Close
Angelo's...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/programming/a43989/five-orders-a-full-english-for-new-sitcom.html
Nice to see more Alice Lowe 
I knew about this last year when checking out Sharon Horgan's CV and the custard website but there wasn't much info. It looks a nice cast and an interesting situation.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Oo, thanks for that. I like the sound of the premise, but I wasn't overly impressed by Pulling, so I'm a bit reserved there. Still, looking forward to it. 
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I've now seen the first couple of episodes of this show - unfortunately it's been put back until November or something now - and it's actually not too bad. Certainly by the standards that we all recognise as Channel Five, it's pretty good. Some amusing observations, particularly for the Londoners amongst us, so I'm looking forward to seeing the rest.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Quote: hotzappa11 @ March 16, 2007, 2:33 PMNice to see more Alice Lowe
View original
I love her!
She made an ace David Bowie on Snuffbox.
And Simon Farnaby! Yay.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Starts in 3 weeks. Friday 16th November, 23:00, Five.
COMEDY: Angelo's
On: five
Date: Friday 16th November 2007 (starting in 21 days)
Time: 23:00 to 23:30 (30 minutes long)
An anytime alert is set for 15 minutes before the programme starts
Sitcom set in a greasy spoon cafe in London's Trafalgar Square. Angelo recieves a tempting proposal when a representative from an American corporation offers to buy his establishment - but can he let his beloved cafe go? Elsewhere, Angelo's daughter and aspiring singer Maria thinks she has a shot at fame when she hears of a vacancy in a band. And married police officers Karen and Dave visit a fertility clinic.
I've seen the first two episodes already, and am really unsure what to think of it to be honest. Some of it is brilliant, some is a bit "eh?". I think, for most people (certainly around here), it's going to be Marmite. And a lot of very London references, which may fly over the head of some of our more northern friends.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Rick Skelton said:
I always thought the OFAH scenes in Sid's cafe were great. I thought it'd make a good situation for a sitcom. Early Doors works great, if you could get the same chemistry and characterisation in a cafe, you'd be on a winner.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
It's a bloody pity that there isn't more of the café in Angelo's actually. They are by far the best scenes I think, but not nearly as frequent as they could or should be.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
There's cafes in Hardware and that Jack Dee thing.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
There's Mrs. Miggins' Pie Shop too. Closest you'd get to that kind of café from that particular era.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Jonwo said:
I'm a fan of Sharon Horgan and Pulling and I'm interested to see how Angelo's turns out. However, the scheduling could let it down as it's on 11pm, a time when most people are out or going to bed.
If Five are serious about having a comedy block consisting of acquired and/or homegrown comedy then they should a dedicated night similar to BBC One and Channel 4's Friday Night Comedy or BBC Two's Thursdaya are Funny. Wednesdays would be perfect as a comedy night for Five.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, jacparov said:
Quote: Aaron @ October 26, 2007, 11:30 PMIt's a bloody pity that there isn't more of the café in Angelo's actually. They are by far the best scenes I think, but not nearly as frequent as they could or should be.
View original
how have you seen it already? it's not on yet is it?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Quote: Jonwo @ October 27, 2007, 12:00 AMI'm a fan of Sharon Horgan and Pulling and I'm interested to see how Angelo's turns out. However, the scheduling could let it down as it's on 11pm, a time when most people are out or going to bed.
View original
Never heard of her or it, where was that on?
Quote: Jonwo @ October 27, 2007, 12:00 AM
If Five are serious about having a comedy block consisting of acquired and/or homegrown comedy then they should a dedicated night similar to BBC One and Channel 4's Friday Night Comedy or BBC Two's Thursdaya are Funny. Wednesdays would be perfect as a comedy night for Five.
View original
I don't really agree with having loads of comedy together. I think it should be spread out more.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: jacparov @ October 27, 2007, 12:03 AMhow have you seen it already? it's not on yet is it?
