Yes, Prime Minister

I am neither a writer nor a programme maker, yet the failings of this relaunch are as obvious as a rotten kipper. I am astonished that writers of this calibre, allow this flaccid imitation to besmirch the memory of one of the greatest achievements of British television of the last 50 years

I really wanted to like this. I didn't expect it to be as immediately brilliant as the original series... but I did expect to be reminded of superb satire and exquisite parody. I was more reminded of catch phrase based sitcoms and early 1970's social exploitation 'jokes'.

The new characters (with the same names as the originals... why?) are not just lacking, they are bereft of any of the qualities of the original cast. Gone is the restrained diffidence, it is replaced with theatrical 'mugging'. Sir Humphrey's new incarnation has 100 times the facial expressions of the original, yet conveys 100th of the gravitas. 'Bernard' needs a deranged hairstyle to denote his inadequacy (we all know funny hair is good for a laugh)... and Hacker is hysterical instead of authentically bemused.

Will it improve when all concerned 'find their feet'? I really hope so... but there is a lot of ground to make up on this showing. I want to apologise for every criticism I have made over the years of American remakes of British programmes. I was wrong. We remake our programmes far worse than you do.

Other reviews have said it all nearly. This remake of a great classic show is a waste of TV time and it a total let down. The comedy - what little there is - is very poor. That's partly down to the very dire writing and the rehashing of material that simply is out of date. The actors in it are wasted. They have poor material and although at times maybe trying their best, they peacefully fight a lost cause.

I loved the original and was willing to view any new series with the notion that it must stand on its own also and not just be judged on its previous history and calibre of shows. On its own sadly, it really fails - clearly without a doubt - in a lot of ways. Other reviews have covered the reasons why and in detail. I cannot disagree in any way, shape or form.

...And that's a shame. At the start of once hope - there was only bitter disappointment in its wake.

I always thought that I'd be moved to write my first review on IMDb because a movie/TV show was so amazing I'd have to share my feelings on it. Alas, twas not to be. I've just finished watching the 6 episodes of this reboot, I'm utterly disappointed and more than a little annoyed.

Other reviewers are right to mention that sometimes a person can like an original so much that any replication of it will never come close in their eyes. There may be a little of that coming into play with me, but I tried to keep an open mind when I started episode one having heard little else about this production other than it was being made, and who the PM would be. When I realised who was writing it I began to get excited, perhaps some of the magic of the original would find its way into this modern version, but then I noticed that this version was based on the play and not the original radio/TV show which I found curious. I've never seen any stage productions of Yes Minister/Prime Minister but assumed that if it was using something close to the original scripts and was going in a similar direction then it would surely come close to the high standard set in the 1980's. After seeing Gold's reboot of it I'm not as sure! The acting is laughable in all the wrong ways, the casting was all wrong; Zoe Telford does a poor job in her role, the modern Sir Appleby isn't convincing enough to play the role of Hackers nemesis, and the guy they cast for Bernard just looks terribly out of place. Haig does an OK job as Prime Minister I guess, but was still a source of annoyance for me. Overacting, poorly delivered lines, bad camera work, rehashed gags and the overall plot of the six episodes all came together to make for one hell of an insult to the original cast and fans.

I find it bizarre that the producers of the reboot didn't notice this, or even some of the programme directors at Gold. I can only assume that they may not have been as familiar with the original as they thought, that or they were trying to distance themselves from the original in an effort to modernise it for today's audience. If this was the case then I believe it was a huge error to take yesterdays characters and put them into today's world, it just didn't work, even giving the rehashed characters new identities may have made it more bearable for me. When the conditions are right a show can be timeless. Perfect casting, natural acting, quality writing and respect for its audience. The original Yes Minister show had all these things. The relationship between Jim Hacker and Humphry Abbleby was nothing less than genius, the two actors played so perfectly off each other it never gets old. In all of the episodes that were released I never once thought that any character that made an appearance, no matter how small, was out of place or unnecessary, they all brought something to the plot that made it that little bit funnier and more plausible. Each and every story in the original could be applied to today and still be relevant; the relationship between politicians and the civil service will never change, there's always some country somewhere in crisis, always under the table deals going on at national level, still the same old frictions within the EU.....The problem with the reboot is that they took the characters from the original but none of the quality, and seemed to spend more time trying to make Hackers character look like a buffoon than trying to be humorous overall. Hacker was never an idiot, he mightn't have been at Appleby's level intellectually, something which Appleby delighted in quite often, but an idiot he was not.

In short, if you are a fan of the original I wouldn't recommend this show, give the original another spin instead, something which I will be doing after posting this. If you've never seen the original then make sure you watch that first, watching this failed attempt first could ruin it for you.

This show has a serious problem. It has to overcome our memories of the first series. The main reason for this is that they used the same names for most of the characters. The series is set in the current era and there seem to be several plot ideas that have carried over from the original series. In truth except for Zoe Telford none of the new characters measure up to the Brilliant originals. I don't think there was every any hope that was going to happen. The original cast of characters were absolutely perfect in every way. Everyone knows one cannot improve on perfection

As a consequence I spent the first episode comparing the new with the old and feeling quite a bit let down. If I had to rate this series based on just the first episode it would not have rated better than four or five.

Even putting the disappointment caused by the characters aside the first episode is really not that great. The only reason I watched the second episode was because I was stuck on a plane and bored and consequently desperate.

Episode 2 was much better than the first. The actors start loosening up a bit. It was almost like someone had given them a real talking to after the first.

Episode three onwards is seriously funny. In fact I really cannot remember laughing so much recently. Was it better than the first, no that is not possible. But it was really good comedy, nevertheless.

The best character is Claire Sutton played by the gorgeous Zoe Telford. The worst is probably Sir Humphrey. He just isn't that beguiling and charming, manipulative and Machieavellian character that he was in the original series. In fact he is quite wooden and doesn't appear to lead the show.

Still the main purpose of a comedy is to make you laugh. If you loosen up and can let go of the past you will enjoy it, quite a bit. If only they had changed the characters' names it would have been seen as a really good show in its own right.

Rumour has it that the BBC turned this show down, probably the best decision their commissioning team has ever made. The whole thing is a mess, badly written jokes badly (over)acted.

The remake has its roots in a stage farce and it sadly shows.

GOLD made two mistakes with this show, one commissioning it in the first place then the massive error of scheduling it just ahead of far superior original, which makes this look like a relic from the 70's.

There is room for a good, new political satire, especially with The Thick Of It possibly coming to an end, but badly remaking a classic is not the way to go.

My advice, if you feel the need to watch this don't. wait until the show is over and watch the subtle acting of Eddington, Hawthorne and Fowlds, and stop the sadly late former two spinning in their graves...