Incannerax What a waste of my time!!!

Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Freeman This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

one-nine-eighty A Hammer film unlike a Hammer film; based on the cult 1950's TV series "The Adventures of Robin Hood" Richard Green reprises his role as the famous fictitious outlaw in a cheap film spin off movie. While the main star of the series stayed the majority of the cast where replaced, when you consider what they appeared in it makes this seem a whole lot more amusing: Peter Cushing, one time Dr Baron Von Frankenstein and also Sherlock Holmes, stars as the Sheriff of Nottingham meaning that the main face off is one time Sherlock Holmes chasing one time Dr Henry Baskerville. Various other actors don tights and join the story, including: Nigel Green who once played Hercules in Jason and the Argonauts (as Little John) , Jack Gwillim who once played King Aeetes in Jason and the Argonauts (is the Archbishop of Canterbury), Niall MacGinnis who played Zeus in Jason and the Argonauts (playing Friar Tuck). With other stars of famous films littered in this, if you are a fan of film you may certainly recognise a face or two. Hell, even Oliver Reed (Leon "The Curse of the Werewolf", and Athos one of "the three musketeers") features in this despite being overdubbed throughout.Don't expect something epic or convincing as this is a pretty poor rendition of the Outlaw by today's standards but for the time it was well created and received. Like so many other versions this film avoids telling an origin story of Robin Hood, the only origin situation is in meeting Maid Marion (Sara Branch). The film itself though takes a situation from the time line of Robin Hood and runs with that instead, in this instance there are two main focal stories, Martin of Eastwood's (Derren Nesbitt) requital and a plot to kill the Archbishop of Canterbury (Jack Willim) from a deadly plot devised and set in motion by the Earl of Newark (Richard Pasco) and the Earl of Mowbray (played by, not but not credited, Oliver Reed). It all starts with a stranger being chased and killed by the Sheriff's men, he has in his possession a brooch showing a falcon with a daisy in it's talons. Robin try's to find out what the brooch symbolises but before he can find out he takes a job working for Newark as this may or may not help his detection work. This all goes wrong when the Sheriff turns up one day. It transpires that the Sheriff is in league with Newark and Mowbray. Can Robin save the Archbishop, England and the day? Probably with him being the hero of the film ;) This is not the greatest Hammer film by a long way but an easy film to watch on a lazy Sunday - although there are a lot better. This is one of the poorest film's I've seen bearing Terence Fisher's name as director unfortunately. The plot is easy to guess and the script doesn't improve the story in any way. The acting is hammy at best and it's only Cushing that delivers with any authenticity making the Sheriff scheming and sneaky while giving him a regal presence. Despite the downfalls the filming techniques used makes this a very bright and colourful rendition of the outlaw of Sherwood. One thing that baffled me was the title, in the film Robin mentions that his weapon of choice it the long bow and he's seen with it throughout, then why is the film called "The Sword of Sherwood Forest"? He does use a sword, more so towards the end of the film but not much, certainly not enough to warrant the film being called "The Sword of Sherwood Forest". Again this is just a minor thing and you'll soon forget the title when you start watching. 4 out of 10

brownish33 ...and that is looking at the main actress Sarah branch who plays maid Marian. she is just oh so beautiful and its a shame she didn't do much acting work, even if she wasn't that great, i thought she was one of the most beautiful hammer women and i wish she did more films. other then that, the film like others have said is not nearly on par with other hammer productions. this was pretty boring and at times just plain silly. but I'm glad i got to see this for peter cushing cuz he is always good. i think this must have been one of his few villain roles, i always see him as the hero. anyway, thats all, worth a watch if you like these films, which i do.

Neil Doyle This is Robin Hood without any zest...just plain dull.If you're going to do the Robin Hood story, at least a filmmaker should blend in all the proper elements that make the legendary story so popular, as the 1938 film did with Errol Flynn. But here we have Hammer trying to justice to the tale and unable to disguise the fact that it's done on a low-budget scale with less than impressive actors in all the important character roles.RICHARD GREENE would have been a suitable choice if he'd played the role on the big screen some fifteen years earlier, but he's clearly too mature (and a bit tired looking) to be the dashing outlaw of Sherwood Forest and this faulty bit of casting extends to the other roles too. I never saw the television series starring Greene so I can't comment on it or make a comparison.It gets off to a dull start with a meeting between Robin and Marian (SARAH BRANCH) that (as in the Flynn film) has them on less than amicable terms at first sight. The difference here is that she's been bathing in the nude before Robin and his men come along but quickly dresses modestly and has her first rude encounter with the outlaw.There's no "ye olde English" flavor to the dialog--it sounds more 20th Century than anything else. PETER CUSHING turns up as the Sheriff of Nottingham who wants a wanted criminal that Robin Hood is sheltering. He promises Robin a free pardon if he delivers the criminal to him, but Robin refuses the bargain.Just as well. The Sheriff turns out to be untrustworthy and never keeps his word. NIALL MacGINNIS doesn't seem rotund enough to play Friar Tuck but he shows up midway through the film to form an alliance with Robin. A further plot device involves the Archbishop of Canterbury, but it's a muddled bit of plotting that seems insufficiently interesting and takes attention away from Robin and Marian.Summing up: Handsomely photographed in color with some interesting archery scenes, but a lackluster script and so-so performances do nothing to make the film anything but plodding and dull. The story simply has no focal point.Trivia note: SARAH BRANCH's hair-style and make-up looks straight out of the 1960s--a very modern looking Maid Marian.

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).