Avis des utilisateurs

I am in my early sixties and remember the books well, unfortunately, this series is nothing like those cherished books, apart from the barking dog. I think the problem is with it being a period setting whilst pandering to our modern day idealistic values.

That in itself is not a bad thing but it just doesn't work. I think this could easily have been set contemporary and be much better.

As with the recent adaptation of 'Murder is Easy' the program makers have hashed it all up and what's with the muted techno beat background music..is it supposed to raise the tension? It's bloody annoying and adds nothing to drama at all.

Watch if you are new to the Fab 5, you will probably enjoy it, otherwise expect to be underwhelmed. Kudos to the kids for giving it their best, they are much better at it than the adults.

The first episode wasn't overly bad and had some nice touches and I hoped it would continuetoimprove. Not sure about the stranger things soundtrack but admired the effort to be bold. However episode 2 rather than getting better got worse.... awful even. I Havnt watched the 3rd... It's such a shame but just doesn't capture the source material for me like it should have and drifts far too far away from it on tangents that don't work and end being very naff. Feel sorry for the wasted cast and opportunity to do something long lasting and breathe new life into, granted dated, but great adventure stories. Nice idea... but for this reviewer, it fails.

The acting is hammy, the dog is the only one not miscast. Five couldn't spot a fake priest, we ave ze Allo Allo school of accents and that's just for starters.

Jack Gleeson sporting the worst moustache since a dude called Adolf and a mullet Billy Ray Cyrus has a photo of on his bedroom wall, is wasted here, he struggles on with his mother fixation and bad writing. His wardrobe is from life on mars. He needs some mustard for all the ham during his glorious I am ze baddy scene. Kirrin Island is one feels a health and safety nightmare, dogs falling down holes, skint knees, getting swept out to sea.

George's mother feels more wooden than the boat.

It all falls together like a blancmange of daftness and fun with tongues firmly in cheeks and I had a lot of fun watching.

Continuity breaks and plot holes you can sail a wooden boat through, pacing issues, and some really bad dialogue. Yes, I grew up with the books, as did my kids who watched with me. We were all prepared for alterations in story, but so much of it was unnecessary and caused us to spend way to much time with the "big name" actors chewing the scenery and the dialogue, whilst the "famous" five were very often absent. The kids were appalled, and I'm still bewildered at how this could be so bad. And don't get me started on the dialogue-drowning era-jarring electro-soundtrack and epilepsy-inducing titles!

Another shameless example of trading on a name. This is the Famous Five in name only. If they didn't want to adapt the actual stories then they should have given the characters original names and made the story they obviously wanted to tell.

The original 70s series frequently played fast and loose with the stories due to trying to the need to fit them into 30 or 60 minutes, but even at their worst they still felt like the Famous Five. This monstrosity feels nothing like the Famous Five.

Don't waste your time with this and encourage them to make more. Go watch the 70s version on Britbox or better yet, go read the books (the proper uncensored versions).

Awful. Just awful. Adaptation or not it's not in keeping with the classic story telling and adventure of the Famous Five.

Enid Blyton would be so disappointed. All that time these books have been loved by so many.

And to not film it in Dorset is a complete snub of the love Enid had for the Purbecks.

Awful. Awful. Just awful. Awful. Just awful. Awful. Just awful. Clearly having a controversial director has done absolutely nothing for the storyline.

The only decent acting was from Timmy the dog!

The acting was dreadful especially Jack Gleeson

Terrible. Disappointing. Waste of time. Don't do it!!! Awful. Awful. Awful.

Hello. I just turned on the tv and saw this programme. As a child I adored these books as did my friends, we even made up our own famous five stories. I remember the books as wonderful, timeless classics, warm and lovely. However this series is the opposite. I was struck immediately by George's converse. Fun fact, converse was popularised in the 1960s. Secondly, the characters were rude, petulant and wooden. None of them convey any realistic human emotions. Also, what is with the music? It's incredibly annoying and unnecessary. The acting is outright hilarious, a complete mockery of these cherished books.

