Chance in a Million (1984)

Sorry, back to the sitcoms, and this is one that you might remember. Actually the name might not ring a bell, but half way through this review you'll probably go 'hang on! I remember watching that!'

It's one of those shows that was well loved when it was broadcast, had great audience figures but disappeared without trace far too quickly. No idea why it's not seen the light of day in a new era, perhaps made by the wrong studio originally, or the rights are owned by a crappy distribution agency. For whatever reason, this is a forgotten gem that needs to be brought back into the limelight.

So what do we have. Tom Chance is an average, middle class guy, lives alone in a decent house, but is single and looking for a partner. He finds a soul mate in a 'timid' librarian and together they form an unlikely bond. Of course there has to be more....in this case Mr Chance is plagued by coincidence. Whatever he does, whatever he says, however he acts, it will all end up in a frightful mess because of unlucky coincidence.

..and it does, and it's funny and it works SO well. The more I think of it, the more I think of 'One Foot in the Grave' about 5 years later. Think about how Vixtor Meldrew just couldn't get anything right? No matter what he did it all went pear shaped, or he'd make catastrophic errors of judgement? Tom Chance is like that, although he's not retired and he already knows he's bound to fail because of his lack of luck.

Who do we have starring in this forgotten sit-com then? Well Tom Chance is played by non other than Simon Callow (you know the fat gay that dies in Four Weddings and a Funderal). His librarian love interest is portrayed by Brenda Blethyn (The quiet one in Little Voice and Secrets and Lies) It ran for three series, and each episode gets more and more bizarre, but at the same time, because we are used to his problem of being plagued by chance, they become more and more acceptable.

There are some lovely running gags, such as the fact Tom downs a pint of lager in every episode, and the so called timid librarian constantly ends up in her underwear trying to throw herself at Tom. It is SO well written and crafted, it doesn't matter that you know where each episode is heading, it's a joy to watch the disaster unfold.

Of course this is a thumbs up, I love it and wish it was getting more air time. Why do we get 'My Family' ad nauseam, but classics like this go unrepeated?

The mind boggles

p.s. Offline for three weeks, now but a couple of Ronnie Barker reviews to follow when I get back.

Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking (2004)

That might be the longest title you'll see in this blog. I guess it counts as TV, despite being a one off drama, it was only made for a television audience, so I'm claiming it.

There could be several tangents during this blog entry, so be warned.

Made for the BBC, this was a one off Sherlock Holmes story, but instead of being based on any of the original Conan Doyle stories it was a unique adventure. What they DID include was Holmes, Watson, and Inspector Lestrade. Watson is engaged, on the verge of marriage (which doesn't fit with the Conan Doyle stories at all, as Watson found his future wife in the first adventure and was married throughout the rest of his adventures) but his fiancee plays a key role in helping Holmes with his current investigation, so lets not split too many hairs.

The basic plot is a series of girls being murdered, their bodies found to be clothed in the garments owned by the previous victim, one silk stocking forced down their throat and another tied around their neck. Suspicion falls on the house of a Duke who is to host a ball to be attended by the current King.

Ok, first tangent. This is technically a sequel to another BBC Sherlock Holmes production two years earlier. On that occasion it was the famous 'Hound of The Baskervilles' and so many critics began comparing it to previous interpretations on the classic story. Personally I was a big fan, it brought something new to the tale, and ranks up there as one of the greater interpretations of the story. It did well to keep close to the original book (except for a a slight embellishment for the ending) and had fine performances for all the cast. Richard Roxborough wasn't known to me, but played a great Holmes, and Ian Hart was perfect as Watson. In this new story Ian Hart returned as Watson, but now we had the more famous Rupert Everett as Holmes. Personally I think he does a fine job, but tries a bit too hard and almost seems to be attempting to be Basil Rathbone in modern form, rather than invent his own interpretation of the classic character.

