There had been many film adaptations based on the famous tales of the English folk hero Robin Hood and his Merry Men since 1908; and all of them very different too. It is difficult to choose which are my favorite Robin Hood films...but I would have to say I love Disney's version and "The Adventures of Robin Hood" starring Errol Flynn.

You know something, Walt Disney's Robin Hood is perhaps the most famous animated version of the legend, which had the various characters depicted as anthropomorphic animal characters, including Robin Hood and Maid Marian as foxes (I love foxes); And you know, this was probably the very first time that any studio would use anthropomorphic animal characters in an animated feature.

Robin Hood is not a favourite of mine, in fact I’ve somewhat felt that it was the one of the most redundant films of Walt Disney’s history (along with a few others, but I’ll get to them). I suppose this film may have it fans, but I’m not one of them; although I wouldn’t go as far as say that this was Disney's worse film, just that, to me it’s never gets exciting or really engaging.

Ultimately some of my reservations towards the film, are simply an aversion to listen to Americanisms in what is suppose to be a film set in middle-age England's rural countryside (in many ways similar to the resistance that Lupercal felt toward The Rescuers Down Under). There is something disconcerting about listening to a supposedly English child going around saying “Look it;” a saying that is distinctly American to my ears. Robin Hood, Sir Hiss, Lady Cluck and Prince John are about the only characters here who speak in anything resembling an British accent (not surprising since all the actors voicing them are/were British).

However this minor and somewhat personal gripe of accent abnormalities is somewhat made irrelevant when compared to the much more noticeable factor. That this film recycles animation wherever possible, to the point were, to me anyway, it becomes hard to focus on the film. ‘The Phoney King of England’ is a notorious example (despite being the film’s only memorable song), borrowing elements not only from earlier in its own film, but also from the dance numbers of Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs, The Jungle Book (Lady Cluck and Little John dancing together) and The Aristocats (the band members). Many other scenes in the film in general are used in the opening credits, including a few coming from the very end of the film, to me this mass of recycling gives the film a diluted and rushed feel.

When the animation isn’t being rotoscoped from another film - or itself - it doesn’t really stand up to comparison with it’s peers. As this is a Disney film, I expect the animation to be as good as other Disney features and in essence the whole is generally well animated. However there’s a distinct lack of feeling here that is present in other works by Disney, the weight behind the animation isn’t as strong here and at times it seems the funny animal aspect may have been to blame. One may not expect the same levels of realism from funny animals as one would with more ‘realistic’ animal characters.

Outside of the animation and the technical aspects, what we are left with is a pretty lacking story; which, although never reaches the inanity and pointless meandering of Disney’s other works like Sword in The Stone, still manages to go by much to slowly to do the film any favours. True there is a definite plot to the whole, but the story is so by-the-numbers and the villains so useless that the conclusion is never in any real doubt as to whether or not Robin will succeed. Add in some funny situations which aren’t that funny, some awkwardly forgettable songs and equally forgettable secondary characters.

The characters are fairly near the bottom of Disney’s gene pool: Robin is acceptable, though perhaps a little too much of a perfect good guy, despite his gently cocky nature; yet he works well as a portrayal of the noble outlaw. Little John is nothing but Baloo recycled with clothes (something which Disney would have better luck with on Talespin), this also gives Phil Harris a third turn at voicing effectively the same character (the second being O’Malley from the Aristocats). The other, secondary characters have little screen time to be worthy of any real note.

The villains are weak: Prince John in particular, with his sucking of his thumb and calling for mum, a coward through and through; yes he can put character to death, but thanks to the ineptitude of his loony plans, he’s hardly Disney’s greatest villain. Sir Hiss is hardly threatening as a small snake (if he was poisonous maybe), despite being the most intelligent of the villains. This leaves the Sheriff, who would prove to be threatening, if he weren’t blinded by his own ego.

