The Five Best Robin Hood Films Ever

There have been over a hundred different films about Robin Hood during the last century. Most of them were really horrible. But which ones are the best?

#1. The Adventures of Robin Hood, 1938

Okay so even though this film was made before World War II it is still relevant today. Prince John, Guy of Gisborne and the Sheriff of Nottingham are basically representations of oppressors, whether they been seen as Nazis or other sources of oppression.

The plot boils down to this: Prince John and his followers are Normans and control the land. Robin Hood and the common peasants are Saxons, and they're tired of being mistreated and robbed by their Norman overlords. The Normans are conquerors from a foreign land (Normandy) and thus can be seen to represent any kind of corrupt conqueror.

Thus the fundamental point of the 1938 film is the need for freedom from oppression, through any means necessary. By Norman standards, Robin Hood was a terrorist fighting against the government. By the Saxon standards, Robin Hood was a freedom fighter. Guess who won?

The 1938 film also lays down the ground work for future Robin Hood films. There were literally dozens of films during the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s about Robin Hood. The 1938 film kicked off an archery fad that lasted until the early 1970s. It isn't just a great Robin Hood film, it is a very influential Robin Hood film that continues to inspire today.

It also did wonders for Errol Flynn's career, skyrocketing him to being one of the most talked about celebrities in Hollywood.

From an archery stand point the 1938 film is also special because it features Howard Hill doing most of the archery shots in the film and fulfills a cameo role in the film. This furthered Howard Hill's career as a trick shot archer and set his name in the annals of archery legend.

#2. Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, 1991

This is the best Robin Hood film we've seen in the last 25 years. It is action packed, has romance, humour, a great sound track, good lead actors and stays true to the mythology of Robin Hood. Unlike the above film, the 1991 version starts off with the Crusades and ends with King Richard the Lionhearted returning from the Crusades, creating nice historical bookends.

Unlike most Robin Hood films which depict Robin Hood having a mustache, this American version has a clean shaven Robin Hood - with no attempts to imitate a British accent, as the film was made for the American audience and they wanted an actor that Americans could understand his accent easily. A British accent would have seemed fake (also in American films people with British accents usually play the villain), or a British actor would have seemed alien to American audiences. Thus American actor Kevin Costner, known for playing a variety of sports roles / action roles, was chosen because of his appeal to American audiences.

The plot of the film is solid, the acting is stellar, Kevin Costner is a convincing and emotional Robin Hood (and arguably better than Errol Flynn), and even the villain is awesome: Alan Rickman as the Sheriff of Nottingham, complete with an evil sounding British accent. Ignoring his accent, Rickman is by far the best Nottingham ever portrayed in a Robin Hood film.

#3. Robin Hood, 1973

This merry animated version of Robin Hood by Walt Disney Productions includes singing, humour, plays with Robin Hood's skills as a master of disguise and is ultimately a perfect introduction for children to the story of Robin Hood.

While there have been other attempts at animated versions of Robin Hood, none have come close to the 1973 version. None yet at least.

#4. Robin Hood, 1991

Starring Patrick Bergin and Uma Thurman this is a very good Robin Hood film, but it was dwarfed by the big budget Kevin Costner film which came out the same year. Definitely still worth watching however. The plot follows the classic Robin Hood story, and even includes Normans in it, but otherwise differs from the 1938 version when you compare the details. The overall plot is the classic Robin Hood story however.

#5. Robin Hood: Men in Tights, 1993

This humourous homage to the Robin Hood genre pokes fun at the history of Robin Hood films, both the 1991 films and other films in the genre. The film is a farce, and as such is both a Robin Hood film but also a mockery of them. Oddly enough, it still manages to make this list because it is an incredibly good farce. It is not appropriate for children however.

Below is an incomplete list of Robin Hood films. There are literally hundreds. These are just a few of the better ones. (If it is not on this list, it is not worth watching. Many of the films we are not listing are "TV movies" which never saw a theatrical release, or big budget films which were panned by critics for being a horrible version of the Robin Hood story.)