View original
Channel Five keep pushing the broadcast date back. And back. And back. So basically, they already sent the BSG the first two episodes for review before the last time they pushed it.
(I'm hoping that they send the rest.)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, jacparov said:
You lucky buggers, any good?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Like I said earlier, unsure what to think of it. There are some great bits, with wonderful lines and acting, but then there are those which just don't quite feel right. I think that for most people here it'll be pretty Marmite really.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Tonight guys, don't forget!
COMEDY: Angelo's
On: five
Date: Friday 16th November 2007 (starting in 1 hour)
Time: 23:00 to 23:30 (30 minutes long)
An anytime alert is set for 15 minutes before the programme starts
Sitcom set in a greasy spoon cafe in London's Trafalgar Square. Angelo recieves a tempting proposal when a representative from an American corporation offers to buy his establishment - but can he let his beloved cafe go? Elsewhere, Angelo's daughter and aspiring singer Maria thinks she has a shot at fame when she hears of a vacancy in a band. And married police officers Karen and Dave visit a fertility clinic.
(New Episode, Subtitles)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Marked By: 'Reminder: Angelo's', 'Favourite: Angelo's', 'New Comedies and Sitcoms' and 'Category: Comedy' markers
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excerpt taken from DigiGuide - the world's best TV guide available from http://www.getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=47874
Copyright (c) GipsyMedia Limited.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
A few good lines but again Channel 5 really miss the mark with their sitcoms. Too much of that 'awkward' humour and not enough jokes. Good to see Steve Brody back on TV though.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, jacparov said:
i agree with martin, i wanted to switch off after 5 mins but forced myself to stay with it. Boring.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Rick Skelton said:
The first half showed promise, nice chemistry between the coppers and a good set up, but the second half was awful. The scene in the dance hall especially.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, jacparov said:
yeah the coppers were the only decent thing for me.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
I started watching but realised after a while that it wasn't really funny.
The trouble is though it is very much a sitcom of its time - ie. not funny.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, jacparov said:
True, 11pm on five is never funny.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Interesting opinions. I agree with the general consensus that it's not hugely funny, but for me there's enough there to enjoy it, and some really good lines (the radio phone-in sequence was great).
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, jacparov said:
It just seemed they were trying too hard for me. The dialogue was unrealistic, characters in the main unlikeable and there wasn't many jokes.
Why make this?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David H said:
Very disappointing. Didn't laugh at all and I read somewhere that this was four years in the making!
The owner was quite likeable but I didn't like the daughter who was in Adam and Shelley. Too mouthy. Man escaping from wife, a bit pointless. Simon Farnaby was completely wasted in his role, coppers very unrealistic. Miranda Hart doing her usual role
Seems like Sharon Horgan only has one way of writing like Susan Nickson, and it's 'comedy' I can do without.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: David H @ November 17, 2007, 10:16 AMVery disappointing. Didn't laugh at all and I read somewhere that this was four years in the making!
View original
Yes, worryingly true.
Quote: David H @ November 17, 2007, 10:16 AMSeems like Sharon Horgan only has one way of writing like Susan Nickson...
View original
Come on! That's unfair! Susan Nickson is far funnier!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Nick said:
I agree that it wasn't very funny but I will give it another chance. They had to try to introduce about 10 new characters and it made the episode a bit of a mess but maybe when they settle in it will work better.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
Well, I enjoyed it but it'll take some time to get into. I'd watch it next week. Alice Lowe's dancing had me LOL'ing, especially when one of the guys said, "You shouldn't be disrespectin' yo'self like dat."
