Robin Hood (TV Series 2006–2009) Poster

(2006–2009)

User Reviews

Add a Review
163 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
7/10
Eventually won me over...
Sweet_Ophelia31 December 2006
After the first 15 minutes of the BBC's new drama 'Robin Hood', I was pretty much certain that I wouldn't go further than the first episode. Robin (Jonas Armstrong), back from the Crusades in Jerusalem is coming home to Locksley, along with is ex-servant and friend, Much (Sam Troughton). They make a pit-stop on their journey home, to help a blacksmith in return for food... and a roll in the hay with his bosomy daughter who looks like she just stepped out of a Justin Timberlake music video. Riiight. Then came a dodgy back-flip, some ridiculous one-liner and I was thoroughly unimpressed.

I know a thing or two about the legend of Robin Hood. As a kid the Disney version (yep the sing-along with the fox as Robin) was a favorite, and when I was about 6 and went on a trip to England, my family and I made a pit-stop in Nottingham, got a photo by the Robin Hood statue and even went on a little Robin Hood ride and walk through Sherwood forest. I was told the stories of Robin Hood, and have a soft spot for the Robin and Marian romance. I felt obligated to give this new BBC drama a try, since everything Robin Hood once fascinated me as a child.

The first episode, as I said, did not inspire confidence. Jonas Armstrong isn't who I picture as Robin Hood. One review described him as being the 'Orlando Bloom' type, one who "hovers somewhere between boyhood and manhood" (Daily Express, September 9, 2006). I had seen Armstrong in the fourth season of 'Teachers' and was not terribly taken by him. But in 'Robin Hood', Armstrong is initially hard to swallow as the hooded crusader, but this isn't entirely his fault. Robin initially comes across as a cocky, womanizing lad with a hefty ego, and it wasn't until about the third episode that I actually started to warm to him. What made sure I came back to watch the second, third and eventually entire series of this show was Lucy Griffiths as Maid Marian and Keith Allen as the deliciously ruthless Sheriff of Nottingham.

Newcomer, 19 year-old Lucy Griffith's Marian has dropped the 'maid' and follows the lead of 21st century female TV heroines such as Buffy, Veronica Mars and Rose Tyler... which isn't surprising, the show could not have worked with a wimpy and weak Marian. Griffiths and Armstrong do have a great chemistry as well, despite the fact that the dialogue between Marian and Robin is sometimes corny ("kiss it better?") there is a spark, and that's enough to keep the Marian/Robin romance interesting for me. Even more so is the fact that in this updated version, Marian does not welcome Robin home with open arms. He left her 5 years ago to fight for glory and King Richard in the Holy lands, and she is still feeling the sting of his desertion.

Keith Allen plays a fantastically villainous Sheriff, who sometimes reminds me of Tim Curry, and is always entertaining. Richard Armitage plays Guy of Gisborne, the Sheriff's right hand man and the new lord of Robin's Locksley manor. To top it off, Gisborne is in tough pursuit of Marian, adding an extra layer of intensity to his dueling with Robin.

This show has been commissioned partly due to the huge success of the resurrected 'Doctor Who', and while it isn't quite on-par with the genius of Russell T. Davies's show, 'Robin Hood' is worth a try. At times the production value leaves you wanting, the stunts can be laughable and the acting a little wooden. It isn't really until the seventh episode "Brothers in Arms" that things really start to pick up with the drama and story lines, and from seven onwards it is a brilliant roller-coaster ride sure to make the previous six lack-luster episodes worth the watch.
83 out of 112 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Enjoyable
Aw_4725 November 2006
I like this version, and think the actors are good. Fair enough if it's really not your thing, but they can't please everyone.

