I think it is important to begin by stating that I was dubious about any show made since the influence of American television on the British Isles. But this is Scottish! Perhaps the independence of Scottish spirit buttresses their humour against the negative influence of U.S. productions. The writing is brilliant in the sense that, unlike American TV, little, if any, is predictable. The timing is spot on and the laugh tracks are in sync with the punchlines instead of used as a constant background. Witty is the best one word description I could use to entice others to give the show a chance. The visual expressions combine with subtlety to present the kind of humour I thought was lost on television. Sit back, put your feet up and enjoy television, once again.
Reviews
3 Reviews
You Rang, M'Lord?
(1988–1993)
A pleasant show but ...
28 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Perhaps the reason this series is so well received by other reviewers is that they grew up with it and nostalgia earns their praise more than the quality of the series.
Pros: The series is certainly quaint. A pleasant group of characters interacting in what appears an accurate setting.
Cons: Released in 1988, the show exudes all the negative influence of U.S. TV sitcoms since the 70s. The laugh tracks are far more frequent than appropriate & some of the characters are what I believe is termed 'over the top'. Ivy's intellectual capacity equals a tree stump. Granted, her capacity to think develops slightly over time but she reflects the depth of the characters generally. Teddy's repeated "bally" lines and Sissy's male costumes, complete with monocle, detract considerably from a potentially more enjoyable show. Like the laugh tracks, the characters are excessive in manner and style. Although the use of vernacular is amusing, the absence of wit leaves the viewer frequently aware of what is to come in the way of any punch lines.
Granted, excess is one of the themes but in the context of these scripts, the characters suffer immensely with the result that so do we. Too bad, really.
Having read the praise of previous reviews, I purchased the show & was disappointed enough that I felt a warning should be submitted. If you enjoy U.S. sitcoms like Three's Company, this series is probably ideal. Otherwise, renting it is recommended over purchase.
Pros: The series is certainly quaint. A pleasant group of characters interacting in what appears an accurate setting.
Cons: Released in 1988, the show exudes all the negative influence of U.S. TV sitcoms since the 70s. The laugh tracks are far more frequent than appropriate & some of the characters are what I believe is termed 'over the top'. Ivy's intellectual capacity equals a tree stump. Granted, her capacity to think develops slightly over time but she reflects the depth of the characters generally. Teddy's repeated "bally" lines and Sissy's male costumes, complete with monocle, detract considerably from a potentially more enjoyable show. Like the laugh tracks, the characters are excessive in manner and style. Although the use of vernacular is amusing, the absence of wit leaves the viewer frequently aware of what is to come in the way of any punch lines.
Granted, excess is one of the themes but in the context of these scripts, the characters suffer immensely with the result that so do we. Too bad, really.
Having read the praise of previous reviews, I purchased the show & was disappointed enough that I felt a warning should be submitted. If you enjoy U.S. sitcoms like Three's Company, this series is probably ideal. Otherwise, renting it is recommended over purchase.
The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T.
(1953)
A perfect film for children ... if you hate kids!
14 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
It is curious that this film has so far drawn 76 reviews. It seems to be a film that people either love or hate enough to comment on. I recall having seen this film for the first time as a child of about ten years and I was born the year this film was released. It is the kind of film that one doesn't forget, as much as I would have liked to. My wife and I were discussing films the other day and this film came up and after 30 years of marriage we discovered that we both knew the film, saw it once as children and found the film hauntingly disturbing.
Conversely, I have always liked Hans Konried (Conried?) and would love to learn piano still, despite having seen the film as a child. Some, like Jane Schoettle, may argue that the great thing about the movie is that it takes the perspective of a child. I would argue that the supposed perspective left me perplexed. It drew more than a dislike.
To sum up, I would say that as a unique perspective, it is timeless in more than the usual sense. Have you ever witnessed an act of cruelty that you could not stop and wished that you had never witnessed it? Once seen, at least as a child, the film will not be forgotten, no matter how much you try.
Conversely, I have always liked Hans Konried (Conried?) and would love to learn piano still, despite having seen the film as a child. Some, like Jane Schoettle, may argue that the great thing about the movie is that it takes the perspective of a child. I would argue that the supposed perspective left me perplexed. It drew more than a dislike.
To sum up, I would say that as a unique perspective, it is timeless in more than the usual sense. Have you ever witnessed an act of cruelty that you could not stop and wished that you had never witnessed it? Once seen, at least as a child, the film will not be forgotten, no matter how much you try.
Tell Your Friends