Tag: Movie Reviews

The Death Of Robin Hood (2026) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick Synopsis: A wounded and ageing Robin Hood retreats to a remote island, where he is forced to confront the violent legacy of his past and the legend he has left behind.

There have been countless adaptations of Robin Hood. Yet, much like King Arthur, the failures far outnumber the successes. My personal favourite? Men In Tights. Robin Hood: Men in Tights, that is. I’m talking about the movie; I’m not saying my favourite thing to see is men in tights. The Death Of Robin Hood (TDORH, pronounced The-door-rah) isn’t even the only Robin Hood movie released this year. I think. There are conflicting reports as to whether The Uprising even counts.

So, how does this compare to other Robin Hoods? Have to say, not well. There’s not much of the Robin Hood you actually know in here. He barely fires an arrow; there’s no Maid Marian, no Merry Men, and he doesn’t even spend any time riding through the glen. Yes, this is a deconstruction of the myth, but I’d like to have seen more of the myth they’re trying to deconstruct. Instead of starting the movie with him killing someone, start with an overly dramatic scene showing a courageous, heroic moment. Let us see him as the hero the myths say he is. Then, later on, show us the reality of that scene. Give us the legend first, so we have something to compare him to.

So that’s it as a Robin Hood movie. How about as a movie on its own merits? Does it work then? Kind of, eventually. But only once he gets to the island. It’s here that the film gets close to showing its potential. It’s atmospheric, haunting, and weirdly beautiful. It’s also where the film finally settles into exploring its themes. The road to get there is far too long, though. As I said, not a fan of the opening third.

It’s also weirdly confusing. Most of the characters look very similar, and the film is lit naturally, with a lot of scenes taking place at night, so it’s hard to figure out who is doing what to whom. You’re constantly having to recalibrate your thoughts about what’s going on. You think someone is being attacked and killed, then it turns out it was another white guy with a beard. It’s a visual mess, and it doesn’t really need to be. Everything in that opening could have been told through flashbacks once he’s already on the island. If Robin Hood wakes up on an island, near death, it would be perfectly believable for him to then explain how he got there.

The entire opening third could even have been told through creative opening credits. They could have tied it into the visual style by telling the story through old-fashioned paintings. Even a voiceover would suffice. This film seems to actively avoid voiceover, to its detriment. It’s like it’s terrified that people may actually understand the film.

The performances are fine. Hugh Jackman is good in the title role, the only negative being that the character draws parallels to his performance in Logan. Bill Skarsgård feels a little wasted in it; I’d have liked to have seen more of him. He’s such a good performer but isn’t really given enough to do here. Jodie Comer is as good as she always is, but the extended opening means she never feels as big a character as some of the others. I was surprised by Faith Delaney. Her performance was tremendously assured and confident for someone so young. I felt sure I’d seen her before, but nope. I think I got her confused with Alisha Weir. The music feels era-appropriate, which I appreciate. Nothing worse than a medieval movie soundtracked by fucking Katy Perry or Eminem.

There’s a lot of interesting ideas in TDORH. But the film never seems confident enough to explore them, preferring the audience to discuss them in the pub afterwards. The idea of myths being more powerful than truth is an interesting one. Maybe we should have seen that. Maybe we should have seen how, despite being a monster, he did inspire people to rise against oppression. The closest we get is Brigid responding to her family’s deaths at the hands of RH by deciding to dedicate her life to healing others. But that idea is said so briefly that it doesn’t really have any weight. We don’t even need something that complicated; even seeing other people tell the story would work. Cut between different groups of people telling the tale of Robin Hood around small fires, showing how his myth lives on.

It approaches guilt in much the same way, flirting with it but not being able to fuck it when they get to bed. It is aware the concepts are there; you can tell that much. In the end, it just feels like a thesis, a proposal, a writer saying, “These are the themes we want to explore,” then forgetting to actually do so.

I would mention how the villain is portrayed, but there’s not really one. There are various people who want to kill Robin, but no big bad. There’s nobody he fears or dreads. Really, the only villain is his own past. The whole “man versus self” narrative is valid, but we need to believe he’s genuinely at war with himself. He doesn’t seem broken enough as a character for that to work. This goes back to what I said about the theme of guilt; the exploration of it is paper-thin. We’re told he’s haunted by it, but he doesn’t seem to be.

This is another reason I think the opening third was unnecessary. We see him brutally kill people, with the implication being that he does this a lot. Yet we’re supposed to believe that he’s haunted by the deaths he’s caused? Compare this to The Odyssey, where Odysseus clearly carried the burden of his past. There’s not even a turning point as to why Robin feels this way. He doesn’t come face to face with the consequences of his brutality. Yes, people try to kill him, but they’ve been trying for a while, so that’s not a change which happens in the film. It needed a “wow, I’m a shit” moment.

The ending is fine. He dies. I’m not putting a spoiler warning because it’s in the title of the movie. And it’s what it should be: powerful, emotive, and with an air of redemption. Yes, it would have been nice if his death had some purpose, if he died defending the island from someone coming to take revenge on him. But there is something nice about how it feels like he just gives up. He’s old, he’s tired, and he’s looking after fucking children. It’s not a warrior dying on his sword, because the film recognises he doesn’t have the nobility required for that. It’s an old farm dog wandering out into the cold to be at peace.