• Robin Hood (1912)
• Robin Hood (1922)
• The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)
• Son of the Guardsman (1946)
• The Prince of Thieves (1948)
• The Story of Robin Hood and His Merrie Men (1952) [Disney's Live Action Version]
• The Men of Sherwood Forest (1954)
• Sword of Sherwood Forest (1960)
• A Challenge for Robin Hood (1967)
• The Scalawag Bunch (1971)
• Wolfshead: The Legend of Robin Hood (1973)
• Robin Hood (1973) [Disney's Animated Version]
• The Arrows of Robin Hood (1975)
• Robin and Marian (1976)
• Aaj Ka Robin Hood (1988)
• O Mistério de Robin Hood (1990)
• Robin Hood (1991)
• Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991)

Notice also that this means that there hasn't been a "good" Robin Hood film in 25 years. That is sad really.

Someone should make a film about "The Death of Robin Hood". Maybe make it a sequel to the 1991 film and get Kevin Costner back in the role.

Happy shooting!

Why can't artists learn how to draw archery equipment properly?

Look at the image below. Tell me what is wrong with the compound bow in the image.

Well, lots of things. Chief of which is that it has strings for the pulleys, but no actual bowstring. (Anyone who has a compound bow will know this.)

The "compound bow" also has lots of extra stuff on the limbs that have no business being there. Things that serve no purpose.

Oh and lest we forget, where is the arrow rest? There isn't one. If you zoom in you will see the handle doesn't have an arrow rest at all, and the handle is not where it would normally be on a compound bow.

And last but not least, there are cams for pulleys, but they are really tiny and circular - which means zero let off. This isn't even a compound bow if there is no let off. It is basically a shortbow designed to look like a compound bow.

Sights and stabilizers, those are no big deal. Those are optional anyway. But basically the above image is the result of an artist doing what they think is the way to draw a compound bow, without having taken a proper look at one and learning how it works.

But hey, this is pretty common for idiot artists to do. It doesn't seem to matter whether they are historical artists, fantasy artists or science fiction artists - only a rare few seems to know how to draw or paint a proper bow.

Take for example the "Egyptian" archer drawing on the right.

Based on the tips, it is obviously a recurve bow, but they have drawn the bowstring attached below the tips as opposed to attached to the actual tips.

And it is not alone...

People who don't know any better end up making photographs and movies based off this level of idiocy.

Like the photo below, wherein they attached a really long bowstring to a tiny recurve bow meant for a kid. Let alone they gave her a left hand draw recurve bow, yet she is pulling it incorrectly with her right hand. Sheer idiocy.

And then there is the Hunger Games. Lets have a quick look at Everything Wrong with Katniss Archery Form...

Oh and she is pulling to an anchor spot on her chin, which should only be done on an Olympic bow with a clicker because a chin anchor spot is less accurate than a mouth anchor spot. (Olympic archers only use chin anchor spots because they use a Clicker gadget for their draw length.)

So artists, photographers who don't know how string a bow properly, and idiot film makers who don't bother to properly train their actors.

So when was the last time a film properly trained their actors you might ask?

Sad to say it might be "Deliverance" starring Jon Voight and Burt Reynolds.

Or possibly Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves with Kevin Costner.

If there is any painters, photographers or people in the movie industry reading this, please do us all a favour and learn how to do archery properly before trying to imitate it. Otherwise we will just be making fun of your poorly made films, poorly drawn art pieces or idiotic photographs for all eternity - or as long as the internet still works.

And one more... It doesn't take a genius to figure out what is wrong with this image. Count how many mistakes you can see and post your answer in the comments.

Women Bowhunting in Paintings

Okay, this is a pretty esoteric topic. But sometimes it is interesting what comes up in a Google search.

