Dreadfully Boring

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Judging by existing reviews, individual opinion seems to rely very heavily on the views of fans of the 50s TV series (i.e. old blokes like me), versus those who came in cold and took it on face value. It is important to note that the film was never intended to have any relationship to the TV version. Richard Greene, of course, starred in both... and that's about the extent of it.The Sapphire Films television series was a whole different kettle of fish. American writers blacklisted in the McCarthy era wrote under pseudonyms and packed the first two seasons with subtle left-wing ideology. The last two seasons fell into a more formulaic adventure groove, but still managed the occasional political overtone.The movie was typical of the Hammer production philosophy... take what little budget there was, invest heavily in production costs (vivid colour, widescreen ratios), and hire a passable cast with what's leftover (including at least one bonza babe). I'm betting Greene came pretty cheap and had the added bonus of drawing in fans of TV series.What you see is what you get. It still looks great, the storyline is good enough to last out the whole 77min, and there isn't a political statement in sight. For mine, 6.5 stars out of ten.

...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.

Sword of Sherwood Forest (1960) ** (out of 4) Hammer made their name by reworking Frankenstein, Dracula and The Mummy but here they try their hand at Robin Hood. Richard Greene plays Robin Hood while Peter Cushing tackles the role of the Sheriff of Nottingham but the end results are rather dull. Like their horror films, this film has the sexuality and violence picked up but director Terence Fisher doesn't bring anything else to the table. The 2.35:1 aspect ratio makes for some good looking scenes but none of the scenes contain any energy to keep the viewer going. Greene is pretty forgettable as Robin and Sarah Branch as Maid Marian comes off even worse. Cushing is good in his role and keeps the film from being worse than it is. Oliver Reed also has a small role.

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.