It's nowhere near the greatest achievement the Disney company has ever made, in fact it seems to be the epitome of Disney-by-numbers, an example of the company at its low point following the wake of Walt Disney’s death. Like other films following his death, the film lacks a really strong, cohesive story, something which Walt excelled at creating. Without his guidance, Walt Disney (the company) might have – and in some ways did – struggled to create great works with any degree of absolute success.

If it weren’t for what followed, who knows where the Disney company may have ended up, yet even still, the next twelve years would be very rocky ones for the Mouse House's survival.

N.B. All this aside though, this Robin stands as one of the most recognisable versions of the famous, fictional archer. In some ways that’s a shame, but it not as if many serious versions based on the legend deserves to stands in the light instead.

Robin Hood has always been one of my favorite classic Disney movies. I loved all the characters, especially the silly Prince John and his sidekick Hiss. I enjoyed all the predicaments Robin and Little John got themselves into, especially when they masqueraded as gypsies.

The story is a Disney-fied version Robin Hood where the main characters are anthropomorphic, obviously. This also makes the bad guys dumbed down or silly, but that works in this movie and they don't come off as just annoying. As I already said the predicaments that Robin and Little John get themselves into are entertaining. From trying to rob the Prince and wearing disguises to get into the archery tournament and deceive the royalty. I also liked that they didn't use only a few types of animals for the characters, but there was a whole spectrum of creatures used. From rabbits and cats to badgers and chickens.

The animation is ok, it's definitely no the strong point of the film. It's rough/sketchy looking, but that was very common of animated Disney films in the 60's and 70's. Also, several shots look recycled in some scenes, like the way some of the animals are dancing is reminiscent of another movie, "The Aristocats". Some of the character's designs are also recycled, such as Little John's and Hiss' they were just like Baloo and Kaa from Jungle Book only in Different colors.

The songs are pretty good, only a couple really stand out though, such as the main theme song and "Phony King of England". Those two are both pretty catchy. I can't say I found any of the songs annoying either, and they fit in the scenes well. The score was typical of that time period so it doesn't really stand out in any way.

Overall this is a fun movie. It's not one of Disney's strongest, like the music, animation and some of the character designs, but the characters are interesting, the story moves along quickly and there's some pretty funny scenes. I've always loved watching it since I was little. Definitely one to check out, and I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoys classic Disney cartoons.

Ah the conundrum of deciding which one is Disney's weakest movie from the 70s. The Rescuers? The Aristocats? Robin Hood? The entire decade was known for its extremely lazy animation and laid back plotting. Surprisingly enough, though, all three movies from this decade are fun to watch for different kinds of reasons. It's in general agreement that The Rescuers is the decade's strongest movie, but to call Robin Hood worse than Aristocats is no more fair than calling Aristocats worse than Robin Hood. The Rescuers is heart-warming. Aristocats is off-the-wall fun and music. And Robin Hood is. . . heart-warming, off-the-wall fun and music, and dramatic. Well, maybe not dramatic like "The Lion King" dramatic, but it has its own strengths. Certainly it has its heart in the right place when it shows the plight of those desperate for food and money. Robin Hood is the right mix of serious and silly, and the unique way of telling the story through the eyes of animals is wonderfully amusing. The characters are great. The story is likable. The music is likable. It's just as fun as its peers, if only for different reasons.

To tell the truth, I've been pretty much afraid to rate this. When so many people love it, how can I come out and say I thought it was a whole lot of nothing, held together by bad songs?

(ducks)

Come on. Is a villain who whines for his mummy and sucks his thumb at all threatening? (Or funny? No.) Is the Sheriff of Nottingham at all scary with his hayseed Pat-Buttram-Mr.-Haney voice?

Meanwhile, against this not-so-terrifying duo is Mr.-British-accented-errol-flynn-reincarnated-as-a-fox character.