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I'd completely forgotten that (it's been about 2 months since I watched it). It may not be rip-roaringly funny all the way through, but definitely has some great bits sprinkled through.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
A bit surprised by the general reaction so far on here, because although I didnt think it was a work of comic genius I did enjoy it and found it pretty funny. With that amount of characters i also think its the kind of show that could (hopefully) grow and improve as you get to see more of the characters each week. Easily (and I know this isnt really saying much) the best homegrown comedy five have done. I especially liked the two policemen.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Best? Second best. Respectable was great.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
Another thing is it just seemed a bit dated if you get me? Like it was three or four years behind and was still going for that 'awkward' humour approach. But with the recent success of The IT Crowd and Not Going Out, it seems trad-sitcoms are back, shows that have or attempt to have jokes, rather than long pauses or Miranda Hart screaming out 'mini-cab' for about minute when they could have told about 3 or 4 jokes within that space.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Well it was written four years ago, so that's an interesting point.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
Quote: Aaron @ November 17, 2007, 2:13 PMWell it was written four years ago, so that's an interesting point.
View original
Ah yes that could very well explain it. Anyway haven't Channel 5 now scrapped their new homegrown scripted comedy commitment?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Martin Holmes @ November 17, 2007, 2:18 PMAh yes that could very well explain it. Anyway haven't Channel 5 now scrapped their new homegrown scripted comedy commitment?
View original
I read that they wouldnt be doing anymore new ones for the next twelve months, but that maybe they would again after that. If the reson is down to the lack of success of their homegrown comedies, then might I suggest they dont schedule a brand new comedy at eleven on a Friday night?! That seems like a bit of a rubbish slot, like theyre purposefully just tossing it out. If its their own show you would think theyd give it a great slot and really push it. Maybe theyve just decided they dont want to go any further down that road and are just clearing the decks of any commitments they still have left??
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
It was OK but I'll be watching Jonathan Ross next week (if he's on).
Not enough to get excited about.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, hotzappa11 said:
I still don't think they should have commissioned a 2nd series of Suburban Shootout. *shakes head* I liked Respectable to.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David Chapman said:
Yeah - Respectable was really good.
Anyway with stuff of this quality we should all be in with a chance once they start doing more sitcoms.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I forgot that SS was a Five show. Actually, I just completely forgot SS at all. That sentence makes very little grammatical sense. Anyway.
Yeah, my mind went straight back to Respectable (shut up). Not a good omen for SS really.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
I actually enjoyed this and don't quite know why people are saying this type of humour is dated - who decided that? Someone should tell Larry David then.
There were quite a few jokes in it - not belly laughs but jokes about awkwardness are still jokes. I'll be watching more, this episode was clearly a meet and greet one, we know the characters now so it should improve.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Jay72 said:
Didn't see it, but the fact it was on Channel 5 and featured Miranda Hart doesn't bode well...
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
Quote: Nick @ November 17, 2007, 11:26 AMThey had to try to introduce about 10 new characters and it made the episode a bit of a mess...
View original
Point is they didn't "have to" do that, they chose to. And I agree, it did make the episode a bit of a mess. It reminded me a lot of "Benidorm", in that it was totally disjointed and tried to find what humour it could in little vignettes. Both Angelo's and Benidorm don't count as traditional sitcom if you ask me. They are trying to involve too many characters, story arcs and don't have self-contained plots. Where is the plot, in fact? Is it even possible to describe what the first episode was about, unless you count "a number of unconnected lives intertwine in a London cafe" as a plot?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
I don't think many shows nowadays are "traditional" sitcoms though, are they?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, martin jones said:
I was having a 'moment'
Alcohol,testosterone and matters of the heart rearing their ugly head
maybe it'll get into its groove as it goes along...much prefered 'pulling'
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Jonwo said:
I liked it but it was disappointing compared to Pulling, it did seem to be very dated but I did like the characters especially Maria and Sharon Horgan's character Karen.
Quote: Martin Holmes @ November 17, 2007, 2:18 PMAh yes that could very well explain it. Anyway haven't Channel 5 now scrapped their new homegrown scripted comedy commitment?
