• Network: BBC-1 , BBC
  • Series Premiere Date: Oct 7, 2006
  • Season #: 1 , 2 , 3
User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 89 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 69 out of 89
  2. Negative: 13 out of 89

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Feb 20, 2013
    This is my new favorite show since the beginning you start to wonder what will happen next, and let me tell you; you will never be disappointed with the events. I am 14 years old and I don't remember the last time I cried so hard. It would be a dream to meet these actors.
  2. Nov 22, 2010
    If it's historical accuracy or realism you're looking for, obviously this is not the show for you. What this show has to offer is fast-paced episodes that are dramatic, poignant, action-packed, and funny, with characters you quickly come to care about and stories that pull you in. Jonas Armstrong is a memorable Robin Hood -- a quirky flawed hero who can be, by turns, noble and obnoxious, altruistic and egotistical, kind and mean-spirited. Lucy Griffiths is a strong-willed but conflicted Marian; Richard Armitage gives a fantastic performance as Guy of Gisborne, the Sheriff's brutal henchman torn between his ambitions and his desire for redemption, and Keith Allen is an outstanding Sheriff of Nottingham -- hilarious and terrifying at the same time. Other standout characters: Robin's loyal, simple but brave and goodhearted servant/friend Much (Sam Troughton); Allan A'Dale, a con artist who joins Robin's gang after Robin saves him from hanging; and Djaq, a female Saracen slave who becomes "one of the lads." The storylines manage to rise above the predictable "robbing from the rich, giving to the poor" pattern. The action scenes in this season are often mediocre, but the character drama and the witty dialog more than make up for that. Expand
  3. Mar 3, 2012
    Deeply flawed... yet still fun. The biggest two faults with this show are its unnecessary over-the-top stunts (like throwing swords 30 feet and hitting a target) and Robin Hood's inconsistent pacifism. The Sheriff's life is frequently in Robin Hood's hands, Robin says he will not kill a man, and so the Sheriff's reign continues. Okay, I can accept that. Except that when some hapless guards (just following orders) get into a scuffle with the Merry Men, they kill without hesitation. I can overlook modernization of language and historical inaccuracies (not a big deal), but this show also has Robin walking around in town square without a hood, and nobody recognizing him. If you can get past all of that... it's probably worth watching. Robin Hood's character is charming (and annoyingly conceited) and some of the dialogue is pretty witty. Most of the casting is pretty decent, and the characters fit well enough. There are even moments where the sheriff's second in command Guy Gisborne almost seems human (unlike the sheriff). Basically... the show is worth a shot. It's flawed, it has a number of stale moments, but at its core, it's something pretty special. Expand
  4. Jun 20, 2012
    I thought the show was fantastic and then the killed off Marian. I am going to stop watching. What kind of Robin Hood show doesn't include Marian!?!? Ridiculous and bad writing.
  5. Sep 24, 2010
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Most people in the English speaking world have an idea of Robin Hood; a montage of all those traits ingrained from years of stories, movies and tv shows. We know the story. Minor lord returns from the aiding of King Richard in the Crusades to find extreme corruption, graft and abuse of the citizenry in his once idyllic home...robs from the rich and gives to the poor. He's charming, witty, and a damn good shot with a bow; as well as being a man of principle and a leader of men. That about sums it up. The problem with everyone knowing the story is that everyone takes it for granted that everyone knows it. Confused? Probably about as confused as I am over the complete laziness in writing by the writers of this show. A good show grasps your attention from the first, and slowly stews into a thick and creamy sauce of excellence that develops the audiences love for the characters and their eccentricities as well as the style of that particular series. It has a sort of "getting to know you" type courtship phase that strengthens the show / watcher bond. Said good show also throws wrenches in the conventional storytelling machine and places those characters in new and fresh situations that they can find their way, merrily (as in the case of a telling of Robin Hood), out of. What a good show does NOT do is take for granted its audience's knowledge of the characters and hence forgo the entire characterization process. (Here comes Robin, cue overly-heroic music to let everyone know that he's our protagonist!) It also shouldn't deck out the actors of a period show set in the middle ages in polyester hoods, but that's certainly a lesser failure than inserting new characters into a beloved and well-known legend because you feel that Robin could use a sidekick and the show some comic relief. Comic relief? Seriously, it's called relief because it's supposed to relieve all the seriousness and drama surrounding it. I shouldn't cringe every time the so-called Relief steps in and throws in his quib. That is NOT relief believe me. Plus, why the producers determined that there needed to be a comic relief anyway is a complete mystery to me because where is the drama? It's not like the whole production isn't laden with camp: from the sound-effects, to the cheesy over-the-top music, the laughable dialogue, the incredibly poor sets and costumes, one could go on for paragraphs of the comedic value of this show. BBC's Robin Hood fails because it is lazy and unimaginative. It pushes no boundaries save a thinly veiled attempt to placate the people of Middle Eastern descent through the use of interjections of the wrongness of the Crusades from Robin Hood's own mouth. How lazy? you ask. First episode: standard coming home from the Crusades bit. Ok. Fair enough.
    Second episode: the framing of Robin Hood and the subsequent turning on him by the people who are supposed to love him. Hmmm. Shouldn't that be about a dozen episodes down the road, you know, after you've established that Robin and his band have established a good relationship with those poor sods?
    Third episode: Robin Hood finds a baby! I have nothing else to say. That's where I stopped watching because from there it is blatantly obvious that this show is terrible. The finding a baby episode? Really? Where did you come with that writers? Must have thought about that one all day. I am ashamed for the profession, but more so for the producers of this rot that enabled its creation and its spooning to the public. Thanks for ruining a solid premise.
    So, the show gets a 3 from me: 1 point for the Saracen Bow, 1 point for the Scimitar and the remaining point out of my generosity for liking Maid Marian and Guy of Gisborne. Marian is sexy despite a strong jaw, and Guy of Gisborne lays it on so thick that it is hilarious. Rock on Guy! Earn that paycheck.

Generally favorable reviews - based on 9 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 9
  2. Negative: 0 out of 9
  1. For the willing, it's still a story worth hearing. [2 Mar 2007, p.64]
  2. If there is a chink to this series' armor, it is in the casting of Armstrong in the title role.
  3. 63
    I wish the show had a little more verisimilitude--the peasants' homes look cheap, not poor--but it's zippy mindless fun. [5 Mar 2007, p.37]