Exec: “We’re making a Robin Hood movie, but we’re throwing in a TON of modern imagery! Like modern military tactics and super hero origin stuff!” Intern: “Why don’t you just set it in modern times and lay the Robin Hood story on top?” Exec: “I don’t follow.” Intern: “Take the Robin Hood story, but retell it in the 21st century. You’ll show how the story can still be relevant, and you’ll probably save on budget when you don’t have to create period-specific sets and props. It worked for Sherlock Holmes (twice), it worked for Green Arrow, and basically worked for Kingsman.” Exec: “Nope. Still not getting it. Oooo, but Kingsman was a good flick. Let’s be sure to drag that kid into it!”
Honestly if you want a Robin Hood movie people will be talking about for a long time just for its "What the fuck?" quality, set it in modern times and make him like a legit Communist revolutionary. Present the corporations as basically neo-feudal entities and have Robin and his band of Merry Men committing actual destruction of private corporate property with the more conservative news media (get some Fox look-alikes in for this part) calling foul. I mean, if you're going to make a topical, political film the worst thing you can do is botch it and half-ass it.
Robinhood in modern era is just Arrow, which this movie really reminds me off. From the costume design, to action choreography and set pieces, and quality as well from the way Bob describes it.
Well I think they can be build with ceramic flasks as well. That being said I think they mostly used pitch and oil for fire projectiles, I don't think they had many burnable fluids refined enough to make molotov cocktails.
@@ericwaters6194 I imagine pikes and lances would be worse for small stuffy rooms, but they are the only weapons available back then I could think of that could perceivably be worse.
I dont have a problem with it. In order to criticize a movie, u first need to realize what genre it is. This movie is obviously an allegory symbolic movie, not a period piece. In an historical allegory, anachronisms are not only accepted, they are expected and considered necessary tools of the genre. Think of all anachronistic Shackspearian productions. Cririsizing an allegory for having anachronisms is like criticizing wuxia movie for having unrealistic fantasy martial arts. In of itself, stylized anacranistic allegory movie is not bad, it's just a very hard genre to pull off.
@@badquestion4785 While I see what you're saying, the anachronisms in a proper allegory have to make sense in context, unless you're specifically trying for parody as well. Those Shakespearian anachronistic productions you're talking about? All of the anachronisms make sense in context - in Romeo & Juliet, they replaced swords with guns, which makes perfect sense when the time period has been shifted to the modern era. It isn't the idea of them using modern tactics that's the problem, it's the idea that longbows would be usable with those tactics. Crossbows, maybe. Swords, maybe. But bows? It just doesn't make sense. At least, it makes no sense to me, which places it firmly into the realm of "my opinion", I suppose.
When all the reviews came out saying they stole from Nolan, I swear I thought it would be the simple “I can’t be with you because you need (insert vigilante identity here)”, but holy crap the fact they ripped off THAT is hilarious. Will check out down the line for sure
“I’m impressed that they pulled it off and I’m in awe that nobody tried to stop them.” Well, there’s a summary for you. Not gonna lie, it makes me want to see this :-)
After hearing the plot of this movie the only thing that I think could have saved it was giving Mel Brooks a writing credit because this honestly sounds like a rejected script for Robin Hood Men in Tights 2.
I can't wait until all of the crap movies we're getting nowadays are old enough to receive the MST3K treatment in the future. This, the King Arthur movie, the Emoji movie...
Peekey Blinders is a gangster show set in the 20’s Britain that is unique because rather than having British gangsters it instead focuses on Irish/Romani gangster as the good guys. Nothing too ambitious. They must have hired him because he did a period piece.
It seems like they pushed the whole thing to being within an inch of a futuristic urban dystopia with modern day military combat, but could not commit to it, so they kept it in the medieval period.
What puzzles me is how could Robin Hood have been "drafted" into the Crusades? There was no draft back then in England, most of the soldiers that went to fight in the Holy Lands were volunteers.
Credit where credit is due, those medieval guards with modern-style shields and armour do look kinda cool. Completely out of place in a Robin Hood movie, but I can think of a few places it could really work.
God, is it so hard to make a good Robin Hood movie? Just try to have some goddamn fun with it! Channel the ol' Errol Flynn with a bit of 2010s zany but with genuine heart vibe (Looking at you Guardians) and roll with it.
What's that a dark and gritty retelling of Robin Hood isn't very good? I'm shocked!, truly shocked. Well not that shocked......... It's almost like we've been here before. Oh wait.
I wonder if what might have saved it is if they had gone all in on the anachronism, going for more of a "the past, but with future tech" angle. Like steam punk, maybe. And if they're going to do the gun allegory, just give them guns. I dunno, I haven't seen this, but it's what the trailers made me think.