View original
Yes and No. They are focusing on comedy panel shows and light entertainment shows at the moment so they are still doing comedy but not commissioning any sitcoms or sketch shows for 2008. Perhaps once they have a successful comedy panel show or two, they will start commissioning sitcoms and sketch shows again.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
Maybe I shouldn't have said traditional - strike the word from my comment and I still think it holds true. The sitcoms - new or old - that work (for me) are those that tell a self contained story in their 22-28 minutes. Friends even made this a selling point by naming the episodes as "The one with/where xxxx". Angelo's ep 1 is "The one where.. erm, not sure; something about the Queen Mum? And a dance?"
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, martin jones said:
Like a dozen bad sketches sewn together
more scope and hope for the rest of us!
xx
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David H said:
To be fair to it, the police thing did have its story beats. Though I'm not sure where the beats for the rest of it were.
I wonder if the cast laugh at rehearsals at these things. You can imagine the cast cracking up at Not Going Out but some of this other stuff.......It's got to be fun to begin with and make the actors itching to get out of their chair to perform.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: Badge @ November 18, 2007, 1:04 AMMaybe I shouldn't have said traditional - strike the word from my comment and I still think it holds true. The sitcoms - new or old - that work (for me) are those that tell a self contained story in their 22-28 minutes. Friends even made this a selling point by naming the episodes as "The one with/where xxxx". Angelo's ep 1 is "The one where.. erm, not sure; something about the Queen Mum? And a dance?"
View original
Yeah, I do agree really. The best (and most successful) kind of sitcom is one which one can dip in and out of, without watching in order. We do need a bit more of that, methinks.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Nick said:
Quote: Aaron @ November 18, 2007, 11:12 AMYeah, I do agree really. The best (and most successful) kind of sitcom is one which one can dip in and out of, without watching in order. We do need a bit more of that, methinks.
View original
I don't think there's anything wrong with having to watch a show in order but each individual episode must have a strong story too. Reginald Perrin is the best example I can think of this. To get the most out of it you probably have to watch it from the start of each series until the end but each episode had it's own distinctive story too.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Also very true. But are the most successful sitcoms not self-contained? There's nothing set in stone saying one is better than the other as far as writing goes. I'm just thinking in terms of the commercial success.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Mark said:
Maybe I need to re-think our review on this. Seems that me and Aaron are a bit in the minority here in liking this?
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Martin Holmes said:
Quote: ContainsNuts @ November 17, 2007, 9:26 PMI actually enjoyed this and don't quite know why people are saying this type of humour is dated - who decided that? Someone should tell Larry David then.
View original
That's not a fair comparison because Larry David can pull the 'awkward humour' off very well, plus doesn't always rely on it and can also write jokes and doesn't just rely on an overly long silence to get laughs. Watch the last episode of the current season of Curb and then watch Angelo's you'll see the difference.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Matthew Stott said:
Quote: Mark @ November 18, 2007, 8:45 PMMaybe I need to re-think our review on this. Seems that me and Aaron are a bit in the minority here in liking this?
View original
I didnt think it was too bad for a first episode, quite funny and I would think, considering the amount of characters, its the type of thing that will grow on you more and more as you get to know the characters more. Obviously I could be wrong, but either way it wasnt half as bad as most on here seem to be making out.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Badge said:
I only compared it with Benidorm. It wasn't as bad as Benidorm.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
It'd be a bit of an effort.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, chipolata said:
Sorry to come to this debate so late, but I quite enjoyed the first episode. Not all of it worked by any means, but I enjoyed Sharon Horgan's child obsessed copper, the living statue with a Jude Law obsession, and the mini cab driver played by the fat woman... Whether that's going to be enough to make me go back for the next five weeks is another matter.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Rick Skelton said:
Am I the only person who has no idea who Sharon Horgan is?
Benidorm was far better than Angelo's. Normally, I'd give this another try but it clashes with Dear Green Place (and I don't have Sky plus yet 
) so Angelo's only had one chance to impress me. Perhaps if the reviews improve, I'll check out the DVD at a later date.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, jacparov said:
I found this annoying rather than funny. Each to their own I guess.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, jacparov said:
Quote: Aaron @ October 26, 2007, 9:32 PMStarts in 3 weeks. Friday 16th November, 23:00, Five.