Tangent number two, how do I judge a Sherlock Holmes story that isn't based on an original tale by Conan Doyle? I'm a great fan - of the books and all TV and cinematic versions - but when it's an original whodunnit, the only way I can judge it is if I feel it works as a Holmes adventure. I guess it does, but I really couldn't see Conan Doyle getting involved in the subject matter that is covered in this particular adventure. I could almost imagine it as a Midsomer Murder (but back dated to the turn of the 20th century)

Spooky I should mention Midsomer Murders, considering Inspector Lestrade in this adventure is played by Neil Dudgeon - the new Inspector Barnaby

I think the main flaw is it feels too modern, despite being set in the first decade of the 1900's. No one puts in a bad performance, but the script could easily be lifted and stuck in an episode of Cracker and no one would bat an eye-lid. There is also a lack of that quintessential Sherlock trait where he takes a quick glance at something and comes up with thousands of facts about the person. I can't think of one Holmes story where he doesn't do that, except for this one.

I could go on for days, comparing it to Rathbone, the Hammer films, the Granada Jeremy Brett shows, the modern 21st Century BBC tales, but I won't. I'll leave it as an open ended review of a tale I don't hate, but nor do I rank it in my top 5 Sherlock Holmes films. Thumbs up? No. Thumbs down then? Not that either. It's wavering. I might come back to this review in a few weeks if I finally settle on a fixed opinion.

Killer Net (1998)

What does the name Lynda La Plante mean to you as a TV viewer? Perhaps you are old enough to remember her as an actress in Rent-a-ghost, but chances are you are more familiar with her screen-writing skills. Prime Suspect and Trial & Retribution are of course her biggest successes, but in 1998 she turned her hand to another drama, based around the world of the internet.

What was the computer world like in 1998? Well the internet existed of course, but wasn't as wide spread as it is today. You'd need to remortgage your house to own a home PC and laptops were the size of a small car and needed three burly weightlifters to move them around. The idea of surfing the net from your phone wasn't even a concept back then (in fact, mobile phones were still only just being reduced from brick-size.) There was an explosion of interest though in the internet about this time, with net cafe's cropping up, and Lynda La Plante couldn't let this craze pass without exploiting it for her own gain...

..if only she'd done a bit of research first though...

Ok, basic plot: Set around three university students who share a house in Brighton. One of them has his own computer and after getting more and more involved with a mysterious woman, he eventually finds himself playing a CD ROM game called Killer Net. It takes over his life, planning and executing the perfect murder, to the extent that he is the main suspect when a real murder crops up that follows the one he had played out on screen.

The TV drama was split into three distinct parts (Not sure if it was broadcast in two or three parts, but the plot is definitely in three distinct sections). Firstly we have character development, set-up and the introduction of the game. The second section is all about the game itself, planning and trying to get away with the murder of a young girl on the streets of Brighton. The final section switches to the police's point of view as they try to unravel the case of the REAL murder.

I have such a soft spot for this drama. I must have seen it right through 20 or 30 times, but I still find it charming. I can't help but laugh though at the massive howlers Mrs La Plante has left in when it comes to what computers can and can't do. You have to watch it with an open mind and just breeze past the gaping plot flaws. The murder and it's subsequent investigation are water-tight, so don't think she didn't get those parts right because she did.

You also have to raise a smile at Jason Orange's first foray into acting. This was made just after Take That had split up for the first time and whilst Gary and Mark tried their hands at solo careers, Jason wanted to have a stab at acting. Don't remember seeing him in anything else after this....I wonder why.

I have to give this a thumbs up, simply because I love it so much, but am not blind to how bad it actually is on paper. It is nothing compared to her other works (the early Trial & Retributions are first class) and so I only recommend it out of a sense of loyalty to it. I can't defend any of the acting (hardly any stand-out performances at all) and the script just seems a bit wooly. It does act as a whodunnit, although I seem to remember working out who it was very early on the first time I watched it, so I don't think it's too much of a brain-buster. Not sure that's the point of it though.