I appreciate that it's not historically accurate, but how can it be when it's based on a legend? I don't see why it has to be - it's a drama program, not a documentary. :-)

As for the comment in one post that anyone who enjoyed it must be either ignorant or from the BBC: I am neither. It seems a shame to join a discussion only to offensively reject any opinion that conflicts with your own. :-(

I hope the rumour that it's been commissioned for a second series is true.
64 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
OK... now great!
sha_dela11 January 2007
When I first saw it I thought it was really bad and almost didn't watch it again. The first episode was cringe-worthy.But... I stuck with it and with each passing week it got better and better. Now, I'm hooked. It's great entertainment. People who say that it is not historically correct are just being picky. Not many people care whether it is correct or not. As long as it is good drama and entertaining then it will be watched. Robin Hood has all of those things. Brilliant drama, occasionally funny and has got a hint of romance running through it. The actors, though not widely known are great and Robin Hood gets better as each week passes. Definitely something you should give a try.
67 out of 97 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Absolutely Brilliant
welshie2119 November 2006
In my opinion, out of the vast majority of the Robin Hoods out there, this is by far the best. It is witty, enjoyable and fast paced. Its suitable for all ages hence the 7pm airing. The casting is just right, Robin is supposed to be young, he has just returned from the crusades, Jonas Armstrong is perfectly suited. Marian (played by Lucy Griffiths) is the model woman, she stands up for what she thinks is right and isn't afraid to put herself in the line of fire so to speak. The sheriff is suitably horrid and Robin is perfect as the young, charming and cheeky rebel. As most BBC 13part shows are good, you expect this to be too and you aren't disappointed.
98 out of 149 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Very enjoyable
Elicottonlover11 October 2006
I enjoyed this very much, maybe that's because I was expecting a light hearted romp for families about the legend of Robin Hood and not a documentary. Exhilarating if outrageous action scenes, humour, nasty bad guys, bit of social comment for the adults. Robin a mixture of gravitas and cheekiness. Great verbal sparring between Robin and the Sheriff and a Robin and Marian. The sets were amazing, Locksley a bit sterile but the overall look was good. Did exactly what it said on the tin for me and what I expected for a programme in that time slot. Now the characters are settling in, looking forward to more good stuff from future episodes.
95 out of 146 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Come on BBC, you can do better!
razorsharp2505-17 October 2007
Recently the BBC has been delivering some much improved family drama and Robin Hood promised to be the latest blockbusting instalment. having missed the first series, I tuned in to see what all the hype was about but came away feeling very disappointed.

I'm all for using a bit of artistic licence in the name of entertainment but some of the detail, acting and direction leaves much to be desired. For example, how can Robin shoot an arrow to free the ropes on a tied up maiden if her wrists are pointing away from him on the other side of a big wooden post? And how is it that none of the sheriff's guards managed to spot the ample bosom on Maid Marion when she was in disguise and insisted on referring to her as a man?

Overall, the script was quite weak, much of the acting quite stiff, the costumes lacking and many of the key characters seemed to have been miscast. I just couldn't get on with the actress playing Maid Marion at all.

I never thought I'd hear myself say this but even Kevin Costner's mediocre version of the myth of Robin Hood was more believable and much more enjoyable. For a better TV version, try out the 1980s Robin of Sherwood series instead.
29 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Continues its decline
thelmaritter-126 April 2009
Season 1 was an enjoyable romp once it got the gang assembled, and Season 2 had an energetic Empire Strikes Back quality, but we're halfway through Season 3 and it's a turkey. New lackluster characters are being introduced into the gang, taking the focus off the old characters we actually like. The writers seem to have lost the thread of the story. At the end of Season 2 they set the audience up for a big showdown, but they deflated the tension in the very first episode. There are continuity issues every episode, such as, Why does Gisborne suddenly have a sister when he spent the first season moping about having no family? Did Gisborne's soldiers get eaten? Prince John was supposed to be angry about his tax money, but when Gisborne returns, it's to kill Robin Hood, not to squeeze money from the sheriff. With a few exceptions, most of the scripts feel as if they were hastily sketched out, without much care toward development of character or continuity. It's a shame.

