Les nouvelles aventures de Robin des bois

"The new adventures of Robin Hood" can be described as a light-hearted, silly piece of recorded live role-playing. The actors(?) probably had a lot of fun playing out their own fantasies, but the result is lacking. The plots consists mainly of Robin Hood and his merry men (Marion, Tuck, Little John) helping people in need, resulting in fights against the antagonists of the relevant episode. As in similar series (Sinbad, Hercules etc), there is no blood. In fact the whole series is completely bloodless and soulless. Instead silliness rules. Robin Hood is flippant (for comic relief), Marion is haughty (for comic relief), Little John is stupid (for comic relief) and Friar Tuck is a fat fart (for comic relief). Topping off this silliness is a lack of credible plots and a long line of historical inaccuracies. For instance Vikings (ca 800-1000) and Mongols (Asia and Eastern Europe ca 1200-1400) appear in what should be an late 12th century England setting. A series like this should make you very, very upset that someone wasted even low-budget money. But you can also revel in all the silliness and play "Silly Bingo" and try to finds as many historical inaccuracies or ridiculous fight scene events as possible, say: Two Mongols (beep, inaccurate), slash at Robin Hood with their swords. Robin Hood blocks both swords with his bow (beep, ridiculous), which is made out of glass-fiber (beep, inaccurate). He then hits both Mongols over their metal helmets with his bow, and they go down (beep, impossible). And so on...

This series is one of the worst shows I have ever seen. Terrible acting, terrible effects, terrible writing, you get my drift. The stories are so far from the legend of Robin Hood it's amazing. Looks like they just wanted to use the name Robin Hood to attract an audience. It might as well have been called New Adventures of Mr. Bland Acting.

Someone commented before me that if you had imagination, you'd love this show. That is a horrible approach to a TV-series. A visual media like this should spark your imagination, you shouldn't have to force your imagination into something to make it good. That would be like the Simpsons episode where they try to brainwash Homer with a religious propaganda movie, and he starts talking about who killed who or whatever. "If a movie is boring, I just make up my own story."

In conclusion: Absolute human waste.

I am a Robin Hood fanatic. So, it had to meet my standards. True, it was cheezy and most of the plots were takes on my favorite movies, still I watched. Let's face it folks! Sometimes we just need good mindless entertainment....with Christopher Lee. I've always remembered seeing Christopher Lee on that show which was awesome. The acting was surprisingly good and it kept my attention. I would love to see it on the air again just for the re-runs. I just wish they had given it an ending.

The New Adventures of Robin Hood, known to the fans simply as NAoRH, is lack of publicity. To enjoy this show you need to at least like the legend of Robin Hood. After that you need to have an imagination, this is a fantasy show with a almost none existent budget. The special affects were literally cardboard cut-outs and tricks such as putting a sword to your side to make it look as if it went through you. If you have an imagination you can see past that and enjoy. One particular aspect of the show that made it so short lived was replacing Robin Hood. The original and by many considered the best Robin Hood after Errol Flynn was Matthew Porretta. He looked the part, and pulled off the terrible one liners in the scripts so that you HAD to like them. It also didn't hurt that he is gorgeous, has one hell of a voice and the most adorable smile in history. When he said he was Robin Hood you didn't feel the need to question it, you just believed. He was one of the few involved in the show that had talent, then they replace him with John Bradley, whose claim to fame is a bit part in Independence Day. He actually did that part well, but he made Robin Hood looked like a continually drunk, out of place and generally ignorant oaf. That change was very bad, where as the change in Marions was not quite so crushing. Their acting abilities were similar and they both portrayed the lady warrior as well as could be expected. Though it may be difficult to except a female fighter in the twelfth century, as woman I have to admit I enjoyed seeing a Marion that wasn't screaming and wringing her hands. The stories were interesting, but could have been done considerably better with a larger budget. They were good in the first two seasons then got so bad and half were stolen in the third season I got headaches. The first and second seasons are worth your time, but don't bother with the third unless your a John Bradley fan. As a huge fan of the Robin Hood legend, with a wild imagination and a woman with eyes I fell in love with the first two seasons of NAoRH.

I really liked that show( and I think it just ended too early). Well, I've only seen seasons three and four, but I became pretty mad about the whole series and especially about Barbara Griffin.I think she acted Marion exactly the way lots of people wanted to see her : Strong and funny but also with dreams of a normal life with family. She acted just great in every episode I saw. Admittedly the storys were a little too fantastic sometimes, but it was great fun to imagine what could come next. The only thing I sometimes hated was the relationship between Robin and Marion, because it was different every episode. One episode they kiss and in the next one , they're just good friends - I was pretty confused about that...

But all in all there's nothing else to say (at least for me) than: I just love it!