COMEDY: Angelo's
On: five
Date: Friday 16th November 2007 (starting in 21 days)
Time: 23:00 to 23:30 (30 minutes long)
An anytime alert is set for 15 minutes before the programme starts
Sitcom set in a greasy spoon cafe in London's Trafalgar Square. Angelo recieves a tempting proposal when a representative from an American corporation offers to buy his establishment - but can he let his beloved cafe go? Elsewhere, Angelo's daughter and aspiring singer Maria thinks she has a shot at fame when she hears of a vacancy in a band. And married police officers Karen and Dave visit a fertility clinic.
I've seen the first two episodes already, and am really unsure what to think of it to be honest. Some of it is brilliant, some is a bit "eh?". I think, for most people (certainly around here), it's going to be Marmite. And a lot of very London references, which may fly over the head of some of our more northern friends.
View original
Perhaps this is why i don't like it? (I've never been to London.)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Mark said:
Quote: jacparov @ November 19, 2007, 8:17 PMPerhaps this is why i don't like it? (I've never been to London.)
View original
I don't think the location is that big a deal. I've never been to LA but have seen 24, Heros etc.
More to the point though - seriously, you've really never been to London? Where do you live?
I'm not that big a fan of London (Aaron will have a fit now) - crime ridden, dirty, badly organised, full of yuppies etc* but its worth going at least once - a definite experience.
* I lived in Birmingham for a few years - much nicer city, but it doesn't have quite the same exciting 'going places' buzz about it that London does. Also the yuppies - they do exist - embarrasingly I was one of those suited idiots myself for a year.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Yes, what on earth's wrong with you?
Go to London immediately.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, jacparov said:
geez, sorry! I live just north of liverpool. I don't know anyone down there and have not seen anything on tv to convince me to go.
I've been to New york, Paris and such places and they are great. Las Vegas is fantastic.
London has never really appealed. Mainly I've just not got a good enough reason to go.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, johnny roulette said:
if you do go to london they have this wonderful tourist attraction called the underground railway. its like a great big funride. its a bit like a model railway but better.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, jacparov said:
We've got an actually model railway in Southport, so no need.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Quote: Martin Holmes @ November 18, 2007, 8:51 PMThat's not a fair comparison because Larry David can pull the 'awkward humour' off very well, plus doesn't always rely on it and can also write jokes and doesn't just rely on an overly long silence to get laughs. Watch the last episode of the current season of Curb and then watch Angelo's you'll see the difference.
View original
Well we've only seen 1 out of 1 episodes of Angelo's so I think its unfair to compare 1 out of x episodes of Curb. I watch Curb anyway so I know what I am referring too. Of course Curb isn't all awkward humour, either was Angelo's. But saying that Curb does it better doesn't mean that its dated. It just means they do it better, which is a different but fair point.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Rick Skelton said:
Mark's right on two counts. London is a shithole and it doesn't matter if you've been or not. The show isn't funny because it's badly written, not because it references London.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Yeah that beautiful architecture and all those amazing museums really are shit.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
A debate about London could go on for ever. Please start a separate topic.
I didn't really notice the references but then I know a bit about London.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Quote: ContainsNuts @ November 20, 2007, 3:03 PMA debate about London could go on for ever. Please start a separate topic.
View original
I'd rather not.
I watched only a little bit of Angelo's.
The main thing that interested me was the previously mentioned similarity between him and the manager from Conchords.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Rick Skelton said:
Quote: zooo @ November 20, 2007, 2:28 PMYeah that beautiful architecture and all those amazing museums really are shit.
View original
That makes about 1% of the place. The rest looks like an apocalypse hit.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: zooo @ November 20, 2007, 12:39 AMYes, what on earth's wrong with you?