Maybe, but this presentation is so appealing to me in a "I would have put all this stuff into my high school D&D game because teenage me didn't know how the Middle Ages worked" kind of way, I still want to see this film.
Just watching the trailers, the modern anachronisms were laid on so thick that I honestly thought at first that this was supposed to be some sort of post-apocalyptic retelling of the Robin Hood myth. (Well, the Middle Ages were technically the post-apocalypse of the Roman Empire...) And yes, that would've made for a great gonzo action flick.
I...I...I.... ....does anyone else remember when Robin Hood used to mean fun? I mean, I've seen multiple versions of the story over the years, done in various ways, but for some reason, when I think "Robin Hood", I still think either Errol Flynn or the Disney anthropomorphic version. Can we have those days back please?
The Sheriff of Nottingham saying "The Arabs hate us for our freedom!" was only like 30 minutes in, and it only went downhill from there. Yeah man, 13th Century England definitely had "freedom" as its favourite thought-cancelling cliche. That was a thing they valued, and not definitely a VERY specifically modern US thing. It's not even trying to make the setting work, and it's so very smug about it. "haha you see it's a modern thing from a medieval mouth" like, sure man whatever. It's not the worst problem even by a little but but damn, it really sets the tone.
The Ridley Scott one is starting to look a lot better, doesn’t it? At least the fault in that one was that it was kind of boring, but it was at least trying to be good.
I love how Prince John was handled in it. That scene where he desperately tries to rally the people, even handing over the crown like a paltry sixpence, was a powerful character moment.
I reckon it had a really great first half that put an interesting realistic take on Robin Hood. Then it went on this really odd tangent where Robbin's father was this social justice idealist who conceptualised a far more equal rights focused version of the Magna Carta. Just felt a bit messy, I do feel the movie got more flak than it deserved though.
The film is trying so hard to convince you that it's badass but it's one of the most awkward and try hard viewing experiences I've had in a while but it is also hilarious in its incompetence.
There's a lot wrong with this but the thing that took me out was the near end when they suddenly started playing what seemed like the buzzing of violins from "Why So Serious?" from The Dark Knight's soundtrack. I couldn't believe it. Also, I thought Will Scarlett was a merry man?
I'm now indefinitely convinced that I should flatly ignore both this and Crowe/Scott's Robin Hood and just keep watching and loving the classic animated Disney adaptation.
Why is it me, an unemployed painkiller addict who's literally useless, can tell as soon as I hear about movies like these that they'll make no money but execs seemingly can't? Am I physic? My next hot tip is that Mortal Engines will be Mortally wounded at the box office.
i think i knew the new robin hood movie was going to be bad when i saw they'd changed his signature color from green to blue. Robin hood is quite posible the oldest instance of a character having a "signature color" and they couldn't even get that right? why should i trust them to get anything else right.
I'll be honest that Iraq-war-with-bows-and-arrows thing kinda sounds stupidly awesome. I can't wait for the movie to come out so I can watch it on youtube.
When you referred to the Crusade scene I couldn't help but laugh. FoldingIdeas already had a good name for that portion of the film: "Zero Dark Loxley"
I always thought big budget movies that use a mythologized history at least ask, like, one single historian to tell them if there was modern warfare in the 1200's.
So far, Taran Edgerton has been in an Illumination film, an unnecessary sequel to a successful Mark Millar comic adaptation, and now yet another modern Robin Hood adaptation that doesn't even hold up that well... Wonder what's next for the guy? I look forward to see what other obscure piece of work he might be in, whether it be good or bad.
@@stephensmith7327 Because "biopic of famous gay person" = Oscar Gold! Then he can finally make REAL ARTSY movies, instead of the schlock he's usually stuck with.
So, ages ago, there was a movie that adapted one of Shakespeare's more obscure plays, "Coriolanus", about a war hero who runs for public office. The movie is set in the present day in an unnamed country, and rigidly adheres to the script but modernizes the context to fit a metaphor for present-day issues. This movie sounds like it took the opposite approach to the same challenge. I think both movies would be valuable viewing for budding filmmakers.
...this is the BEST review i've seen for this...seriously, it ALMOST makes me wanna watch it, even though Bob is telling us HOW BAD IT IS...impressive!
Funny thing was, I walked out of this halfway through (around the bit with the weird, Baz Lurhman-esque rich people party in it) as I had to attend to something else. I didn't hate the film but I didn't feel that I wanted to go back and finish watching it, so was slightly annoyed as I've never had to get up and leave a film before, nor have I wanted to, even when the film has been bad, and I've sat through worse films than this. I already got the Batman Begins comparison, but I didn't realise what happened to Jamie Dornan's character until I saw this review. Wow! They actually went there...
