tlloydesq

Viewed through Y2K eyes, Up Pompeii is incredibly tacky with lots of weak double entendres. As Frankie Howerd would say then..."the prologue".

In the 1960s, Britain was invaded by the permissive society and a lot of barriers began to break down. British humour developed a decidedly saucy tone (which, again through Y2K eyes, was very chauvinistic). Up Pompeii was mostly written by the man who put the sauce in to the "Carry On" films – Talbot Rothwell (Sid Colin co wrote series 2). The star of the show was Frankie Howerd who was a master of the double entendre. Studios in general were getting their heads around this new business of TV. I am not too sure how seriously the acting profession took this medium.

Bringing together these elements could only lead to the sort of series which was, in the parlance of the times "naughty but nice".

Howerd plays a slave in ancient Pompeii. His master is a senator whose wife is a bit of a good time girl. The names are contortions of an understanding of Latin – Ludicrus Sextus, Ammonia, Erotica, Nausius, etc. Howerd begins each show with a prologue which is never finished. There follows a farcical story with lots of innuendo (each complete with the Howerd sideways glance - "Don't you dare" to the audience).

It's simple stuff from another era. It wasn't designed to be taken too seriously. Funnily I gather most of the cast were serious actors and I can only guess this was seen as a bit of throwaway fun. If you liked the "Carry on" movies then you will find common ground here. If you expect something a little more sophisticated then tread carefully.

Upstart Crow marks a bit of a revival for Ben Elton. Without actually restoring him to the top of the comic writers league it has to be said. If you can see Ben's career faltering after Blackadder, next was "The Thin Blue Line" where the standard dropped quite a bit. After that things became unwatchable. Let's say "Upstart Crow" gets Ben back up to "The Thin Blue Line".

To achieve this Ben has pretty much returned to Blackadder territory, this time he is investigating Shakespeare with a few nods to the modern age. Each show is split into 3 parts – the real story is book ended by scenes set in Will's home and are pretty bland. A few star names (Harry Enfield, Liza Tarbuck and Paula Wilcox) to stick on the advertising hoardings but precious little to amuse. The major activity is either in Will's London residence or the pub down the road.

You just can't escape the Balckadder comparisons though and. let's be fair though, we are comparing this programme with one of the classic comedies of the 1980s. Not many since have equalled that show. Ben Elton writes his parts in particular styles and the Shakespeare role is Rowan Atkinson. David Mitchell may be a fine actor but he cannot channel Atkinson. I can see Atkinson extracting every ounce of humour out of some of the diatribes which sounds ordinary from a mere mortal. Other characters evoke those from Blackadder 2 and are quite pedestrian but develop over the course of the series. I do though like the Ricky Gervais mimic. A bit of vitriol from Ben? If so...more please!

These are the obvious observations but how is the show as a whole? A knowledge of Shakespeare would help but I don't know much about the bard and I found the show pretty good. In spite of the criticisms the cast carry off decent, but not great, roles. Each show contains a gentle dig at luvvie actors and there is a lot of genuine humour on board. The stories are simply mechanisms to wrap around a number of sketches. A mechanism which works.

Very few comedies hit the bullseye in the first series and I think there is plenty to work with here. I hope that there is a second series and Ben can gear the dialogue to the actors at his disposal. Let's remember "The Blackadder" didn't exactly predict the glories to come. That was before they took on board an upcoming new writer...oh yeah. Ben Elton.

A girl is murdered in the flat of her playboy lover. A "mystery woman" is also present. The newspaper editor wants to know the identity of the woman. Enter daring crime reporter Farrar. The viewer is though one step ahead of the cast – we know the identity of the mystery woman and the consequences should her identity be revealed.

The film drags for the most part as rival news organisations try to beat the police to the mystery woman and the murderer (who has gone into hiding). Things hot up in the last 20 minutes. The conclusion is a little unexpected so don't pull out early.

Farrar manages not to be too objectionable in his "clever clogs" role – always one step ahead of the pack (fellow crime reporter Hartnell and the police) but not too smug. While the storyline is ordinary, the direction and acting make this easy to watch. Don't cancel a night out to watch this but it is worth a look if it hits the schedules.

I am guessing the writers took their script along to Channel 4 and it was deemed the worst script ever presented. Someone suggested a load of swearing - might get a few viewers. The a bright spark suggested making the script's dysfunctional family, wait for it, the British royal family. Brilliant. Throw in a few desperate actors and people might watch. And plenty did.

