Review of Robin Hood (2018) by Marcelo A — 11 Dec 2018

From time to time Hollywood likes to revisit the legends of medieval England. The problem is that the new readings, in an attempt to give an original vision to these legends, end up risking to create some aberrations. A movement that comes back and a half appears is to create the "movie of origin". Motivation is: the main story you already know. Now you will discover how the character has become what he is.

It was so with King Arthur, who generated an embarrassing film of Guy Ritchie, now it's with Robin Hood. "Robin Hood - the origin," aims to expose "the truth behind the myth," which is somewhat surreal, or even anachronistic, since we never knew if Robin of Loxley actually existed, as well as the legend that he stole from the rich to give to the poor. In fact, Robin is merely a character in English folklore.

The exit given to create this source is so embarrassing that the desire one has is to drop the film with little more than half an hour of projection. Now starring Taron Egerton, the Eggsy of the "Kingsman" movie series, Robin is a bon vivant Lord of Nottingham until he falls madly in love with Marian (Eve Hawson), no longer a lady but a thief he discovers trying to steal one of his horses.

But life can go round and one day Robin is recruited to become a crusader and fight in Arabia, the military service of the time. After four years in which he shows all his "bravery" and "nobility of spirit" culminating in the attempt to save the life of the son of the Moor John (Jamie Foxx), Robin returns home, where he discovers that he lost wealth, confiscated by Sheriff of Nottingham, and the woman, now married to a plebeian of political ambitions named Will (Jamie Dorner).

What follows is a blend of what we know, namely, Loxley becoming the thief Hood, with hints of a history of political corruption, conspiracies with the Church, interests of wealth with an unfounded war, and the people more and more poor and dying in mines while the rich are getting richer. At last it seems that it was necessary to "update" the story of Robin Hood drawing parallels with contemporary life.

The question that remains is: why? Why do that? Maybe for an attempt to get a new audience. But what would lead audiences to be interested in a version of a story that does not convince, with embarrassing performances - Ben Mendelsohn's sheriff of Nottingham and Eve's Marian are sad and erased - a terrifyingly bad script and even action scenes , which should be the high point of this type of film when nothing else works, of questionable quality. Only one or two can be considered close to good.

The origin of Robin Hood is a failure as a film, but the outcome of the journey is at the point where we know it well. Robin and his group hiding in Sherwood Forest, a new sheriff of Nottingham who knows him well and stole his wife (let's not comment on Dormer's bizarre scene with Eve and the whole course of pathetic jealousy) and the prospect of a second film. Even a new franchise.

Robin Hood, however, will need to improve his speech and his adventures too much to have a life a little further. Director Otto Bathurst's work was far below criticism.