"Yeah right?" Is this a phrase used in the 1930s? This series is a disappointment to anyone who loved these books. In addition, I am writing as a thirteen year old who is warning others to stay away.

One last thing. The start titles. I thought I was watching some kind of experimental perfume ad. CANCEL THE SERIES!

The title credits are very strange, and don't really understand what they added. The music throughout again a little odd and didn't seem to fit the location or time period, but on the whole, I found it really good fun, and nowhere near as bad as the low ratings suggest. It started really well introduced the characters decently too. Shot in the UK lovely weather, lovely water and the odd sailboat. Not too much complain about here, good fun, I suggest you give it a go. As mentioned by others, a bit of Indian Jones, a bit of the Goonies, and there are five of them! I hope there's more to come, I'd watch.

Absolute nonsense.

The only thing that told me this was the famous five was the name of the characters. It was more in the style of a badly written Indiana Jones.

Creepy techno music, poor dialogue, atrocious acting.

Not appropriate for young children, which was a shame as we sat down as a family expecting to enjoy the classic story we all enjoy. I was expecting some adaptation but this was silly and not age appropriate. My children read and love the books. Instead it was a nonsense full of unnecessarily creepy moments bordering on mild horror at points.

I would avoid if you enjoy any part of Enid blyton. Or just like stories to make sense. You won't get that here. Even the kids said it was rubbish.

More Indiana Jones than Enid Blyton! Do not expect this adaptation to resemble the original,but it tells a fine yarn with a half decent cast. Enid Blyton told her story from the kids' perspective,but this version is a free dramatisation adapted for a much broader audience. The acting is decent and avoids making the storyline too much of a pastiche.

The plot is old fashioned goodies v baddies,but the reviews above seem to be assessments viewed through rose tinted spectacles.

If you want an old fashioned adventure story,which is fast moving,reasonably credible,but lacking in humour,this is for you,as long as you don' ttake it too seriously!

Like watching an amateur dramatics group doing a role play exercise, this feels like a camera was pointed at a group of actors and they were told to just make something up. There's nothing of any substance in the script - no fun or wit or tension - or if there is, it is completely lost in the delivery. Whether it's the editing, direction or acting, it never seems to pick up any pace or excitement. My kids and I were bored by it. It doesn't help that the 80s style soundtrack is completely incongruous with every other aspect of the production.

Which is a shame, because it feels like the four children are good enough to carry a decent story. But they don't get very much to do. Jack Gleeson is poor, trying a hammed-up child catcher routine that is neither creepy nor entertaining. Maybe there just isn't enough for him or the rest of the cast to work with. It's so disappointing.

It won't be to everyone's tastes but we loved it. I think a lot of the comments here are simply because lots of people will have come to this with a preconceived notion of what they are about to watch.

My kids found some parts quite scary but stuck with it.

There are some great performances, particularly from the child actors and some wonderful pantomime esque villains. Loved the soundtrack. The synths juxtaposed nicely with the period setting - reminded me of Vangelis/Chariots of fire.

I've not read the books so can't comment on how faithful an adaptation it is.

All in all good weekend evening viewing for all the family.

Let's face it, Enid Blyton is the epitome of middle England and its distrust of anything foreign and /or the working class. Invariably, the baddies were always dark skinned or cockney vagabonds. This isn't like that, and the Blyton Brexit brigade who wish it was still the 50's with its rationing, coal mines and malnutrition aren't happy, which warms my heart.

My 8 year old likes it, as do his friends, and seeing as it's aimed at this demographic, it's a hit with us.

Jack Gleason is wonderfully camp, the scripts are over the top and the dog is a genius. The fella who was in Ted Lasso is good fun too

Good fun.

I will just say that as this is a 2023 BBC production, it is fair to say that my expectations for their adaptation of this classic twentieth century childrens' adventure story were not exactly high to start with and in this regard it did not disappoint.