Seems like an unfair contest. Plus, they painted Baloo brown and stuffed him in a suit to provide backup. And they got a bunch of cute baby animals (and bland female fox) to look adoring up at Robin as he swanks around sounding nobly British. (Everyone knows Robin Hood really lived in good ol' American Redneck Country. Listen to most of the other characters, after all!)

Thank goodness for the amusing sidekick snake, Sir Hiss, the only high point of this dull, dull movie.

When I was a kid fascinated with the real Robin Hood, I desperately wanted to see this movie, but never got to. I might have enjoyed it more then. Now it's just agony to sit through.

It's a bit hard to account for this film's enduring popularity. The conclusion I've reached is that it was Disney's only feature in recent memory that featured only bipedal anthro animals, that the main character was a fox, and that a lot of people like bipedal foxes and would enjoy a movie about them planting celery. Whatever the reason, that Robin Hood's popularity overshadows superior and largely ignored 80's movies like 'Oliver and Company' is a shame.

'Robin Hood' certainly isn't a bad film, and if we had a decimal system I'd p[robably give it 2.75 stars :) Robin himself is an attractive and likeable character, and most of the supporting characters are good if not remarkable. The backgrounds and animation are a bit weak by Disney standards though, some of the music is rather awful (Roger Miller as the voice of a medieval British minstrel? What were they thinking?), and in places it gets a bit slow.

Still it's not without merit, and is still quite watchable today. Just don't expect it to live up to the quality of Disney's classic era films, or their return to form in the 80's and 90's.

On the other hand, if you like anthro foxes, you're going to love it. I guess I can't blame you.

This has been one of my favorite animated features since I was eight.

The animation is very attractive,as are the characters. My favorites being Robin,Little John (who resembles Baloo and is in fact voiced by the same guy-Phil Harris), Maid Marian (a very seductive vixen),Lady Kluck (Marian's feisty lady-in-waiting),Prince John (a wonderful performance by Peter Ustinov),Sir Hiss (who resembles Kaa from Jungle Book),the Sheriff of Nottingham(voiced by Pat Buttram,one of my favorite Disney voice actors. Anyone besides me notice the abundance of fat characters in RH?), Friar Tuck ( a badger),and the Sheriff's two vulture deputiesTrigger and Nutsy.(Who I got my moniker from)

The story is very light and there are some very funny scenes. I would love to see
Disney make a sequel/prequel to it (I've waited 30 years for one). Granted,the film doesn't have the bite many Disney features before and after it have had,but it is a very amusing and entertaining Disney classic.

Kids will love this movie--from the animals to the action to the slap-stick comedy, they'll be entertained from start to finish. The film also manages to accomplish a surprising amount in the standard 90 minutes. The story is well-paced--time is given for the audience to feel for the poor people of Nottingham as well as cheer and laugh when they triumph.

The animation is not extraordinary but it does its job. A couple sequences, however, do stand out in that they seem to have been stuck in as a labour saving device. Animation clips are recycled from one part of the film and used in another--the oldest girl bunny laughing at her brother when he's kissed by Maid Marion is used again in the "Phoney King of England" song... Friar Tuck cheering as Robin Hood hits the bulls-eye in the archery tournament is used again not ten minutes later when Lady Cluck is doing her quarterback charge through the guards... and so on. There are a number of these 'recycles' throughout the course of the film. I only mention it because some were so blatantly obvious and it does demonstrate that the animation was not the priority in the making of this feature.

There are the standard five-songs (counting the opening theme) for this film, although you may not notice because the songs are so short. The Rooster/Minstrel sings three of them, (two as part of his narration of the tale), and another song is an unmemorable ballad sung by a pleasant female voice over a tender moment between Robin Hood and Maid Marion. The only out-and-out musical number in the film is Little John singing the "Phoney King of England." The tune is catchy and apparently the animation for the musical number was as well--since the choreography of the dance sequence for the partying villagers is a re-hash from the Aristocat's "Everybody Wants to be a Cat."