Robin Hood Movie Ending Explained (In Detail)

Spoilers Alert:

The next new edition of the world famous is in the USA ROBIN HOOD flopped brutally. But does this adventure film starring Taron Egerton and Jamie Foxx really deserve such a failure? We reveal this and more in our review.

The Plot Summary

Lord Robin of Loxley (Taron Egerton), who lives in a beautiful estate in Nottingham, one day falls in love with the clever, friendly thief Marian (Eve Hewson) and begins a relationship with her. But then he receives a call-up notice: he must join the Third Crusade against the pagans in the East. There, Lord Robin’s world view is bitterly shaken, because in his ranks people don’t believe in the humane treatment of prisoners. When Lord Robin tries in vain to stop the execution of a teenager, he is dishonorably discharged. Back in Nottingham, Lord Robin learns from his old friend Brother Tuck (Tim Minchin) that he has long since been declared dead so that the Sheriff (Ben Mendelsohn) can use his belongings for the war chest on the advice of the Cardinal (F. Murray Abraham). can plunder. During a sheriff’s address to the people, Lord Robin reveals that he is still alive – and learns that Marian is now with the reluctant leader of a counter-movement, Will Tillman (Jamie Dornan). He also meets the father of the boy he tried to save on the crusade. His name is Yahya (Jamie Foxx), which translates to John. He has seen what Sir Robin has to experience – and he suggests a bold plan for revenge, which will also stop the war in the Middle East…

Movie explanation of the ending

This “Robin Hood” film cannot be denied a victory: in the middle of this decade, Hollywood announced three projects about the kind-hearted thief in a very short space of time. Disney, Sony and Leonardo DiCaprio’s production company Appian Way, which in this case is working together with Lionsgate, all spoke of their own approaches to how the story should be remade. Of these three projects, it is the DiCaprio production that first saw the light of day in the film world, while the other two films are in different circles of development hell. And given the U.S. performance of “Robin Hood,” it’s quite possible that Disney’s “Nottingham & Wood” and Sony’s “Hood” will make themselves comfortable there a little longer. With a budget of 100 million dollars, this adventure film took in just 30.7 million dollars in the USA and Canada, while in the rest of the world it has generated less than 43 million dollars to date. So “Robin Hood” doesn’t fare particularly differently than the tonally similar “King Arthur – Legend of the Sword,” which also tried to breathe new life into an old English legend through snappy filmmaking. TV director Otto Bathurst (“Black Mirror: In the Name of the People”) In his film debut “Robin Hood”, however, he doesn’t approach it quite as stylishly as Guy Ritchie, who unmistakably let his signature shine through in his 2017 flop. The story is told more stringently, although it is also very narrow. So what remains is an attempt at a briskly modernized adventure in the modern popcorn escapism style.

John (Jamie Foxx) and Robin (Taron Egerton) make plans…

Or to put it another way: “Robin Hood” operates on a similar level of logic as Paul WS Anderson’s “The Three Musketeers”, only not as over-the-top and full of self-pride and without bombastic 3D. Since Anderson went wilder, bolder and sillier with his “brains off, have fun” film tip, it’s doubtful that “Robin Hood” will develop a cult fan base. Nevertheless, it is (very) shallow, quickly told film fun, which is completely sufficient for a wet and happy evening at the cinema. The film has glaring flaws, so you don’t have to think too long about the plans of the church and the sheriff, or about how they can later let Sir Robin, aka Robin Hood, fool them for so long. The screenplay by Ben Chandler and David James Kelly, both debutants in their fields, is less interested in creating a densely woven narrative laced with complex characters and more interested in keeping things moving. But it does it reasonably successfully, just like Otto Bathurst’s direction – and with some ingenuity: This “Robin Hood” creates an unusual (those who fetishize historical correctness would say: stupid) film universe in which the crusade of video recordings from the Iraq war remembered. Similar clothing, similar yellowed, dusty imagery and crossbows have the rapid-fire power of modern firearms, even something like crossbow bazookas are used.

Back in England we find parallels thrown together completely at random, but paradoxically yet conveyed with snappy honesty, to the self-perpetuating “war on terror” and the past years of class struggle in industrialized nations. This “We want to be political and yet are too comfortable being specific”-Mixture of content values ​​is embedded in a popcorn adventure film plot that advances rapidly. Sir Robin must learn to become an agile master thief and is taught by the infectiously amused, one-handed “Django Unchained” star Jamie Foxx (As an Arab! A casting choice that is at least debatable…). While Robin Hood goes on the prowl, Sir Robin ingratiates himself with those in power – and ensnares the love he has lost. Neither the script nor Bathurst’s direction, which lacks a certain artistic spark but is functionally vital, allows itself to stand still. Even the obligatory moments of pathos, be it romantic reunions or inspiring speeches, maintain the basic pace of the film instead of becoming idle. What about the horrific images of Bathurst and his cameraman George Steel in the low-action Nottingham scenes (“The Woman in Black – Angel of Death”) What it lacks in playfulness is not only made up for by the action scenes staged in a modern attitude.

It’s love at first sight between Marian (Eve Hewson) and Robin…

The costume design is also full of anachronisms: the Sheriff of Nottingham looks like he would dress in early drafts of the wardrobe of Ben Mendelsohn’s Rogue One: A Star Wars Story character, some of Sir Robin’s more regal clothes have a cut that reminiscent of city and business suits and Sir Robin’s alter ego Robin Hood and the half-hearted rebel Will Tillman could easily join today’s protest marches in their outfit. And yet the production design is coherent in itself – and it harmoniously complements the staging style of the action scenes and the pounding, if not memorable, ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ light music by composer Joseph Trapanese (“No Way Out – Against the Flames”). Narratively, however, “Robin Hood” has to be criticized for first introducing Marian as a clever master thief, only to then push her to the sidelines of the plot, where she becomes the object of desire in a love triangle, before later half-heartedly introducing an Elizabeth Swann character. receives a memorial moment and is allowed to mobilize troops. Completely disregarding the gender-political undertones of this decision (especially in a film that otherwise throws so much political associations around), the way this role is handled is simply bumpy storytelling. But Foxx, Taron Egerton (who now plays the reverse Eggsy from “Kingsman: The Secret Servie”), Tim Minchin and Ben Mendelsohn (in a 15th century version of his “Rouge One” villain) have fun in their roles and convey both popcorn drama and smart sayings well. “Fifty Shades of Grey” star Jamie Dornan, on the other hand, is completely wasted in this film. And the teased sequel probably won’t come to fruition anyway…

Conclusion: Confusedly pieced together from political motives, historically completely inaccurate, but entertaining and something completely different both narratively and visually than all other “Robin Hood” films before: This “Robin Hood” is a shallow, simple film for an amused “brain off” -Cinema night.

“Robin Hood” can be seen in USA cinemas nationwide from January 10th.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top