The following is 3 paintings by two different French painters who apparently enjoyed painting female bowhunters - sometimes with a dog companion. Thematically the goal was to portray the woman as "Diana, Goddess of the Hunt".

Historically such paintings were often sent as gifts to potential male suitors, a 17th century version of "Plenty of Fish" and other relationship personals in an effort to attract suitable male companions. The paintings would often depict women or men doing their favourite activities.

Sending paintings like the ones below showed that the women below considered themselves outdoorsy, enjoys hunting, but also aristocratic and wealthy. A discreet amount of female flesh and a hint of bosom also suggested that they were virgins and yet sexually available.

Louise de La Vallière wanted to convey she was a dog lover.

Happy and a bit of a free spirit, very outdoorsy.

Same artist as above, but more modest and serious.

After meeting the women many men no doubt thought: "Wow. You don't look anything like your painting did, but hey, it was just a painting..."

Not all such paintings were done to attract male suitors. Some may have simply been made to impress the viewer as to a person's supposed skill as a huntress.

My how times have changed. Now when women have such photos taken they usually have mud smeared on their face as camouflage.

Archery during World War II

Jack Churchill, the only known British officer to have used archery during WWII.

In the video below it is explained how Jack Churchill used both archery and swordsmanship as he led his troops into battle during World War II. He was also apparently quite fond of playing the bag pipes as he led his troops into battle.



However Jack Churchill was not the only person using archery during WWII. The French Resistance, especially the Maquis in the south east of France, was short on firearms and also used bows and arrows as weapons during World War II because they desperately needed more weapons. The Maquis would ambush Nazi forces on roads and railways, shoot flaming arrows at the German army tents and weapons depots, often employing hit and run tactics. Later into the war as they captured more weapons from the Nazis the Maquis rarely used archery any more.

Women's Auxiliary Forces also commonly trained in archery, although there are no reports of any seeing any action with bow and arrow.

The Canadian Women's Army Corps (CWAC) also trained women in archery, like the photo below from Library and Archives Canada. They never used it during combat however.

Unfortunately they weren't the only ones using archery either... like this photo of Hermann Goering doing archery. Archery was basically being used as a propaganda tool by both the Allies and the Axis enemies during WWII. Its use a weapon was limited to rare examples like Jack Churchill and the Maquis.

After the war was over, archery was also practiced by injured veterans during the first Mandeville Games in 1948, which eventually grew into the Paralympics, which still thrives today.

Mandeville Games in 1948

Why do all the best archers have mustaches?

Look at the images below and pay close attention.

Howard Hill

Awa Kenzo

Robin Hood

Robin Hood (parody)

Howard Hill and Awa Kenzo are two of the best archers from the last century. Robin Hood on the other hand is a fictional character, who may or may not have been based off a Welsh Yeoman who actually existed and has been raised to legendary status.

It doesn't seem to matter who the archer is, if they are a great archer they often have a mustache - or at very least facial hair. Even the film versions of Robin Hood and other characters often have mustaches or facial hair.

With exceptions (most of them being women), not all great archers have facial hair. But it does make you wonder... does a mustache make you a better archer? Or is it just a cultural stereotype that great archers have mustaches?

Frances Boone Seaman - Memoirs of an Archer

Frances Boone Seaman manned a fire tower in the Adirondacks during the summer of 1942. It was wartime and many of the men her age were off fighting a war, so it was the era of Rosie the Riveter and help was desperately needed.

Her memoir "Nehasane Fire Observer: An Adirondack Woman’s Summer of ‘42" details what she did that summer, everything from archery, fishing parties, being chased by bears, and earning the respect of her colleagues.

Her parents were uncertain about a 23-year-old woman managing an Adirondack fire tower.

"Could you outrun a bear?" her skeptical mother asked.

"I don’t think anything will happen that I can’t handle," replied Frances. A fact that was later tested when she did indeed outrun, or at least out-bicycle, a bear that chased her.