Filmed on location in Brighton, so if you know the area, you'll be able to spot a few familiar landmarks. Due to the subject matter, Killer Net was dated the moment it was released...

..but I still like it :)

Coogan's Run (1995)

Steve Coogan is best known as Alan Partridge to people of my generation, but he is also an acclaimed impressionist and character actor. Recently he has played a tragic/comic lead role in the drama 'Sunshine' about a gambler trying desperately to hold onto his family life (to much acclaim).

Back in 1995, Alan Partridge was established as a radio chat show comedy, and had just been transferred to TV. 'Coogan's Run' was a chance for Steve to showcase a string of other characters, and prove his versatility as a comedic character actor. It ran for one series and provided 6 individual stories (although certain characters did overlap the episodes).

First off was Paul and Pauline Calf, the brother/sister (both played by Steve) that had already appeared in a few TV comedies and in Steve's stand-up shows. To follow we then had Gareth Cheeseman, a high-flying salesman at a conference (who is almost a clone of Alan Partridge). Next we go back to the 60's for a black and white episode starring 'Ernest Moss' a Handyman who uncovers a plot to turn the local village into an amusement park. Back to the present day for Mike Crystal, a lounge singer who wants his own regular spot at the local social club, and creates an agent called Clint Stallone to boost his standing. Number 5 is the Crump brothers who are obsessed by trivia, and decide to recreate a 70's kid's TV quiz show they lost on, by kidnapping the old presenter and other contestants, and finally 'The Curator' tells the story of the owner of a tiny museum who is pushed a little bit too far by a greedy restaurant builder.

6 very diverse stories, but with Steve Coogan at the helm, not one of them is a disappointment. I suppose for me, the first one (Paul Calf) is the weakest, but I think that is just personal taste as I've never been a fan of that particular character. The way certain minor characters reappear in different stories is a lovely way to link them together, and the supporting cast are all top notch. This series was clearly made with love, by everyone involved and it shows in the performances given.

I'm not sure this could have gone on any further. If another series was made (of 6 more characters) there would be a chance they would start to become watered down. If one character was picked out to have his own series, it would leave you wondering what happened to the remaining ones. For that reason, it is nice that Coogan's Run has remained as it is - as 6 stand alone comedy episodes.

It's worth noting that Ronnie Barker did something identical with the series '6 of one' although that DID end up giving us Porridge and Open all Hours. (review of '6 of One' will follow in a few weeks)

Of course, you can tell by the way I've written this that it gets my thumbs up, but I do it unconditionally. Unlike Sean's Show I don't think you need to be a fan of the star to enjoy this series. I admit Mr Coogan is a greatly talented performer, but the series itself is not great JUST because of him. There is brilliant character development, tight scripts and perfect direction. It's just a shame it seemed almost over looked when it was first broadcast. Well worth checking out if you get the chance.

Going Straight (1978)

There can't be too many TV fans that haven't watched at least one episode of Porridge in their lifetime - I'd go so far as to add 'watched and LIKED' at least one episode of Porridge. It was the great combination of Ronnie Barker as Norman Stanley Fletcher, Fulton Mackay as his arch nemesis, Richard Beckinsale as young Lenny Godber his cell mate and a host of likeable side characters that interact brilliantly to provide an ensemble cast to support Mr Barker's lead. Making the audience sympathise with prisoners was a bold step, but perhaps that is one of the main reasons it has stood the test of time as a classic comedy production.

So it makes you wonder why it's sequel has almost vanished into oblivion. 'Going Straight' was a one series follow up that tracked N.S. Fletcher on his rocky road to staying away from crime and trying to set up a family life again. His wife has left him, and he is being looked after by his eldest daughter Ingrid. Still living at home is his youngest son Raymond (played by an instantly recognisable Nicholas Lyndhurst). Throw into the mix Lenny Godber as a long distance lorry driver who wants to marry Ingrid and you have the basic set-up. Which ever way he turns in the real world Fletcher finds it harder and harder to get a job because of his background, and finds more and more temptation to lead him back into a life of crime.

