LouE15 Thank you so much - reading the user reviews here was the funniest half hour I've had in ages – I was weeping with laughter – which is more than I can say for the experience of watching a couple of episodes of the show itself. There's nothing like a truly terrible show to bring out the wit and brilliance in people's writing.I'd love to have agreed with those "so bad it's good" reviewers who enjoyed it like an illicit substance…but I was mostly just dumbstruck. The problems started and ended with the script: this isn't the first show to be made on a shoestring, and the actors really did throw themselves into their parts – but come ON! Maybe those responsible for creating and greenlighting it were on some miraculous substance themselves. Lots of shows have a preposterous premise, dodgy "science", poor story lines and so on and so on – but they don't all end up like this. The scriptwriters should get together with Guy "Revolver" Ritchie and make the World's Most Dreadful Psycho-Drama Ever. I'll be there, weeping.But, oh Adrian Lester, what were you thinking?! – I know, actors have got to eat and all that – but couldn't starvation have been at least a temporary alternative? You're better than this!One final gripe: I've got to take up the reviewer who was disgruntled at the existence of, not one (gasp!), but TWO (GASP!), black archaeologists in this show. I'm getting strange flashbacks here…"55 Degrees North" took hits from cynical reviewers who saw only the PC brigade where they should have seen something better-natured. Gosh, don't you think that it would be pretty great if the presence of two, whole, black archaeologists on this show inspired even ONE budding young non-white 'bonekicker' of the future to alter the racial imbalance in this field - an imbalance this very reviewer admits to?! But of course this isn't what the BBC should be doing, is it? The BBC should be doing nothing but entertain (white) people. Which they've done very effectually for a very long time. Now it's time to reflect the viewers they actually have, even at the expense of so-called "accuracy". So get used to this, quickly: not everyone in Britain is like you: perhaps the stultifying world of archaeology needs just this reminder – from the BBC, no less – of its own long overdue obligation to seek a wider academic spread and fanbase.I'm off to think about how this show could have been any worse. Perhaps if Worzel Gummidge were in it...no wait - a song & dance sequence!

Barry This programme is rather average, the story lines i find good and interesting, such as the search Jesus' cross and the search for Excalibur, which provide very entertaining story lines, yet the writing is poor, with large plot holes that are not explained, and the show does not seem to flow with the continuity that other shows similar to it such as 'Bones' from America.The acting though i think is OK, yet can be better, Julie Graham is a find, and a good actress, yet other members of the cast i think could have been better, but to be honest, the only problem i have with this show is its writing, but the show does manage to entertain the audience, and for that i like it. An average programme, that the BBC could make a lot better.

weegie1984 There are too many uptight and unhappy people watching British TV these days! Previous comments from people complain about historical inaccuracies, poor acting and some people had the nerve to use their personal ideologies to slate this show. Firstly, I want to address the acting, anyone who complains about the acting really needs to think about what they are saying, in fact it wouldn't surprise me if these people who were complaining were actually Eastenders or Hollyoaks fans, shows which are famous for their Oscar worthy performances, I've seen better acting at a fitba match than those two shows! The acting is neither up nor down in Bonekickers, there is no obvious discrepancies in the acting, nor is there anything to get too excited about! The plot is interesting, the story, however, is not told well. CGI is not exactly blockbuster material, but then the show itself does not require it to be so, I mean why would we need state of the art CGI on an archaeological/dramatic TV show? Do we want the dirty items uncovered to look spectacular, or realistic? Historical inaccuracies are not a major issue when you consider that the show is not meant to be taken seriously. If you are wanting solid archaeological and historical fact then watch Time Team, don't complain about the fact the show is not Time Team! The show is meant to be fun, and interesting, comical and dramatic, did it deliver? Yes it did, I watched it from start to finish, and was not disappointed, nor was I excited. It was a darn site better than watching some of the drivel that is on TV just now!

Jason-346 My love of History and the strong cast convinced me to watch the first episode of Bonekickers. I didn't expect that much, the trailers and cast interviews, seemed to promise an Indiana Jones rip-off, all be it a low budget one. In fact I would have settled for a low rent National Treasure. As it was, even with my meager expectations, it managed to disappoint.The awful story, terrible dialogue, criminal waste of an excellent cast, and archaeology that anyone who had ever stumbled across an episode of Time Team would find laughable. This was a truly dreadful program.Having said all that I still had hope the series would improve, I thought maybe I was being a bit harsh on what after all was meant to be a bit of harmless entertainment. So I decided to watch the second episode before writing my review. Somehow they managed to out do themselves, I would never have believed Bonekickers could get any worse, but they managed it, and now I've wasted two evenings watching this dross.