The Famous Five

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).

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!

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.

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.