The girl I saw this with, checked out when the Sheriff's coat had a rolled seam. Which requires a special sewing machine apparently. I don't know, she does cosplay.
I will always love the Ridley Scott Robin Hood for one reason. Alan Doyle as Alan A'Dale. I just love Great Big Sea, so hearing their lead singer jam his way through the movie as the group bard is just good fun.
I really want to see this movie. I don't care about the message or how bad it is, I need to see it for the action scenes! That bit about the crusade sequence gave me a nice chubby. In case you're wondering I want to see it for D&D inspiration.
Great script and delivery MovieBob, but for some reason when I listen to this video there's a lot of white noise/static laid over the audio. Not sure what's up with that.
This is one of those movies that you use when you think of... "Would I rather watch a bad movie where the people clearly cared and tried to make something worth watching, or would I rather watch a meh movie where nobody in the entire film's production cared about what they were doing."
Wow, I've heard the movie was bad before, but hearing it from you really hammers the point home. Like this movie makes Sharknado sound like an auteur movie. And now I wanna watch Sharknado again...
So: Wait for it to come out on video. Invite friends over (or go to the friend with the best home theater). Really helps if at least one of these friends has military experience and/or knows medieval military history. Go full MST3K on it.
This movie looked like trouble from way back. I find it is almost a mathematical postulate, the longer the embargo(on reviews) is plus the shorter the advertising time is equates to a movie that is being released to probably qualify for a loss benefit on someone's taxes, not being the #1 released movie on any weekend. However, on the positive, the costumes look stylish and Taron Egerton and Jamie Foxx look great.
I guess in this movie the Catholic Church wants England to be all church land akin to the Holy Roman Empire? **shrug** Still sounds pretty stupid to me.
@@Nonsense010688 No, I know what I said. While the HRE wasn't technically church land as you're thinking, the Pope often played a pivotal role in determining who would become the emperor. In particular the HRE territories south of the Alps could only be ruled by someone with the blessing of the Pope. THAT, good sir, is what I'm referring to.
@@hfar_in_the_sky yeah but that only works by vastly overstating the pope role in choosing the next emperor and forgets that it was the otherway around more often. Also the popes blessing did play some role in most catholic kingdoms during the medieval age so that not unique to the HRE. You may be right with the souther Alps territories but that goes more into the papal state (which partly was granted by the HRE)
This movie actually sounds a lot smarter than it actually is but it's all presented so poorly. All the actors put in good performances so I think if a different director was in charge and the script got one more rewrite to change the conspiracy to something sadly more believable then this would have been a genuinely clever movie.
That Afghanistan sequence is the best part of this movie. I want a war movie set in a future where guns were never invented. That sounds kind of amazing. If the whole movie was that, I might have loved it.
lmao at the idea of 12th century England "funding" the Arab Empire to "prolong" the Crusades. I don't have enough scare quotes to express how stupid that is.
I tried Peaky Blinders since it was on netflix, didn't know how big it was in the UK, and it's just kinda meh; it's like if sons of anarchy was around during hell on wheels. It doesn't suck but pretty standard formula
Having seen this train-wreck of a film -- seriously, I had a fun time watching it just laughing at how ridiculous bad everything was -- John is seen BOTH with the Loxley and Hood, and then when he's captured the former regiment leader clearly knew who he was because the sheriff is able to bring up the story about his son, the same son whom Loxley had tried to save... and NO ONE MAKES THE CONNECTION THAT LOXLEY IS HOOD BASED ON THAT CONNECTION?
The overeager bluntness makes me think I may really, really have fun with (An)Guy Ritchie's Bowman Begins. Well... thanks to your forewarning, had I just caught it on TV I may have cringed myself into a stroke. It's a shame that earnestness can do that.
All things considered, I honestly enjoyed this film quite a bit. The fact that the Narrator flat out says at the start of the movie he's not telling an accurate story, implies a lot of the design and tech things are stuff he's making up to keep the audiences attention.
I like the way they tried to blend medieval and modern aesthetics. It's a shame that that was just used to prop up a bunch of blunt metaphors (and that they leaned so heavily into just being modern aesthetics with medieval technology).
How did NO ONE stop them from blatantly ripping of the agruably most highly regarded blockbuster action movie of the 21st century!? Is this final proof that the execs at Hollywood never actually watch a single movie?
that opening ... damn Also, does this mean Jamie Foxx is a bad actor because seriously, it is like every single film he's been in since Django Unchained has been bad. That's 6 years of bad films.
@@GamerSlyRatchet1 That's not much of an argument either for this or against Arrow. If you have to choose between being faithful to the source material or being good, always choose good, and I think the first two seasons of Arrow are rock solid.
