I absolutely love this show, but I saw the second episode first. After watching the first episode I could see why people were turned off at first. The first episode's humor is not the best, and they struggle to properly start the series. However, I still like the light and humorous attitude of the show. The characters develop much more after the episode and become truly enjoyable characters. As a first episode, it really doesn't accurately represent the rest of the show which is really quite good. The episode is not bad by any means, but as the show progresses it becomes better and better, so watch more episodes before passing any judgement on the quality of the show.
9 Reviews
Robin Hood - an Outstanding Series
kblevin1 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This is a perfect series for family viewing. We gather around the TV to watch this on BBC America. It is an up-to-date version of Robin Hood and it appeals to children and adults alike. Our teenager and tween-ager both enjoy sitting with mom and dad and watching Robin's next exploits. We can't wait for the next episode to air each week and are glad for the free "On Demand" viewing.
The wardrobe has a spot of current fashion. There is a moral to each story. It is entertaining. The violence is not over-the-top or needless. The soundtrack is absolutely fantastic with a John William's feel to it. It is an old world tale that is brought to life again with a new world flair.
There is so much garbage on television from brain rotting "reality" TV to senseless violence. You should take this for what it is and that is an updated "Robin Hood" not to be compared with the movie exploits of Errol Flynn. This is a gem to be enjoyed by all. Parents that are concerned about their children watching too much violence will enjoy that Robin has lost his taste for war and bloodshed. He is a Robin Hood that would rather attempt to reason his way out of a disagreement than fight. Maid Marian is also an appealing role model for young girls. Rather than stand by and do nothing, she takes her own role in helping the poor by being the "Night Watchman." The Sheriff of Nottingham is deliciously over the top wicked, just as the Sheriff should be and looks like a cross between Billy Joel and Tim Curry. Guy Gisborne is played by an extremely handsome actor, one that makes most women wish he didn't have portray the role of a bad "Guy".
The only question we have is "Where is Friar Tuck?"
The wardrobe has a spot of current fashion. There is a moral to each story. It is entertaining. The violence is not over-the-top or needless. The soundtrack is absolutely fantastic with a John William's feel to it. It is an old world tale that is brought to life again with a new world flair.
There is so much garbage on television from brain rotting "reality" TV to senseless violence. You should take this for what it is and that is an updated "Robin Hood" not to be compared with the movie exploits of Errol Flynn. This is a gem to be enjoyed by all. Parents that are concerned about their children watching too much violence will enjoy that Robin has lost his taste for war and bloodshed. He is a Robin Hood that would rather attempt to reason his way out of a disagreement than fight. Maid Marian is also an appealing role model for young girls. Rather than stand by and do nothing, she takes her own role in helping the poor by being the "Night Watchman." The Sheriff of Nottingham is deliciously over the top wicked, just as the Sheriff should be and looks like a cross between Billy Joel and Tim Curry. Guy Gisborne is played by an extremely handsome actor, one that makes most women wish he didn't have portray the role of a bad "Guy".
The only question we have is "Where is Friar Tuck?"
So flagrantly illogical that it's kind of fun
Merciful_Wolf29 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
(See my full review here: http://twilightswarden.wordpress.com/review-list/)
When the title zoomed on screen to the exaggerated sound of arrows hitting a target, I realized just how proudly the BBC's Robin Hood wears its camp on its Lincoln-green sleeves. This realization prepared me so I could laugh when, in later instances, Robin shows off his "Saracen" recurved bow (actually a modernized version of a Hun bow, but nevermind), fires two arrows at once to split some hangman's ropes (a modest homage to Carey Elwes, perhaps?), and gets saved by a pointy hairpin thrown with deadly precision at a range of many yards by Marian. Historical accuracy and realistic physics are thus ignored, and I have no great hopes for the legend being strictly adhered to either.
The actors all seem capable and possessing of comedic talent, although I notice that not only are all the male heroes young (which makes sense for Robin and his outlaws), but they all seem to have the same lean, rather short body build. This, combined with their acting styles, makes them all seem like rowdy college boys rather than young men who are trying to find their place in the world.
Robin himself is good enough. He's a bit more serious than his mates, but not without a roguish side or a touch of emotional depth. Much (in other versions called "the Miller") is the comic relief, filling, at this point at least, the role of Robin's best friend and former manservant during the Crusades. Allan A Dale looks like he'll be a fun rogue when he joins the group proper, and Will Scarlet, while young and idolizing Robin, has a chance of developing a measure of maturity, if the writers so decide.
