Right, so last Saturday, I watched Doctor Who's S3 "Evolution of the Daleks" to begin planning my review. Those who've read my review to "Daleks in Manhattan" know that it was my least favorite episode in an otherwise stellar season, so I was already sharpening my claws, working up some anger to pour into my words, ready to pounce on everything that didn't work in that episode

Then I turned on the tv and watched BBC One. After a while, my anger didn't left me but shifted. Suddenly, "Evolution of the Daleks" appeared to me like a very decent tv production

Funny how broadening your horizons can put a new light on things, huh?

So, what attracted my ire, you'll ask? Well, ironically, it's the programme that replaces Doctor Who in the Saturday prime time slot at this time of the year, "Robin Hood". No, I am certainly not talking about that great 1980s "Robin of Sherwood" series. I'm not even talking about "Robin Hood: men in tights" - at least that would have made me laugh. And Kevin Costner (and Sean Connery) is nowhere in sight (which is a shame, because I quite like that movie. I know it takes a lot of criticism, especially because of Kevin Costner, but it's one of the rare movies where I quite like him, even though I prefer Alan Rickman and Morgan Freeman in it)

I'm refering to the new BBC Series which premiered same time last year. See, with a successful new Doctor Who running for only 13 weeks, the BBC needed another familial drama series to fit in that slot during the winter semester. And it almost feels like, running out of ideas, some executives thought it could help to get inspiration from the man behind DW, Russel T. Davies. And they quickly stumbled upon "Casanova", a period mini-series retracing the (*cough*sex*cough*)life of the infamous seducer, but definitely thought for the 21st century, from the direction to the pop culture references (National Lottery anyone?)

"Casanova" was a great success for BBC Three, so it seemed like a pretty sure bet. All they needed was to decide what other myth they could revamp for a new age, preferably sans all the sexual inuendo (after all, it's a familial slot). And what more familial English myth is there than Robin Hood?

It really seemed like a good idea. Get a character everyone loves, and give it the modern, tongue-in-cheek treatment. Only, someone forgot to warn them that while it's wonderful when it works, it is quite a dangerous endeavor. Get it just a little bit wrong in any department - writing, direction, acting, production - and the whole thing falls on its face

Trouble is, this "Robin Hood" ticks non of the boxes above

Actually, I haven't seen a bigger mess of everything since Uwe Böll's "Bloodrayne" (that I had to watch just to check if it was as bad as the trailer seemed to suggest - and it was, and then some). And trust me, that's saying something! Generally speaking, nothing works. I'm not talking about the historical inaccuracies because as I said, it's supposed to be a modernization so I'll let those slide. But the production value is well under what we've come to expect from the BBC. Nottingham has exactly a population of five and a garnison of two. And it being a modernization is no excuses for Marian's outrageous make-up (wasn't she supposed to be a maid, anyway?) or for Guisbure's black leather/black eyeliner combination that's supposed to inspire fear but really makes him look like a reject of a 1980s subpar metal band. Which is sad because Richard Armitage is just about the only actor that holds his own. Keith Allen (father of singer/songwriter Lily Allen) is going all out in his role as the baddest sheriff in Sherwood's history, but it falls more often than not on the bad side of camp (if only the could get Mr. Saxon in there, he'd show them how it done)

Despite that, they are still the two characters that are the most likeable. And you know you're in big trouble when the baddies are more likeable than the title character, and supposed hero, of the story. The biggest problem acting-wise is that Robin is absolutely non existant. There. Said it. He and his merry band look and behave more like children in the playground than thieves. I know it's supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, but here it just. doesn't. work. And Robin is completely transparent. So is Marian, now that I come to think about it, even though she happens to be also a kick-ass masked avenger called the Nightwatcher (whot!?). I'm not implying that Lucy Griffiths is a bad actress, and unlike some other critics, I think she's rather pretty and physically suits the role, but she doesn't manage to exist

Same applies for Jonas Armstrong (Robin). I couldn't comment on his acting since I've never seen him in anything apart from that (and the show "Never mind the Buzzcocks"). But one thing that annoyed me terribly about him was to hear him in an interview the day of the premier saying that after seeing himself in the series last season, he was thinking that he was looking too frail so decided to put on some muscle and proudly announced that he had worked so hard he had put one or two stones worth of it (sorry, can't remember exactly how much it was). I mean, could somebody please explain to him that existing in a role's got nothing to do with muscle? Does Hiro look like some Arnold Schwarzeneger look-alike? Could Dr. House take on Rocky? Doesn't the Tenth Doctor look like a "broom on a stick" (David Tennant's own words when describing himself in an interview)? Yet they have repeatedly been voted coolest sci-fi and/or tv characters on both sides of the Atlantic in awards ceremonies and magazines and internet polls. I think there's a pattern worth investigating here

But all this would be still within the boundaries of tolerable if it weren't for the scripts. You know, I've come to realise that I'm pretty good at suspending my disbelief (ask Kendall, he knows plenty about it, LOL). I'm usually the last person in a room to point at a plot hole. But here they are so big that you can't avoid them, even with the best of intentions. The stories are also terribly repetitive (Robin and gang play in the woods - Robin (sometimes with gang, sometimes alone - LOOK, a variant!!!!) goes into castle and gets in trouble - Robin and gang get out of the castle - oops, isn't that Marian doing her version of Bruce Lee's "Green Hornet"? - Robin and gang congratulate themselves for being soooooooo clever). They try to be funny but they don't know how to write a joke and they've certainly never heard about comic timing, and a lot of the actors seemingly being inepts comes from the fact that they have to utter with conviction some of the silliest lines in history. I was hoping that they would improve it with season 2, but the problem is that they are still the dullest and stupidest thing since.... I don't know what honestly. It's just about the level you'd expect from a blue movie, and that's an insult to some of the better of that genre really. I had some examples in mind, but I can't bring myself to write them here, it's too painful

The only thing I can say is - don't waste your time on this, except if you love to watch terrible movies and series to have a good laugh at them, or if, like me, you always want to see for yourself before judging. As for me, I'll just do something else to occupy myself during that slot until the Doctor comes back - after all, Christmas isn't far away and November 19, with the Children in Need special (featuring Peter - the Fifth - Davison) is only at the corner really, hehe