The definitive version of Robin Hood will always be the Errol Flynn version to me. There are shortcomings to this 1922 film, it does take too long to get going and Wallace Beery for personal tastes plays Richard too broadly with the laughter overdone, but it is the second best of a mostly entertaining bunch of Robin Hood films. The film looks big and grand as well as lavish and detailed, one of the best-looking Douglas Fairbanks films, even without Technicolor it looks absolutely great. The music is appropriately rousing and really enhances the action, if admittedly not in the same league as Korngold's for the Errol Flynn film, which is one of the greatest films scores of all time as far as I'm concerned. The story is a lot of fun on the whole, the first 45 minutes or so are rather ponderous but once we get to Sherwood the pace really picks up without a single complaint really to be had. That we know more than any other version of how Robin Hood came to be is one of the film's biggest interest points. The action, while none as classic as the climatic sword-fight in the Flynn version, is hugely exciting and sometimes nail-biting, just love the game of conkers using the noblemen on ropes, and the stunts are just as dazzling. Douglas Fairbanks is as gallant and athletic as ever, showing a huge amount of charisma and bravado and an infectious smile. Enid Bennett is both charming and affecting as Maid Marion though with not a lot to do. Alan Hale's Little John here and in the Flynn film is unmatched, his imposing height(very true to character) helps while being hearty and loyal. Paul Dickey is appropriately loathsome as Guy of Gisborne, if not as much as Basil Rathbone, and William Lowery enjoys himself as the Sheriff of Nottingham. But other than Fairbanks the best performance comes from Sam de Grasse, whose snide and despicable nature as Prince John makes him a worthy predecessor to Claude Rains. Allan Dwan's direction has little fault as well. In conclusion, a terrific amount of fun and compares very favourably to the Robin Hood films out there, much of the Sherwood scenes are very imaginatively handled. 9/10 Bethany Cox

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.

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!

Every one in Robin Hood's Merry Band skip every where. They can't walk, they all skip, especially Fairbanks. Can Fairbanks ever enter a room like a normal person? Not until later pictures... A little overly Merry if you ask me, but Wallace Beery is a revelation. Young and Handsome. Totally unexpected. The Special effects photography is nice too. There are many good things in this film, and it's well worth a look, but it does get kind of Fairbanks style hammy. He later took fencing lessons for Black Pirate, but he hadn't bothered here yet. He kind of Whacks at everybody. Alan Hale plays Little John, and did again 16 years later in the Errol Flynn Version.