Go to London immediately.
View original
Agreed!
Quote: jacparov @ November 20, 2007, 10:10 AMParis ... great.
View original
I always found Paris to be a skanky shit-hole, full of rude people, bad drivers, and generally really dirty. Ew.
Quote: jacparov @ November 20, 2007, 10:10 AMLas Vegas is fantastic.
View original
Definitely agreed.
Quote: johnny roulette @ November 20, 2007, 10:14 AMif you do go to london they have this wonderful tourist attraction called the underground railway. its like a great big funride. its a bit like a model railway but better.
View original
Only Londoners would put up with being shot through tunnels in metal cages, sometimes hundreds of feet underground, in the sweltering heat. Our resilience is heroic.
Quote: Rick Skelton @ November 20, 2007, 3:22 PMThat makes about 1% of the place. The rest looks like an apocalypse hit.
View original
Ever been to Glasgow? Christ.
I've been to the north. London's far nicer.
Apart from certain areas, which are overrun with fucking dodgy types.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Quote: Aaron @ November 20, 2007, 4:01 PM
Apart from certain areas, which are overrun with fucking dodgy types.
View original
I believe I was living there for a few months last year.
NEVER go to Finsbury Park.
Anyway, as he said, back to Angelo's!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, justin ward said:
The bits of 'Angelo's' left over from when it started as an 'Office'-style mockumentary stick out a mile (eg in the minicab). On the whole it was like an episode of the Catherine Tate Show strung together with a thin plot or two. Funniest was the daughter auditioning for the gangstas. Far too many main characters, Angelo himself is miscast by a mile - he's Manuel meets Stavros when he should be Super Mario, and what's going to happen is that all the characters will only have one gag which they will repeat every episode. It's going nowhere.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, jacparov said:
Quote: zooo @ November 20, 2007, 2:28 PMYeah that beautiful architecture and all those amazing museums really are shit.
View original
we've got all that stuff up north too zooo.
I probably will go eventually. Maybe on a meet up with you guys!.....maybe not.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, zooo said:
Quote: jacparov @ November 23, 2007, 12:04 PMwe've got all that stuff up north too zooo.
View original
Good point.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Aaron said:
Quote: jacparov @ November 23, 2007, 12:04 PMwe've got all that stuff up north too zooo.
View original
Doesn't mean that those in London are any worse!
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, AnsonMan said:
I thought angelos was quite good. Im looking forward to tonight's episode to see weather they manage to build the characters up
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, jacparov said:
Quote: Aaron @ November 23, 2007, 12:38 PMDoesn't mean that those in London are any worse!
View original
true but i can see the walker gallery in liverpool for about £3.50(train fare) or spend £80 going to london.
Like i said I will go when there are enough motivating factors.
Angelo's: Kept flicking between this and Ross, again it just wasn't funny for me.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, David H said:
Saw it again last night and it is just the same poor standard. I don't mean to have a go at Miranda Hart but she plays the same character in everything she does and it just isn't funny. But none of it is. And what's this fascination with having a go at C-list celebs? It was funny the time people did it but do we have to have it over and over again?
The worst thing is on Sharon Horgan's CV it's going to say
Writer:
Angelo's.
And not
Writer:
Angelo's (Dismal. Is this the sort of standard you want?)
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
I think it isn't that bad. Not everything can be outstanding. I think its watchable enough. Paul Kaye was fantastic in this one. My main gripe is that you can't really warm to anyone in it.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, Blenkinsop said:
I just watched the first one of these and thought it was fairly good. Nice pace and some very amusing characters.
On Wednesday 31st December 1969 GMT at 7:00 PM GMT, ContainsNuts said:
Well its finished now, with a drama-focused last episode. Again, I found it watchable and amusing in parts. It wasn't a stand-out sitcom although Paul Kaye stole the show when he appeared in it. You felt some characters where surplus to requirements in it.