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.

I watched because it was Martin Clunes ...and he's just fabulous at all he does. I was pleasantly surprised to see the style of comedy! I wish there were more series! I've watched these over and over every month or so, ( in between watching Doc Martin😉)

...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 was very surprised when I discovered that Reggie Perrin was to be remade, but relieved when I saw that David Nobbs (original author) was co-writing it with Symon Nye (Men Behaving Badly).

Reggie is still having a mid-life crisis and he's still an executive in similar environment (men's grooming products instead of food desserts), and a lot of other characters have been replaced by characters with similar traits and it's all brought up to date with his irritation of the silent commuters, but this time not through the old reasons, but because of omnipresent mobile phones, iPods isolating people and laptops on peoples knees on trains keeping them from interacting with their fellow passengers.

I would like to give this 10 / 10 but because of the original being a perfect 10 in my eyes I am giving it a 9 / 10. Having said this, Martin Clunes is a perfect actor to play Reggie, although a few other character choices seem odd, i.e. Neil Stuke (Game On) as CJ's equivalent character, even though he's not called CJ, but still Reggie's surprisingly 'younger' boss.

This review was written after watching episode 1 (of 6) and expect the remainder of the series to be as good or get even better considering those involved.

Watched the first episode of this today and was quite impressed. There are a number of reviews out there which see even the making of this series as a desecration of the grave of Leonard Rossiter, which tends to colour their opinions of the show itself. Well, I was a fan of David Nobbs original book "The Death Of Reginald Perrin" before the Rossiter series was ever made, and found that the original TV series reduced some key features (the hippo mother-in-law, CJ's "I didn't get where I am today...", Tony's "Great!!"s) to a cartoonish level. What I have seen in one episode of the 2009 version is an attempt to bypass most of the clichés of the original version, and focus on the true and timeless humour of a staid man coming apart. At first sight, it seems to me that Martin Clunes, David Nobbs and Simon Nye have worked long and hard together to produce a piece of work that will stand apart from the so-called classic. Definitely worth checking out, whether or not you have any preconceptions.