At this stage, I'm not too thrilled about Marian. She's cold and haughty towards Robin, despite apparently being his childhood crush, and despite him clearly being a pretty cool and morally upright person who doesn't think twice about standing up to corrupt and powerful officials for the good of his own people. She does save Robin's life with the above-mentioned hairpin-dart, but otherwise is an annoyance for her self-perceived and nonexistent superiority.
On the villain's side, we have a typical, but not unwelcome, beard-stroking, evil-chuckling Sheriff of Nottingham, but the real standout is Guy of Gisborne. While unquestionably sinister, Gisborne seems reluctant to flagrantly break laws purely to get what he wants. Whether this comes from respect for the law or from cowardice, I do not yet know, but I am intrigued at the possibility that a shadow of integrity lies within Gisborne's grim, brutal façade.
What little I had heard about this series had not enticed me to give it a chance, but now that I've seen Episode 1 I think I can have some fun with it, at least for awhile.
When the title zoomed on screen to the exaggerated sound of arrows hitting a target, I realized just how proudly the BBC's Robin Hood wears its camp on its Lincoln-green sleeves. This realization prepared me so I could laugh when, in later instances, Robin shows off his "Saracen" recurved bow (actually a modernized version of a Hun bow, but nevermind), fires two arrows at once to split some hangman's ropes (a modest homage to Carey Elwes, perhaps?), and gets saved by a pointy hairpin thrown with deadly precision at a range of many yards by Marian. Historical accuracy and realistic physics are thus ignored, and I have no great hopes for the legend being strictly adhered to either.
The actors all seem capable and possessing of comedic talent, although I notice that not only are all the male heroes young (which makes sense for Robin and his outlaws), but they all seem to have the same lean, rather short body build. This, combined with their acting styles, makes them all seem like rowdy college boys rather than young men who are trying to find their place in the world.
Robin himself is good enough. He's a bit more serious than his mates, but not without a roguish side or a touch of emotional depth. Much (in other versions called "the Miller") is the comic relief, filling, at this point at least, the role of Robin's best friend and former manservant during the Crusades. Allan A Dale looks like he'll be a fun rogue when he joins the group proper, and Will Scarlet, while young and idolizing Robin, has a chance of developing a measure of maturity, if the writers so decide.
At this stage, I'm not too thrilled about Marian. She's cold and haughty towards Robin, despite apparently being his childhood crush, and despite him clearly being a pretty cool and morally upright person who doesn't think twice about standing up to corrupt and powerful officials for the good of his own people. She does save Robin's life with the above-mentioned hairpin-dart, but otherwise is an annoyance for her self-perceived and nonexistent superiority.
On the villain's side, we have a typical, but not unwelcome, beard-stroking, evil-chuckling Sheriff of Nottingham, but the real standout is Guy of Gisborne. While unquestionably sinister, Gisborne seems reluctant to flagrantly break laws purely to get what he wants. Whether this comes from respect for the law or from cowardice, I do not yet know, but I am intrigued at the possibility that a shadow of integrity lies within Gisborne's grim, brutal façade.
What little I had heard about this series had not enticed me to give it a chance, but now that I've seen Episode 1 I think I can have some fun with it, at least for awhile.
Just a comment
mikegraham84 November 2007
Eyeliner was worn nearly 6000 years ago in Egypt. Really not that much of a stretch for it to be around in the 12th century. I also didn't realize the series flopped. There is a second season airing now isn't there? It is amazing to me when commentaries are made by those who are either ill-informed or don't watch a show at all. It is a waste of space on the boards and of other's time. The first show of the series was maybe a bit painful as the cast began to fall into place, but that is to be expected from any show. The remainder of the first season is excellent. I can hardly wait for the second season to begin in the United States.
A brilliant start!
xox-cheekychimps-xox28 November 2007
I thought that for a first episode of a first series it did really well. It was really fun and i thought the actors was brilliant. I think it is a crime for anyone to say that is was bad because it looked the right time. i find it really annoying when people say that it wasn't historically correct because it is supposed to be a Saturday night entertainment show not a boring history documentary so i think the costumes and settings were just right. A brilliant start and i am going to love what will come next!! I have spoken to many people at my school and they love the show! we all think that it is brilliant entertainment and it has great stories to go with it.
The Geezer of Sherwood Forest
Igenlode Wordsmith14 October 2006
Well, it's Robin Hood as 'geezer' all right... just as advertised! That didn't sound very hopeful, and alas, it was worse than I'd suspected.
