Columbia Pictures’ “The Bandit of Sherwood Forest” (1946) is a pretty entertaining addition to the Sherwood Forest canon. It’s not as good as the Flynn or Fairbanks films, but better than the Kevin Costner and Russell Crowe entries. Fans of the “The Adventures of Robin Hood” are likely to be especially entertained, thanks to its numerous ties to that 1938 classic.
Cornel Wilde brought his real life fencing skills to the role of Robert of Nottingham, the son of the famous Robin Hood (Russell Hicks, who looks to be having a ball). Robert joins his father’s gang, including such favorites as Edgar Buchanan as Friar Tuck, John Abbott as Will Scarlett and Ray Teal as Little John, to save of the life of the Queen (Jill Esmond), and her young son the King (Maurice Tauzin) from the evil machinations of the Regent (Henry Daniell, a useful substitute when Basil Rathbone is not around).
Among other dastardly deeds, The Regent plans to negate the Magna Carta, a key story line in the Russell Crowe version.
Cornel Wilde brought his real life fencing skills to the role of Robert of Nottingham, the son of the famous Robin Hood (Russell Hicks, who looks to be having a ball). Robert joins his father’s gang, including such favorites as Edgar Buchanan as Friar Tuck, John Abbott as Will Scarlett and Ray Teal as Little John, to save of the life of the Queen (Jill Esmond), and her young son the King (Maurice Tauzin) from the evil machinations of the Regent (Henry Daniell, a useful substitute when Basil Rathbone is not around).
Among other dastardly deeds, The Regent plans to negate the Magna Carta, a key story line in the Russell Crowe version.
Robert falls in love with Catherine (Anita Louise), lady-in-waiting to the Queen. It’s very interesting to see Anita Louise here, as at one time she was scheduled to play Maid Marian opposite Errol Flynn, before wiser heads cast Olivia deHavilland in what would be one of her signature roles.
There are other comparisons to the Flynn version. “Bandit” composer Hugo Friedhofer was one of the orchestrators for Erich Wolfgang Korngold’s Academy Award-winning score for the “The Adventures of Robin Hood.” Several of the cues do sound like they could have been included in the Flynn film. Indeed, his score is an exuberant one and is more than adequate to support the more modest scope of this version. (1946 was also the year Friedhofer won the Academy Award for Best Score for “The Best Years of Our Lives.”)
Lloyd Corrigan plays the Sheriff of Nottingham in the same buffoon fashion as Melville Cooper did. (Did the Sheriff being played for laughs begin with the Errol Flynn version?)
The biggest similarity is the final scene. I don’t think I’m giving anything away here when I say both films enjoy a happy ending, though I was surprised at how similar the endings were. Both films end with a grateful king knighting the hero and with Robin/Robert and Marian/Catherine standing before the king, who asks if the two love each other and would take each other in marriage.
Though eight years separated the films, “The Adventures of Robin Hood” was one of the most popular films in the Warner Bros. library, and was constantly being re-issued. Mindful of this, it’s no wonder Columbia Pictures saw a new Robin Hood film as a perfect vehicle for Cornel Wilde, its new contract player. Wilde was in real-life a champion fencer who was a member of the U.S. Olympics fencing team. He would have participated in the 1936 Olympics had not he left the team to pursue acting. Wilde makes a dashing hero, and his final duel with Daniell is a good one.
As masterful a villain as he could be, Daniell was no fencer and had to be extensively doubled in his dueling scenes. On “The Sea Hawk” (1940), Daniell was so ineffective that director Michael Curtiz said it took forever to film close-ups where it would appear he was dueling.
There are other comparisons to the Flynn version. “Bandit” composer Hugo Friedhofer was one of the orchestrators for Erich Wolfgang Korngold’s Academy Award-winning score for the “The Adventures of Robin Hood.” Several of the cues do sound like they could have been included in the Flynn film. Indeed, his score is an exuberant one and is more than adequate to support the more modest scope of this version. (1946 was also the year Friedhofer won the Academy Award for Best Score for “The Best Years of Our Lives.”)
Lloyd Corrigan plays the Sheriff of Nottingham in the same buffoon fashion as Melville Cooper did. (Did the Sheriff being played for laughs begin with the Errol Flynn version?)
The biggest similarity is the final scene. I don’t think I’m giving anything away here when I say both films enjoy a happy ending, though I was surprised at how similar the endings were. Both films end with a grateful king knighting the hero and with Robin/Robert and Marian/Catherine standing before the king, who asks if the two love each other and would take each other in marriage.