The one exception to the lackluster season is Toby Stephens as Prince John. He's the perfect combination of insecurity, viciousness, and preening pomposity. He's very funny.
14 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
I thought it was great
suzyyyeee11 October 2006
finally something to fill the gap left by 'Doctor Who'. A quirky, enjoyable, funny program which had me on the edge of my seat. This is what we've been waiting for, from the BBC, after such shows as 'Doctor Who' and 'Pride & Prejudice'. The characters were already well structured even after the first episode. Jonas Armstrong is a great choice for Robin Hood, as he is a 'bad boy'. With his rugged features and lovely accent, he really makes the character of Robin come alive. Along with the other actors and actresses, he really makes the legend reality. A must-see for any fans of Action/Comedy and maybe romantics. It combines lots of genres to make it appeal to everyone. Now all i have to say is, watch it! or you'll be sorry you missed it!
66 out of 109 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
This isn't about the twelfth century. It's about Britain now!
Uhtred22 March 2008
Jonas Armstrong's Hood is possibly the smuggest character I've ever seen on TV drama. Makes me want to root for the sheriff except he's an equally tedious pantomine villain. Richard Armitage who plays Gisborne would have made a far better Hood, both physically and charisma wise. This show also takes a cue from the mediocre Herecules the Legendary Journeys with lukewarm comedy provided by boring buffoon like sidekicks. The biggest difference between this and the mid eighties series Robin of Sherwood is the twenty odd year time gap between them, because Britain has changed enormously in that time. I'm talking about the story lines not the lavishness/ special effects. In 1984 it was still OK to celebrate the indigenous British Saxon/ Celtc culture so you had episodes about the Swords of Weiland( the Mythical Saxon smith) and Herne the Hunter ( from Celtic myth) to the background of a heavily Celtic mystical soundtrack. It was gritty and serious. Fast forward twenty years and you've got Robin quoting the Koran, the English/ Welsh longbow takes a backseat to the 'Saracen' bow and multicultural Britain appears to be up and running in the twelfth century.Also the crusades being snidely linked by the script to the Iraq war. The crusades were a bad thing according to this show which English kids will watch. There's no show telling them that 400 years ago ships from the North African caliphate were raiding British coastal towns for slaves. No shows about the Muslim crusades in Spain and South west Europe. This is brainwashing. If they wanted a happy clappy series which all cultures in Britain can relate to, why not set it in a fantasy world instead of rewriting history.
32 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Anachronistic politically correct piffle!
beresfordjd13 June 2009
Anachronistic politically correct piffle is what I titled this review and it is just what I mean. I have just watched/listened to this while setting up my recordings for the next week or so. I find it hard to believe that anyone likes this and why on earth anyone would want to watch it. There is nothing that rings true about any of it. There is a distinct feeling of end-of-the-pier pantomime about the entire venture. Why is Friar Tuck black now? (incidentally before the PC brigade jump all over me, I am black and think this is political correctness taken too far). This series is a lot of things but it is definitely not the Robin Hood story. I have no problem with artistic licence but whatever is done with it has to 1.be good and 2. has to work. The actors say their lines competently enough but I feel unconvinced by any of them. I fail to understand why anyone would employ Keith Allen as an actor-he is a parody of an actor and should never be allowed anywhere near anything that is to be put in front of an audience. Its a travesty of the first order from beginning to end.
15 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Robin Hood: (Men in ) Pants
Ian (Chickenhawk2002)9 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
As an English archer, I was so looking forward to this, a BBC production, so it ought to be quality, and a possible rival to the excellent Robin of Sherwood.

Um no.

(Mild spoiler)

The acting was appalling, the budget clearly non-existent,(as evidenced by the population of the city of Nottingham being 16 and a dog), the pace was turgid, and after an hour Robin had managed to build his band of hardened freedom fighters to I think 4. Luckily the garrison of Nottingham was only 5 so the odds were about even.

The production crew hadn't even bothered to teach the cast how to shoot a bow. Even Kevin Costner had a better style and looked as if he'd practised a bit. For a big budget Braveheart type affair that might not matter, but this is Robin Hood, Englands greatest archer! And talking of Kevin Costner, just how much of Prince of Thieves do the BBC intend to steal in one episode? There are copyright laws! Sadly I hope the sheriff catches him quickly and strings him up, then perhaps they can bring Dr Who back into that time slot a bit earlier. But then Billie Piper has left.....
51 out of 92 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Robin Hood - the Grunge Version
lilar-130 September 2007
When I saw that a new series of Robin Hood was coming to Prime TV, and that it was British, I found myself looking forward to seeing it, having fond memories of the 1980s series with its romance and mysticism.