There is a semblance of a plot but the attempts at humour just don't work. The acting is fine, quite good in fact. But the script is just awful. In fact it might have been better had the sweary words been left out.

"Peep Show" & "The Thick of it" showed how to swear gracefully. All those years ago, "Spitting Image" showed how to satirise the royal family. This is neither graceful or satirical. Next!

Craig Cash's odyssey through comedies in limited situations continues with Rovers – set in the club house of Redbridge Rovers, a semi professional English football team in levels 7 & 8 of the footballing pyramid.

Is it a problem that Rovers' number 1 support Cash is also executive producer and director of the show? Having multiple roles means difficulties reigning in Craig's more excitable moments. But nothing is perfect.

Those familiar with "Early Doors" will recognise the setup: a group of locals gather in the club house before and after games. They all have their own seats where they settle for the day. Conversation can be limited to a single group or can travel around the bar. In fact step forward director Cash for a smooth transition between different groups. "Royle Family" favourite Sue Johnson turns in a good performance as bar manager Doreen. Otherwise the acting is solid. The script is okay and grows as the first series progresses. You have to watch the whole first series to really get an appreciation of the show. Individual episodes lead you to miss the bigger picture. The humour is ribald but doesn't step over any lines. And there are a few teary moments.

So a decent first series and hopefully more to come.

A couple of aging "hooray henries" use their wine business to subsidise their party going. After time they run into financial difficulties and are expected to work. Jack (Richard Griffiths) & Hugo (Benjamin Whitrow) tend to spend more time avoiding work than actually doing any in a quite charming sitcom from the late 1980s. The series treads a fine line (which is sometimes crossed in series 2) where you really shouldn't like these 2 characters but their innocence endears you.

Alan (Robin Kermode) is the officious young man who is brought in to run the business while Sloane Ranger Grizelda (Felicity Montagu) is torn between class loyalties and love for Alan.

The first series is great as Jack and Huge bumble around, genuinely trying to help Alan but unable to understand the realities of a full day of work. Series 2 got a bit stuck and suggested that the show had run out of steam.

I see this as a more innocent "The New Statesman" and well worth a watch

"Sorry..." harks back to the early 1980's and unfortunately hasn't aged well. Henry Nunn is a 60 year old librarian stifled by his marriage to Sybil. He inherits a house from Uncle Crispin so ups and leaves Sybil to move to his new home (as you do). Once in the house he finds the rest of the cast – squatter Alex the punk rocker with the green hair, Mumtaz the shopkeeper with the turban (1980s so racism is rife). Finally Doreen and Tom the amiable Northern, working class couple – he is a shop steward. All the above continue to use Henry's house as something of a stopping off point during their daily life, much to Henry's irritation.

You can get attached to this programme as the 2 series wear on. Enough to keep watching when you have a spare half an hour but it is a long way from the "must watch" category. Peter Tilbury is a co-writer on the first series and you can see him planting his familiar diatribes on Robin Bailey but these miss the target a lot of the times. I don't know whether the interaction between characters was meant to be awkward but it is. I found Diana Rayworth's Doreen becoming quite enjoyable after a few shows.

There are highs but unfortunately quite a lot of the time the programme doesn't do much. Nice situation, decent actors, decent writers. It could have been better.

The League of Gentlemen are Jeremy Dyson, Mark Gatiss, Steve Pemberton and Reece Shearsmith. The latter 3 act and write while Dyson writes. In 1999 the quartet unleashed their eponymous TV series on us.

Every town has "odd" people – the suicidal army reservist, the toad fancier or the butcher who seems to take his job too seriously. And then there is that couple who keep themselves to themselves. And turn out to be brother and sister!

Roston Vasey is the real name of blue comic Roy "Chubby" Brown (who appears as the mayor in series 2). It is a mystery why the League chose his name as the fictional town in this series. But in Royston Vasey, being odd is the norm. With most of these characters played by the 3 acting Leaguers.

Series 1 is essentially a series of sketches set in "Vasey". Most of the characters do not interact other than in opening sequences although several are transported in the taxi of local transvestite Barbara. A very hairy man who is waiting for "the operation" and regales her customers with details of what is to come. This series is mostly offbeat comedy with a few blacker moments thrown in.

While there is a tenuous story holding series 2 together it carries on in a similar vein. Some sketches abandon the humour to explore a darker side. And the BBC makeup department are kept busy providing facial disfigurements for a number of characters. "Vasey" really needs a good dentist.