On June 7th 1942 Frances boarded the train at Sabattis, dressed in jeans, plaid shirt and hiking boots, bicycle in the baggage car - and her bow and arrows on the seat beside her, much to the consternation of her fellow passengers, the conductor and especially Shorty, the candy vendor. They didn't know she also had a hunting knife stashed among her gear and had considered bringing her rifle.

The bicycle she brought was for covering the three-quarters of a mile trail from the small cabin she would be living in to get to the observation tower.

She had a small wood stove, a crock submerged in a nearby mountain brook to keep things cold. Groceries arrived by train from Tupper Lake, about 40 wilderness miles north. A "half moon house" stood 50 feet behind the cabin, discreetly cloaked by balsam trees, was her outhouse.

She spent eight hours a day in the 70-foot observation tower, seven days a week in dry spells, with vacation days granted only by rainy weather. She cleared trails, kept the phone lines working (because whats the point of an observation tower to warn of fires if the phones don't work) and of course kept an eye out for suspicious smoke and report its location using the map and alidade - a bar with mileage indicators that could be swung across the map that dominated the tower room.

But when she wasn't working she was - and sometimes even while working - she was reading, practicing with her bow and arrows, and painting with watercolors.

Her adventures during the book include driving off two strange men who knocked on her cabin door late one night, injuring herself nearly falling off the tower stairs, and running afoul of a she-bear and her cub between her cabin and the privacy of the half moon.

Frances describes her experiences that summer with such warmth and fondness you realize that year was a truly formative year in her young adulthood, one that changed her forever.

The lesson we can learn from Frances' book is that young women can get jobs in isolated regions which can become truly enjoyable experiences - and get lots of archery practice during that time period.

Archery under Henry the VIII

Henry the VIIIth, the King of Britain from 1509 to 1547, loved archery so much he made the sport mandatory for every male over the age of seven. The requirement was that every man between 7 and 60 practice archery at least once per week.

It was an interesting time during the 1500s. War. Disease. Famine. Religious conflicts.

Guns were horribly inaccurate. Archery was by far the best option if you wanted to shoot something accurately.

Thus it made very good sense to make archery mandatory for all Brits - so that they could defend themselves from invasion from those dastardly French, that sort of thing.

However not everyone was cut out to be an archer. One of the trials of the time was a repetitive strain injury known as "archer's elbow", which is the same thing as tennis elbow by modern standards.

Thus 5 centuries ago an entire generation of men were suffering with an epidemic of achy elbows.

And for those that used the English warbows of the time period they also suffered from sore backs and sore shoulders due to the oppressive weights of the elite bows of the time period (some of which have been recovered from the sunken warship the Mary Rose which sank in 1545 and is now preserved in Plymouth.

Professional archers during the time period could fire 12 arrows a minute – and some of these epic archers were pulling weights the equivalent of up to 200 lbs (or about 90 kg). That is why their backs and shoulders became warped and injured with time. (In contrast Olympic archers in the present only pull bows around 48 lbs.) Researchers have found archers from the time period to have skeletal damage from the strain caused to their backbones and shoulder bones.

Henry the VIII was a talented archer in his younger days, and he had an impressive collection of archery equipment both from England and foreign bows. In his later years he also collected hand guns.

William Shatner and Marilyn Monroe, Archery Fanatics

Post Updated August 2015

Above is a photo of Marilyn Monroe doing archery. Learn more about Marilyn Monroe's Diet and Exercise Routine. Below are two more we added in August 2015.

Below you also see William Shatner showing off his favourite hobby!

To be fair, Marilyn Monroe didn't really do archery that often. She preferred jogging, yoga, mild weightlifting and horseback riding. William Shatner however was an archery fanatic and even coaxed fellow actors to join him on the archery range for a free lesson in the sport.

Another archery fanatic, more recently, is actress Geena Davis. She was so good she tried out for the US Olympic team in 2000, but failed to make the team.