The Prince of Thieves (1948) User Reviews

Politically Convenient Marriage

[bkoganbing · 4/10 · 23 June 2010]

Jon Hall gets a break from the exotic Arabian Nights films he was doing during most of the Forties and gets his chance to play the legendary Robin Hood in Prince Of Thieves. He's definitely a bit more of a rogue in this Robin Hood tale than you find in most.

He rescues Maid Marian and her brother Michael Duane a pair of Saxon nobles who were waylaid in Sherwood Forest. It's the brother that's heading for his wedding to Lady Adele Jergens. However the powers that be who rule England in Richard I's absence have other ideas for some politically convenient marriages of alliance. Of course that's Prince John who is not seen in this film.

As it's only 71 minutes, barely longer than an hour we don't get too much time for character development. The Prince Of Thieves plays like an episode of the old Richard Greene Robin Hood series.

For those expecting Errol Flynn you will be disappointed.

Robin Hood The Cheap!

[bsmith5552 · 6/10 · 26 January 2020]

"The Prince of Thieves" was made by Columbia's "B" unit by Sam (low budget) Katzman and Directed by Howard Bretherton. Jon Hall gets to don the green tights in this one as Robin Hood. It has the look of a "B" western having been filmed on Ray Corrigan's Corriganville Ranch.

The plot has brother and sister Sir Allan (Michael Duane) and Lady Marian Claire (Patricia Morison) riding to Sir Alan's wedding with Lady Christabel (Adele Jergens). A bowman (I. Stanford Jolley) is sent to assassinate Sir Allan. Lady Christabel, it seems is now to marry Prince John's nephew Baron Tristram (Gavin Muir) instead. Together with Sir Fitz-Alwin (Lewis L. Russell) and Sir Philip (Lowell Gilmore), they are the tyrants of the piece.

Robin rescues the Claires, sets them up in the cottage of Gilbert (H.B. Warner) and Margaret Head (Belle Mitchell). Robin rounds up his "B" movie merry men, Little John (Walter Sande), Will Scarlett (Syd Saylor), a friar (Alan Mowbray) and set off to rescue Lady Christabel from the evil clutches of the Baron. The manage to rescue the maiden and bring her to Sherwood.

Lady Marian is captured by the villains while swimming and is taken by Sir Philip as his bride to be. While trying to save Lady Marian, Robin is captured and is about to be hanged when Little John and Will Scarlett cause a ruckus and the three of them are forced to fight off (in true "B" movie fashion), the inept soldiers of the castle. During the battle, if you can believe it, the Baron steals away to marry Lady Christabel in a village ceremony. Robin and the merry men, having vanquished the villains, head off to the wedding and..............................................

Prince John, although he is prominently mentioned never appears. Neither does the Sheriff of Nottingham or Allan-a-Dale and Friar Tuck is not named even though there is a friar in the picture. But hey, Katzman was given a rare opportunity to film in color. The three weddings at the end are little over the top even for Katzman.

Hardly like the 1938 classic...but watchable.

[planktonrules · 5/10 · 14 September 2023]

In 1938, Warner Brothers made the most perfect version of the Robin Hood stories, "The Adventures of Robin Hood". It was an amazing picture...one of the best and most iconic of the 1930s. It also was a GORGEOUS spectacle made in full Technicolor when very few films took on the added expense of this color process. In light of how perfect the film is, it's actually VERY surprising that Columbia would make such a second-rate version of Robin Hood. It lacks the wonderful cast of the Errol Flynn version and just looks cheap...especially since they made it using Cinecolor. Why do I complain about Cinecolor? Because unlike the Technicolor of the day which used three colors to produce the full spectrum of colors, Cinecolor used two colors...an orange-red and a bluish-green. As a result, many colors simply are off and you don't get colors such as yellow, purple or green. Not having green in a Robin Hood film is a HUGE mistake!!

The story begins with some jerk trying to kill Maid Marion and her brother. Of course, Robin (Jon Hall) appears from almost no where the stops the guy with an arrow to his wrist! Ouch! Later, Robin learns that a woman is being forced to marry one of King John's kin and Robin and his men set out to rescue her. Of course this means bows and arrows, sword play and adventure.

So is this any good? It's not bad and it's a shame they just didn't re-write the script to make the characters unique and NOT Robin Hood et al. You just cannot compare the handsome but dull Jon Hall to Errol Flynn...and the same can be said of most of his merry men. As a result, it's watchable and not a bad film...but it's not a particularly great one either.

Awful script with amateur theatrics

[mlawrence-2 · 2/10 · 4 December 2022]

Totally unconvincing action scenes that border on being silly. Full of moments such as the bad guys falling over because a wall hanging almost dropped on top of them and strangely they can't get up. Nothing about this movie works. The plot is paper thin and it's hard to believe they paid money for the script. My favourite worst line being "ride you devils!" Robin to his band of not very merry men. I can't remember what happened after they rode. Not very much I think. The accents aren't English and the acting poor. No care was taken. A low bar was set and not met. Not sure why I rated this as highly as a 2.

