This maybe my favorite Fairbanks film and is the best verison of Robin Hood.

sounds like it might be ok for kids, but have you ever heard of errol flynn? michael curtiz? techincolor? sound? a real, actual, composed musical score? now there is a robin hood for all ages!

Belated thanks for your comments. Preferring Robin Hood to The Three Musketeers, The Black Pirate or The Mollycoddle and the rest, is a bit like Sophie’s Choice.

Regarding Brother Bill’s observations, The film to which you refer is indeed spectacular. It is one of the finest examples of System 4, Three-Strip Technicolor ever produced, and is worthy of repeated viewings for that reason alone. I am also particularly fond of the lead actress in this version, who was twenty-one when the film was produced and affects me like a juicy ripe apple from which I must take a big bite. This version of Robin Hood also has one marvelous scene which is truly original, so well timed and executed, I still get choked up every time I see it, "What shall we do with this treasure? Shall we keep it for ourselves?" Aside from these points, this ‘talkie’ version owes the same debt to the original as every other incarnation.

The original and by far the best Robin Hood became a template for Hollywood action-adventure. Every subsequent version borrowed from it (including the 1938 release), as did countless other films. The art direction and set design have no equal and the story is perfectly balanced. Richard has an appropriately sized part, appearing from start to finish as an active, sympathetic moderator. The villains are less clearly defined, as they should be, leaving the viewer with an impression of the group, rather than its parts. The action is well paced, building to an appropriate climax in the final two reels, while there is humor throughout. The relationship between Robin and Marion is infinitely more satisfying than later versions, with a beautiful, heart–wrenching reunion, perfectly bridging the two halves of the story. The 1922 version also encompasses a longer timeline, beginning before Richard departs for The Crusades and ending with the re-claiming of his throne. This version defines the main character with much greater clarity, following Huntingdon/Robin Hood from his life of English nobility, to his participation in Richard’s campaign, his test of loyalty, his return to England as an outlaw (with an adequate explanation), and to a final resolution. The original musical score written for the film is beautiful. Along with the rest of Fairbanks’ Robin Hood, it has been borrowed from countless times in action-adventure films ever since.

I have seen the 1938 film with an audience many times. Anyone who doubts the superiority of Fairbanks’ original should note the audience response to last Monday’s presentation. After all these considerations, there is still a far simpler question. In the genre he created, who could ever compare to Douglas Fairbanks?

fairbanks has been surpassed by both errol flynn and johnny depp.

Fairbanks, surpassed by Flynn and Depp? For shame!
I'll give you this: Depp is the superior actor. Fairbanks never made claim to having any skills in that direction. But Depp's swashbuckling is largely done with CGI assistance, stuntmen and special effects. Which is fine -- he is an actor portraying a pirate.
Flynn, charming as he was, was a studio product. He did not produce his films (as Fairbanks did from 1917 on), script them (as he often did) or design the stunts. He was shaped into the mold of Fairbanks, but you must admit, Doug was the original. Have his films been surpassed? Perhaps. You might argue they have been, if you are the sort who likes the 4th Indiana Jones film better than the first. The 4th had more money, more special effects -- Spielberg did all he could to surpass his original work. But I suspect that most would agree that the original, for all its modest origins, was the best.
So it is with Robin Hood. The Flynn version is a glorious jewel of a thing to look at. The colors are amazing, the script is brisk, the score is splendid. I can fault no one for preferring it as a matter of personal taste. But for my money, give me Doug's version. His wig looks goofy, his chin is double, and he acts with residual stage mannerisms. And it doesn't matter a bit. Something genuine in the man and his work shines through -- a sense of joy, creativity, and an intelligent producer at the height of his powers. As David points out: he created the genre. Within the swashbuckling realm, all the others are simply standing on the shoulder of a giant.