Skip to main content

'Robin Hood': Are We Missing Something?


Robin Hood is directed by Otto Bathurst, and stars Taron Egerton as Robin of Loxley, with supporting roles from Jamie Foxx and Ben Mendelsohn.

At the very beginning of Robin Hood, the audience is told by the narrator to forget everything we know about the character because this would be a new story. Am I missing something? Filmmakers seem to promise "new stories" but never follow through with the promise. We saw this in The Amazing Spider-Man (2012), when the filmmakers advertised "the untold story". The so-called "untold story" was the same story we had seen over and over. As with The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) and their characters to set-up future movies, I felt as if there was a character in Robin Hood who did not have to be there. No spoilers, but this character just felt as if he was there for a sequel and I did not get invested in his character as all!

Robin Hood is the second telling of the story in the last decade, with the Ridley Scott Robin Hood being released in 2010. So I understand they may have advertised a "new story" to get people interested. However, a new story would have been much more enjoyable than this over-used one. Watching the movie, I knew everything happening on screen. Robin and Little John rob the rich and give to the poor to bring down the Sheriff of Nottingham. This movie is not as terrible as I am making it out to be, however. It is not a great film, by no means, but I don't think it deserved as much heat as it received. Over-used plot, cliche-filled movie—yes. Enjoyable—yes!

My biggest gripe with the film is that it did not stand out to me. I enjoyed the action, as I also enjoyed the performances by Taron Egerton, Jamie Foxx, and Ben Mendelsohn. However, like I said, it just did not stand out. As I watched the action sequences, it got me thinking about the Guy Ritchie-directed King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017). I am referring to the action sequences. If you are familiar with Guy Ritchie, then you know what I mean. Fast paced, but slowed down all at once. I enjoy this style in Guy Ritchie's films, but I don't want to be seeing them in someone else's film. Then it just doesn't feel as cool. There were many other things wrong with the film, including the story, sequel set-ups, and blotchy CGI. However, I do not think a filmmaker does a good job if he does not make his/her film their own. If I am in the theater watching a movie and it feels like another, I am not fully interested. I feel like I have seen it before.

There are many things to enjoy, however. I appreciate that the filmmakers were trying to make an old, classic story cool and action-packed. It is obvious by the clothing the character's wear that they are trying to give a modern feel to the film. Robin Hood would be a fun movie to rent and watch at home. My girlfriend and I watched it for free on our college campus. She enjoyed it better than I did, but it was an enjoyable movie to watch with her. So, if you are looking for a movie that is a little goofy and not-so-serious, but delivers with action, then this would be a good one to catch!


Dawn on April 24, 2019:

I agree with you about the retelling of this same story, time after time. I feel that the 2010 Robin Hood with Russel Crow tells a new and fresh story. I had great hopes also for this film as I am a Taron Egerton fan. His performance was quick witted and fast pace, however his interaction with his sidekick, Jamie Foxx, seemed flat and superfluous. As well as the odd relationship "Robin" has with "Marion". I didn't feel any chemistry there either. This movie left me sad and disappointed after all the hype.

Scroll to Continue

Related Articles