It's been a few months, so another Robin Hood movie is coming out, this time with the lead role played by Andrew Garfield ("The Amazing Spider-Man"/"Hacksaw Ridge"), and the teaser trailer for it is nothing short of dumb.
The film is called "The Uprising," and as you can see from the clip shared by the film's official account, it takes place in the medieval era of Robin Hood, but with all the historical accuracy of a 5-year-old's playground game. Garfield is seen taking on men in full plate armor with a sickle and stabbing them through with swords.
In a land of kings, a rebel rises. pic.twitter.com/gfbUsEy56e
— The Uprising (@theuprisingmov) September 1, 2026
But I'm not here to talk about the inaccuracies of swords and armor. What I'm more annoyed by is the obsession Hollywood has with rebellions. Robin Hood is probably one of the most overused stories in filmmaking, and to this day, the only Robin Hood movie that truly stands out to me as excellent in every way is the one made by Mel Brooks.
Robin Hood is a libertarian's story. The character is a man who robs the corrupt nobility who overtaxes the people and returns the money to the people the nobility stole it from. This got turned into "steals from the rich, gives to the poor," which the Left immediately seized upon and turned the character into a celebrated anti-wealth, Antifa character of old.
At this point, Robin Hood is an on-the-nose "down with the system" story that Hollywood obsesses over making and remaking. "The Uprising" is set to release this month, and it will be the second Robin Hood movie this year. Moreover, it was initially not even sold as a Robin Hood movie. It was supposed to cover the Peasant Revolt of 1381. At some point, the film got rebranded to "The Uprising: The Rise of Robin Hood."
Why? The Guardian wonders the same:
But that all changed this week, when the film’s US distributor, Focus Features, announced the film’s full title on social media. What had once simply been The Uprising was now The Uprising: The Rise of Robin Hood. It added a new synopsis, reading: “Set against the true events of the Uprising that helped inspire the legend of Robin Hood, [Andrew Garfield’s character] forms an army of the people to face the King’s might in a fight for justice.”
Needless to say, this was both confusing and frustrating. Frustrating because it sounded like a historically grounded and socially relevant film would now contain a character best known for once being played by a cartoon fox, and confusing because the stories of Robin Hood were set during the reign of Richard the Lionheart, who died nearly two centuries before the Peasants’ Revolt took place.
My tinfoil hat theory about the change?
The Guardian touched on it already. They thought the film would be "socially relevant." I'm pretty sure the producers in Hollywood want it to be socially relevant, too. Still, they know that the attempt to sell what would be a socially relevant film won't work on its own because they know the people are tired of Hollywood's version of "social relevance."
So, why not slap a name people know on it? Familiarity can be a useful tool.
Robin Hood is a logical move. Despite being English folklore, he's found a special place in the hearts of Americans because he represents a rebel, and Americans love the concept of rebellion. It's baked into our blood. It's a heavy ingredient in the foundations of this very country. We grew up in a culture that prides itself on the act, and that's going to affect our psychology. It's why Americans can't comprehend the European idea of complacency.
The thing is, this psychology can be weaponized against the very system that prides itself on being resistant to tyranny. The left is very good at weaponizing that mentality. The average person, especially the conservative, is pretty well aware that the more radical the leftist, the more rabid and the harder the fighter for authoritarianism and tyrannical rule. However, the left has done an incredibly good job of convincing radicals that they're rebelling against an established system of hate and exclusion. In the mind of the radical leftist, you're the boot licker for trying to defend a country that bucks the backward systems of old.
The story of Robin Hood is often used as an attempt to reinforce that idea in Americans by turning him into a "socially relevant" character. I can already tell you the film's goal without even seeing it.
They want you to look around at the times you live in, see the current system as inefficient, corrupt, and mean-spirited, and see the people running it as the epitome of evil. They want you to draw comparisons to the English nobility and the Republicans in office, led by a man who is an impostor to the throne. They want you to identify with the English peasantry, and they want you to think that resistance is a moral necessity.
Hollywood knows the midterms aren't that far away, too. They're doing their part. This movie has all the earmarks of a social appeal to vote Democrat.
The only issue for Hollywood is that, for too many people now, this attempt to sway hearts and minds is pretty obvious. It's just an old strategy with a fresh coat of paint. It's the same message Hollywood always preaches, and this time they wheeled out a mask people have seen a hundred times.
We're over it. I expect this movie to bomb hard.
