ROBIN HOOD (2018): Who needed this? And why?

This story is already 600 years old. Robin Hood, who took from the rich and gave to the poor, became an English hero. Sometime around the 19th century, his fame reached the United States. Eventually, the whole world came to know Robin. It didn’t take long for cinema to take an interest in him – the first film adaptation of the legend was made in 1922. And then came more, and more, and more. In total, there have been over 100. Did we really need another one?

Director Otto Bathurst, known for his work on the series “Black Mirror” and “Peaky Blinders”, explained that he wanted to present this story in a completely new way. His goal was to make a purely entertaining film with fresh energy. And indeed, one of “Robin Hood”‘ greatest strengths is that the creators didn’t aim for something grand – it was meant to be a popcorn flick, and that’s it. They weren’t concerned with the “authenticity” of the script and didn’t pretend to be making a historical film. It was all about pure adventure. In this version, Nottingham is the capital of England, a massive metropolis, and the actors’ costumes hardly resemble what people wore in the Middle Ages – they’re closer to modern clothes. The character of Little John (or rather just John, aka Yahya) is also presented differently. Robin meets him during the Crusades. He’s a Moor who travels to England to avenge his son’s death. Jamie Foxx, playing this role, speaks with his natural Southern accent, and Jamie Dornan with his Irish one – it couldn’t be clearer that historical accuracy wasn’t a priority here.

To be honest, these changes didn’t bother me at all. I wasn’t expecting a faithful adaptation of the legend – after all, we’ve had plenty of those already. Besides, the story itself has evolved over the years – at first, Robin was just a robber attacking travelers and merchants, without any noble motives. Telling his story as if he really existed doesn’t have to be the only valid option. I went to the cinema to have a good time, and for a while, it was an enjoyable experience. The action scenes were shot in a spectacular way, the set design, while completely detached from reality, was impressive, and the film was filled with youthful energy. I really liked the Sheriff of Nottingham’s party, done in the style of Baz Luhrmann (“Moulin Rouge”, “The Great Gatsby”) – I’m into that. Unfortunately, if you strip away all the bells and whistles, there’s not much left in “Robin Hood”. Well, almost…

“Robin Hood” A.D. 2018 is essentially a medieval Batman. By day, he’s a lord moving in the highest circles, and by night, a people’s hero, returning the war tax money to them. He’s basically a superhero. He single-handedly takes on dozens of guards, and his serious wounds heal in a minute. You won’t find much logic or causality in this film. Up to a point, that’s not too annoying, but what happens in the ridiculously stretched-out finale only provokes laughter and disbelief. The plot twists, instead of keeping you glued to the screen, are just irritating.

The Sheriff of Nottingham also comes across as a villain straight out of a comic book adaptation – Ben Mendelsohn lisps and hisses like a tempting snake. Like any good superhero, Robin is also caught up in a complicated love triangle. But this storyline is probably the weakest element of the whole film – it’s unbelievable, cheesy, and filled with cringe-worthy dialogue straight out of a Harlequin romance. The presence of the “third wheel,” the Scarlet Will (also portrayed in a completely different way than we’re used to), doesn’t add much.

Of course, this approach to the story didn’t have to end in disaster. This style requires lightness, distance, and subtle humor – and there’s very little of that here. The only truly funny moment comes in a scene that looks like it was ripped straight out of “The Karate Kid”. Just when you think this film couldn’t get any more cheesy, a nice, humorous punchline appears. But that’s not enough.

What saves the film from being a complete failure is definitely Taron Egerton in the title role. He may not entirely fit the character he’s playing – he looks too boyish – but he makes up for it with charisma. In my opinion, Egerton is one of the more interesting young actors, and in “Robin Hood”, he proves it – after all, it’s not easy to give a good performance in a bad film. Because of him, I’m raising the rating by a whole point.

The ending suggests a sequel – but that’s unlikely. The terrible reviews and box office results, which point to one of the biggest financial flops of the year, probably killed the series. While I’d go to see Egerton again in the cinema, hoping the creators would learn from their mistakes in a second part, let’s be honest, the chances are slim. Let’s leave this story behind. The cinema has probably said everything there is to say about Robin Hood.