Legends are not always true, but what is a legend…the stories we tell ourselves because it’s better than the truth. There may be no greater legend in English folklore than that of Robin Hood, and this film explores a different side of the legend in a beautiful and philosophical way, prompting us to question the very idea of legend. I love this movie for giving us a different take on Robin Hood, and even though there are some missed opportunities, which I will explain later, it is a gritty and beautifully shot film with fantastic performances by two of my favorite actors, Hugh Jackman and Jodie Comer. There have been so many stories of Robin Hood, so many different versions that it’s hard to pick a favorite. From multiple movies and series, there seems to always be a retelling of this legend, but this film makes us ask the question: was he really a good person or a hero…what if he wasn’t? That’s one of the main reasons I wanted to see this film, and they tackle that question wonderfully.
This movie is really two different movies put together. The first half is a gritty action-oriented tale and the second half, an artistic, philosophical antidote that explores the legend of Robin Hood. What really makes the movie worth watching is the performances of Hugh Jackman and Jodi Comer. Hugh is great in anything that he does, whether it’s a comedic role or a dark and gritty action role like Wolverine. Jodie, while she has these great comedic chops, as we have seen in films like Free Guy and then her series Killing Eve, I think people forget that she is a fantastic dramatic actress. But this film is very much getting compared to Logan, a Wolverine movie that shows the comic book hero in his twilight years, battle-worn and tired, but performs one last heroic act before his death. This is a great comparison. It’s almost like Hugh Jackman took all the same intensity from that movie and put it into the character of Robin Hood. In fact, I went back and re-watched Logan after this movie because it is one of my all-time favorite comic book movies and explores that character in a more honest human way than just a superhero. The Death of Robin Hood kind of takes the same approach for the first half of the movie, and it’s that idea that makes this movie better than it really is. I wish that I could say it’s a great movie and that everybody should see it, but my criticisms have to do with the fact that there are a lot of missed opportunities, and it gets very tedious and slow in the second half of the movie; that’s completely unnecessary.
This story is really about Robin Hood coming to terms with who he is and the destruction he’s caused. He ends up at a priory being taken care of by a nun who gets healthy after a near-death injury. This is a golden opportunity in any story to reconcile the past and to make amends. There is a connection between Robin Hood and the nun, which I will not spoil. Robin Hood does become a father figure to an orphaned girl; he pulls his weight and helps out at the priory. There is also an interesting connection to the leper who tends the orchards. All of these are great themes that help drive the plot. And one of the most brilliant things about this film is that it starts out dark and gritty, and the light constantly changes to a brighter tone by the end of the movie as a way to show the darkness within Robin Hood fade away. I love that, but my biggest criticism is the missed opportunity on the ending. It’s not spoiling the movie that Robin Hood is going to die; it’s in the title, but it’s how they treat the ending. Even bad men can become heroes in the end. With so much comparison to Logan, Michael Sarnoski, the writer and director, misses the mark on the really great comparison.
The audience doesn’t care about heroes spending a good deal of time reconciling their past through deep and cathartic conversations; we want to see heroes through the lens of action. Logan / Wolverine dies at the end of that movie by stopping those who are trying to kill kids. Wouldn’t it be nice to see Robin Hood save the place that saved him from bandits or assassins trying to kill somebody at the prior and dying from his wounds in battle? Then you can have all the philosophical conversations you want. His death is very beautiful, and the words are poetic. There’s a motion behind his final words that makes us, the audience, connect with his character despite being a bad person, but why should we care as much if he didn’t sacrifice himself for anything? Heroes make the ultimate sacrifice, and that’s what gives their death meaning. It’s just hard to find the meaning in his death at the end of the film without the sacrifice, and that’s the biggest mistake of this story. There’s a lot to like about the film, from how it’s shot to the beautiful cinematography and the wonderful performance of the actors, but the ending is a huge misstep. It takes away all the emotion and connection that we had to the story leading up to its final moments. It’s frustrating and disappointing to see a wasted opportunity. Like I said, I like the film, but it could have been better. The writer / director is wonderful at his craft, but you still have to understand how even the worst of people can still become heroes at the end and what really makes them heroes. That’s what James Mangold understood with Logan. What I’m saying is give me the ultimate sacrifice by a hero 10 times out of 10 instead of pithy conversations on a deathbed with no action. That’s what audiences really want!