Series 3 is more of a "comedy drama". Each episode dealing with an individual character and a theme running through the end of each episode.

At first I was disappointed with series 3 as I wanted more of the same. The "best" characters are killed off and series 3 concentrates on minor players. On reflection though, each story stands up in its own right. A brave move which works.

Sick humour? Fantastic humour with good stories? The L of G pushed comedy in a new direction.

A lot of activity is squeezed into this tight 64 minutes. Howard is the cop who takes a chance to capture suspected killer Tafler. The story unfolds in a methodical manner with first little hints and then later more concrete evidence being presented. No real dramatic twists but the film does build in a way to maintain an interest. You are always one step ahead of the plot but the presentation adds an edge to the experience.

I like the way that a small cast and short running time gives a watchable drama. The makers could easily have added an extra 20 minutes of padding and added a few yawns along the way.

The short running time does resemble a TV drama so don't expect a blockbuster. However if you want to while away an hour this is a good choice.

Mid way through series 2 I switched off an episode of Detectorists. Strengths become weaknesses. I switched off during a conversation between 2 of the main characters and also 2 of the most irritating people you would be likely to meet. Andy is indecisive, slow and miserable. Becky takes almost everything as a joke until she puts on her little miss bossy boots and everyone has to jump because Becky says so!

Anyway, I resumed next day and continued to watch the rest of the series. It is great. Along the way there are a few speed humps but you drive slowly over these and get to the other end.

Andy and Lance are detectorists ("this is a metal detector, we are detectorists". So now you know). They could be viewed as two of life's losers. They probably just view the world from a different angle to the rest of us. But, yeah, they are far from perfect people. The series revolves around these two, Andy's partner Becky and the rest of the DMDC (Danebury Metal Detecting Club). Needless to say, an odd bunch of people.

There are some great story lines and some wonderful humour. Most of the former simmer as the series progresses, most of the latter are understated – you need to listen to what the actors say. There are no signposts. Sometimes the story lines can be blatantly obvious to everyone bar the cast who, as noted, may view the world from a different angle to the rest of us.

So, a challenging programme but if you can rise to the challenge you will be entertained, you will be sucked into some moments of high drama and you will share the odd moment of joy experienced by the cast not too mention some beautiful photography – a rare commodity in the world of comedy.

It is not easy televising Dickens. His novels are so vivid you have a picture of the characters in your mind. This series uses its 12 29 minute parts to make the images its own and enhance them. I could get carried away with superlatives so let's look at the negatives which really centre on the Maylie household. This takes up the best part of 2 or 3 episodes and is pretty dull. The first couple of episodes are difficult but that is part of the acclimatisation process noted above. Now onto the superlatives.

The BBC has done an amazing job in conjuring up both the riches of the middle classes but more importantly the desperate poverty on the streets. The state of Fagin's quarters and Sykes' disgusting one room hovel are hard to contemplate. The state of the Thames is reminiscent of Dickens' telling.

The acting is top class. Too many to mention but Eric Porter as sly, devious, charming and mercenary Fagin is one, Michael Attwell brings menace to Bill Sykes. Pip Donaghy triumphs as Monks. Godfrey James as bully boy Mr Bumble and Miriam Margoyles as his soon to be domineering wife. The list goes on. So refreshing to see a case of actors building on substantial roles.

The story is modified: Betsy disappears altogether and Monks takes on a starring role. The last few parts are riveting as the net closes. I could go on. TV does not get much better

An uneven but enjoyable movie. Cathy and Jane are 2 English girls on a cycling trip in France. Early on in the piece the girls argue, Cathy stops to lap up the sun, Jane proceeds. Whoops, This is the first half hour which was referenced in another review. A difficult introduction made all the more difficult by the camera work which featured close ups and lingering shots which were meaningless. Or were they? The rest of the film finds Jane turning back and searching for her friend. Drawing the obvious conclusions (we already have a good idea) she meets a number of characters and one of the strengths of the film is the ability to subtly accuse everyone. There is no blatant, ham fisted laying of clues but all characters are given just enough to get you thinking.

There is one moment in the film which had me jumping out of my chair and that doesn't happen often. I could have done with some subtitles for the French dialogue but maybe we are expected to hear what Jane would hear. I had very little idea of what the characters are saying (schoolboy French) and therefore may miss out on important details. As may Jane. We have to remember that Jane has not seen what we have seen so she can only assume the worst.