It’s one of the few moments where the insistence on deviating from the legend helps it. The rest of the time, it feels so determined to avoid what we’ve seen before that it fails to present anything worthwhile. It doesn’t provide us with a villain to root against. It doesn’t provide us with a look at the country at the time, so we can understand why someone like him might become a legend. And it doesn’t tell us how his myth permeates among ordinary people. It’s so scared of being standard, it ends up being hollow.

I remember watching Avatar: The Way of Water in the cinema years ago. Just after the moment which should have been the ending, but was actually the bit before the closing section, I saw someone get their phone out. Ordinarily, this annoys the hell out of me, but in that instance all I could think was, “Yeah, fair enough.”

Something similar happened here. There was someone in the room who was asleep; I know this because he was snoring loudly. Whoever he went with felt no need to wake him up. Nothing I put in this review will sum up this movie better than that.

This should be great; it should change how we see the character. As it is, it’s just okay. If Uprising does actually turn out to be about Robin Hood, I can already tell I’m going to get the two movies mixed up. Deconstructions of this nature should be unique and unforgettable; they should not be as bland as this is.

It’s better than some of the other recent attempts at the character, but in a few years, when I’m on Pointless and I’m asked to name actors who have played Robin Hood, I can guarantee Hugh Jackman would be a low scorer.

This Is Not A Test (2025) Review

On By troubledproductionsIn ReviewLeave a comment

Quick synopsis: A teenage girl who has spent years enduring abuse finds herself trapped inside her high school with five other teenagers when a mysterious outbreak turns people into violent, flesh-eating monsters

This Is Not A Test (TINAT) is not a new idea. I’ve seen 2 full-on zombie movies this year (TINAT, and We Bury The Dead, as reviewed here), and two zombie-adjacent (Cold Storage, as reviewed here, and Evil Dead Burn, as reviewed here), that’s just this year. In my lifetime I’ve seen a multitude of movies about them; Zombieland, Shaun Of The Dead, Warm Bodies. I’ve seen every iteration; fast, slow, comedic, serious, dumb fun, sharp social commentary. When you see an idea that many times, you do get a bit familiar with the tropes and ideas. So it’s not enough to just do a zombie movie. It needs to stand out. Either by being overly stylized, or having a gimmick.

TINAT does none of those things. It has a few ideas but not enough to carry the film. The closing credits being presented like a high school yearbook is pretty clever, and genuinely inventive. But nothing else is as new as that. For most of the run-time, it’s just a movie that exists. For long periods of time, it doesn’t even feel like a zombie movie. And unlike my review of We Bury The Dead, I don’t mean that as a compliment. That movie used zombies as a way of exploring humanity. TINAT doesn’t do that, instead it uses zombies because the writer wanted to make a zombie movie.

Some of my reviews are very easy to write, the one for Minions And Monsters basically wrote itself. This is much harder to write because, at some point, I just stopped giving a shit

It’s not helped by the characters. We’re locked in with these people for quite a while, and it’s not a particularly pleasant experience. It’s not that they’re unlikeable or annoying, they’re just bland. There’s nothing about them that stands out. No unique traits, no hints that there’s unexplored backstory between them. They’re not people, they’re character outlines and sketches. They’re first drafts just waiting for an editor to expand them. This lack of characterisation makes it difficult to become invested in what happens to them. And then there’s the swearing. I love swear words in movies. But it feels like this film has too many of them, and uses them badly. They make the whole thing feel slightly immature. It’s not adult language being used as punctuation; it’s adult language being used as sprinkles on a narrative ice cream, sprinkled haphazardly without care or finesse.

The film also doesn’t seem to understand that there’s a difference between tension and simply being slow. A slow scene can build tension, but being slow doesn’t automatically create tension. There are stretches here where I was waiting for something to happen rather than feeling suspense about what was going to happen. And when there are dynamic scenes, TINAT turns to the handheld shaky-cam style. When that technique is used well, it helps showcase high energy and panic. When it’s used badly it makes everything confusing and makes it feel like the film is using it to hide something such as poor effects or the lead actor is actually in his 70s.

On the subject of action scenes, there’s also a strange inconsistency in what the film seems comfortable showing. It’s perfectly happy to show people being killed, but draws the line at a dad beating a teenager. Obviously, the latter is still horrible, but I’d argue death is worse.

Another example of the film utilising story-telling techniques but not in a way that really helps the story is the use of flashbacks. They didn’t feel like flashbacks, they felt like “and here’s what you missed before the commercial break” recaps from sports shows. Their placement in the narrative is ineffective, to the point where it feels like they were originally all at the start and then edited into later on because the film wanted to get to the main story quickly. It does kick off the story quickly, I’ll give it that. Another positive aspect is the cast. Olivia Holt is great as lead character Sloane, showcasing enough trauma to make her believable. Also, the make-up effects are spectacular for a low-budget movie. And I liked the character using temperature to gauge whether someone has been turned or not, very clever from that character.

Ultimately, TINAT isn’t terrible. There are some interesting ideas and a few clever touches, but I found it increasingly difficult to care about the story or its characters. For a zombie movie to stand out these days, it needs to give me a reason to care beyond the fact that there are zombies. Unfortunately, this one never quite found that reason. It’s not “the zombie movie told from the POV of the undead”, it’s not “the zombie movie with incredible action scenes”, it’s just “the zombie movie that has zombies in”. There’s nothing new. Nothing to convince you to watch THIS specific zombie movie over all the others.

Side note: For some reason, the opening scene made me think the film was set in England. Maybe that’s because I recently listened to the Anna and the Apocalypse soundtrack, but there was something about the opening that gave me that impression. Not at all relevant, just wanted to mention it.