The new series has disappointed me thus far (five episodes so far), despite having the Sheriff of Nottingham played by the deliciously OTT Keith Allen. Young Robin of Locksley (Jonas Armstrong), freshly returned from the Holy Land, looks as though he'd be more at home in Trainspotting than in Locksley Hall, his ancestral home – just as well, really, since it's been commandeered by Sir Guy of Gisborne in his absence. Guy (Richard Armitage) is, despite being one of the baddies, by far most attractive thing in the show – and he really can act.

Purely as an action adventure, it's not too bad, but there's a great deal in it to deplore.

The costuming, for a start. It's not as though, with the resources available to them, it would have been at all difficult to clothe the cast appropriately for England in the time of King Richard Coeur de Lion. But what do we get? Outlaws dressed like 21st-century street kids, complete with hooded jackets (and I could swear one of them was wearing a machine-sewn, knit-fabric tunic!), a Sheriff who dresses in what look like black polo jerseys and full-length coats with fur collars (a bit of bling and he could just about pass for a gangland pimp), and a Marian who looks as though she buys her clothes in some Seventies-revival boutique.

The dialogue is an uncomfortable mish-mash of stilted pseudo 'Olde Englishe' and gratingly modern expressions, and they've taken gross liberties with the story itself. Although I suppose it's possible that Friar Tuck might turn up at some stage in the proceedings, he's certainly missing so far. Little John seems to have been a victim of downsizing, and Marian comes across as the sort of sharp-tongued harridan who'd be more at home in Eastenders or Emmerdale. And I can't help but wonder why she spends so much time hanging around with the Sheriff and Sir Guy, rather than at home with her widowed father - especially as she (quite rightly!) despises both of them – or even under the greenwood tree with Robin and the boys, as in tales of yore. The makers of the series really don't seem to have thought things through at all.

The legend of Robin Hood, with its romance and adventure, its chivalry and championing of the common man, has well and truly stood the test of centuries, but this latest retelling might just manage to sink it. Presumably its makers wanted to present the tales afresh for today's young television viewer by morphing it into some sort of post-modern grunge drama. Sadly, all they've achieved so far is a tale writ not only small, but with poor spelling and in an all-but-illegible scrawl.
22 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Dumb but Strangely Entertaining
ecramer-317 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Looking back, I don't know how I got through the entire series. I can only guess that the fact that it was Robin Hood kept me interested. Though this show is undoubtedly better than Kevin Costner's silly Prince of Thieves, the problems with this series are many and have been stated before: --Jonas Armstrong is hardly that. There's no way this guy could string a Saracen bow, let alone fire it properly. --Just about the middle 9 episodes or so are basically "someone benevolent is captured by the Sheriff of Nottingham, Robin and his men are in a moral quandary, Robin enters Nottingham castle, saves the victim. Huzzah." It gets old seeing Robin easily enter the castle again and again. --Ok, I understand that this is family entertainment and whatnot, but please, God, let some more people die, or change the script so deaths would never be a real possibility. This is the Middle Ages. The Sheriff should have been dead by episode 4 or 5. Didn't Robin swear to harm him if he harmed more people? Well? --Script and costumes . ..awful. These people do not know the Middle Ages. --Finally, the political correctness and the desperate attempts to relate Robin's struggles to Iraq, Guantanamo, or other modern issues are overt and dumb. All in all, I was looking for some realism, or at least original and witty scripts, instead of corny lines, and predictable endings with the Sheriff shaking his fist and yelling after his inefficient, elaborate plot to capture Robin fails. I'll probably watch the 2nd season though . . ..
16 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Lack of production
cteja26 February 2009
Absolutely lack of production, the soldiers clothes look plastic, Guy of Gisborne uses a Matrix like plastic jacket, poor scenarios, foolish plots, the worst Robin Hood I've ever seen.

Robin of Locksley was a noble and in the series his home was not a castle but a small house in a villa.

I am an archer and you take time to shoot arrows and in this series Robin shoots arrows like from a gun machine.

Look at the arrows shafts they are field points no hunting or killing shafts.

The only thing that worths it is Lady Marian, she is a beauty
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Someone hang the costume designer...
elonwen13 May 2010
Sure, the whole series is a joke, but ARGH for the costume design! No, I cannot recommend a show with such horrible, terrible joke of a wardrobe for anyone.

