...for many serious reasons. first, for its ingenuity after so many adaptations of the legend of Robin Hood. no the less, for the impressive cast. and for a smart simplicity, remembering the flavour and the spirit of an age of Hollywood. so, a pure lovely film, in which, recognozing the ingredients of the classic story, you discover the youth freshness of a vision about values, virtues and heroes.

I watched it again last night after reading an unfavorable review. I thought it was very entertaining and very well acted. Who cares if Richard Todd wasn't 6'2"? He was indeed athletic (in his autobiography, Caught in the Act, Todd said he did his own stunts), handsome, possessed a beautiful speaking voice, had a twinkle in his eye and had daggers in them when he confronted Peter Finch at the drawbridge. Excellent job.Errol Flynn's Robin was excellent, too. But the '38 version was big budget. Disney was able to do a lot with a lot less. I love both versions. Flynn is king of the big-budget Robins; Todd is king of the smaller production. Richard Greene was a good television Robin.Another reason I call it a draw is because of what Todd's Robin, Rob Roy, Dambuster meant to me as a kid. He indeed was a role model. And Disney's productions were wonderful. Others I still consider heroes of the 50s include Gordon Scott and Steve Reeves. I'm sure millions of other kids from that decade would agree.In those days, adventure, fair play and knowing right from wrong were big themes. Todd et al sure knew how to convey them.

This is a later version of Robin Hood, made a decade and a half after The Adventures of Robin Hood. It follows the Disney formula of using good actors rather than well-known stars, and a terrific attention to detail.This film does not take as many liberties with known history as does The Adventures. If you are an expert historian, you can find faults, but they are kept to a minimum.In many places, this film is as good as, and sometimes surpasses The Adventures. But it lacks Michael Curtiz's touch, and - sorry to say - Richard Todd is no match for Errol Flynn.

This live action Walt Disney produced Robin Hood adaptation is among the best in the genre, perhaps second only to the outstanding Errol Flynn version of 1938 ("The Adventures of Robin Hood"). The cast is solid, led by the energetic and charismatic Richard Todd as Robin Hood.This version has a few features not commonly found in Robin Hood films. Eleanor of Aquitaine (the Queen of England and mother to both King Richard and Prince John) is a major supporting character and is played by veteran actress Martita Hunt. The real-life Eleanor is one of the most famous and powerful women of medieval English history and one that is (unfortunately) only rarely portrayed in film. Another historic figure that is represented is the Archbishop of Canterbury (played by Antony Eustral). Absent from this version is the traditional conflict between Normans and Saxons, but there is plenty of evil-doing on the part of Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham for Robin to deal with.This rousing adventure is not to be missed, particularly by those who profess to have an interest in classic adventure. Don't let the association with Walt Disney Studios fool you. Though the film isn't brutally violent, there is sufficient 1950s death and mayhem to satisfy most fans of the genre.