With the help of a smooth talking tomcat, a family of Parisian felines set to inherit a fortune from their owner try to make it back home after a jealous butler kidnaps them and leaves them in the country.
An imaginative Disney version of the Robin Hood legend. Fun and romance abound as the swashbuckling hero of Sherwood Forest and his valiant sidekick plot one daring adventure after another to outwit the greedy Prince John (Sir Peter Ustinov) and his partner as they put the tax squeeze on the poor.Written by
Because things like backgrounds and characters were so painstakingly drawn and painted by hand, it wasn't uncommon for some scenes and character reactions to be repeated throughout earlier Disney movies. See more »
Historical inaccuracies inherent to most versions of the Robin Hood legend. In the movie, Prince John is shown raising taxes on the poor people. In reality, Prince/King John Lackland was notorious for raising taxes on the nobility. Similarly, King Richard is depicted as a loving king who guards England dearly, when in reality he spent all of his short leisure time at his French estate, and once said he'd sell London to the highest bidder if he could. See more »
You know, there's been a heap of legends and tall tales about Robin Hood. All different too. Well, we folks of the animal kingdom have our own version. It's the story of what really happened in Sherwood Forest.
See more »
On the DVD version of the film, the opening credits are different. There are occasional pauses in the original animation where additional voice actor credits are inserted. This is not in the original release, or in the earlier VHS versions. See more »
I loved this movie as a kid, as did just about every person I know. So it works for the youngins. As an adult, and an animation fan, I was surprised to learn that this movie is sort of the Disney studio's secret shame. I had nothing but fond memories of it, after all. And I could name at least a dozen Disney films that I would have put ahead of it on my Most Crappy list. I very recently watched it on television after many years, and yes, it is definitely flawed. The quality of the animation is terrible, and the lack of an over arching story makes the whole thing seem frivolous, like it was made for TV and not for a big studio release. There are holes in the narrative, scenes that should exist that don't, and scenes that have no reason to exist that do. And I think the somewhat random decision to cast the film with animals lends to the Saturday morning vibe as well.
But there's enough cool things peaking out from under all the half-assery that rescues the film just enough for it to be enjoyable. Peter Ustinov turns in an excellent, excellent performance as Prince John, at turns hysterical and genuinely nasty. Brian Bedford oozes easy going charm as Robin. He's probably turned in the second most likable performance of the character captured on film. He's just unfortunately delivering it through the poorly animated mouth of a cartoon fox. And though the actual quality of the animation is poor, some of the character animation is pretty clever and expressive. And I have to applaud the choice to add Roger Miller to the mix as a folkie, possibly pot-smoking minstrel rooster. His character adds a cool, Earthy vibe to the proceedings and as others have mentioned, his song, Not in Nottingham, actually sort of works as a blues song. Weird.
So Robin Hood is definitely not the epic tale Disney was capable of churning out in its hey days, but I dug it as a kid, and I still dig it today. You know, looking back at all my reviews on this site, it seems I mostly leap to the defense of classically bad films that I like anyway. That's OK, I guess. Someone has to.
55 of 68 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this