Payne

One of the problems with remaking a previous hit, is that it sutomatically invites comparisons. They tried to do everything exactly the same; same type of building, same type of characters, same type of situations, and here, Payne falls short. No surprise at all. It's not that Payne's actors are poor, but they aren't the originals, nor have the comedic timing of the originals. On it's own, not a terrible show. It has it's funny moments, such as when Mo responded to Payne's sentence 'We're going to make love now', and then the pause, 'So get out', and Mo said 'thank you for finishing the sentence'. Like many other shows, this one fails mostly do to poor casting. Larroquette can't do 'Fawlty'. He's funny, but he can't be that character. And once you've seen Cleese at it, well, perhaps no one else can. JoBeth Williams? Nope, nope nope. Not right for the character. Rick Batalla did well as Mo, but the rest were awful. The only hope is, no one will try to duplicate Fawlty Towers again. It's been 22 years now, and hopefully we'll never see that mistake tried again. Five/ten stars, because it's watchable. But that's about it. The commercials in this American version just rips apart any continuity in what little comedy there is in the show.

Suppose you`re an executive of a TV company and a producer runs in saying " Hey let`s rework FAWLTY TOWERS and set it in America " What would you do ? I think the more humane amongst us would sack the producer on the spot , while the less humane would decapitate him for having an idea so bad it borders on the psycotic . I doubt if anyone would say " Hey what a great idea , lets do it "

PAYNE isn`t as bad as it could have been , the worst thing they could have done is copy the scripts word for word and hope for the best, but it`s still a bad sitcom. Royal and Connie Payne love each other and it`s revealed Royal is a great lover not something that can be said about Basil Fawlty who we can believe hasn`t had sex for many years. So you see the character interaction of Sybil and Basil is missing as is the class obsession and sarcasm of Mr Fawlty which made him one of the most memorable people in television history . There`s a bellhop who `s Mexican which means he can speak Spanish and is a Manual to Royal Payne`s Basil Fawlty and that`s about the only half decent crossover from the Cleese/Booth masterwork . PAYNE is only worth watching for the novelty value

I only just discovered the existence of this obvious misfire. The casting and writing doomed it from the start; it simply takes a higher-powered production to stand up to the standards set by the original, and Brit-to-US conversions can be especially tricky. A glance at the first episode on YouTube is telling; virtually every line is followed by intrusive audience laughter, I assume canned. The viewer has no opportunity to judge whether it's funny or not, and for me it makes the show too irritating for its limited merits to be appreciated. Full of commercials too, just as it was aired.

Of course the success of a 'Fawlty Towers' redo rests primarily on the central character of Basil (or Royal etc.). Too-likable Larroquette couldn't approach the mastery of Cleese, with his endearingly detestable Basil's capacity for crazed malevolence and loony desperation, along with that certain edgy spark. But as Executive Producer of 'Payne', John L. Footed the bill and could cast himself in the main role and call the shots. For my money, the John who would have come closest to the mark would be John Lithgow-- the flavor wouldn't be the same (couldn't be and shouldn't be), but still pretty darn zesty!

Now, where to go with the rest of the cast... how to work up that special chemistry? Well, when in doubt, go after Saturday Night Live or SCTV graduates, or for that matter 90s talent from Mad TV or In Living Color. In other words, more players with sketch comedy experience, many of whom would have the chops to make the jump to successful sitcoms and big screen careers. Ah well, all wishful thinking at this point. Far better to come up with a fresh concept than invite negative comparison with past brilliance.

"Payne" is not "Faulty Towers", and it suffers because of the obvious comparison. While "Payne" may have its occasional moments of amusement, it is a sanitized, cliched and overall dimmer relative to the original British series, that sparkled so brightly with wit and comic timing. Let's face it, John Laroqette is no John Cleese. Not by a long shot...

The opening credits mention that it is based on Fawlty Towers. Apart from being based in a hotel run by husband and wife, I think that that is about it. You might as well say that "Four Weddings and a Funeral" is based on "Get Carter", as they are both set in England.

Where is the animosity between the hoteliers? Where is the violence against Manuel? Why is nothing funny? How come everyone is nice to the customers and the odds aren't stacked against them?