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.
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.