I am not sure why BBC went for this series. It seems like a wannabe-fantasy show situated in medieval England. Why? Full of historic inaccuracies, costume design that makes your head ache, people behaving (and talking) in a way they never would have back then... Why spoil a good thing? Even parody and humour can be made with good taste, just have a look at Monty Python's Holy Grail... There is no need to ignore everything we know about Middle Ages to make a fresh piece.
17 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Robin Hood? I think not
fireblade-five17 April 2008
This Robin Hood is absolutely ridiculously terrible. What is with the modern morals in it? We do not kill? what on earth, Robin Hood was a crusader of course he dam well killed. Another thing is why does he use Saracen swords and a bow? where is his English longbow gone, the thing which he most resembles, why has he got a composite bow?. All the questions possibly make this program one of the worst ever made by the BBC, which are extremely poor considering we have to pay TV licence.

Well overall this is not Robin Hood, because hardly any of it resembles anything to do with it. The only part is the names. If you wanna see a good Robin Hood, I recommend watching Errol Flynn then you will realise how terrible this BBC production is.
30 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Kill off the Sheriff and move on!
gibbersome31 March 2009
Annoying is how I would rate this show. The production values aren't great (I've seen some villages walking around in polo shirts), and the acting isn't top notch, but the most irritating aspect of this show is the stagnant plot. The Sheriff is the typical one dimensional evil character, killing off a few innocent villagers each episode. Yet Robin Hood refuses to kill him because "Prince John will massacre everyone." Ha! This was a satisfactory explanation for the first episode, but to persist this rubbish throughout the first two seasons is disrespectful to the viewers. I sometimes feel like I'm watching a cartoon, where everything returns to normal by the next episode. Move the plot forward. The sheriff is tiresome as a villain.
15 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Saturday night fun
Bob Blainey6 December 2006
This is perfect Saturday night viewing. Don't expect complicated plots and subtext. It is pure entertainment. Goodies wear white (or green in this case) and the baddies wear black. It is as simple as that. The costumes are a bit modern the dialogue also is more in the present day.

But the best bit that makes it worth watching is Kieth Allens Sheriff of Nottingham. He is pure am dram evil. An amoral creature who would turn over his own mother. the supporting cast are great and Jonas Armstrong puts in a great cocky performance for an unknown actor.

The back ground characters are a bit week but this is probably more due to the fact there grasp of English is limited as the series is filmed in Hungary
28 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
special effects for idiots
yatchc5216 April 2007
What's with this Discovery-Channel-doco-show-thing where subtitles are now announced with a sort of scud-rocket kind of noise and then shot onto the screen.

I can't figure if it is because the audience is being played to be complete idiots - 'we think you won't notice there is a sign up on the screen unless we make A LOT of noise as well' - or whether it is just that special effect - 'hey, we can make a loud vulgar offensive noise AT THE SAME time as putting a subtitle up on the screen. WOW, we gotta do that'.

In fact one suspects the subtitles, (they inform us that there has been a chance of scene, like we couldn't figure that out for ourselves) are only there in order to permit the scud-missile sound effects which go with them.

And this special effect just about sums up the whole show. A show where the GOOD review says you have to sit through the first 6 episodes ( - six!! -) to get to something which isn't tedious is not for me.
20 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
It's fast, it's slick, but it's no better than a low budget cable show
Mark4 January 2007
This is a TV production with very high production values except where it counts: the script.

Robin Hood's message used to be rob from the rich and give to the poor. Not this version, it's all about the Crusades. It's firmly set in 1194AD makes numerous historical references to 1194AD but regularly makes it relevant to 2006AD in all moral respects. This is made worse by the fact that not one of the script writers seems to know about the medieval period and worse, in an effort to make this pertinent, the show tries to link in what miniscule knowledge they do know with the war in Iraq. This clumsy message is not helped by an effort to avoid difficult theological early evening discussions by wiping nearly all references to Christianity. This show seems to have replaced the word "Christianity" with "Rome". Therefore it's easy for all the characters to dismiss the Crusades as "Romes war". This appears to be the main reason why there is no Friar Tuck and seems doubly odd when the Koran is quoted by Robin and multiple Muslim characters are introduced. In fact in this version, Robin Hood uses a "Saracen bow", a curvy "Saracen sword" and eventually manages to get "Saracen Bows" for the rest of his Merry Men because they offer some sort of unspecified technological advantage. This, coupled with the shows love of attributing any scientific break though to Saracens, including at one point "Greek Fire" just reeks of, and I really hate this phrase, true Political Correctness Gone Mad. What happened to "rob from the rich and give to the poor"?