I don't disagree that they are good, but I don't think being more faithful to the comic book character is inherently bad either. In fact, one of the show's few weaknesses in those first two seasons is trying too hard to be like Nolan's Batman.
Again, I'm saying you don't have to choose between either. It can be good AND faithful. There was nothing wrong with the original Green Arrow, and trying to make him into a low-budget Nolan Batman was a genuine flaw.
Mmm, I'll pass. I couldn't stand the first season of Arrow. Waaaaay too soap opera for my taste. Rewatching the first season of Daredevil sounds good though.
Why don’t they make Robin Hood in modern day... turn Robin Hood into revenge story about a one man crusade trying to get revenge for his father’s disgrace and protect his father’s people while using tactic and trick arrows and traps to ward of more superior numbers and add in some lunatic in somewhere Hell, I have a plot ready in my head
Exec: “We’re making a Robin Hood movie, but we’re throwing in a TON of modern imagery! Like modern military tactics and super hero origin stuff!”
Intern: “Why don’t you just set it in modern times and lay the Robin Hood story on top?”
Exec: “I don’t follow.”
Intern: “Take the Robin Hood story, but retell it in the 21st century. You’ll show how the story can still be relevant, and you’ll probably save on budget when you don’t have to create period-specific sets and props. It worked for Sherlock Holmes (twice), it worked for Green Arrow, and basically worked for Kingsman.”
Exec: “Nope. Still not getting it. Oooo, but Kingsman was a good flick. Let’s be sure to drag that kid into it!”
Genius! lol
Allegories are tight!
Exec: Joke's on you, we're going to add random modern costuming and aesthetics to Medieval Europe anyway!
Honestly if you want a Robin Hood movie people will be talking about for a long time just for its "What the fuck?" quality, set it in modern times and make him like a legit Communist revolutionary. Present the corporations as basically neo-feudal entities and have Robin and his band of Merry Men committing actual destruction of private corporate property with the more conservative news media (get some Fox look-alikes in for this part) calling foul.
I mean, if you're going to make a topical, political film the worst thing you can do is botch it and half-ass it.
Robinhood in modern era is just Arrow, which this movie really reminds me off.
From the costume design, to action choreography and set pieces, and quality as well from the way Bob describes it.
So to sum it up.....Men in tights is still the best live action Robin Hood movie ever made.
AMEN!
They're men! MANLY men! They're men in tights!
@@louisduarte8763 ALWAYS ON GUARD, DEFENDING THE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS!
But the one with the foxes was the best Robin hood!
WPFLAWLESS I was more going to say Erroyl Flynn’s Robin Hood Film is still the best, but Men In Tights and the Disney one are still fantastic.
No joke, I think you just convinced me into seeing Robin Hood after watching this.
Yeah, this sounds like the best kind of dumb.
I wish there was a way to mark on your ticket so that box office knows "hey I'm watching this ironically, I do not want more of these"
@@troyareyes My theater does 5 dollar Tuesday showings, that is when I watch the So bad it is fun stuff, see if your local showing does too?
Yeah, I was on the fence but Bob actually makes it sound enjoyable.
@@troyareyes It's called "piracy."
Right. A molotov cocktail. Because there were just tons of glass bottles lying around in the middle ages.
Well I think they can be build with ceramic flasks as well.
That being said I think they mostly used pitch and oil for fire projectiles, I don't think they had many burnable fluids refined enough to make molotov cocktails.
THAT'S the part that stuck with you?
I'm still stuck on doing modern-style building raids with the absolute worst possible weapon for that purpose...
@@ericwaters6194
I imagine pikes and lances would be worse for small stuffy rooms, but they are the only weapons available back then I could think of that could perceivably be worse.
I dont have a problem with it. In order to criticize a movie, u first need to realize what genre it is. This movie is obviously an allegory symbolic movie, not a period piece. In an historical allegory, anachronisms are not only accepted, they are expected and considered necessary tools of the genre. Think of all anachronistic Shackspearian productions. Cririsizing an allegory for having anachronisms is like criticizing wuxia movie for having unrealistic fantasy martial arts. In of itself, stylized anacranistic allegory movie is not bad, it's just a very hard genre to pull off.
@@badquestion4785 While I see what you're saying, the anachronisms in a proper allegory have to make sense in context, unless you're specifically trying for parody as well. Those Shakespearian anachronistic productions you're talking about? All of the anachronisms make sense in context - in Romeo & Juliet, they replaced swords with guns, which makes perfect sense when the time period has been shifted to the modern era.
It isn't the idea of them using modern tactics that's the problem, it's the idea that longbows would be usable with those tactics. Crossbows, maybe. Swords, maybe. But bows? It just doesn't make sense. At least, it makes no sense to me, which places it firmly into the realm of "my opinion", I suppose.