Short but Pretty Good

[ldeangelis-75708 · 7/10 · 19 January 2023]

I can't say it compares to the Errol Flynn classic, but I will say it's entertaining enough and packs quite a bit into just a little over an hour. There's enough action, adventure, rescues, and intrigue to hold your attention, not to mention romance (which includes a triple wedding ceremony). The secondary love story is even better than the Robin/Marian one, and the third couple were good for some comic moments.

The movie doesn't take itself too seriously, the atmosphere is light, and you get the impression everyone had fun while making this film.

It's also inspired me to check out some more movies like this.

Robin Hood, Blah Blah Blah, Maid Marian, Blah Blah Blah

[boblipton · 4/10 · 23 December 2023]

Jon Hall is Robin Hood, Patricia Morison is Lady Marian, and Alan Mowbray is Friar Tuck in this B-movie version of the story you've encountered a zillion times.

It's directed by Howard Bretherton, a competent but not particularly notable B director of the era, and there's little here of remark, except that in the battle scene in which Robin and his Merrie Men overwhelm the forces of Prince John, the swordplay is pretty good. Not that it makes sense when the vastly outnumbered good guys are not attacked by the bad guys at every opportunity. The good part is that when the crowds are fighting, they don't wave their swords up in the air, as if they are being attacked by bats.

The Cinecolor photography has that brown, dusty look that the process was prone to in its good prints. Otherwise, there's nothing going on here, move along.

Prince of Thieves

[CinemaSerf · 6/10 · 11 February 2023]

Jon Hall acquits himself fine in this standard "Robin Hood" story. This time he and his gang of foresters and rebels have to try and thwart the devious aspirations of the Baron "Gilbert" (H. B. Warner) and his sidekick "Sir Philip" (Lowell Gilmore) before the love of his life "Lady Marian" (Patricia Morison) is married off. It's colourful and quickly paced with plenty of swordplay (possibly not the most convincing, but still...) and Alan Mowbray also contributes well as the sagely and substantial "Friar Tuck". The ending is a bit daft (just how useless can loads of soldiers be against three men?) and you''ll probably not remember this for long afterwards, but it passes an hour or so amiably enough and I did quite enjoy it.

This Robin Hood movie is way good, good boy

[Apollo15AnnoPianoCatDogSnailAnt · 7/10 · 23 September 2020]

I initially am wondering what is eomhitng new the R.B. movies can show and find this to have satisfying action, funny parts, and a different focus on areas (more castle scenes which actually makes cents at the title, his is ironically the prince of the evil castle), and an increase on R.H.'s assistants that need more focus like Will Scarlet, and less on ones that are known plenty like from other R.H. movies, and R.h> himself is very manageably played, just there not to eclipse the plot, but remains with that same action focus and also light wit he has, treated iconographically, but still the main hero, like a piece of the puzzle as "the main hero" while there are also "second heroes" yet still the main and giving just enough action and lightness. The movie is not about oh wow it is this legend, but more about getting the plot and action sequences first that the characters happen to be in which makes them notable characters themselves, refreshing. In the beginning it is kinda like where is the interest, it is another R.H. movie is the thought but how it is in the castle setting and plot begins it is like ah now this is something interesting. There are extensive castle scenes for this to provide something more than the first setting and functions well along with the rustic part sas they also provide notable stuff, some of the forsest parts show a good camp style that seems like California camp I was in and there is something else interesting such as the Roman column even which is goic in the middle of the forest, reminiscent of some R.H. tales having such columns in the setting. Also funny parts, people thrown into a moat, a place for poop and pee in castles not only for defensive purpose, and R.H. and assistant wading through, this is actually just me amused also the characters falling in there, also eating meet and throwing bone away, some one toward the end not even wearing leggings, and also an assistant battling alongside R.H. and after he is done just strolls off the scene while R.H. is continuing, some of the confusion of the numerous gals here that is the blonde the focus but then shifts to the dark haired female later?

Very refreshing that this does not feature overdone scenes from other R.H. movies like the Little John bridge or archery contest but truly awesome other scenes, like the castle stuff, even the villains are not lavished upon so much but actually doing things to warrante their villain stature. I just reminisce the main guy, the bad king to the good king who is not even in here as it is unecessary enjoy your crusade instead king. It is as it eh move is as refreshing as being in the cool wood itself.

Decent Robin Hood

[Rainey-Dawn · 6/10 · 16 December 2021]

This is not the caliber of Errol Flynn's Robin Hood but it's still a good take on the legend. Jon Hall plays are hero nicely but not with the charm of Flynn. The film is worth watching if you have a lazy afternoon and you have a chance to watch - but I wouldn't go out of my way to find this film though it's decent enough.

6.5/10.

Fairly good poor man's Robin Hood

[searchanddestroy-1 · 7 December 2022]

I was much amazed and surprised to watch this Sam Katzman production, directed by the swallow Howard Bretherton, an obscure grade Z film maker, I don't even speak of his two awful and boring serials: WHO'S GUILTY and MONSTER AND THE APE, the most unbearable serial ever made, also produced by Sam Katzman and millions miles away from William Witney's ones. This colorful Robin Hood adventures is much more than I expected, far better than most moviegoers could be scared of, knowing the bad reputation of Sam Katzman for this kind of stuff. Good cheap action scenes, full of battles, fights of any kind. What could we ask for?