Peter Pan (1953) and Robin Hood (1973)

I just re-watched two Disney takes on classic stories: “Robin Hood,” from 1973, with foxes, lions, chickens, and badgers in the lead roles, and “Peter Pan,” the classic take that … well, defines everything I knew about Peter Pan growing up, and even now.

Fact: This “Robin Hood” is one of the first films I ever saw, and it’s still a bit of a gem, perfectly pitched to the preschool set with cute, fun lyrics from a narrator rooster and wonderful sight gags. Dig the way the animators let us see Robin Hood dress in ridiculously easy disguises, and yet still fools the villainous Prince John. It puts young viewers in the know, and I love that. Ditto the animation, even though much of it is reused from “Jungle Book,” et al in a cheap-o move. (That I notice means points off.) Pen and ink rocks, and the bits with Prince John sucking his thumb would never work in CGI. B+

“Pan,” now, is so brilliant, so -– it *is* Peter Pan to me, and it’s wonderfully geared to both the awe of children and whimsy of adults. Honestly, this film is 60 years old and it feels eternal even if the costumes suggest we’re talking pre-1900. Everything in this movie is my point of reference for every character, and I cannot hold it against Disney. Why did I never pick up on the singing gay pirate bit before? That’s a treat, that I can pick up on new stuff on a 12^th viewing. I love that Tinker Ball is quite an ass here, not heroic, and Hook is just awesome, especially with Smee. That Peter Pan is both hero and a brat, and Disney never pushes or preaches, he lets it play out, and lets kids in the audience realize, you need your parents. Yes, the whole Red Skin thing smacks a dumb move, a holdover from the classic book. But every image here -– flying over London, the alligator –- is a marvel, it gooses a 40-year-old’s dreams. A

Robin Hood: Men in Tights (1993)

Why make a spoof of “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves,” when Kevin Costner’s performance was its own piece of trash-art comedy, a knitting needle in the ear of anyone whose blood runs remotely English? But, Mel Brooks dishes up “Robin Hood: Men in Tights” anyway, and it’s a tired comedy that traipses out of Sherwood and over to Queens, New York, for a useless “Godfather” joke. Meow! Other Robin Hoods are spoofed, and, yes, Monica Lewinsky is referenced. Eww. Worse than the worst bits of “Spaceballs,” and miles below the heights of Brooks’ “Young Frankenstein,” “Blazing Saddles” and “The Producers,” this is just dullsville. Cary Elwes is ordered to play a dull version of his own Robin Hood hero from “The Princess Bride,” a classic genre spoof all its own. When Brooks went soft his films turned from “Must watch” to “Nothing else is on.” I saw this in the theater, and hated it. My second viewing … ohh, shame on me. C-

Robin Hood (2010)

Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood” is a serious, boldly filmed drama, historically accurate as far as any film with the words “Robin” and “Hood” in the title can be, which isn’t much, and stocked with some of the finest modern actors to grace recent cinema. Russell Crowe is our bow-and-arrow titular hero, and Cate Blanchett is Maid Marian, with Danny Houston as King Richard. The film is gorgeous, bursting with detail, and must have cost a fortune. It’s also an utter fucking bore.

Painfully plotted and paced, this “Robin Hood” sucks every ounce of adventure, fun and daring out of the classic tale that pretty much created the whole idea of adventurous, fun and daring tales. This is no story of Sherwood Forrest or Merry Men, or of robbing the rich to feed the poor. No. This is a bloody war film about the evil Crusades and colonialism, fanatical religion gone nuts, and what made Robin Hood into Robin Hood, and a war-burdened superpower levying sinfully high taxes against its own people to pay the bill of sword and horse. Yeah, U.S. Bush-era politics! I can’t get enough of that. And this is a summer major box office film, too.

Crowe doesn’t resemble a starved, war-haunted rebel in the making. Dude looks glum and pissy, and a bit beefy. His Robin hit a lot of bars while killing Muslims, although he’s sure sorry for it. The killing. Not the drinking. Blanchett is at least having fun poking fingers at past Marians who became damsels in distress, yelling for “Robin!!” to save their victim ass. Wait, sorry, Robin again has to save Marian's victim ass, and during a slow-motion battle that copies “Saving Private Ryan” down to the soldiers drowning on a blood-soaked beach. Violent for a PG-13.

When did Ridley Scott become a dull film artist? Where is the guy who made “Alien” and “Blade Runner” and “Gladiator” -- films I could watch endlessly? The action here has been splintered to smithereens, and this whole ultra-serious moodiness and mud and blood, this religious devotion to detail and making 1199 look like hell on earth … it made me wonder what Michael Bay could do with a faster, louder, livelier, more vulgar screenplay. I can’t believe I just wrote that. (See, or don’t, Scott’s equally dull “Body of Lies.”)

It’s sad when I can say Kevin Costner’s “Robin Hood” is a better adaptation, but it is true. That Robin at least had a personality. Even if the ha-ha British accent in that 1991 summer flick was shit. Crowe's sourpuss is as flat as the perfectly decorated sword he welds, ceaselessly without end. His hunger from “Gladiator” is not here. Alan Rickman’s hilariously evil Sheriff of Nottingham could wipe the floor with the half-dozen villains employed in this footless reboot, especially Matthew Macfadyen’s snooze-vile Sheriff. Mark Strong is the lead villain, and William Hurt appears, but I can’t recall who he played. There’s just so little to remember anything.

Seek out Warner Bros. classic “The Adventures of Robin Hood” from 1938 –- you know the one, Errol Flynn, Basil Rathbone, Technicolor, green tights, and more fun than any movie made then or since. This new “Robin Hood” -– which ends with a shout out for a sequel -– should be outlawed. Attempted murder of a legend. D+

The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)

There is no finer, happier old-fashioned Technicolor classic Hollywood romp than “The Adventures of Robin Hood.” It follows – of course – Robin Hood (Errol Flynn) as he battles Prince John (Claude Rains), woos Maid Marian (Olivia de Havilland, never lovelier) and defends King Richard, God and country. Yes, Flynn was a creep, a drunk and quite possibly a pedophile, but his screen charisma is undeniable – he is the quintessential movie hero. “Robin Hood” feels like the beginning, the alpha if you will, of every action/adventure big-screen film that Hollywood has ever made -- cliff-hangers, kidnappings, chases, the hero about to be (gasp!) hanged and a plethora of sword fights. It still hasn’t been topped. I’m sure the gay innuendo (Prince John is beyond fey, Will Scarlett is far too happy to Robin’s, umm, wingman) was apparent to the discerning eye during the “innocent” time of this film’s release, and that might make this another first -- the ironic Hollywood film. Oh, and Basil Rathbone (what a cool name) as Sir Guy of Gisbourne – nearly steals the movie in that final sword duel. Just awesome. A+