Verdict:
The Adventures of Robin Hood is a known classic and, many argue, the best of the Robin Hood movies. There is truth to that, if you can handle its presentation.
The 30 and 40s were part of the era when movies were very expressive, and this Robin Hood production dials it up to 11. It puts structure and style above everything else, which results in some campy and strange (to a modern eye) theatrical performance.
For example, there is plenty of fake laughter. I’m talking a dude with his fists on his waste, head raised and “Ha ha ha ha”. Yes, that bad. Acting is accentuated and rhythmic, like it secretly wants to go full Shakespeare. Everybody’s costumes look clean, fresh out of the washing machine. The same can be said for the sets. Even the nature looks polished somehow.
As a result of this, at no point did I believe that the people on screen were real characters from 12th century England. They were actors reading their lines and stuntmen doing cool tricks. The extremely light mood makes the movie seem like a comedic sketch of Robin Hood than an actual Robin Hood production.
I feel like this overstylized type of production goes against the spirit of movies. The advantage that cinema granted us, compared to theatre, is the capacity for realism. We could’ve just pointed a camera at a theatrical stage. But we don’t. We go to location to film the lush jungles instead of having a cardboard cutout of a palm. So, then it is a little weird to see characters in a real forest on real horses, but act like they are on stage, choregraphed to the tiniest detail.
Then again, I don’t mind Wes Anderson films, and they are known for being stylized. Perhaps the other issue that makes the stylization not work is the dissonance in the mood. You see, The Adventures of Robin Hood has taken all the uppers it found in its uncle’s cabinet and is now on the most energetic and positive drug-fuelled ride of its life. But at the same time, this is not a children’s movie and people die in. So, you have Robin Hood yell “haha” as the heroic music is swelling and then he kills several dudes by shooting them in the chest.
The orchestral music plays a big part in this. It really tries to punch its way to the foreground and, being so prominent, could have used more variety in its mood. It is all too happy and high energy.
But, to its credit, the movie is well structured and well balanced. Scenes flow well from one to another and the action looks good, even if it is a over-stylized. You understand what’s happening most of the time. The pacing is decent.
I also liked that this movie maintained a historically anchored political footing throughout the film. There is mention of the Norman-Saxon conflict, kings, nobles and external historical events. The Kevin Costner’s Prince of Thieves from 1991 would give a historical background at the very beginning and then forget about it until the end.
The overly clean look notwithstanding, the film does have a pleasant appearance. The set up of shots made sense, with some mild symbolism thrown in here and there. There was beautiful boke in the background during the close ups. The cuts are not too quick. The framing is excellent, with flat background shots and characters in the foreground, for those theatrical styling points. With so much action, the choreography of the fights is very tight and there are countless acrobatic tricks. Again, everything just makes good sense, as far as structure is concerned.
In short, The Adventures of Robin Hood is a solid high-quality piece of work, but it also feels sterile, even more so than the other movies from the same era.