But it doesn't work. Don't get me wrong, it's brilliantly written and is still a million times better than a host of sit-coms I could list, but it's always going to be compared with it's predecessor and because of that, it doesn't cut the mustard. Perhaps it's because we've stepped out of it's claustrophobic prison setting, or perhaps it's because Fletcher doesn't have the same ensemble of players to interact with (Godber is relegated to being a bit-part now). Perhaps it's the lack of authority figures that Fletcher used to get one over (Mackay makes a great appearance in episode one, but never reappears). Whatever the problem is, it's there and it makes 'Going Straight' a sad addition to the Porridge family.

I must stress again though that it is still a funny comedy on it's own and deserves a lot more recognition, but I suppose the equivalent would be having Basil Fawlty moving away from Torquay and not taking Sybil, Manuel and Polly with him. I'm sure we'd still laugh, but know deep down that something was missing.

I'll give 'Going Straight' a thumbs up as a stand alone TV comedy, but if you are asking me if it a worthwhile sequel to Porridge, then it's a sad 'no'.

George and the Dragon (1966)

In the year best remembered for England winning the World Cup at Wembley, a new sit-com hit the screens. Sid James, already a household name from Hancock's Half Hour and a handful of Carry On films was the lead, and his nemesis was Peggy Mount. Peggy had been known for several stage shows and a few TV appearances but George and the Dragon was her biggest part to date.

So, the basic plot. Sid plays George, a chauffeur/general helper to a retired Colonel who also employs a gardener called Ralph and a cook/housekeeper. After Sid has caused 14 cooks to leave due to his wandering hands and advances, Peggy Mount is employed (Miss Dragon) who is more than a match for George's schemes and ideas. What follows is 4 series of George trying to get his own way, and Miss Dragon being the fly in the oinment and cutting him down to size.

..but it's more than that, and not as bland as other 60's sit-coms can appear. The classic comedies of the era have stood the test of time (Hancock, Steptoe etc) but the ones we still remember are because of the excellent script and writing. There are SO many that disappeared without trace. George and the Dragon is one of those that has vanished, but perhaps shouldn't have done. The script isn't always top notch, and the comedy relies largely on Sid James' comedy brilliance, but is that a bad thing?

One of the nice touches of this sit-com is that is doesn't cliche itself. In several episodes George and Miss Dragon actually work together to get what they want, which creates an unusual chemistry for the viewer. One that means you are keen to see what happens next week. Do they REALLY hate each other, or is there a touch of mutual respect?

A side note here about The Colonel. He is played by the wonderful John Le Mesurier, but not sure he quite gives it 100%. The problems in his personal life are well documented, and here it's almost as if he is happy to play a 2-dimensional character to provide the laughs for Sid and Peggy and then just pick up the pay-cheque. You must have seen his portrayal of Sgt Wilson in Dad's Army (you HAVE haven't you?) Well you know that sort of dreamy, far-away look and manner he always had? well the Colonel character here is just like that, only without the intelligence to back it up. Ralph the gardener isn't much better, another 2-D part to set up the punchlines for the two main stars.

However, I think therein lies the only main flaws with this comedy. After watching the first two or three episodes I thought it was going to be a run of the mill trashy 60's comedy, but by the time I had finished all 4 series I was gripped. It took me a full series to warm to Peggy Mount's character, but once I had, she was a perfect side-kick to Sid James. Neither of them steals the show, it's a perfect double act performance.

It's not A Galton and Simpson production, so it doesn't have the sharp script of Hancock or Steptoe, but it still stands up as a credit to the decade and it's a shame it doesn't get remembered as often as other shows from the era. This one gets a thumbs up (perhaps the opening few episodes get a thumbs down, but with a total of about 26 episodes made, that's not a bad percentage)

Lock, Stock....(2000)

One major success in the British cinemas at the end of the 90's was 'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels' a home grown gangster movie with the right mix of comedy, action and a wickedly inventive script and plot. It made names of director Guy Ritchie and one of it's stars, Jason Statham has taken Hollywood by storm as a martial arts fighting actor. It's sequel 'Snatch' was just as successful. Chances are, if you're ages between 20 and 40 right now, you've seen them both and if you're male, you would have either or both in your top 50 films.