When all the reviews came out saying they stole from Nolan, I swear I thought it would be the simple “I can’t be with you because you need (insert vigilante identity here)”, but holy crap the fact they ripped off THAT is hilarious. Will check out down the line for sure
"It sucks the way Christian hair metal sucks"
"You didn't make Christianity better, you just made rock and roll worse!"
-Henry "Hank" Hill
Best comment ever
That was ever a thing? I'm amazed.
Oh yeah. Ever heard of Stryper? They were basically the laughing stock to the hair metal scene, even back in the 80's.
That bit broke me. I actually had to pause this to finish laughing.
“I’m impressed that they pulled it off and I’m in awe that nobody tried to stop them.”
Well, there’s a summary for you. Not gonna lie, it makes me want to see this :-)
After hearing the plot of this movie the only thing that I think could have saved it was giving Mel Brooks a writing credit because this honestly sounds like a rejected script for Robin Hood Men in Tights 2.
This sounds like a really good future MST3K episode.
I can't wait until all of the crap movies we're getting nowadays are old enough to receive the MST3K treatment in the future.
This, the King Arthur movie, the Emoji movie...
Is Rifftrax still a thing? It's basically the same thing but they riff modern movies.
Peekey Blinders is a gangster show set in the 20’s Britain that is unique because rather than having British gangsters it instead focuses on Irish/Romani gangster as the good guys. Nothing too ambitious. They must have hired him because he did a period piece.
It seems like they pushed the whole thing to being within an inch of a futuristic urban dystopia with modern day military combat, but could not commit to it, so they kept it in the medieval period.
That's what I thought it was going to be! Maybe even do the whole "future tech looks like magic" thing and make it a science fantasy movie.
What puzzles me is how could Robin Hood have been "drafted" into the Crusades? There was no draft back then in England, most of the soldiers that went to fight in the Holy Lands were volunteers.
Credit where credit is due, those medieval guards with modern-style shields and armour do look kinda cool. Completely out of place in a Robin Hood movie, but I can think of a few places it could really work.
as soon as I saw that in the trailers I knew this movie was going to be a liquid shit filled dumpster fire.
God, is it so hard to make a good Robin Hood movie? Just try to have some goddamn fun with it! Channel the ol' Errol Flynn with a bit of 2010s zany but with genuine heart vibe (Looking at you Guardians) and roll with it.
The Costner one is a really good, tight movie. Obviously it's cheesy, but I'll take cheesy over gritty any day.
@@MagnificentFiend You mean the Alan Rickman one.
@@xensonar9652 Lol, yes. Though I think Costner is perfectly good (accent aside).
@@MagnificentFiend Yeah, I have a soft spot for that movie. It was a good swashbuckler with a lot of talent in it.
@@xensonar9652 I remember being genuinely disappointed that the Sheriff didn't win over Costner's Hood.
This sounds goddamn stupid, but every review makes it sound more and more like my specific flavour of stupid. I still want to see it.
What's that a dark and gritty retelling of Robin Hood isn't very good? I'm shocked!, truly shocked. Well not that shocked.........
It's almost like we've been here before.
Oh wait.
Not wrong. Wish you were. But still not wrong.
I wonder if what might have saved it is if they had gone all in on the anachronism, going for more of a "the past, but with future tech" angle. Like steam punk, maybe. And if they're going to do the gun allegory, just give them guns. I dunno, I haven't seen this, but it's what the trailers made me think.
Maybe, but this presentation is so appealing to me in a "I would have put all this stuff into my high school D&D game because teenage me didn't know how the Middle Ages worked" kind of way, I still want to see this film.
Sounds like Alex Cox's "Walker"
Just watching the trailers, the modern anachronisms were laid on so thick that I honestly thought at first that this was supposed to be some sort of post-apocalyptic retelling of the Robin Hood myth. (Well, the Middle Ages were technically the post-apocalypse of the Roman Empire...) And yes, that would've made for a great gonzo action flick.
When I saw the trailer I thought this was going to be set after a apocalypse and that’s why you’ve got a Middle Ages modern day combo.
I...I...I....
....does anyone else remember when Robin Hood used to mean fun? I mean, I've seen multiple versions of the story over the years, done in various ways, but for some reason, when I think "Robin Hood", I still think either Errol Flynn or the Disney anthropomorphic version. Can we have those days back please?
The Sheriff of Nottingham saying "The Arabs hate us for our freedom!" was only like 30 minutes in, and it only went downhill from there.
Yeah man, 13th Century England definitely had "freedom" as its favourite thought-cancelling cliche. That was a thing they valued, and not definitely a VERY specifically modern US thing. It's not even trying to make the setting work, and it's so very smug about it. "haha you see it's a modern thing from a medieval mouth" like, sure man whatever.