The conclusion is a little lame and not unexpected. And a few of the markers laid down by the directors are left hanging which is frustrating and leads to an uneven film. Oh yeah, and the music at the end is completely inappropriate.

Oh dear. After "Affair" I was hoping for more from "Tapes". When you get a winning formula don't tinker with it.

"The Beiderbecke Affair" delivered school teachers Trevor Chaplin (James Bolam) and Jill Swinburne (Barbara Flynn) and an ensemble of slightly offbeat characters telling a story of corruption in high places. Everything was right – the acting, the delivery, the music..

Now the offbeat nature is a bit more exaggerated. Previously 6 one hour episodes allowed the viewer to soak up the show without being bombarded. Now 2 90 minute episodes is guilty of forcing the issue. Of the characters from "Affair" we are left with only the teachers and they were never in the top rank first time around. And Chaplin & Swinburne are now automatically deemed to be cool so a bit of mystique disappears.

This is still worth watching. Good stuff, witty and charming but you get the feeling that it was rushed to screen!

Nothing is ever perfect, but in the world of TV drama – Alan Plater's "The Beiderbecke Connection" gets about as close as you can. The show centres on two secondary school teachers – jazz fanatic Trevor Chaplin (James Bolam) & environmental activist Jill Swinburne (Barbara Flynn). The couple stumble on corruption in high places and reluctantly become involved.

The first thing you notice is that the story is quite weak. No twists to end each episode, no emotional crises to deal with. The show does have characters though. To supplement the main couple we get the mysterious Big Al (Terrence Rigby) and Little Norm (Danny Schiller). Colin Blakely and Dominic Jephcott appear are coppers at different ends of the progressive scale. Dudley Sutton is a teacher colleague of Chaplin's and Keith Marsh is a number of things including a wannabe supergrass.

The actors are important because rich characters need good actors. All of the above are very good but Bolam, Flynn, Rigby and Blakely are supreme. They "get" what Alan Plater wrote about and convey the characters perfectly. When venturing "out of left field" it is important not to overplay your hand. Writing and acting meet and when played correctly are a joy to behold.

So in each of the 6 episodes you take a journey through a slightly unusual yet still believable world inhabited by slightly unusual yet still believable characters. At the end of each episode you are left wanting more but are not left puzzling over any loose ends.

In keeping with the title there is also a jazz soundtrack which accompanies the show well.

In the 1960s Sid James' flag was flying high. Years of film appearances culminating with the "Carry On" series made him a household name. He already had a foothold in TV due to Hancock's Half Hour. 3 specific TV vehicles were created for him:

First of all we got "Citizen James" starring Sid as Sid, Bill Kerr as Bill and Liz Fraser as Liz – Sid's fiancée. Next up was "George and the Dragon" - Sid as George Russell and Peggy Mount as Gabrielle Dragon (Geddit? George and the Dragon!!) Finally "Two In Clover" where Sid & Victor Spinetti escape the rat race for life in the country.

While there is nothing wrong with the other 2, the middle programme gets by vote. Sid is the chauffeur, "the formidable" Peggy Mount is the housekeeper, Keith "I'll 'ave 'arf" Marsh as the gardener. Working for John Le Mesurier as the colonel – lots of ear-scratching vagueness. The problem with the colonel's household is that the housekeepers don't last long. They leave after Sid/George tries to seduce them. Enter Ms. Dragon which stops Sid in his tracks.

The title is a little misleading as there is not a lot of blood and thunder between the 2 main characters. There is plenty of scheming going on but the 2 can as often be allies as enemies. It is quite a gentle look at how life was a long time ago. The humour is a bit corny after nearly 50 years but it is an enjoyable half hour

The story is much used – a family being dragged down by their dead end street – but this one stands up okay. Hetty (Sylvia Sims) is caught between tearaway brother Michael (Melvyn Hayes) and smoothy gangster Wilkie (Herbert Lom). While Ronald Howard's Frank dances a fine line between being a cop and supporting his neighbourhood.

A decent story develops as Frank, Michael & Wilkie weave in and out of Hetty's life. The film introduces a number of rich supporting characters to complement the story.

The actors measure their roles well although Hayes' emotion tends to grate. Lom is the pick as the gangster who can switch between menacing and tender without any difficulty.

7 out of 10

Billing this as the life of the band is a bit misleading. Let's see it more as a tribute and celebration.

The producers initially run into a big problem. As noted, Kraftwerk are reclusive – they don't do interviews. And, most of their seminal work was in the mid-late 1970s and was only noticed by an inquisitive few. So not many people available to track the life of the group.