So what of the TV spin-off that ran for 6 episodes (plus a pilot) in 2000? Was it any good? Was it worth making? I'm a bit undecided here.

Basic idea. 4 mates own and run a pub called The Lock. They boost their cash flow with a bit of underhand wheelin' and dealin', duckin' and divin' (all to be said in a crap east-end accent). This naturally gets them on the wrong side of a few gangsters that they end up having to do favours for. By the end of each episodes, someone is dead, the 4 mates have somehow managed to stay alive and they no longer owe the favour.....just like the original film.

..and here is problem one. It feels like they take the original film plot, change a few characters, incidentals and locations, shorten the story to one hour and then call it a new episode. If you strip away the plots of the TV episodes you end up with the same basic story-board everytime. What that leads to is you will have a favourite episode out of the 6, and feel the rest are just bad carbon copies.

Then you have the cast. Not one single actor or even character from either of the Guy Ritchie films makes an appearance. Doesn't that say a lot? How Scott Maslen (currently in Eastenders) ever gets through casting auditions I'll never know - he couldn't act his way out of a soggy paper bag.

It has a bit of violence, although most is implied. There is blood, swearing and east-end gangster talk, making it feel more cinematic rather than TV fodder, but it's hard to make a case to support it, based on the fact it falls SO far short of the film it is based on.

Want a rating? OK, on the whole it gets a thumbs down I'm afraid, but I did say you will end up having a favourite episode. Mine is the finale, 'Lock,Stock and a Good Slopping Out' set in prison. That one episode gets a thumbs up.

If you are a fan of the films, then you MIGHT find something to enjoy here, but I doubt it. You'll just end up ejecting the disc and slipping the original movie in instead. If you weren't a fan of the original, then there is nothing to recommend here at all.

p.s. Look out for Martin Freeman (now Dr Watson in the new Sherlock and about to play Bilbo Baggins in the new Hobbit movies). Here he plays a Dutch 'importer' in a couple of episodes with the dodgiest accent ever! (yes, even worse than Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins)

Messiah (2001)

Told you I'd write about a drama next, but don't be surprised if I drift back into the world of comedy after this one.

Messiah was a one off drama, broadcast 10 years ago (well shown in two parts actually, but you know what I mean). Based on a terrific book but Boris Starling (I think) it featured Ken Stott as DCI Red Metcalf, investigating a string of murders. Mid-way through the drama, he realises the murderer is killing the 12 apostles from The Bible, the same way they die in the book.

It was fantastic viewing. A few slightly far-fetched plot lines, and a couple of cliches thrown in (why they felt the need to make his wife deaf I have no idea) but this was gripping TV from start to finish. A true 'whodunnit' too (although I did spot a clue about three-quarters of the way through to work out who the bad person was.)

Keep an eye out for a wonderful 'cameo' role for Edward Woodward playing a stuttering priest who helps the DCI with the info he needs from The Bible. Hey, look at that - Edward Woodward presented 'Whodunnit' (see first blog entry) and here he is appearing in one!

A definite thumbs up for a superb drama that can be re-watched over and over again without getting boring. Doesn't feel like it's over 3 hours long, it keeps you gripped from start to finish.

But it didn't end there. After the success of Messiah, several sequels were written. Here I can start to become more critical as there are several flaws in the follow-ups.

