NONE of the "familiar faces" from the TV series was prevailed upon to appear in the film version as well. At least it would have provided some continuity and, presumably, would have made the inter-action between the actors come to life more than is the case with the film that emerged. Finally, one hardly expects Marlowe or Schiller in terms of plot development with this kind of thing, (in fact I doubt if I had any idea of plot when I first saw the film, probably just waiting more for the next fight scene!), but, even so, this really is feeble in terms of story and makes the Kostner and Flynn versions seem like high literature in comparison. Mix in fairly flaccid direction, poor editing and continuity and a "bargain basement" music score and what have you got? Something to view while shelling peas or waiting for the rain to clear on a Thursday afternoon or, if you saw the 1950s TV series, a clear reminder of HOW really difficult it is apparently to transfer a TV hit to one on the big screen. If you want Robin Hood for the LATTER, then without question it is, (in ascending order of merit), still: Kostner's "Prince of Thieves", the made-for-TV British version of the same year as Kostner's, (and which was totally overshadowed by the latter), and, (of course - you know already, don't you?), the Errol Flynn 1939 film, (still unsurpassable as a talkie version).