Reggie Perrin

I've watched this with an open mind as a huge fan of the original and tried to appreciate it on it's own merits however I'm not getting into it. I don't dislike it exactly but it just doesn't really have any impact on me at all. The only thing keeping watching I think is the gorgeous and charming Lucy Liemann who plays Jasmine and the very cute and adorable Kerry Howard who plays Vicky, Reggie's dopey secretary. Kerry Howard is the only person in the show who has actually made me laugh.

So what's wrong with it? The story isn't as relevant as it was in the 1970s. Shows like Reggie Perrin, The Good Life and Butterflies all hit a nerve at the time with people. There must have a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst the middle aged suburbanites of the 1970s. I just don't find Martin Clunes dissatisfaction very believable. It seems forced, this is after all a show about Reggie Perrin and so he has to be dissatisfied. In the original you can really feel Reggie's mounting sense of frustration, boredom and insanity. The point about Reggie Perrin is that he is a man who has everything that society says you have to have and yet he is still bored and dissatisfied. He is driven mad by repetition, banality and the total absence of any kind of uncertainty. He has to create danger and uncertainty in order to make himself feel alive again. I don't think anybody in the Britain of 2009 could possibly have the luxury of being driven mad by too much security and certainty. A modern day executive is more likely to be driven to desperation by fear, over work and stress.

The biggest problem I have with it though is that it just isn't that funny. The script isn't very good, the editing is quite poor and the performances are average. Martin Clune's was on a hiding to nothing trying to step into the shoes of a masterful performer like Leonard Rossiter. I've nothing against Martin Clunes, he's a decent enough comedy actor but he's not one of the greats.

It was a brave thing to do and I'm sure they knew they were setting themselves up to be severely criticised, I just wish they had either done it better or not bothered.

It seem to me the biggest issue the negative reviewers have is comparing this series to the original with Leonard Rossiter. That is always a mistake in my opinion because to most people a remake with another actor rarely can match the original. Or in other words, they're not giving this series a chance really. Instead of a constant comparison, why not try to see this as a stand-alone program and judge it on its own merits.

Martin Clunes is a brilliant actor in his own right and is handling the role well. I have to admit that I'm not as impressed with his co-stars, so far they've been a little too cartoon-ish and not enough "real". The writing could stand to improve a bit as well, but on the whole this isn't a bad series and it is entertaining. Rarely do you find a show that is perfect in every way and it seems to me that this one is being judged a bit harshly because it is a remake. I find I enjoy settling in and watching it and that's what it's all about, isn't it?

Any humor was drowned out by the laugh track being monotonous, too early, too loud and breathless. Edit the laugh track or make a version without laugh track available and it should be 9 stars

...but it was actually pretty good.

I'm a massive fan of the original 3 series, if not the 1996 comeback with the original characters. And of course Leonard Rossiter did an extremely rare thing of being a legend with both Rigsby in Rising Damp, and Reggie Perrin. Therefore when I saw the reports that they were to do a remake, I groaned. So when the first new episode came on the other evening, expectations were minimal.

To be fair, on it's own merits, compared to the rotten standard of mainstream comedy in recent years, I felt it was fairly funny, enjoyable enough if not classic first episode. There's little danger of it coming anywhere close to the real version, but all in all, not a bad effort.

Martin Clunes is good as a 'hangdog' Reggie, but with none of the nervous dynamite that Rossiter's Reggie had, still who could compare? I can't see that they'll also have anywhere like the 'ensemble' of the original. Chris Jackson for example is no CJ, but again, how could he be?

Therefore I'd say new Reggie was watchable, and the best of what is a pretty lame bunch these days (mainstream BBC comedies) and there were definitely some funny moments/lines. Added to that there is an interest in the 'executive disillusionment' theme 30+ years on.

But as is so often the case with remakes, by all means see it, and if you like it, do what I did a few years ago and treat yourself to a DVD set of the first incarnation, now that's Reggie!

I wasn't aware that the BBC were making a new Reggie Perrin, so this came as a big surprise, but I am pleased to say a pleasant one and so far after five episodes very enjoyable.

Martin Clunes makes for a very different, but equally entertaining Reggie, with excellent support from Fay Ripley as his wife and Neil Stuke as his new boss, and some great turns from Wendy Craig as Reggie's Mum and Geoffrey Whitehead as his wife's father.

There are many nods to the old series, but it is just as watchable to newcomers and whilst in many aspects a commuters life (train delays etc) is no different to the 1970's (bowler hats aside) has incorporated modern gadgets and business jargon and trends into the show seamlessly.

Lucy Liemann as Jasmine Strauss also adds some excellent support and the target of Reggie's many daydreams! All in all, well worth watching and proving that you can re-make a classic well if you successfully bring it into a modern setting.

Congratulations to the BBC, keep up the good work.