Every week Robin and his Merry Men manage to stretch reality by gaining entry into Nottingham Castle via convenient hatches, holes and ladders and every one of the soldiers left guarding the place seem to go down after one punch. The costumes are a mish-mash of all sorts of historical paraphernalia which means despite being set in 1194AD, expect to see waistcoats, fedora hats, cardigans and trench coats. Also, Robin seems to be channelling Legolas the Elf from Lord of the Rings but before you get your hopes up expect what little realism there is to go out of the window and see arrows land like computer generated bullets. Now here's the shows major criticism: It's very, very poorly written. Each show offers one major plot hole which renders each episode ridiculous. Robin, with his God like bow skills could kill the sheriff in episode 1. He says he doesn't want to kill anyone after the Crusades and yet he frequently does without batting an eyelid. The sheriff continues to be immune which makes me think this show really is for children.

If the IMDb goofs section opens up expect to swamped, there are some true howlers (how about a character who buys stuff from the peasants and consequently gets robbed by Robin – he's public enemy number one during one show. Robin, tell the peasants not to sell their stuff in the first place!!!) It used to be that BBC drama productions were low budget but well written, this show seems to have reversed that. It's quick, it's glossy, it looks the business but really it's so rubbish expect it to be either a cult classic or quickly forgotten.
27 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
The Worst Ever Robin Hood.
fredo7019 November 2006
Got to hand it to the BBC, take a well loved folk hero, with a cinematic pedigree of nearly a hundred years and then create the most awful version of the legend (and yes I am including the Noooo Adventures of Robin Hood). Must have taken some incredible talent to do that.

This show does not know what it wants to be. The script writers keep banging on about the Third Crusade, Pope Gregory (a really obscure reference) and the fact that it is 1192. However, the producers obviously never told that to the costume department, who thought they were designing for a very camp Flash Gordon TV show. I don't expect Kingdom of Heaven but that is a better reference than Ming the Merciless and Prince Baron.

It is hard to decide whether the casting is poor or that the scripts make the actors look bad. There is a sheriff who, if he twirls his moustache any more must kidnap Marian and tie her to some railway tracks. Gisbourne is good even though the make up department try to make him look like a reject from Siouxie and the Banshees. Robin has the mingiest looking beard in history, either shave it or grow it mate. Marian always looks scared when she is reciting her lines, yet she is supposed to be the brave Nightrider (cough, spin off series), eat your heart out Clark Kent. Robin now gets a new sidekick Much, who is just plain annoying and gay (in the Chris Moyles sense). The rest of his crew are bland and nondescript and just mumble their lines.

But the most appalling aspect of the series is the Political Correctness. The BBC is having a joke, just because you have to tick boxes on your diversity questioners, doesn't mean you can add rubbish characters and totally miscast parts. The most cynical example of this is the non gender specific Djaq, the man with a fanny, who talks like Tarzan, basically the Scrappy Doo/Adric of Sherwood forest. What next King Richard as an Australian Aborigine (wouldn't put it passed them)?

The BBC billed this version as appealing to 'a sophisticated contemporary audience' and that the 'producers have gone as far as they can to give the series an authentic late 12th century feel'. They must believe that the public are ill educated and ignorant.

To those who gave this series a good reviews either:

You have never been to the cinema, owned a DVD and actually believe that there be little people living inside the magical television.

Or you work for the BBC - the technical term for this is seeding.
26 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Extremely Disappointing
bs3dc30 October 2006
Firstly, this seems to be a show that everyone either loves or hates. I am definitely one of the latter people. I would normally just turn over and watch something else, but I am angry how the licence fee money has been wasted yet again on a well below par TV series. I was looking forward to it, but when even the BBC's own listing magazine gave it a lukewarm preview the alarm bells began to ring, and after watching several episodes to give it a chance enough is enough.

