← Back to Reviews
in
Keyser Corleone's Robin Hood Week, Review 5
Robin Hood (1973) - Directed by Wolfgang Reitherman
"We never rob. We just sort of borrow a bit from those who can afford it."
Ah, yes, Disney. Ever since Disney released their first feature film, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, in 1937, the reimagining of folk tales and fairy tales became a trademark for the company. And even today when they're focusing more on original stories (something they never did until 1994 came around with The Lion King), they still do it occasionally. But When Walt Disney died in 1966, the studio seemed to run out of ideas. They lost their heart and soul. And I'll bet Walt never wanted the Robin Hood movie that came out during the Dark Ages of Disney to come out the way it did.
This famous animated version of the folktale features Robin and Marian as foxes destined for love. And of course, Robin and his bear friend Little John are annoying the heck out of Prince John and his counselor, Hiss the Snake. But when they go to far during an archery tournament, the king gets MAD.
OK.....
WHAT THE HELL!? This is the worst main run Disney movie I have ever seen! Even Home on the Range is a better movie! There are so many things wrong with this piece of crap! I can think of MULTIPLE things seriously wrong with Disney's Robin Hood! And I'll list them all!
1. Reused animations and voice actors. We get it, Little John is practically Baloo, just like Terk and Tantor were basically Timon and Pumbaa. Don't believe me? Same voice, and he does the Baloo and King Louie dance with Lady Kluck. Their personality is EXACTLY the same. And the animations are taken from plenty of other Disney movies. The party scene in Sherwood Forest was horrible to watch because so much was taken from The Aristocrats, Snow White and The Jungle Book. The movie's plagued with these.
2. No originality. The movie starts out with Alan a Dale, or just "The Rooster," saying the animals of the forest have their own version of the story. Well, what's so different? The fact that the Disney comlany was trying to kickstart the furry community 20 years earlier? Seriously. It's got furry cosplay...
Furry bondage...
And to top it off, furry fetish.
The movie didn't accomplish ANYTHING except being underdeveloped and being cute.
3. The music is bad. These so called songs are nothing except filler for a Disney movie when nothing happens, and none of them are memorable. Besides, if this is medieval England, why are some of the songs done in the vein of Bob Dylan and Johnny Cash?
4. No character development. Robin and Marian hardly have a backstory! All they have is "they were kids and had fun together," and you don't even get to know what lead Robin Hood on his path to thievery. In Prince of Thieves, there was some revenge to it. And at least they gave some hints in the Errol Flynn film.
And where are the Merry Men? I get that Robin Hood movies don't tend to focus on them, but where's Will Scarlett? Did they take him out to make room for that annoying rabbit named Skippy, his pointless siblings, and that turtle who added NOTHING to the movie? And once more, all we get out of Little John is the re-animation (hah) of Baloo.
5. The movie isn't funny at all. We get a terrible habit of thumb-sucking from Pirnce John, which gets very old, very quickly. Even Hiss realized that the first time it happened.
And the cross-dressing humor at the beginning of the movie? Oh, please. I've seen better cross-dressing humor on I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry.
6. Where is the political intrigue? People seem to forget that much of the Robin Hood tale is scandal directly involving Prince John, the Sheriff of Nottingham and other characters. The early Robin Hood movies had a fair share of it, and the 2010 film with Russell Crowe has more than enough of it. The scandal usually deals with the debts caused by Prince John and even attempts at killing King Richard. But there was none of that here.
7. The action was LAME. Remember the fight scene in Beauty and the Beast between Gaston and the Beast? Action packed! Or what about the battle between Prince Phillip and Maleficent? Or how about Ariel vs. Ursula? That was good! This is just cheap cartoon action that doesn't even have a place in a Looney Tunes cartoon.
8. The accents. OK, I'll admit the actor for Prince John was a very good choice, but why does have the cast sound like their from Mississippi or Texas? You wanna complain about how Kevin Costner didn't have an English accent? Take a look at this movie. It's a black plague.
9. This one's pretty simple... why are rhinos, hippos and elephants in the forest? I can understand a lion since King Richard is the "lionheart," and I won't argue that. A dog for a blacksmith? Dogs go hunting in forests all the time. No complaint. But this doesn't even make any sense! What did Prince John have them imported?
And finally, 10. The villains are just annoying. The Sheriff of Nottingham was OK, but Prince John's just a whiny baby who can't get anything done, and his snake adds nothing except for cheap second banana humor. In fact, I can think of a very similar Disney villain that did everything Prince John did but better.
As for the little mistakes, there are too many to count. This especially happens in the first twenty minutes. Robin, in drag (which quickly BECAME a drag), snuck the ring off of Prince John's finger and kissed the hand, but later you see the ring's there without the jewel! Prince John even looks at his own hand and doesn't notice! And how was Little John able to sneak under the treasure chest carried by four giant rhino guards?
OK, I'm done with the complaints. There are a couple of strong points in the movie. The voice acting's good, it does a good job being cute, and the sentiment is very touching. The scene where Marian's playing with the children was a good scene.
OK, there's my Disney's Robin Hood shpeal. It's a bad movie. I'd say, how this got to be seen as a classic is beyond me, but I know how. It'll come as no surprise: it's a pre-2000 movie with the Disney label. This is not a good movie, and even the polarized Prince of Thieves puts this movie to shame. At least the sentiment and voice acting made it watchable, so it's not a total disaster for a movie, but as a Robin Hood adaptation, it's disgusting.