It's not the worst problem even by a little but but damn, it really sets the tone.
The Ridley Scott one is starting to look a lot better, doesn’t it? At least the fault in that one was that it was kind of boring, but it was at least trying to be good.
I love how Prince John was handled in it. That scene where he desperately tries to rally the people, even handing over the crown like a paltry sixpence, was a powerful character moment.
I reckon it had a really great first half that put an interesting realistic take on Robin Hood. Then it went on this really odd tangent where Robbin's father was this social justice idealist who conceptualised a far more equal rights focused version of the Magna Carta. Just felt a bit messy, I do feel the movie got more flak than it deserved though.
I always feel so bad whenever Taron Egerton is in a bad movie, because he kicks so much ass in he Kingsman movies.
The film is trying so hard to convince you that it's badass but it's one of the most awkward and try hard viewing experiences I've had in a while but it is also hilarious in its incompetence.
This movie looks like it was made back in 2011-2012 when all of those YA movies "Hunger Games/Divergent" were being made, and then got released today.
It is insane how closely Harvey went and will scarlet stories parallel eachother
There's a lot wrong with this but the thing that took me out was the near end when they suddenly started playing what seemed like the buzzing of violins from "Why So Serious?" from The Dark Knight's soundtrack. I couldn't believe it. Also, I thought Will Scarlett was a merry man?
I'm now indefinitely convinced that I should flatly ignore both this and Crowe/Scott's Robin Hood and just keep watching and loving the classic animated Disney adaptation.
Captured it so perfectly.
Why is it me, an unemployed painkiller addict who's literally useless, can tell as soon as I hear about movies like these that they'll make no money but execs seemingly can't? Am I physic? My next hot tip is that Mortal Engines will be Mortally wounded at the box office.
Glad to see you're still making videos for Geek.com despite the Escapist return.
i think i knew the new robin hood movie was going to be bad when i saw they'd changed his signature color from green to blue. Robin hood is quite posible the oldest instance of a character having a "signature color" and they couldn't even get that right? why should i trust them to get anything else right.
I'll be honest that Iraq-war-with-bows-and-arrows thing kinda sounds stupidly awesome. I can't wait for the movie to come out so I can watch it on youtube.
I know, right? Apparently Robin and his squad have to take out a fully-automatic ballista like it's a machinegun nest at one point!
@@digitaljanus Yeah. That is a thing that happened. It was monumentally stupid. And I fucking loved it.
automatic ballista? now i gotta watch this movie
That intro is the harshest burn.
When you referred to the Crusade scene I couldn't help but laugh. FoldingIdeas already had a good name for that portion of the film: "Zero Dark Loxley"
Can't wait for Bob's worst of list this year now
I doubt I'll be irked by it this year unlike last in which he did a very scathin review on a musical biopic that had just come out.
I always thought big budget movies that use a mythologized history at least ask, like, one single historian to tell them if there was modern warfare in the 1200's.
You didn't mention the third act where it turns into an Ocean's 11 movie.
So far, Taran Edgerton has been in an Illumination film, an unnecessary sequel to a successful Mark Millar comic adaptation, and now yet another modern Robin Hood adaptation that doesn't even hold up that well...
Wonder what's next for the guy? I look forward to see what other obscure piece of work he might be in, whether it be good or bad.
Matthew Cool we know what’s next. A Elton John biopic
@@stephensmith7327 Because "biopic of famous gay person" = Oscar Gold! Then he can finally make REAL ARTSY movies, instead of the schlock he's usually stuck with.
Louis Duarte as Bohemian Rhapsody proved, that’s not always the case.
Matthew Cool a
For that spoiler section alone I’m renting this
that's a hell of an introductory metaphor
So, ages ago, there was a movie that adapted one of Shakespeare's more obscure plays, "Coriolanus", about a war hero who runs for public office. The movie is set in the present day in an unnamed country, and rigidly adheres to the script but modernizes the context to fit a metaphor for present-day issues. This movie sounds like it took the opposite approach to the same challenge.
I think both movies would be valuable viewing for budding filmmakers.
...this is the BEST review i've seen for this...seriously, it ALMOST makes me wanna watch it, even though Bob is telling us HOW BAD IT IS...impressive!
Some alternative titles for the movie: The Hurt Loxley, Saving Private Loxley, Full Metal Loxley, Zero Dark Loxley...
"I'm impressed that they pulled it off and I'm in awe nobody tried to stop them " 😂😂😂
So which is worse, this or Misdemeanours of Grizzlepants?
Misdemeanors. At least MovieBob enjoyed the idiocy on this one.