In Messiah II, all the main cast members return (which in one case is a bit strange as a certain member of staff was thrown off the team in part I). It's not a plot spoiler to say Red's brother is murdered in part II, but it acts as a VERY staged cliche throughout the episode, about police fabricating evidence to get a conviction. It isn't even subtle, you know exactly what they are saying, and it feels far too fake - however, I'm being over critical. Messiah II is a worthy sequel. This time a serial killer is targeting wrong convictions from the police force - killing the person who REALLY did the original crime, and then punishing the original arresting officer. A good surprise ending to this one, a whodunnit I didn't solve until the 'reveal'.

Trivia note, this drama had it's broadcast delayed twice due to the sad murders in Soham. Messiah II features a young Down Syndrome girl getting killed in a playground. The original date was when the Soham girls were still missing, and the second broadcast date was when Ian Huntley was going to trial. It was eventually broadcast in 2003.

Messiah III came along, and again, we had the original cast members. This time a prison riot leads to a string of murders which all seem to link back to DS Beauchamp, one of DCI Metcalf's officers. In some ways I prefer this to Messiah II. The story is less complicated, although the ending is a little weak. Liam Cunnigham (who pops up in a lot of British films these days) plays a pretty menacing prison inmate who leads the original riot.

Onto Messiah IV and we are starting to get into weak territory now. This one felt a little bit too desperate. Here we have a murderer following the deaths in Dante's Divine Comedy (where the 7 deadly sins come from) and by the time you get to the ending, it's lost the plot (excuse the pun). The fact someone is killing with the 7 deadly sins makes it sound like a rip-off of the Brad Pitt film 'Se7en' although it does differ enough to not look like a direct copy. Not the worst in the series (there is still part V to come yet) but certainly cannot be compared to it's predecessors. Not Ken Stott's finest hour, and Maxine Peake as his new assistant (usually quite a reliable actress) doesn't put in a great performance either. Should be watched if you've seen the previous 3, but not the one you should start with as it will put you off viewing any others.

Finally, Messiah V. Almost a completely different drama from the others as there are no returning cast members. Marc Warren plays the main detective (that blonde bloke in Hustle) and seems right out of place from the start. A flashback to his past keeps reoccurring, something they used in the original Messiah to better effect, and a plot that is neither complicated or gripping. You can also solve this 'whodunnit' by a process of elimination long before the drama actually finishes.

Honestly, if they had stopped after III this would have been one of the best TV drama trilogies ever. I know that sounds brash to say, but it would be true. IV and V sadly water-down the impact the Messiah films have now, but I have to give the whole series a big thumbs up. Watch them in order if you haven't seen them before.

Grace and Favour (1992)

Another sit-com I'm afraid, don't worry I will get onto dramas eventually.

It's hard to know where to start with this one. I guess it follows on nicely from the previous blog entry as it is a sequel to a much loved 70's sit-com, in this case 'Are you Being Served?'. The difference however is that this time we are over a decade since it's predecessor and there is more than just one original cast member involved.

OK, very quick plot summary. Grace Brothers has closed down and the only staff remaining were the ladies and gents departments. Their pension scheme is locked up in a run-down farm/hotel which they are not allowed to sell so they have to run it as a going concern to get their pension.

So who do we have reprising their role from the original show? Well pretty much everyone. There is no Mr Lucas/Mr Spooner (the mens' junior) nor is there a Mr Grainger/Mr Tebbs/Mr Goldberg/Mr Klien (the men's senior) but everyone else is there. They also stick to their familiar characterisations and catch-phrases which is a nice touch of nostalgia. Throw into the mix a few extra characters to flesh out the cast and you have the basic set up for two series of this comedy.

The major flaw is the obvious one. What worked in the 70's isn't going to work in the 90's and even if it did, the actors are far too old to pull it off convincingly. Don't get me wrong, it's well scripted and brilliantly acted (John Inman especially, looks like he relishes being back as Mr Humphreys). The same problem befell 'The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin' when they dug up that for a 4th series. The original was 'of a time' and shouldn't be tampered with.

Remember 'Carry on Columbus' and how bad that was? The same rule applies here. It wasn't that the script was 'bad' as Carry On scripts go, it's just that it was written for a 70's audience but put into 90's cinemas.

