Cleveronix
A different way of telling a story
Fatma Suarez
The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful
Juana
what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.
StormSworder
The BBC TV series 'Harry Enfield's TV programme' and 'Harry Enfield and Chums' were great fun, so I was looking forward to this revival on Sky TV. Indeed, the first episode of this series shows great promise, with all-too-real characters like the paranoid, violent 'short bloke', the obnoxious big businessman, the tactless chemist and the couple who are making love but thinking of other people. It isn't long, however, before you realise the characters are all one-joke characters. You know exactly how every sketch is going to end as soon as it starts. There are no characters who come close to creations such as Tim Nice-But-Dim, the Slobs, the Old Gits or any of the others in previous series, and there's no sign of Paul Whitehouse, Martin Clunes, Kathy Burke, Jon Glover or any of the other regulars. To add insult to injury, someone has formed the impression that filling this new series with constant swearing and sexual innuendo will somehow excuse its faults. Quite frankly, it wasn't long before I became weary of someone describing sexual encounters he'd had with various celebrities. You can't help thinking Harry Enfield was making something for his own personal amusement. I dearly wish he'll return to mainstream TV and make a series up to the high standard of his early programmes, otherwise 'Brand Spaking New Show', combined with that excremental 'Kevin and Perry Go Large' finish the whole thing on a very sorry note.
Theo Robertson
If the rumours are true that Sky television paid a massive amount of money to entice Harry Enfield away from the BBC then all I can say is they`ve paid over the odds . The problem isn`t so much that the sketches are repetitive , the problem is that the jokes aren`t all that funny . 20,000 leagues under the seat and Monday night football are okay first time you see them but there`s not really enough foundation to build upon them - They`re one trick ponies and that`s it . I did laugh out loud at the office worker with the ugly baby and at the indiscreet pharmacist but neither of these characters is as memorable as some of the ones from Enfield`s BBC shows . And talking of Enfield`s BBC series I really missed the presence of Paul Whitehouse and Kathy Burke . It`s a similar situation when Jackie Wright ( The small bald Irishman from THE BENNY HILL SHOW ) died . Instead of Hill being sidesplitting he became mildly amusing and it`s the same with Enfield being without Whitehouse and Burke
c_cooper
This show has some potential but it's downfall lies with unoriginal characters that don't work.I believe the 'inspiration' for some of the characters came from other shows. Examples include 'Strange Bob', a football commentator who hears voices in his head. This is obviously copied from the 'Small kids in the park, jumpers for goal posts' man from the Fast Show who babbels unrelated talk all the time. The character just doesn't work with Enfield sounding like that kid at school who tried to be funny by repeating a joke that was just told.Then theres the guy in the restaurant who insults his partner and says "What? What did I say?" at the end. This is obviously taken from Goodness Gracious Me who has 'Mr Cheque Please', a man insults dates in restaurants and says "Cheque please" after he realises what he's done.
Another character I believe has been stolen is again from the Fast Show. This is the guy who always tells outrageous stories and says "Which was nice" at the end. Hazza obviously took this idea and put it into that guy at the pub who always tells how he fondled some female celebrity to make her feel better. This character was hilarious at first but got really uninteresting after a while.Having said this, some characters are genuinely funny, such as the pharmacist who always embarrasses his customers by obnoxiously announcing their problems to everyone. A classic example is when a man comes in and buys some viagra whereupon the pharmacist shouts "Here you are sir, some viagra for your droopy cock!".Overall though, the show doesn't seem to work. The lack of one off sketches increases the chance of boring viewers as we sit through watching each character, knowing exactly what the jist of the sketch will be. Although repeating one's self is inevitable with character based sketch comedy, it's upto the writers to produce different situations and punchlines each time so that the viewer doesn't end up short changed. Unfortunatly Harry Enfield and his crew fail to do this.
GrantCAGE
I am (or was) a big fan of Harry Enfield. The early TV stuff (1990-94) was great! But i'm sorry to say this is absolute tripe! The early material was inventive and entertaining, but this re-invented nonsense is just crude and pathetic! OK so it's different to the early stuff with all new characters and cast, but it's also rubbish compared to the early stuff with the jokes and scenes relying on toilet humour and plain swearing. Please everyone do not waste your money!!!!!!