A laddish Robin I can take; a Robin who tangles with a pert dyer's daughter I can credit; but a Robin who exchanges not-very-funny banter with his single henchman is harder to swallow, and a Robin and *entire cast* who seem to be having difficulty managing their lines is the kiss of doom. How could anyone let such laboured delivery pass without re-shooting the scenes? Again and again, Much sounds as if he's struggling with half-comprehended Shakespeare rather than letting loose with a salty quip; I hoped at the onset that it was just a failed comedy trait in a character clearly destined for the role of comedy sidekick, but then it started spreading throughout the rest of the cast.
Whatever else you say about Errol Flynn in the role, he had the knack of delivering high-flown dialogue as naturally as if he'd just thought it up on the spur of the moment... and as this production shows, that's not at all as easy as it sounds! If they were going to cast the characters as cheeky chappies, the actors in question should have been given appropriate lines: they sound as if they haven't a clue how to handle them.
I'm afraid I didn't even like the pantomime Sheriff, for a similar reason; the lines are clearly not intended to be taken seriously but delivered (and in this case written) with a nudge and a wink at the audience. They're out of place all right -- fourth-wall-busting stuff -- but really not that funny.
This much-promised production reminded me of a limping school play. The only actor and character I felt any appreciation for at all was the one playing Guy of Gisbourne, who was the sole one who appeared to have any handle on (a) credible villainy and (b) credible characterisation -- but frankly, I wouldn't have said that was a very good augury for the future of the series! As of the time of writing, I'll give it another shot in the hopes that things may improve and bed down a bit by next week, with less stilted scene-setting required and perhaps the actors more at ease with the dialogue: after all, the opening episode of "Doctor Who" wasn't exactly a show-stopper, though it was nowhere near as bad as this. But if I see no improvement after episode 2, I'm afraid the series has almost certainly lost one viewer.
Which would be a pity, because I've got a soft spot for the "Robin Hood" legend on screen, from the adventures of Douglas Fairbanks to the sturdy reliance of Richard Greene. But this Robin fails to stir my blood in the slightest.
A laddish Robin I can take; a Robin who tangles with a pert dyer's daughter I can credit; but a Robin who exchanges not-very-funny banter with his single henchman is harder to swallow, and a Robin and *entire cast* who seem to be having difficulty managing their lines is the kiss of doom. How could anyone let such laboured delivery pass without re-shooting the scenes? Again and again, Much sounds as if he's struggling with half-comprehended Shakespeare rather than letting loose with a salty quip; I hoped at the onset that it was just a failed comedy trait in a character clearly destined for the role of comedy sidekick, but then it started spreading throughout the rest of the cast.
Whatever else you say about Errol Flynn in the role, he had the knack of delivering high-flown dialogue as naturally as if he'd just thought it up on the spur of the moment... and as this production shows, that's not at all as easy as it sounds! If they were going to cast the characters as cheeky chappies, the actors in question should have been given appropriate lines: they sound as if they haven't a clue how to handle them.
I'm afraid I didn't even like the pantomime Sheriff, for a similar reason; the lines are clearly not intended to be taken seriously but delivered (and in this case written) with a nudge and a wink at the audience. They're out of place all right -- fourth-wall-busting stuff -- but really not that funny.
This much-promised production reminded me of a limping school play. The only actor and character I felt any appreciation for at all was the one playing Guy of Gisbourne, who was the sole one who appeared to have any handle on (a) credible villainy and (b) credible characterisation -- but frankly, I wouldn't have said that was a very good augury for the future of the series! As of the time of writing, I'll give it another shot in the hopes that things may improve and bed down a bit by next week, with less stilted scene-setting required and perhaps the actors more at ease with the dialogue: after all, the opening episode of "Doctor Who" wasn't exactly a show-stopper, though it was nowhere near as bad as this. But if I see no improvement after episode 2, I'm afraid the series has almost certainly lost one viewer.
Which would be a pity, because I've got a soft spot for the "Robin Hood" legend on screen, from the adventures of Douglas Fairbanks to the sturdy reliance of Richard Greene. But this Robin fails to stir my blood in the slightest.
An appalling first episode.
general-melchett6 December 2006
I can clearly see now why Robin Hood flopped quickly. The first episode of it is probably the worst ever thing BBC has aired. The opening scenes were about as intense, meaningful and intelligent as two monkeys fighting, Robin Hood had no character, and the sword fight was just laughable. The worst part of the episode was Robin Hood snogging some cow clad in make-up at the beginning of the episode - how many people wore eyeliner in the 12th century? Nobody. The series may have improved drastically since then, but this first episode quickly put people's hopes down, and is essentially a pile of cr*p. A great hero of England has been disgraced.
