The children’s tale of the hero Robin Hood has come out of the books and onto the silver screen, infuriating history buffs and enthusiasts and leaving viewers wanting more.

The story takes from the traditional story of Robin Hood and his journey against the corrupt crown of England, but he does more than just steal from the rich and give to the poor;  Hood is tasked with taking down the corrupt regime he finds once returning home.

Robin of Locksley (Taron Egerton) and his to-be-killer-turned-ally John (Jamie Foxx) fight alongside each other in this medieval action-adventure directed by Otto Bathurst.

The adventure opens with a shot of Crusaders fighting in Arabia, with a pseudo-Iraq War style, drawing the viewers in.

It is from here that the viewers start to become immersed in Robin’s charisma and empathy for his allies, as well as his never dirt-covered face.

Viewers may find the run time of a little under two hours as perfect, if not too short for the loosely developed plot and scrappy dialogue written by Ben Chandler and David James Kelly.

The film earns itself a PG-13 rating, due to moments of violence and suggestive themes taking place throughout the story.

“Robin Hood” first reached the movie theaters 110 years ago in silent film form; however, to reach 2018 standards for an action movie, the story and production needed a complete overhaul.

In order to maintain the style of a classic Robin Hood, storyteller Chandler stretches the original stories of the characters to fit what has come to be expected in the modern age of movies.

However, the original story may have been stretched too thin, with many small plotlines that fail to resolve by the end of the movie, one major reason for this being the lack of any ending whatsoever.

Controversially, the film ends on a cliffhanger that would be expected from a TV show–not a major motion picture–rather than a traditional resolution.

Throughout the movie, there are too many twists and turns, losing many viewers on pointless ideas and distracting them from the main plot.

Many of the characters, despite taking place in medieval England, feel too modern to be considered even remotely historic, with more dystopian than medieval weapons, modern garb and distractingly inconsistent accents.

The film is able to set up a semi-believable setting of Nottingham, with the commoners flooding the decrypt mines, and the Sheriff (Ben Mendelsohn) living lavishly in his chamber.

However, Sherwood Forest, Robin Hood’s traditional home, only briefly appears, which is a surprisingly welcome change from the former adaptations of the story, with a fresh break from the standard story of all Robin Hood films.

One major concern even before the film hit theatres on Nov. 21, was the fact that many the costumes seen in trailers and promotional materials were far too modern, with many history buffs explaining that everything in the film was from years far after medieval England.

From a technical standpoint, the film continues Bathurst’s gritty style and contains stunning choreography in all of the fight sequences, one of the major highlights of the film.

Throughout the movie, as the trailer would suggest, is filled with stunning slow motion archery; something that amazes the audience–until it gets too repetitive and just drags the already long and arduous fight scenes out.

Once the story has reached its end, the last scenes of the film allow for a sequel that most likely will not happen, due to the extremely low reviews it has received (it’s currently at a 15% on Rotten Tomatoes).

If planning to view this film, disbelief will need to be suspended: the historical context makes little to no sense; crossbows fire as fast as and as powerfully as an assault rifle, and the horses (whether CGI or real) are able to start, stop and turn more effectively than a new BMW.

If one is able to avoid being distracted by the historical inaccuracies and traditional Hollywood invincibility of Robin Hood, the film is worth a watch, whether at a theatre or on a tablet at home.