However, starting with a positive, the beautiful location setting of this production with the picturesque coastal cottage could have been lifted directly from the pages of the original story even if it is clearly not Dorset. Beyond that, because this being the BBC in 2023, things start to go wrong very quickly.

The techno strobe electro pop opening credits for a start - who on earth thought that was an appropriate intro for a children's story set in the 1930s childrens? The horrible electronic incidental music continues throughout. Also, given the period setting, the presence of current day identity politics and race swapping, whilst no surprise, are nonetheless simply jarring and inappropriate. If you want to do preachy political stuff BBC, why not come up with something original instead of continually debasing classic literature.

In common with a lot of BBC adaptations these days, there is a near absence of any real humanity in any of it. The lead character Georgina is what we might once have called a tomboy. However, the race swapped obnoxious character presented here is simply a spoiled antisocial brat throughout. In the original books George finds Timmy the dog abandoned on the moors and adopts him - in this adaptation she simply steals him from a boat. They find a dead body on the beach which does not visibly bother any of the children one bit and is then not mentioned for the rest of the episode. There is a complete lack of any sort of emotion or feeling throughout. Even the scene where the children nearly drowned or where they became trapped in a church crypt, far from being perilous situations, gave the impression that they were just pieces of the script that had to be got through.

In fact, the acting in the whole thing is at the level of a bad amateur dramatic production particularly the villain of the piece, who for some reason, despite the 1930s setting, is dressed and has the hairstyle of a B list 1980s pop musician, is dreadfully portrayed by an actor who completely lacks the presence and gravitas for the role he is playing. Continuity errors abound such as scenes where the children's clothes revert to pristine a few minutes after they escape the cave/crypt/treasure chamber in a filthy state.

Ultimately a dull and uninspiring interpretation of a childrens classic which is not worthy of the original. Enid Blyton is no doubt spinning in her grave as we speak.

First and foremost, I created an account just to write about this.

Famous five was my childhood, it shaped me into the way I am now, love adventure, curious.. I collected all the books (English and in my native language). I've been reading it over and over again, especially when I feel down. I am now 29 years old.

Growing up in a tropical country, all the details Enid wrote in the books mesmerised me - the scenery, the food, the characters. They're not something common at where I live. The only reason I watched the series adaptation was I thought it would be good to see those details especially with modern filming quality.

And that's the only good thing about this series - sceneries. The rest isn't Famous Five at all.

Anne is very whiny she complained over trivial things and prefer staying at home. Anne is feminine in the books, loves cooking and tidying, but not a spoiled baby. George is the center of all and that makes Julian basically invincible - mind you Julian said "are you supposed to do that?" MULTIPLE TIMES! How is that Julian? Julian is the dependable one, the one dealing with adults in the books! Not a chicken. Moreover, how is that Famous Five mentality? Dick is some kind of nerd - all about the books, big bag full of prepared stuff, that's so unnatural compared to the books - he's playful! And besides George they were shown to have weak physical ability - eg. Struggling with a bit of hiking. Omg, in the books they cycled from home to Billycock for hourssss, they often wake up in the middle of the night to investigate. Timmy? He is on leash most of the time. Timmy always has his own roles in the books!

And the story? So different from the books and rather too far fetched for children to do - eg. In the books the location is usually only one, where they go for holiday, not traveling far like adults. Also corpses.

Disclaimer. I only watched ep 1. I hate it so much.

This has very little to do with the book other than the character names.

Not even their personalities seem to match those of the book characters.

George is very girly, Anne is certainly not timid, Timmy doesn't do much, Dick is just weird and Julien seems rather meek.

3* because some of the scenary is really nice, especially the island, but the story is ludicrous, with the plot jumping all over the place, and the whole thing was just really odd! Lots of really wooden acting as the whole thing lacked fear and emotion as in the books, and was so far from dramatic I almost laughed at many of the scenes.