"Will You Tolerate This?" I won't, that's for sure, unless the BBC start to understand what is a wise investment. 3/10
"Will You Tolerate This?" I won't, that's for sure, unless the BBC start to understand what is a wise investment. 3/10
Worst Robin Hood Ever...
asbrand130 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Gods...where to start. I was only able to stomach about the first 10 minutes before I turned it off in disgust. Aside from the actor playing Robin Hood himself, the rest were just terrible. And, I can only stretch my suspension of disbelief only so far.
From the very opening of the first episode, I lost count of how many errors, plot holes, and horrible costumes there were. It began with some poor peasant trying to hunt for a deer to feed his family. All well and good. However, the poor blighter must have been mostly deaf, because a handful of soldiers, in full armour, on horseback, were able to sneak up on him to within about 10 feet.
Then, as he's running away, he goes from having them 10 feet behind him, to a shot where you cannot even see them at all, immediately followed by them about 20 feet behind him again. Then, he runs into some bushes, and is immediately manhandled by two of the soldiers...who just mere seconds before, were galloping on horseback, dozens of feet behind him.
The "armour" on the soldiers is so painfully obviously cloth which they tried to make look like maille, and miserably failed. Not to mention, the lead soldier's "armour" being about 5 sizes too big for the poor fellow. Seriously, he looks like he is a small child wearing his father's over-sized armour! Finally, Robin manages to fire about 5, perfectly aimed shots all around one soldier's hand, in the span of about 2 seconds, from what appears to be a recurve bow. No human alive could make those kinds of shots, in that short amount of time, with a scoped rifle, much less a bow.
After that, they escape the soldiers and stop to help an amazingly well dressed and clean "peasant" with digging a ditch...something that all noblemen were willing to do all the time, right? How this sorry excuse for a series ever got a second season is beyond me. The production costs (at least for what I saw) must have soared in the dozens of dollars (or Euros)...
Seriously - I think a highschool drama class could have put on a better rendition. This was so bad, even that terrible Kevin Costner version of Robin Hood was better.
I highly suggest you skip this monstrosity, and go rent or buy the mid-80's "Robin of Sherwood" series. Much better written, acted, costumed, and produced.
For shame, BBC...for shame...
From the very opening of the first episode, I lost count of how many errors, plot holes, and horrible costumes there were. It began with some poor peasant trying to hunt for a deer to feed his family. All well and good. However, the poor blighter must have been mostly deaf, because a handful of soldiers, in full armour, on horseback, were able to sneak up on him to within about 10 feet.
Then, as he's running away, he goes from having them 10 feet behind him, to a shot where you cannot even see them at all, immediately followed by them about 20 feet behind him again. Then, he runs into some bushes, and is immediately manhandled by two of the soldiers...who just mere seconds before, were galloping on horseback, dozens of feet behind him.
The "armour" on the soldiers is so painfully obviously cloth which they tried to make look like maille, and miserably failed. Not to mention, the lead soldier's "armour" being about 5 sizes too big for the poor fellow. Seriously, he looks like he is a small child wearing his father's over-sized armour! Finally, Robin manages to fire about 5, perfectly aimed shots all around one soldier's hand, in the span of about 2 seconds, from what appears to be a recurve bow. No human alive could make those kinds of shots, in that short amount of time, with a scoped rifle, much less a bow.
After that, they escape the soldiers and stop to help an amazingly well dressed and clean "peasant" with digging a ditch...something that all noblemen were willing to do all the time, right? How this sorry excuse for a series ever got a second season is beyond me. The production costs (at least for what I saw) must have soared in the dozens of dollars (or Euros)...
Seriously - I think a highschool drama class could have put on a better rendition. This was so bad, even that terrible Kevin Costner version of Robin Hood was better.
I highly suggest you skip this monstrosity, and go rent or buy the mid-80's "Robin of Sherwood" series. Much better written, acted, costumed, and produced.
For shame, BBC...for shame...
Sheriff Got Your Tongue??? I think not !!
clydevalley16 October 2006
Having loved Errol Flynn and then hating Richard Greene as a very young child, then going on to adore Robin Of Sherwood in the 80's (which I feel is still the best to date), I found this new Robin Hood, a bit staged, and pantomime like as described above. I think the Sheriff and Gisbourne are SUPPOSED to be frightening, I was more frightened of the sand people in Star Wars !! Okay, Much, I liked, made me laugh. Sad to hear there will be no Friar Tuck, he has always been part of any Robin Hood story.
Hoping is does improve throughout the series, so I will reserve full judgement until then.
Hoping is does improve throughout the series, so I will reserve full judgement until then.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