Felonies of Grimbledorf
Funny thing was, I walked out of this halfway through (around the bit with the weird, Baz Lurhman-esque rich people party in it) as I had to attend to something else. I didn't hate the film but I didn't feel that I wanted to go back and finish watching it, so was slightly annoyed as I've never had to get up and leave a film before, nor have I wanted to, even when the film has been bad, and I've sat through worse films than this. I already got the Batman Begins comparison, but I didn't realise what happened to Jamie Dornan's character until I saw this review. Wow! They actually went there...
Man, all these reviews are getting me HYPED to see it on Netflix next year.
So... This is a shitty version of the first season of Arrow?
"Sheriff of Nottingham, you have failed this kingdom!"
The girl I saw this with, checked out when the Sheriff's coat had a rolled seam. Which requires a special sewing machine apparently. I don't know, she does cosplay.
"It sucks with conviction"... Top 10 best MovieBob lines ever!!
I will always love the Ridley Scott Robin Hood for one reason. Alan Doyle as Alan A'Dale. I just love Great Big Sea, so hearing their lead singer jam his way through the movie as the group bard is just good fun.
Sold! Is it still in theaters?
I've been tempted to watch this since Dan Olson's Zero Dark Loxley Vlog and you, Bob, are not helping. The sheer wtf of it sounds almost magnificent.
I really want to see this movie. I don't care about the message or how bad it is, I need to see it for the action scenes! That bit about the crusade sequence gave me a nice chubby.
In case you're wondering I want to see it for D&D inspiration.
You're why we can't have smart things
@@Pugiron You're why we can't laugh and enjoy things
Peaky Blinders started out really really good. Then started turning bad really fast and by the third season its a train wreck
The modern warfare with ancient weapons stuff.....I have to see this, now
so how many bad robin hood movies we gotta get before someone hits the bullseye?
Great script and delivery MovieBob, but for some reason when I listen to this video there's a lot of white noise/static laid over the audio. Not sure what's up with that.
It sounds like someone watched Walker without understanding Walker
This is one of those movies that you use when you think of... "Would I rather watch a bad movie where the people clearly cared and tried to make something worth watching, or would I rather watch a meh movie where nobody in the entire film's production cared about what they were doing."
Wow, I've heard the movie was bad before, but hearing it from you really hammers the point home. Like this movie makes Sharknado sound like an auteur movie. And now I wanna watch Sharknado again...
So: Wait for it to come out on video.
Invite friends over (or go to the friend with the best home theater).
Really helps if at least one of these friends has military experience and/or knows medieval military history.
Go full MST3K on it.
It's basically Batman Begins with Robin Hood and a director ripping off Guy Ritchie.
This movie looked like trouble from way back. I find it is almost a mathematical postulate, the longer the embargo(on reviews) is plus the shorter the advertising time is equates to a movie that is being released to probably qualify for a loss benefit on someone's taxes, not being the #1 released movie on any weekend. However, on the positive, the costumes look stylish and Taron Egerton and Jamie Foxx look great.
I love obnoxiously anachronistic medieval imagery. This and Legend of the Sword are going to be my insane go-to's now.
Peaky Blinders is Boardwalk Empire but with guys who talk like Ozzy Osbourne. There you go
5:37 hold the heck up, England during the time of the Crusades was already Catholic!
i guess they made them all protestants. the movie is full of anachronisms
I guess in this movie the Catholic Church wants England to be all church land akin to the Holy Roman Empire? **shrug** Still sounds pretty stupid to me.
@@hfar_in_the_sky well the Holy Roman Empire wasn't church land I think you mean the papal state, today's Vatican.
@@Nonsense010688 No, I know what I said.
While the HRE wasn't technically church land as you're thinking, the Pope often played a pivotal role in determining who would become the emperor. In particular the HRE territories south of the Alps could only be ruled by someone with the blessing of the Pope.
THAT, good sir, is what I'm referring to.
@@hfar_in_the_sky yeah but that only works by vastly overstating the pope role in choosing the next emperor and forgets that it was the otherway around more often.
Also the popes blessing did play some role in most catholic kingdoms during the medieval age so that not unique to the HRE.
You may be right with the souther Alps territories but that goes more into the papal state (which partly was granted by the HRE)
This movie actually sounds a lot smarter than it actually is but it's all presented so poorly. All the actors put in good performances so I think if a different director was in charge and the script got one more rewrite to change the conspiracy to something sadly more believable then this would have been a genuinely clever movie.
Wholly stuck mojo. What a review. Hats off sir! What scripts are you writing!?!!
That opening...brutal.
That Afghanistan sequence is the best part of this movie. I want a war movie set in a future where guns were never invented. That sounds kind of amazing.