One of the main problems of this show is the poor casting. I am far from against using unknown actors, but when they are as bad at acting as this it beggars belief. Charisma-free Jonas Armstrong is woefully miscast as Robin Hood. Are we really expected to believe he has spent five years hard campaigning in the Holy Land? Despite proclamations from the BBC about the fight training it is clear from the camera angles and the constant slow motion that they barely know one end of a sword from the other. It is also apparent that Robin uses a stunt double for most if not all horse riding, so why was he chosen? He looks more the sort of person who goes around stealing hub caps and car stereos than being the noble outlaw he is usually portrayed as. As for the rest of the cast, only Keith Allen comes anywhere near to the mark. Richard Armitage as Guy of Gisburne looks like a motorcycle courier, and has all the menace of one. Maid Marian has so much make-up on I thought at first she had two black eyes. Much is just a poor version of Sam Gamgee from Lord of the Rings and the merry men show worse acting ability than the average school play, not helped by the cringe worthy script.

Perhaps it does make a good kids show, but in which case why isn't it put on the CBeebies channel and why does it have to be so childish? The writers seem to have their own political agenda, and are intent on forcing it down our throat, with no real attempt made to disguise this fact. They seem to have run out of story ideas already after only a few episodes, with one of Robin's men being captured virtually every week. This programme is very much like the US TV series Hercules or even Xena Warrior Princess, with the wobbly dialogue, acting and special effects except that the BBC probably spent far more per episode. Perhaps this was aimed at the American market like most of the BBC programming seems to be these days, forgetting they are funded by the British public.

Overall this adaption has none of the charm of the classic Richard Greene version, which even allowing for inflation probably cost about as much per 39 episode series as one episode of this drivel. Indeed it is hard to see where the money has been spent. The costumes are hardly authentic, the same few sets are used every week, and the extras are few indeed for a town the size of Nottingham. I have seen many different versions of the classic tale and I have to say this is the worst. Even the ever-wooden Kevin Costner was better than this.

Only the music is any good which is why I gave it more than 1/10. Even that sounds as if it has been copied from Superman.
25 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Appalling tosh - but then I guess I'm not the target audience.
thedavidovitch24 October 2007
Historical inaccuracy? Check. Badly misjudged 'modern' youth speak dialogue? Check. Basically the same story every week? Check. The worst baddie in British television history? Check. A total lack of wit, drama, humanity or fun? Check. Dreadful dreary writing full of cliché? Check. A great English myth defiled and debased for the 21st Century? Check. Makes even Kevin Costner look competent? Yikes but, er, check. Loved the nation over by 7 year olds? Checkity check.

The big difference between this and Dr Who (which occupies the same slot on BBC1) is this: Dr Who is family entertainment, because it doesn't treat the audience like idiots and thus adults can watch too. Anyone over the age of 10 will feel their intelligence is being insulted by this unspeakable dreck. Still, as I say, the kids won't mind, but it's got to go down as a missed opportunity.
13 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
A Far Fletched and Faded Façade of Modernist TV
Othy594 October 2007
Let me just say this, Robin Hood is a legend, and like all legends (King Arthur for example) has taken different forms and story polarities over the centuries they have been told. Some of the finest and best versions, most recently (in modern times), of the Robin Hood legend have been Michael Praed/Jason Connery's interpretation in Richard Carpenter's "Robin of Sherwood".

However with the BBC's take on the bow-shooting, swash-buckling action series – filling in the Doctor Who Saturday night void – this version has left me feeling that there could have been better pieces of tripe on TV than this. Yes, people have a tendency to slate things before they are given a real chance, but with me it's been given every possible chance to turn around and really "WOW" me… failing miserably I might add.

The acting is terrible (save for Keith Allen's scenery chewing Sheriff), the stories are poorly construct, the action is ridiculous, clichéd crap and Lucy Griffiths is the blandest-looking Marion I've seen. Even the costuming is about as convincing a, well, a very unconvincing thing… it's trying to be too damn modern (hoodies and what-not, give me a break!).

All in all I KNOW the type of audience this is aimed at (not surprised that they would be pulled in by it though) and I KNOW that it is not what people were expecting… it's just that I expected people to waist their time on other crappy things, like learning to speak French.
14 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews