The Famous Five (2023– ) User Reviews

Not for the purists

[phillipjohnhopkins-76745 · 4/10 · 31 December 2023]

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.

Five go fun in 2023

[gurumaggie · 5/10 · 25 December 2023]

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.

So much wasted potential.

[birdychickster · 3/10 · 15 December 2023]

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!

Abysmal

[steve-63108 · 1/10 · 30 December 2023]

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).

Er....font of all knowledge

[rusnr · 1/10 · 31 December 2023]

This is literally one of the worst adaptations of anything I have seen. If you are a fan or are familiar with the original work, I recommend avoiding it. However if you are looking for a story and are not expecting the original books, then this might work for you.

As an origin story it started well. The introduction of the five was well managed. The cast is great, and the production itself was quite slick. We had an old school moustache twirling villain, but the story was total rubbish. The opening credits were a fluorescent rave.

I grew up on the books, and although I am flexible enough for creative licence the idea of foretelling the future within the grounded story of the famous five really is nonsense.

Waste of time.

[daniju · 2 January 2024]

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!

Could be truer to the original

[henry-paulinski · 7/10 · 22 December 2023]

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!

Atrocious

[natashagibson · 1/10 · 12 December 2023]

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.

A little strange but pretty good fun

[olibish · 7/10 · 10 January 2024]

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.

Don't waste your time

[abigailhalstead · 1/10 · 16 December 2023]

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.

Campy fun

[laiste · 8/10 · 24 December 2023]

If you liked campy fun that doesn't take itself too seriously, then this is an enjoyable watch. Yes, its a bit silly, but not everything needs super realistic. I felt like I was watching a cross between Xena and Scooby Doo, with lots of Indiana Jones references. Honestly, it reminded me a lot of the adventure movies I loved growing up.

Jack Gleeson was a pleasure and so much fun. The kids were great and did a good job conveying Enid Blytons characters.

If you want realism, don't watch this. If you want a fun adventure that blends 80's fantasy adventures with classic Enid Blyton then this is great. Definitely looking forward to more installments.

Not a patch on the 70s series

[bill-hutchin · 2/10 · 28 December 2023]

Started ok and went down, poor characterisation, weak acting, so many plot flaws... such as two guard dogs chased away by timmy with a woof, a secret tunnel that begins in the wast country and then opens into the London underground... even the music is weak and lacks energy.

Started ok and went down, poor characterisation, weak acting, so many plot flaws... such as two guard dogs chased away by timmy with a woof, a secret tunnel that begins in the wast country and then opens into the London underground... even the music is weak and lacks energy.

Started ok and went down, poor characterisation, weak acting, so many plot flaws... such as two guard dogs chased away by timmy with a woof, a secret tunnel that begins in the wast country and then opens into the London underground... even the music is weak and lacks energy.

Really disappointing

[Blueberry-94642 · 1/10 · 26 December 2023]

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.

Rubbish!

[robinmcg · 3/10 · 4 January 2024]

I had suspicions from the beginning with George's footwear, making it unclear until we met other characters whether this was period set or not.

I am quite easy going about artistic license with classic material but there is no art in this!

Ok it looks quite nice... but the rest is just lazy. The dialogue is all wrong .

There is no intrigue or excitement in this tale which is what made these stories so popular. The characters of George and Anne were ok-ish . The history references were pathetic There is no reaction whatsoever to the initial discovery of the dead diver!

And a casual last minute slip in of the famous ginger beer was pointless.

All in all a total let down, I can't se who this is supposed to appeal to, modern kids won't be impressed and grown up ones very disappointed.

Do everyone a favour and don;t go ahead with producing any more of this dross.

Five Waste an Hour and a Half of my Life

[ianbrownson-94436 · 1/10 · 1 January 2024]

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.

Minus 5 if I could

[soundwright · 1/10 · 3 January 2024]

The list of things gone wrong with this is best left to others, suffice to say it is a great old story ruined by modern sensibilities and fear of upsetting the precious and fragile weaklings we think our children are. The production company deserves a participation trophy at best. You know what I mean, an award for turning up. I seriously hope there was no public money spent on this mess. When this sort of thing happens I always hope that the people responsible get told in no uncertain terms that this is not what the consumers want. Better still send a message to every production company by not giving whoever made this any more work.

What did I just watch?!

[jess_robson · 3/10 · 12 January 2024]

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.

Delicious fun

[nowishop · 8/10 · 25 December 2023]

Take away any perceived idea that this is like any other Famous Five you have seen. A Famous Five of the Future perhaps, but still in the past.

How I miss Dawn French and Timmy being so licky.

It's actually quite an intelligent version and at one stage I thought Jack Gleesons character might have turned into Hitler.

Back to this episode. Great introduction to what I am excited to look forward to.

The plot does have holes in it, but that is for picky people to pick at. In all the story line works well.

It's almost like Indiana Jones writer was involved, you'll see what I mean when you watch it. Complex series of events to find the lost treasure.