If the whole movie was that, I might have loved it.
okay best review of this film I've seen, and I've seen 1/2 dozen or so.
Long story short someone watched Robin Hood Men in tights and failed to realise its a comedy satire so they made the straight version of that.
Cool T-shirt, where did you get it, did you order it from star league??
I'm gonna be honest, you make this sound interesting.
…is that a Star League shirt? That's fantastic!
That cold open just ethered the producers.
Bob you're just making me want to watch this more.
lmao at the idea of 12th century England "funding" the Arab Empire to "prolong" the Crusades. I don't have enough scare quotes to express how stupid that is.
This premise would have worked so much better with one twist: Place it in the post-apocalypse and have the Robin Hood references be intentional.
Mad Max: Robbing Huud
Not gonna lie, They already did Batman in Feudal Japan (which works)
I would LOVE to see Batman in a Robin Hood setting XD
6:35 I think I've asked this before, but what is it with you and blood?
Blood, like most bodily fluids, is able to be used to comedic effect in the right hands.
I tried Peaky Blinders since it was on netflix, didn't know how big it was in the UK, and it's just kinda meh; it's like if sons of anarchy was around during hell on wheels. It doesn't suck but pretty standard formula
Did no one check wikipedia for some historical context? England was a catholic nation, ruled by catholic kings for 300ish years after the crusades...
I think that an actual modern updated version of Robin Hood could work but the writer would have to be a genius.
🤣 Nailed it sir... in a far more articulate way than I. I’ve not enjoyed hating a movie as much as I did this for some time.
Having seen this train-wreck of a film -- seriously, I had a fun time watching it just laughing at how ridiculous bad everything was -- John is seen BOTH with the Loxley and Hood, and then when he's captured the former regiment leader clearly knew who he was because the sheriff is able to bring up the story about his son, the same son whom Loxley had tried to save... and NO ONE MAKES THE CONNECTION THAT LOXLEY IS HOOD BASED ON THAT CONNECTION?
Is this like Exoroist 2 and Zardoz ?
The overeager bluntness makes me think I may really, really have fun with (An)Guy Ritchie's Bowman Begins.
Well... thanks to your forewarning, had I just caught it on TV I may have cringed myself into a stroke. It's a shame that earnestness can do that.
What they did with Little John made my jaw drop.
All things considered, I honestly enjoyed this film quite a bit. The fact that the Narrator flat out says at the start of the movie he's not telling an accurate story, implies a lot of the design and tech things are stuff he's making up to keep the audiences attention.
And to think we have SEVEN MORE Robin Hood movies in the works.
I like the way they tried to blend medieval and modern aesthetics. It's a shame that that was just used to prop up a bunch of blunt metaphors (and that they leaned so heavily into just being modern aesthetics with medieval technology).
How did NO ONE stop them from blatantly ripping of the agruably most highly regarded blockbuster action movie of the 21st century!? Is this final proof that the execs at Hollywood never actually watch a single movie?
that opening ... damn
Also, does this mean Jamie Foxx is a bad actor because seriously, it is like every single film he's been in since Django Unchained has been bad. That's 6 years of bad films.
Unless he was bad in every one of them, I'd more chalk it up to terrible career decisions
4:44
So basically... Go watch the first season of Arrow instead?
The sad part is that this Robin Hood movie is probably more faithful to the Green Arrow character than Arrow ever was.
@@GamerSlyRatchet1 That's not much of an argument either for this or against Arrow. If you have to choose between being faithful to the source material or being good, always choose good, and I think the first two seasons of Arrow are rock solid.
I don't disagree that they are good, but I don't think being more faithful to the comic book character is inherently bad either. In fact, one of the show's few weaknesses in those first two seasons is trying too hard to be like Nolan's Batman.
Again, I'm saying you don't have to choose between either. It can be good AND faithful. There was nothing wrong with the original Green Arrow, and trying to make him into a low-budget Nolan Batman was a genuine flaw.
Mmm, I'll pass. I couldn't stand the first season of Arrow. Waaaaay too soap opera for my taste. Rewatching the first season of Daredevil sounds good though.
Holy hell, that opening.
Umm...did someone forget the misbegotten Guy Ritchie stab at Robin Hood after the Ridley Scott attempt?
I certainly did. Was it entertaining?
Why don’t they make Robin Hood in modern day... turn Robin Hood into revenge story about a one man crusade trying to get revenge for his father’s disgrace and protect his father’s people while using tactic and trick arrows and traps to ward of more superior numbers and add in some lunatic in somewhere
Hell, I have a plot ready in my head
Good review, but I kind of last track of when you stopped talking about Puppet Master and starting talking about Robin Hood, in a funny kind of way