I've just come to this hot off of Game Face and, truly, how C4 can air two comedy shows, one of which (Game Face) is brilliant and the other so dire, I have no idea. This probably has to be the worst 'comedy' I've seen in ages. I parenthesise it because to actually call it comedy is an affront to comedy. The characters are one-dimensional and lacklustre. I can only compare them to those people who tell you how 'nuts' they are and what a good laugh they are. The moment someone says that, you know that they're not. It's too try-hard. We have lines like 'Fair enough' and the repartee thrown back in response is 'furry muff'. I mean, I like a bit of crass humour along with the best of them - but serve up something less juvenile than this, please. I doubt my 12 year old would even laugh at that.
A lot of the dialogue is just meaningless - as are the 'situations'. When you think of great sitcoms, like Not Going Out, they take a premise and build on it until it reaches a comedic climax - sometimes the viewer sees it coming (which is intended by the writers), other times it's an off-the-wall surprise. Either way, it provides a satisfying resolution; the story arc has paid off. No such thing happens in this. We have Charlie having some conversation at the start of episode two about having seen a ghost car. It's puerile, unfunny and adds nothing to the story. Is it intended to show how whacky the two friends are and what jolly 'bants' they have together? If it is, there are better ways of doing this (show don't tell applies to TV too).
There was an unfunny moment in episode one, where Becca stops outside a dog shelter and changes the words 'dog adoption' to 'dog abortion'. It wasn't funny the first time but then, for some reason, she does the same thing in episode two. I couldn't tell you if this is some pathetically unfunny running 'joke' as I didn't get beyond episode two. We have more mind-numbing dialogue - Becca says: 'I thought it was access denied' (having been told she couldn't go somewhere with Charlie). Charlie's response: 'Well now I'm saying it's access 'nied'. In what universe did anyone think that was funny? It's not even delivered in an amusing way. While Tanya Reynolds (who plays Charlie) was pretty good in Sex Education, she falls flat here. Perhaps because she's inherently quirky and trying to make her quirkier just doesn't work.
I'm not really sure where the series is going. I was delighted to see Joe Tracini in this - he plays a minor character in the haberdashery shop where Becca works. Frankly, he's the best thing in the show - he needs his own show. Some people are naturally funny, even without saying much - and where Melissa Saint (who plays Becca) and Tanya Reynolds feel like they're straining for laughs, Joe Tracini just lands things in a natural way. I looked up the episodes to see how many he was in (I'd have only kept watching for him) and could see he's in just two. What a waste. The same goes for the (again) unfunny character of Mr. Oxygen, Charlie's boss. So we have two episodes featuring the girls' respective workplaces. We have what looks like (another unfunny) running joke being set up, around Mr. Oxygen always falling asleep at work. But, clearly, nothing else is done with these characters. In fact, a look at IMDB shows that Tanya Reynolds and Melissa Saint are the only two characters in all six episodes. This means that there's no building of characters and relationships. And if you find the interactions between Charlie and Becca staged and unfunny, then it's not likely to get any better, because all that's carrying the series are these two characters.
It's hard to say why some comedies work and some don't. Of course, it's often subjective - but even if I don't find certain shows funny, I can still appreciate (objectively) why other people do find them amusing. Not so with this one. I can't find one redeeming thing about it. I suppose the main thing I felt was that it was unprofessional. It came off like something a couple of university students would write. I'm not convinced Reynolds and Saint are naturally comedic actors (but maybe they were let down by the writing) and I don't feel this show is one people are going to be talking about or recommending as a must-watch.
A lot of the dialogue is just meaningless - as are the 'situations'. When you think of great sitcoms, like Not Going Out, they take a premise and build on it until it reaches a comedic climax - sometimes the viewer sees it coming (which is intended by the writers), other times it's an off-the-wall surprise. Either way, it provides a satisfying resolution; the story arc has paid off. No such thing happens in this. We have Charlie having some conversation at the start of episode two about having seen a ghost car. It's puerile, unfunny and adds nothing to the story. Is it intended to show how whacky the two friends are and what jolly 'bants' they have together? If it is, there are better ways of doing this (show don't tell applies to TV too).
There was an unfunny moment in episode one, where Becca stops outside a dog shelter and changes the words 'dog adoption' to 'dog abortion'. It wasn't funny the first time but then, for some reason, she does the same thing in episode two. I couldn't tell you if this is some pathetically unfunny running 'joke' as I didn't get beyond episode two. We have more mind-numbing dialogue - Becca says: 'I thought it was access denied' (having been told she couldn't go somewhere with Charlie). Charlie's response: 'Well now I'm saying it's access 'nied'. In what universe did anyone think that was funny? It's not even delivered in an amusing way. While Tanya Reynolds (who plays Charlie) was pretty good in Sex Education, she falls flat here. Perhaps because she's inherently quirky and trying to make her quirkier just doesn't work.
I'm not really sure where the series is going. I was delighted to see Joe Tracini in this - he plays a minor character in the haberdashery shop where Becca works. Frankly, he's the best thing in the show - he needs his own show. Some people are naturally funny, even without saying much - and where Melissa Saint (who plays Becca) and Tanya Reynolds feel like they're straining for laughs, Joe Tracini just lands things in a natural way. I looked up the episodes to see how many he was in (I'd have only kept watching for him) and could see he's in just two. What a waste. The same goes for the (again) unfunny character of Mr. Oxygen, Charlie's boss. So we have two episodes featuring the girls' respective workplaces. We have what looks like (another unfunny) running joke being set up, around Mr. Oxygen always falling asleep at work. But, clearly, nothing else is done with these characters. In fact, a look at IMDB shows that Tanya Reynolds and Melissa Saint are the only two characters in all six episodes. This means that there's no building of characters and relationships. And if you find the interactions between Charlie and Becca staged and unfunny, then it's not likely to get any better, because all that's carrying the series are these two characters.
It's hard to say why some comedies work and some don't. Of course, it's often subjective - but even if I don't find certain shows funny, I can still appreciate (objectively) why other people do find them amusing. Not so with this one. I can't find one redeeming thing about it. I suppose the main thing I felt was that it was unprofessional. It came off like something a couple of university students would write. I'm not convinced Reynolds and Saint are naturally comedic actors (but maybe they were let down by the writing) and I don't feel this show is one people are going to be talking about or recommending as a must-watch.