It does get found and at the end of the programme there is lashings of ginger beer.

Absolutely abysmal.

[k-scattergood · 1/10 · 2 January 2024]

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.

Rubbish

[eowyn-94395 · 3/10 · 22 February 2024]

This movie began interestingly enough. But Jack Gleeson acting like Game Of Thrones Joffrey was just the beginning of the end. It just got sillier. Why these plucky children did not tell the parents/Aunt,Uncle, the truth about the sword is beyond me. You can't make George such a strong character, then have her wimp out over the sword thing. And why were they all wearing the same clothes every day???

The children themselves were good characters. I would like to see if any further adventures are as irritatingly ridiculous as this one turned out to be.

Perhaps, if they had made it more like The Goonies, I would have given it a higher rating.

Woeful

[fkjamali · 1/10 · 25 January 2024]

Absolute woeful adaption of the original books. The company that owns the copyright to the 'Famous Five' should be sued. Having read the original books and then watched all the episodes of the 1978 series, this was so far flung from the original storyline, that the only thing original was the name of the five main characters . To top it off, the acting was dreadful! Did the directors even read the original books?? The subject matter was poor., ridiculous 'curse' element with clips of the bombing of Hiroshima etc . Surely the writers could have added more depth to the original storyline instead of this rubbish.

Spoilt by Jack Gleeson and other issues

[scammer-09107 · 3/10 · 2 February 2024]

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.

Timmy needs an extra treat for putting up with this rubbish

[Casino-Royale · 1/10 · 9 April 2024]

How bad can it get? I was looking forward to this series but it is so unbelievably bad I wish I had never heard it was being made.

Famous Five in name only. The characters are awful and not helped by stage taught actors who wouldn't have a clue how to be natural. Sorry kids go and find another career.

The storylines are nothing like Enid Blyton's and the venues aren't even close to Dorset, the Purbecks and Corfe Castle.

Why not just give them all different names and call it something else? It has zero bearing to the original Fanous Five. If I could give it minus stars I would.

PC rubbish that is constantly shoved on us all the time. Give it a rest!

Painful from beginning to end

[tlk-91672 · 1/10 · 12 January 2024]

The credits confuses the viewer straight away - instantly you are asking what have I just turned on? The opening scenery is beautiful, the costuming initially is good(which is why it got one star) BUT - the movie goes downhill from there. Such a shame - the kids acting is not too bad. The adults acting is abysmal. The dialogue is overly chatty with a lot of unnecessary talk and noises. One villain seems to be straight from the show Allo Allo and Jack Gleeson's character seems to be a mixture of every ridiculous animated villain you might remember. There were several instances breaking the 4th wall - which was creepy and unecessary. Very disappointing overall. Will not be watching any further instalments.

What a fresh, fun, golden and magical romp ...

[mrbcasualconnect · 10/10 · 1 January 2024]

I have watched and read an awful lot of Famous Five, so came to this adaptation with fingers crossed, hardly daring to watch at first. How beautiful then to see it open with George all alone on her boat, sailing like a pro, fiercely independent and free, just as Blyton imagined, and the whiff of mystery and adventure evident in the first few minutes.

It's a dream come true really to see new adventures on television re-imagined for today's young ones, so that they might have their chance to feel the same excitement that we 70s kids did when that first 'Whatever awaits behind closed doors ..." played from our little square televisions back in 1978 ...

To understand and enjoy this adaptation, you should come to it without carrying the baggage of your own experiences and expertise, but watch with your inner child in charge, with fresh eyes. The fabulous neon titles will certainly wake your eyes up for that! You will see a talented young cast full of energy bring their interpretations of the characters to life, and be carried along in a wild ride of twists and turns.

Just as the original stories invoked feelings of freedom and invincibility, here we see the kids taking charge, working the mysteries and puzzles out for themselves, pulling together and backing each other to get through the Indiana Jones style perils that befall them. I loved the more thoughtful and composed George, the steady Julian, the bookish, curious bespectacled Dick and the pint sized, red shoe shod and initially bossy Anne, who, like the original in the books, sees some things that the others miss and plays her part. Medieval knights and Latin sit easily against the books, with 'Five go Adventuring Again and its Via Occulta springing to my mind as I watched.

A warm yellow glow suffuses the pictures on screen, the same golden glow I think that surrounds these stories when you stop thinking like an adult who knows everything and start to remember what it was like when you first picked up a Famous Five and got taken along for a marvelous adventure where children reigned supreme. For those who want hyper-reality or stories that retell the books of the 40s and 50s word for word, you've missed the point. This is 2023, and how timely and unexpected to see a fresh and different take on this truly magical premise that is Famous Five.

I literally cannot wait for the next two, and am crossing everything that they'll go again with another series with the same brilliant people on both sides of the camera making more magic for those of us who refuse to grow up.

Search Facebook for Famous Five TV Series 2023 and Famous Five TV Series 1978 1979 to join with other friendly fans and share your love of this great story and its adaptations for the tele.