I've heard it said that British humor doesn't always translate that well beyond the island's shores, often leaving many non-British audiences scratching their heads in contemplation, "Well, they said it was supposed to be hilarious, so what did I miss?"
Like many of the British and Australian movies for the last two decades (I hesitate to say 'Commonwealth' in light of the superb efforts coming from NZ lately!)--made worse by inexplicable plot holes, kitschy lines, worn-out gags and predictable, stiffly-staged buffoonery--it's hard not to label this as yet another yawn fest.
A fractured, ludicrously fashioned story line cobbled together from webisodes cannot be made whole by using atmospherics and poll-tested giggle gimmicks--various formulae mostly pushed by nervous producers and sponsors; 'if it doesn't make old what's-his-bob larf then it ain't on' still won't win an audience.
I won't fault the acting here because it appears to be actors doing exactly what they have been instructed to do--admirable in the shallows that their various stereotypical, story-hobbled character development allows.
I'll add that I believe it's possible that John Hardwick could have done better with more time and a better writer--the theme itself is fertile enough fodder for a decent writer.
But, comedy or drama, theater is theater folks, as Will Shakespeare has endlessly demonstrated in transition from stage to screen to web. Seemingly lost within its own confusion and often distracting, pointless meandering--this just isn't good theater.
It may have been a touch better had they included a laugh track.
Like many of the British and Australian movies for the last two decades (I hesitate to say 'Commonwealth' in light of the superb efforts coming from NZ lately!)--made worse by inexplicable plot holes, kitschy lines, worn-out gags and predictable, stiffly-staged buffoonery--it's hard not to label this as yet another yawn fest.
A fractured, ludicrously fashioned story line cobbled together from webisodes cannot be made whole by using atmospherics and poll-tested giggle gimmicks--various formulae mostly pushed by nervous producers and sponsors; 'if it doesn't make old what's-his-bob larf then it ain't on' still won't win an audience.
I won't fault the acting here because it appears to be actors doing exactly what they have been instructed to do--admirable in the shallows that their various stereotypical, story-hobbled character development allows.
I'll add that I believe it's possible that John Hardwick could have done better with more time and a better writer--the theme itself is fertile enough fodder for a decent writer.
But, comedy or drama, theater is theater folks, as Will Shakespeare has endlessly demonstrated in transition from stage to screen to web. Seemingly lost within its own confusion and often distracting, pointless meandering--this just isn't good theater.
It may have been a touch better had they included a laugh track.