The new movie, starring Hugh Jackman, is a character assassination of Robin Hood and a glorification of euthanasia.
Readership: All; Men; Christians;
Theme: The Protestant Reformation 2.0: Resetting Masculinity
Length: 1,000 words
Reading Time: 5 minutes
In the evening of 2026/7/14, my wife and I watched a newly released movie, The Death of Robin Hood (2026), starring Hugh Jackman.
While watching the main part of this movie, I thought it portrayed a very accurate depiction of the dog-eat-dog, hard-scrabble living conditions in medieval, pre-civilizational, 13th century England. There were several scenes of brutal hand-to-hand combat, arrows shot clean through skulls (at least 3 times for emphasis!), chainmail-clad warriors smashing ribs and crushing skulls with maces, even women and children being mercilessly murdered, and more. In one scene, one of the characters manually rips a man’s jaw off his face in a frenzied fit of vengeful rage.
If you happen to like seeing that kind of violence, then I’d say the acting was excellent — almost as good as Full Metal Jacket (1987).
The main character of the story is an old man who is continually attacked by those seeking vengeance for the sins he committed decades ago, and he somehow defeats his adversaries every time, defying death again and again. Later in the movie, he says killing someone brings a curse upon you, because whenever you kill someone, someone else comes looking for revenge, so you have to kill them too, followed by someone else seeking to avenge the avenger’s death, and so on. It never ends.
Through the sequence of events, we learn that this old man is, in fact, an elderly Robin Hood. But this depiction is nothing like the Robin Hood that we know about from folklore — the Robin Hood who is the common man’s hero, who takes from the greedy, oppressive rich to provide for the lowly humble poor, and all that, or so the folklore goes. In this film, he is not a hero, but merely an outlaw — just an old criminal constantly running from death threats of vengeance.
This movie essentially does a character assassination of our collective fond mental image of Robin Hood. In fact, the promotional poster for this film insistently states, “HE WAS NO HERO”.
Eventually, the main character is badly injured in another confrontation, and then he somehow finds himself at a peaceful convent on a beautiful secluded island, in the care of a young, beautiful nun who nurses him back to health. Here, he is apparently safe from all those who might wish to harm him. Here, we see scenes of people sitting together, eating quietly and peacefully, apparently thankful for their daily bread, and grateful that they are safe from danger and hunger — at the moment.
And so you might expect that this murderous outlaw (whom the narrative weavers tell us is the fabled Robin Hood, only much older) might find grace, repent of his sins, and learn to work with his hands and care for others living at the convent — or at least, that’s what would make for a good story. Indeed, he does this for a time.
And you might expect that his death, as foreshadowed in the title of the movie, might involve him saving an innocent person from a life-threatening situation, such as defending a child who was caught by a wild animal, and dying in the process, or something rather heroic and redeeming like that.
If it were otherwise any less honorable, then why make a movie to glorify it?
But no. The ending is dramatically sad, sickening, and tragic.
Centuries ago, there was a practice called blood-letting, or lancing, in which “bad blood” was let out of the body. It was believed that this was good for the ailing person’s health. At the end of the film, the nun let his blood out, and then he withdrew his arm, indicating a refusal to let her stop the bleeding. Meanwhile, he talked on and on about secrets he had kept all his life, and then he charged his present audience to keep all these things secret — for their own welfare. The nun didn’t resist his resignation to life, and so he bled out and died. It seemed this was the ultimate goal of the blood-letting after all — to end his life peacefully and predictably.
But why create a film about this — to assassinate the character of Robin Hood and glorify his supposed suicide? It seems that this movie is essentially glorifying euthanasia and pushing for its acceptance in the wider public.
This ending was also stupid and disappointing.
The main character found the grace to live in a convent during his old age, despite all his sins, and he rejected that good fortune, as well as the good people who took him in and cared for him while he was injured, by essentially committing suicide. I’ll end by saying that some Christian sects believe that those who commit suicide are bound for hell in the afterlife. The Catholic church staunchly believed this in the 13th century, which doesn’t bode well for the supposed Robin Hood character in this film.
Jack’s Conclusions
The original Robin Hood story is much more inspiring.
The ‘new’ Robin Hood, as depicted in this film, is just another manifestation of nihilism and a glorified catharsis for euthanasia.
I’ve given all of the valuable takeaways for this film above. IMO, that’s really all you need to know about it.
Unless you just want to indulge your dark side by feasting on some medieval gore, and torture your soul by watching an older, guilt-ridden man reject the love around him and instead choose to passively bleed out and die, I suggest you DO NOT watch this movie. Definitely don’t pay any money to watch this movie. You’ll feel depressed and despondent, and then you’ll need to pray and meditate for a while to get your heart back.
Related
- The Courier: ‘The Death of Robin Hood’ drains the blood, and life, out of an old English legend (2026/7/14)
