sykespj Judging by existing reviews, individual opinion seems to rely very heavily on the views of fans of the 50s TV series (i.e. old blokes like me), versus those who came in cold and took it on face value. It is important to note that the film was never intended to have any relationship to the TV version. Richard Greene, of course, starred in both... and that's about the extent of it.The Sapphire Films television series was a whole different kettle of fish. American writers blacklisted in the McCarthy era wrote under pseudonyms and packed the first two seasons with subtle left-wing ideology. The last two seasons fell into a more formulaic adventure groove, but still managed the occasional political overtone.The movie was typical of the Hammer production philosophy... take what little budget there was, invest heavily in production costs (vivid colour, widescreen ratios), and hire a passable cast with what's leftover (including at least one bonza babe). I'm betting Greene came pretty cheap and had the added bonus of drawing in fans of TV series.What you see is what you get. It still looks great, the storyline is good enough to last out the whole 77min, and there isn't a political statement in sight. For mine, 6.5 stars out of ten.

Henry Kujawa A real oddity from Hammer Films, SWORD OF SHERWOOD FOREST (1960) is their only film based on a popular UK TV series which actually features the star of the show in the movie. The rest of the cast has still been replaced, however, and because of the nature of the story, it almost has to be an "alternate universe" continuity as I see no way it could fit into the run of the TV show.Robin Hood (Richard Green) faces off mostly against the Sheriff of Nottingham (Peter Cushing), which means you've got "Sir Henry Baskerville" fighting "Sherlock Holmes"-- although Cushing comes across more like "Baron Frankenstein" in this one.Also in the cast, I realized on my 3rd viewing, are no less than 3 actors who were in JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS-- Little John is Nigel Green (Hercules), the Archbishop of Canterbury is Jack Gwillim (King Aeetes of Colchis), and Friar Tuck (the film's comic relief) is Niall MacGinnis (Zeus). Of course, having Richard Green & Nigel Green together also means you have 2 different "Sir Dennis Nayland Smiths" side-by-side for most of the picture! Oddly enough, the REAL villain turns out to be "Edward, Earl of NewarK", played by Richard Pasco, who I've never seen in anything else, but apparently played baddies in 3 different episodes of the TV series.Also in the cast are Derren Nesbitt (WHERE EAGLES DARE) in one of his rare "good guy" roles, Edwin Richfield ("The Sea Devils") as a minor villain, and Oliver Reed (THE BIG SLEEP) as a total bastard, who, inexplicably, had his entire performance dubbed by another actor.It's a "nice" film, but not a great one, as the plot tends to ramble and never quite builds any kind of momentum, resembling more than anything a 30's serial with the cliffhangers removed. Richard Green was one of the producers, and it's not by one of Hammer's regular writers, either. Still, anything with Peter Cushing, directed by Terrence Fisher is worth a look.

timsmith37 This is not as bad as all that. Terence Fisher as ever does a competent job, there are reasonable production values and some rather fetching photography. I always thought Richard Greene a little too schoolmasterly for an outlaw, and he is here rather portly, but he can certainly handle a bow. Nigel Greene and Niall McGinnis are well cast as Little John and Tuck, Peter Cushing is an excellent Sheriff, and Richard Pasco does well as the ambiguous Lord Newark. Oliver Reed's camp henchman is perhaps less successful.The conspiracy plot unfolds at a relaxed pace and resolves satisfyingly. The weakest element is the tacked on romance with Sarah Branch's rather bland Maid Marion.All in all a rather charming period piece, that gets closer to the spirit of the original ballads than most versions.

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).