Though eight years separated the films, “The Adventures of Robin Hood” was one of the most popular films in the Warner Bros. library, and was constantly being re-issued. Mindful of this, it’s no wonder Columbia Pictures saw a new Robin Hood film as a perfect vehicle for Cornel Wilde, its new contract player. Wilde was in real-life a champion fencer who was a member of the U.S. Olympics fencing team. He would have participated in the 1936 Olympics had not he left the team to pursue acting. Wilde makes a dashing hero, and his final duel with Daniell is a good one.
As masterful a villain as he could be, Daniell was no fencer and had to be extensively doubled in his dueling scenes. On “The Sea Hawk” (1940), Daniell was so ineffective that director Michael Curtiz said it took forever to film close-ups where it would appear he was dueling.
Columbia had a big hit with “The Bandit of Sherwood Forest”, which earned more than $3 million at the box office. 1946 was one of Hollywood’s biggest years ever. The war was over, and GIs were returning home to start families and carve out new lives for themselves. Going to the movies was an even bigger past time than ever, and 1946 saw attendance hit record peaks. Pretty much everything made money that year, but $3 million for a modestly budgeted swashbuckler is pretty impressive. Wilde had a huge hit the year before playing Chopin in “A Song to Remember” and was the new heart throb. In addition to the action and romance, however, I think another big factor in the film’s success was the Technicolor.
I’m not an expert on color photography, but it seems to me that Columbia and 20th Century Fox were the experts when it came to Technicolor films. Even today their color films from this period have an added vitality to them that were lacking at other studios. I can’t put my finger on it, but their colors are exceptionally vivid. (Too vivid some may say, but not me. I love my three-strip Technicolor).
The film’s credits list two directors, George Sherman and Henry Levin. I would be curious to find out what happened, as two credited directors on a film was unusual for the time. (Actually it still is today). Sherman directed a lot of B westerns at Republic, so I assume that the opening scenes of the Merry Men riding throughout the forest gathering forces as they go were directed by him.
No earth shaker but an enjoyable film, “The Bandit of Sherwood Forest” will likely retain its place in the upper echelon of Robin Hood movies.
The film’s credits list two directors, George Sherman and Henry Levin. I would be curious to find out what happened, as two credited directors on a film was unusual for the time. (Actually it still is today). Sherman directed a lot of B westerns at Republic, so I assume that the opening scenes of the Merry Men riding throughout the forest gathering forces as they go were directed by him.
No earth shaker but an enjoyable film, “The Bandit of Sherwood Forest” will likely retain its place in the upper echelon of Robin Hood movies.
“It’s a Gift” (1934). This comic masterpiece courtesy W.C. Fields is one of the funniest movies ever made. There’s really no story, but a series of brilliantly comic set pieces, including Fields trying to sleep on a back porch, a blind man practically wrecking the general store, and the Fields family inadvertently enjoying a picnic on a rich man’s private property (and wrecking the beautifully landscaped grounds in the process). When Fields accidentally crashes into a statue on the lawn he explains to his wife, “She ran right in front of me.”
“Tarzan and His Mate” (1934). The greatest jungle adventure movie ever made. Gloriously Pre-Code in terms of violence and sensuality, Johnny Weissmuller’s Tarzan and Maureen O’Sullivan’s Jane wear hardly any clothing throughout (or not at all in the famous swimming scene.) There’s also loads of terrifically staged action, and much like a contemporary movie, the ending piles one action scene after another. You’re as exhausted as the characters are by the time it’s over. Let’s not ignore the first part of the movie, which also boasts some of the most famous set pieces of the Tarzan series. This was the first film where Tarzan fought a giant crocodile, re-used by M-G-M in many of their subsequent Tarzan movies. My favorite scene involves an army of gorillas hurling boulders onto members of a safari traversing a trail along a steep cliff, knocking them off screaming into the valley below. And that’s just at the beginning!
“The Bride of Frankenstein.” (1935). One of the greatest sequels ever made, and director James Whale’s pixie-like spirit is evident in every frame. The creation of the bride is one of the great set pieces of the horror film, backed by Franz Waxman’s landmark score. 
“Angels with Dirty Faces” (1938). Michael Curtiz again. The old tale about two boyhood friends who go their very separate ways only to meet up as adults gets one of its most potent tellings here. One boy grows up to be a priest Father Jerry (Pat O’Brien) while the other becomes the gangster Rocky Sullivan (James Cagney). Rocky returns to the old neighborhood, mentors a street gang (The Dead End Kids), becomes entailed with gangster Humphrey Bogart, all while trying to do well for his old boyhood chum. Cagney brings a crackling intensity that he did to all his roles. This is one 1930s movies that plays very well with contemporary audiences. The ambiguity of the ending will never be solved.