And don't get me started on the hair cut of the baddie! Soooo funny!

Will I watch the next one? Possibly for the scenery and comedy factor. Such a shame as I had high hopes for this and was really looking forward to it.

I haven't seen it yet, but considering the reviews already placed and the surname I believe the series is more based on the comic book series then on the paperback series. I had 4 of the comic book versions and they used the surname Barnard and it was more action. These comics are by Serge Rosenweig based on the red cover books by Claude Volier. They weren't as good as the original books obviously. When I have seen the film I will adapt my review, but considering my schedule it could be some days. I need to research the comics again for the portraying of the characters. Still, as far as I can see this movie is based on the comic.

As someone who grew up reading Famous Five, I went into this with mixed expectations and honestly, it's fun in its own way, but don't expect it to feel like the original books.

First off, the setting kinda felt off(?) In the books, George's home always gave me seaside vibes windy, dry, a little wild and rough around the edges. But here, it looks like it's in the middle of a damp mountain forest. Totally different atmosphere.

Character wise, I actually didn't mind most of the casting. George, although originally described as a tanned white girl, was played by a Black actress this time and she fit the role just fine, still had that tough, no-nonsense energy. The one that threw me off was Dick. In the books, he's smart but still cool and confident. In this version, he's just wayy too nerdy. Julian looks the part for sure, but I wish they made him more assertive, he's supposed to be the natural leader, not just the nice older brother. As for Anne? Spot on. Probably the best casting choice in the whole show.

Story wise, it had potential, but the dialogue didn't feel natural. At times it felt like they were acting on stage instead of just being the characters. One of the best things about the original books is how real their sibling bond feels like you're part of their gang. That connection just didn't come through here.

Still, if you don't mind it straying from the original tone and just want a light, nostalgic watch, it's not bad. Just don't expect it to fully capture the magic of Enid Blyton's world.

What a travesty of a remake of the much loved Enid Blyton series of books. Politically correct claptrap. The names might be the same as in the books but as for anything else it bears no resemblance of the characters or stories that Enid Blyton penned. She would be turning in her grave to see yet another show totally ruined by the BBC. I cannot understand how their writers, producers and directors keep their jobs as they are all uttely incompetent, blithering idiots. My grandchildren and I recorded it and within 15 minutes we had all had enough and deleted it before getting the Monopoly out again. It would be more interesting to sit in the dentist having a root canal without anaesthetic than to continue watching any more of these.

The negative reviews seem to all be from people who have read the books. As it's nearly always the case if you are watching an adaptation to a book or an earlier film version you probably will be disappointed Never read read the books in our house and we watched as a family and all enjoyed it and in particular the children enjoyed watching it.

The scenery choices are excellent and the music added a good touch although doesn't really fit with the era it's set in.

It's a bit silly but it's meant to be! Kept us entertained but don't watch if you love the original books or seventies tv programme.

If you have read the original books, then it's a bit disappointing as it's nothing like them, (and Enid Blyton would turn in her grave regarding the amount of things they have changed to accommodate the snowflakes - am amazed Aunt Fanny kept her name lol)

But to be fair, overall I thought it was alright..

A good mystery programme for kids (and for adults too, as long as you don't think about the original books).

Georgina (sorry, George - just using up some characters here lol), and Aunt Fanny were awful actors, didn't believe or engage with them.

The wee boy who played Dick was brilliant; , hope he does well in his acting career.

I was really looking forward to this remake. I owned all the books by 10 years old ('70s) and read them many times.

I tried hard to watch it, but it was so awful. The changes to bring it "up to date", while leaving it still in the 40s were just confusing and jarring. I also couldn't watch Jack Gleeson (no, nothing to do with GoT) - his villain was worse than pantomine level.

As others mentioned, the plot/story was nonsensical at times. I also got far too confused trying to work out exactly how the cousins were related, and it took me out of the story.

I've not finished it, but saw enough to give this rating.