Robin Hood (1973) - Directed by Wolfgang Reitherman
"We never rob. We just sort of borrow a bit from those who can afford it."
Ah, yes, Disney. Ever since Disney released their first feature film, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, in 1937, the reimagining of folk tales and fairy tales became a trademark for the company. And even today when they're focusing more on original stories (something they never did until 1994 came around with The Lion King), they still do it occasionally. But When Walt Disney died in 1966, the studio seemed to run out of ideas. They lost their heart and soul. And I'll bet Walt never wanted the Robin Hood movie that came out during the Dark Ages of Disney to come out the way it did.
This famous animated version of the folktale features Robin and Marian as foxes destined for love. And of course, Robin and his bear friend Little John are annoying the heck out of Prince John and his counselor, Hiss the Snake. But when they go to far during an archery tournament, the king gets MAD.
OK.....
WHAT THE HELL!? This is the worst main run Disney movie I have ever seen! Even Home on the Range is a better movie! There are so many things wrong with this piece of crap! I can think of MULTIPLE things seriously wrong with Disney's Robin Hood! And I'll list them all!
1. Reused animations and voice actors. We get it, Little John is practically Baloo, just like Terk and Tantor were basically Timon and Pumbaa. Don't believe me? Same voice, and he does the Baloo and King Louie dance with Lady Kluck. Their personality is EXACTLY the same. And the animations are taken from plenty of other Disney movies. The party scene in Sherwood Forest was horrible to watch because so much was taken from The Aristocrats, Snow White and The Jungle Book. The movie's plagued with these.
2. No originality. The movie starts out with Alan a Dale, or just "The Rooster," saying the animals of the forest have their own version of the story. Well, what's so different? The fact that the Disney comlany was trying to kickstart the furry community 20 years earlier? Seriously. It's got furry cosplay...
Furry bondage...
And to top it off, furry fetish.
The movie didn't accomplish ANYTHING except being underdeveloped and being cute.
3. The music is bad. These so called songs are nothing except filler for a Disney movie when nothing happens, and none of them are memorable. Besides, if this is medieval England, why are some of the songs done in the vein of Bob Dylan and Johnny Cash?
4. No character development. Robin and Marian hardly have a backstory! All they have is "they were kids and had fun together," and you don't even get to know what lead Robin Hood on his path to thievery. In Prince of Thieves, there was some revenge to it. And at least they gave some hints in the Errol Flynn film.
And where are the Merry Men? I get that Robin Hood movies don't tend to focus on them, but where's Will Scarlett? Did they take him out to make room for that annoying rabbit named Skippy, his pointless siblings, and that turtle who added NOTHING to the movie? And once more, all we get out of Little John is the re-animation (hah) of Baloo.
5. The movie isn't funny at all. We get a terrible habit of thumb-sucking from Pirnce John, which gets very old, very quickly. Even Hiss realized that the first time it happened.
And the cross-dressing humor at the beginning of the movie? Oh, please. I've seen better cross-dressing humor on I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry.
6. Where is the political intrigue? People seem to forget that much of the Robin Hood tale is scandal directly involving Prince John, the Sheriff of Nottingham and other characters. The early Robin Hood movies had a fair share of it, and the 2010 film with Russell Crowe has more than enough of it. The scandal usually deals with the debts caused by Prince John and even attempts at killing King Richard. But there was none of that here.
7. The action was LAME. Remember the fight scene in Beauty and the Beast between Gaston and the Beast? Action packed! Or what about the battle between Prince Phillip and Maleficent? Or how about Ariel vs. Ursula? That was good! This is just cheap cartoon action that doesn't even have a place in a Looney Tunes cartoon.
8. The accents. OK, I'll admit the actor for Prince John was a very good choice, but why does have the cast sound like their from Mississippi or Texas? You wanna complain about how Kevin Costner didn't have an English accent? Take a look at this movie. It's a black plague.
9. This one's pretty simple... why are rhinos, hippos and elephants in the forest? I can understand a lion since King Richard is the "lionheart," and I won't argue that. A dog for a blacksmith? Dogs go hunting in forests all the time. No complaint. But this doesn't even make any sense! What did Prince John have them imported?
And finally, 10. The villains are just annoying. The Sheriff of Nottingham was OK, but Prince John's just a whiny baby who can't get anything done, and his snake adds nothing except for cheap second banana humor. In fact, I can think of a very similar Disney villain that did everything Prince John did but better.
As for the little mistakes, there are too many to count. This especially happens in the first twenty minutes. Robin, in drag (which quickly BECAME a drag), snuck the ring off of Prince John's finger and kissed the hand, but later you see the ring's there without the jewel! Prince John even looks at his own hand and doesn't notice! And how was Little John able to sneak under the treasure chest carried by four giant rhino guards?
OK, I'm done with the complaints. There are a couple of strong points in the movie. The voice acting's good, it does a good job being cute, and the sentiment is very touching. The scene where Marian's playing with the children was a good scene.
OK, there's my Disney's Robin Hood shpeal. It's a bad movie. I'd say, how this got to be seen as a classic is beyond me, but I know how. It'll come as no surprise: it's a pre-2000 movie with the Disney label. This is not a good movie, and even the polarized Prince of Thieves puts this movie to shame. At least the sentiment and voice acting made it watchable, so it's not a total disaster for a movie, but as a Robin Hood adaptation, it's disgusting.