This is the worst sitcom I have ever seen.
I had numerous problems with Two Pints; the dialogue was often completely unbelievable; the characters likewise; the crudity was often inserted for its shock value rather than for any merit it may have. It was never any good. In fact, it was tripe.
I agree with all the reviews of Grownups. It's so bad it makes you want to shout at people and let off steam. This is not the mark of a successful sitcom. It amplifies everything that was wrong with Two Pints (and God, was there a lot wrong with Two Pints). It's an inferior copy of something that was crap; a plastic dog-turd that isn't even good for fertilising the plants. And some of the butchery of Nickson's first sitcom is jaw-droppingly blatant, as highlighted by others.
It's like some stream-of-consciousness nightmare, the script-writers' verbal diarrhoea sloshing aimlessly on the page and screen, making no sense and generating no laughs. Why have the 1-dimensional "characters" act in such irrational ways, for no apparent reason, when the product is not even remotely funny?
It's so bad, it doesn't even stand up to a critical review. How can you review something with no substance?
But the greatest tragedy seems to be that the Beeb is willing to commission series after series of this outrageous swill. How many script submissions do they get every year? How much talent is being rejected in favour of these exercises in What Not To Do? Seriously. Match Grownups (or to a lesser degree, Two Pints) to the "criteria for submission" to the Beeb as shown on their Writersroom page. They check every "DON'T do this" box, with interest. It's like a sick joke.
They're quick to point out their "success" with The Office, a real ground-breaking and wonderful sitcom (that still fulfilled the only important criterion - it made people laugh). However, Gervais was working at the BBC and had circulated copies of a pilot video around the building. This is taking the horse to water and putting it on a drip. If you have the right contacts, and shove it under their nose, they might commission it. But there doesn't seem to be ANY quality control.
So they're worried about l'il ol' Sue toddling off to another network. Let her! She's proved quite conclusively that she's exhausted what little talent she had!
The acting's pretty bad, but the problem's really with the script. I remember one of the "characters" (the student - he must be a student because he has a book in his hand all the time. That's what students do, of course) saying something along the lines of: "That's why I haven't had sex with one of you in 7 years - oops! forget I said that!" Not only is the message unbelievable, but so is the way it is expressed. It is also in place to drive a mis-firing excuse that doesn't come close to a "plot". Well, the problems are self-evident on every level.
On top of its nonsensical blatherings it was plain patronising. "I'll put something in about someone having a wank. That will be bound to get a chuckle from its target audience."
But then, Sheridan Smith and her breasts really are the only plus.
Things fall apart.
www.newstroupe.co.uk
Close
