PlatinumRead Just so...so bad

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Haven Kaycee It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

RaspberryLucozade Harry Enfield throughout the '90's was one of British television's brightest comedians thanks to 'Harry Enfield's Television Programme' and its spin-off 'Harry Enfield & Chums' however by the start of the millennium his career started to dwindle, particularly with this dire Sky One series. Such was the inexplicable quality of the show that even Enfield himself never even bothered watching it, obviously recognising that the show was a lost cause.I have little to no recollection of the sketches, apart from a sketch featuring a vertically challenged man losing his rag against people when they inadvertently cast aspersions on his height. Enfield looks lost without the support of Paul Whitehouse and Kathy Burke ( though I doubt even they could have made this series funny ). The support cast here are utterly useless.Like 'ShadeGrenade' says, Harry's foolishness in signing up for this series mirrors the unfortunate decision that Tony Hancock made to leave the BBC to move onto a less than successful ITV series, though the failure of this show did not affect Enfield mentally like the failure of Hancock's show did to him.Sadly, Enfield did not learn from his mistake as seven years later he moved back to the BBC, teaming up once again with Paul Whitehouse for the even more dreadful 'Ruddy Hell! It's Harry & Paul'. Enfield is obviously not familiar with the term 'once bitten, twice shy!'.

ShadeGrenade One minute, you're up, the next, you're down. Tony Hancock quit the B.B.C. at the height of his popularity to do an inferior show for I.T.V., an experience from which he never recovered professionally. Harry Enfield, alas, didn't learn from this, quitting the B.B.C. to make this horrible Sky One production, which, apparently, even he didn't bother to watch. Enfield is an amazingly talented comedian, but alas was let down by the atrocious material, shoddy production values and mediocre supporting cast. Paul Whitehouse and Kathy Burke were sadly missed. Some of Harry's new characters - such as James Bond's idiot brother, and the sex-mad fisherman - look and sound like rejects from 'The Fast Show'. One sketch consists almost entirely of profanity. Unlike Hancock, Harry is thankfully still with us, and one hopes he gets his career back on track one day. 'Brand Spanking New Show' was a criminal waste of his talent, an insult to Harry's many fans, for which the people behind it deserve a good spanking.

c_cooper This show has some potential but it's downfall lies with unoriginal characters that don't work.I believe the 'inspiration' for some of the characters came from other shows. Examples include 'Strange Bob', a football commentator who hears voices in his head. This is obviously copied from the 'Small kids in the park, jumpers for goal posts' man from the Fast Show who babbels unrelated talk all the time. The character just doesn't work with Enfield sounding like that kid at school who tried to be funny by repeating a joke that was just told.Then theres the guy in the restaurant who insults his partner and says "What? What did I say?" at the end. This is obviously taken from Goodness Gracious Me who has 'Mr Cheque Please', a man insults dates in restaurants and says "Cheque please" after he realises what he's done. Another character I believe has been stolen is again from the Fast Show. This is the guy who always tells outrageous stories and says "Which was nice" at the end. Hazza obviously took this idea and put it into that guy at the pub who always tells how he fondled some female celebrity to make her feel better. This character was hilarious at first but got really uninteresting after a while.Having said this, some characters are genuinely funny, such as the pharmacist who always embarrasses his customers by obnoxiously announcing their problems to everyone. A classic example is when a man comes in and buys some viagra whereupon the pharmacist shouts "Here you are sir, some viagra for your droopy cock!".Overall though, the show doesn't seem to work. The lack of one off sketches increases the chance of boring viewers as we sit through watching each character, knowing exactly what the jist of the sketch will be. Although repeating one's self is inevitable with character based sketch comedy, it's upto the writers to produce different situations and punchlines each time so that the viewer doesn't end up short changed. Unfortunatly Harry Enfield and his crew fail to do this.

GrantCAGE I am (or was) a big fan of Harry Enfield. The early TV stuff (1990-94) was great! But i'm sorry to say this is absolute tripe! The early material was inventive and entertaining, but this re-invented nonsense is just crude and pathetic! OK so it's different to the early stuff with all new characters and cast, but it's also rubbish compared to the early stuff with the jokes and scenes relying on toilet humour and plain swearing. Please everyone do not waste your money!!!!!!