But don't think I am putting 'Grace and Favour' down. As it happens I find it wonderfully charming. What I particularly like is that it is in a serial form- i.e. each episode follows the next. The story is continuous which a lot of sit-coms nowadays forget about.

How many times have you seen in a sit-com a door get smashed, a wall fall down, a car get impounded, a kitchen sets alight, but next week, all is well, as though nothing happened. I hate that!

Anyway, back to GAF. It's charming, it's a typical Sunday afternoon British sit-com (would be run in the same slot as 'Last of The Summer Wine') and is completely harmless. It does NOT match up to the humour of AYBS, but being made so long after the original, it almost doesn't need to. I have to give it a thumbs up because I have fallen in love with Fleur Bennett who plays one of the new characters, Mavis.

I have a lovely tangent to go off on now. After watching Fleur Bennett in GAF I looked up what else she had been in. I was happy to see she appeared in an early 'Midsomer Murders' episode called 'Dark Autumn' so I tracked it down on DVD, bought it and watched it the moment it arrived to watch Fleur in all her glory....

...she was dead within the first 10 minutes :(

anyway, Grace and Favour is not as good as Are You Being Served, but in someways it does try to be something different. It's gentle, 'sweet' and 'charming' humour and completely inoffensive. It just about justifies being made and gets my thumbs up.

p.s. A drama next...I promise.

Don't Drink the Water (1974)

Another sit-com, but the first that is going to get my thumbs down. Shame really as I thought it would have been my cup of tea, but perhaps a little background first.

What do you think of when you hear the phrase '70's sit-com'? If you have to pigeon-hole the comedies of the decade you would probably come up with words like 'sexist, racist, homophobic, prejudice' and so on. You'd give examples such as 'Love Thy Neighbour', 'On the Buses', 'Rising Damp', 'Curry and Chips' and 'Man About the House'. Although it's a slightly sweeping statement to clump all the comedic output of one decade into this bracket, on the whole it's true.

That's not to say that's a criticism. That was how the country was in the 70's. TV programs merely reflected the thoughts of the average 'man on the street'. Of course they couldn't get away with that today, but as long as it's taken in context there were some classics coming out of that era. I've mentioned Rising Damp as one. Yes, Leonard Rossiter made constant references to Mr Smith's African background (10 wives, bone through the nose, make sure you smile in the dark so we can see you etc) but so was everyone back then. As another example 'On the Buses' referred to all girls as 'birds' and assumed all they wanted to do was settle down and have babies then stay at home. Sex equality was a new thing back then and the population was still getting accustomed to the change.

Every era has it's low and high points. The 80's sit-coms could be summed up as 'domestic'. All the ones that string to mind were some kind of family set up living at home. More recently, as we headed into a new millennium, we became swamped by US imports and the introduction of foul language as a comic tool. Is that any better than the sit-coms we classed as 'non-PC'?

So why am I rambling on about all this? It's supposed to act as an intro to the fact that I like a lot of sit-coms from this time, The 'PC or not PC' aspects are irrelevant. To me, those are just ordinary parts of the shows. I can appreciate when the show was made and take all content in context. I like them because they used to have strong characters, well acted and brilliantly scripted. Surely you can't think of a few of these and not instantly smile...

Penelope Kieth as Margot Leadbetter in the Good Life
Leonard Rossiter as Rigsby in Rising Damp
Ronnie Barker as Norman Stanley Fletcher in Porridge
John Inman as Mr Humphries in Are you Being Served
John Cleese as Basil Fawlty in Fawlty Towers

to name just 5.

So, as I move on to the point of this blog entry (good grief, you mean he hasn't even started yet!) I just wanted it made clear that I wasn't judging 'Don't Drink the Water' because it was non-PC, that element didn't enter the equation. I was judging it on it's comic merits.