We get Paul Morley (fan, music journo, record company exec, all round authority), Francois Kevorkian (legendary remixer and member of the "inner circle") and Derrick May (co-founder of Detroit techno and much influenced by Kraftwerk). We see different aspects of Kraftwerk's output (the music, the art, the influence) with these three chipping in along with other contributors.

It is a bit difficult to take all the gushing praise (especially from Morley) however there is value in seeing/hearing all the group's works gathered together and assessing the relevance they have today. I'll leave it up to the individual viewer to work out what we would not have today without Kraftwerk.

While I did get irritated by aspects of the programme I also enjoyed the overall presentation immensely. Not a huge fan (or huge disliker) of Kraftwerk it was a good opportunity to see how far ahead of the game they were back in the 1970s. Some would say they wrote the rules!

In the 1950's and 1960's UK cinema became more gritty and realistic. It examined the human cost of relationships focussing on the fact that people can get hurt.

"This is my Street" pulls no punches: Marge has lived in Jubilee Terrace all her life and wants to get out. She is married to Sid who is happy to pop down to the pub for a few beers and a game of darts – he sets his targets pretty low. Bad boy Harry rents a room next door (from Marge's mum) and provides the potential escape Marge dreams of. But does Harry want love or just sex? Marge has a pretty sister who pops along midway through the film, she seems to be well set – will her dreams be dashed? Down the street is Maureen who is happy to provide the sex but expects something permanent. But does her lover just want sex or does he want love? This film was made 50 years ago and some of its topics must have been challenging at the time.

Ian Hendry's unsympathetic portrayal of Harry must have been difficult to take in the 1960s. Quite possibly realistic but not the sort of manner the public would want to face up to.

June Ritchie gets under your skin as Marge. You want to like her but she also presents an unsympathetic profile. In fact few of the leads come out with any sympathy which I guess was the intention of the makers. Jubilee Terrace is a metaphor for life in general – we all have our dreams, sometimes these come true but other times we get a kick in the teeth and fall back into line.

I think the film still rings true today. We all have our aspirations. This is rather a blunt way of showing how we can be disappointed.

Roy Clarke has an excellent comedy reputation however "Mann's Best Friends" does not further it. Two completely opposite characters meet up: Fulton Mackay takes some of his Porridge role to play a bossy former manager. Barry Stanton plays an animal loving landlord who needs someone bossy to tighten up his house. The trouble is neither of them are leading actors. They are fine bouncing their roles of someone more adept to the limelight.

We get a couple of 80's comedy basics - Bernard Bresslaw as the friendly bovver boy and good time girl Patricia Brake. So a number of decent actors but the script and setting are not up to scratch. You get the feeling this was pushed through without much thought being applied. Could it have been better? Re-arrange the actors and let Mackay play off a more dominant lead. Play around with the script to let the cast play around with the words. The Bresslaw/Brake characters were the strongest so why weren't they more prominent.

While this isn't the best sitcom of all time, I sat through the entire series and there are plenty where I haven't got that far. So still worth watching.

Sam Palmer (Jack Warner) is playing his last test for England's cricket team and his form has been below average recently. Then, as now, the Aussies are pouring on the agony for England and Sam desperately wants to sign off on a high note.

This is a gentle comedy with a touch of drama. If you want to see how comedy works (and you understand cricket) watch the first 5 minutes. Senator Stanley Maxted arrives in England and makes his way to the Oval where he poses a few questions to deadpan Richard Wattis. The questions are standard cricketing enquiries (you mean they play for 5 days and it might still be a draw?) which could be cheesy but the delivery and Wattis' "matter of fact" responses make you laugh.

Sam's cricketing prowess does not extend to his son who is more interested in poetry and this forms the backbone of the movie – does the son care enough about dad to watch his final innings? At the same time, does dad care enough about his son to appreciate his interests.

Sam not only gives the umpire a lift to the ground but entertains him for dinner the night before (they wouldn't allow it these days you know). Sam also pops down to the local for a drink around closing time during the middle of the game - but he only drinks lemonade so that's alright then. Robert Morley (wearing a rather fetching jump suit) spices up the last third of the film as a vain, muddled poet.

This is a very well observed comedy. The setting for the programme is the BBC but it could be any big company. Ian Fletcher of 2012 fame joins the BBC as its head of values. Being the new boy in town he struggles with the entrenched working practices. Senior management float from meeting to meeting without making any decisions which they leave to their subordinates who were are too busy to attend.

The PR company who got it completely wrong in 2012 are invited back to keep us amused in W1A. It struck me after watching it that people under 30 have spent most of their lives with the internet and cable TV. Hence Perfect Curve's take on the BBC logo is probably closer to truth than fiction.

A few stories run through the programme and mostly serve to make Ian's life a nightmare. It would be interesting to watch this without the commentary and to see how events pan out without an introduction to every scene.

As to whether the publicly owned BBC should be making a programme satirising themselves: that is open to question. You have to imagine that Broadcasting House is not as badly appointed as portrayed. But, as noted above, anyone who has worked for a big company will raise a wry smile at some of the goings on.

This is a magnificent programme which falls into the comedy/drama genre, there is plenty of comedy and some of the drama tends toward the serious.

Each episode begins with a cast member on the phone to a friend..."Sorry I can't make it, got a bit of a do on". Then ta-da-da-da-da-da-da George Melly leads us through the opening credits.

To set the scene: the daughter of Mrs Posh (Nicola Pagett) is marrying the son of Mr Common (David Jason). Never mind the class difference, both sets of parents are concerned that their offspring have grown up to be be wet liberals (perish the thought).

Ultimately, all that is irrelevant. The selling points of the series are Pagett and Jason but as the shows progress David Nobbs does a fine job of gradually inserting the rest of the cast into the plot. Relationships are forged, relationships fall apart, there are births, deaths and marriages. All leading to a "do".

I can't fault the first series which is close to perfect. I think Nobbs tries to do a bit much to start the second series with some questionable scenarios but it recovers. All the other characters blossom to make this a true ensemble piece.

As the Sydney nights draw in and winter approaches there are times I just want a good, solid movie to keep me entertained for 90 minutes. A story which ticks over, a touch of drama, actors who know their roles and the odd laugh is appreciated but not mandatory.

There aren't many laughs in this movie but it ticks all the other boxes. Shorty is just out of prison and barely finishes his first cup of tea before he is up for murder. If he can remain at large maybe the real murderer will surface. Unfortunately his record marks him down as guilty until proved innocent. The only people who believe him are dancing girl Molly and the foppish Mr. Hoover who steals the last 20 minutes.

You can glimpse into an older period where life was more simple, movies relied on plot over action and murderers hung from the gallows.

Emlyn Williams as Shorty plays a good bad guy. The age of this movie makes him look as if he has been on the run for a few days. The limited use of Ernest Thesiger as Mr Hoover is well timed as the character would lose its impact if he was introduced earlier.

Well worth a watch.

Let's break this film into 3 scenes: the intro and robbery – good. The ending – good. The wordy bit in the middle – awful.

There is a reasonable (not brilliant) story in there and the cast make a good fist of that but the overly emotional scenes which bind the story together just don't work. That the score is overpowering doesn't help.

But this film could have been so much better if it was tightened up. There are some decent jazz rhythms humming away in the background which could have been worked on and the dramatisation I refer to in the middle could also have been better arranged.

On the plus side, the seedy setting suits the film and I appreciate the straightforward action – no need for choreographed martial arts when a few decent punches (carefully played in the background) do the job.

I wouldn't go out of my way to watch this film again but...if you have 90 minutes to kill it is worth persevering with.

This is "based on Douglas Adams' book" well, the names are the same. Not a huge problem though as I think Adams would be happy with this programme.

Dirk Gently runs a "holistic detective agency" and believes in the inter-connectivity of events. He is accompanied in his quests by Richard MacDuff. So yeah, it's Holmes and Watson to some extent.

What I like about these programmes is that they don't dwell too long on analysing the crimes or digging into the characters' backgrounds. The writers concentrate more on providing a slightly off-beat story. While features of Dirk Gently (and to some extent MacDuff) are constants through all 3 programmes, there is no attempt to shove them "in yer face". There is also a degree of ambiguity about the setting although I guess it is around the time it was produced. I sometimes think producers place too much time on getting the background right while, quite frankly, I don't care.

Stephen Mangan is a tad irritating in the first programme with his Holmesian deliveries but this begins to work the longer you watch. He carries the lead role well. And Darren Boyd has never impressed me in the past but he works well as the sidekick. I like the portrayal of the Janice/secretary character. It is quite one dimensional (not a bad thing) and isn't over used.

The producers have struck a balance with the actors, story and setting. I am disappointed that this looks like the only time we will see this combination as I enjoyed all three episodes.