Don't Drink the Water was a sequel to the long running 'On the Buses'. OTB had run it's course, some principal cast members had left by the end of it's run, the original creators had nothing to do with it anymore and the jokes were becoming tired and repetitive. It was time to lay it to rest...

..but no, the original creators of OTB (both called Ronald, but don't ask me to remember their surnames) came up with the idea of a spin-off starring Inspector Blake. Now he is retired and along with his sister, moving to a new life in Spain. Something a lot of people were doing in the 70's on a promise of blue skies, sandy beaches and cheap property. Of course, when they get there, not everything runs to plan.

Inspector Blake is once again played by Stephen Lewis (he's ALWAYS played Blakey. Even when he moved on to 'Oh Doctor Beeching' and 'Last of the Summer Wine' he was still playing the same character) Of course he had no use for his catchphrase 'I 'Ate you Butler' so instead substitute 'Don't drive me mad' and use it half a dozen times in each episode. Add in his sister played by Pat Coombs who would have preferred to move to Bognor (and mention that at least twice per episode) and you have the set-up for the show.

The other regular character is Carlos the porter played by Derek Griffiths (probably known to anyone in my generation as the voice of Superted and the singer on 'Look and Read') Carlos does provide a few genuine laughs, mainly because of Derek's comedy timing and bizarre eye movements. To say though that the funniest moments of a sit-com are because of someone's eyes, should tell you that this is not a classic.

The plumbing is faulty, the buildings are badly made, the electrics are dodgy, the food is greasy the water comes out of the taps a dark brown colour, the weather is either too hot or too wet and everyone in Spain hates the English. Now string that premise along for 13 episodes and you can see why it just isn't funny at all.

To make matters worse, there was no point in making it either. OTB really had died by the time it finished. The last series was nothing compared to the early black and white episodes. The two Ronalds should have used their talents to create a brand new comedy from scratch instead of dredging around in the bottom of an already empty barrel.

Sorry guys, my first thumbs down. Avoid if you can

p.s. If you DO end up watching it, look out for a cameo from Geoffrey Hughes (Onslo in 'Keeping Up Appearances' He was still playing a slob, even back then)

Sean's Show (1992)

This one leads quite nicely on from 'Nightingales' as it is another example of a late night Channel 4 comedy in the days when Channel 4 dared to be different.

A comedy vehicle for Irish comic Sean Hughes, on paper, it was just a case of following Sean in his every day life - living in a small flat, going to the pub and local shop, meeting his best friend and trying to get the love of his life Susan to go out with him...but, just like Nightingales, it was far from that.

The main difference is Sean breaks the so-called '4th wall', in other words he talks directly to us his audience on many occasions. Then he goes one step further and literally steps outside the '4th wall' to show the entire thing is just a studio set. Throw a touch of surrealism into the mix (Samuel Beckett is God and his main script-writer, the occasional song and dance routine, a sock that never dries) and you have 6 episodes of silliness that any fan of Mr Hughes will adore.

For that is gets my thumbs up, but if you have sampled Sean Hughes' comedy before and weren't impressed then this TV series is not going to convert you. His supporting cast (including Victor Maguire from 'Bread' and Goodnight Sweetheart' Isn't that the second time I've mentioned Goodnight Sweetheart?) are very 2-dimensional and are only there to provide extra laughs for Sean. It really is a one man show.

I have one of those tangents coming up. Remember in the review of Nightingales I briefly mentioned a burglar who is the illegitimate son of all three security guards? What do you mean 'no'? Didn't you read the review properly?!? Anyway, the thief was played by Jake Wood (currently playing Max in Eastenders). Jake pops up in Sean's Show playing.....a burglar! Me thinks he was getting typecast in his early days.

So there you have it, another example of Channel 4 homemade comedy before they sold out and started appealing to the mainstream. Sean went on from here to be the original team captain on 'Never Mind the Buzzcocks' Sean's Show hasn't dated and still stands up on it's own as a decent comedy....and keep your eye out for a bizarre cameo from Windsor Davies.