Yes, Prime Minister

The original Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister is a classic. The writers Anthony Jay and Jonathan Lynn hit upon a formula that satirised the administration of government and made it funny with both gentle and cutting wit.

Some of it more nearer to the truth according to the politicians of the time.

The new series looks cheap because it's made for satellite channel UKTV not the BBC. I think the cast looked uncomfortable and did not feel right.

Henry Goodman maybe should had played the Prime Minister. His Sir Humphrey is more urbane, aloof and calmer compared to the wily, scheming and at times abrasive Nigel Hawthorne.

David Haig who plays Jim Hacker comes across as manic and unsympathetic whereas Paul Eddington in the Yes Prime Minister version was more in control and calculating especially with his dealings with Sir Humphrey.

Worse still, in the intervening years we have had 'The Thick of It' and Malcolm Tucker which reshaped the political comedy climate and made Yes, Prime Minister look like old hat with its neutered Sir Humphrey.

It is very popular among reviewers to scoff and mock comebacks, sequels and remakes. The reviewer will often proudly proclaim how much better the original was, and how "they don't make them as they used to". This attitude is, no doubt, often just a form of posturing and an attempt to show sophistication and discernment in taste, without actually forming an independent opinion.

I, on the other hand, have no problem going on record saying that, for example, the Star Wars prequels were surely not bad. Objectively they're not much different to the original trilogy, and if one likes that sort of thing the prequels are just more of the same!

With that said: as a huge fan of the original Yes, Minister/Prime Minister-series, I was very excited to hear that they were launching a new series in 2013. As long as Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn were at the helm, what could possibly go wrong? Well, wrong it went.

What we have here is a very pale "reboot" of the original. Firstly, the production itself feels very cheap. Granted, this shouldn't matter if the performance and writing is good enough. Sadly, the actors (sole exception being David Haig) are not up to snuff, and the story lines are just recycling many of the gags and jokes from the old series.

This, then, is indeed a reboot in the truest sense of the word: they've simply updated the political situations to ones that are more familiar with 2013's audience.

I find this is completely uncalled for. While some of the political crises the original Jim Hacker, Sir Humphrey and Bernard were facing in the 80s are just for the history books today, the actual SATIRE in the original series is timeless! Avoid wasting your time on this, and just get a good DVD-box of the original.

Back in the eighties the original series was a masterpiece but this if you imagine a few years after The Mona Lisa was painted and everyone praised it Da Vinci says it needs improving and draws a moustache on it people would think that he was mad, well Anthony Jay has done the equivalent. This is dreadful he did a stage version which was even worse.

This show has a serious problem. It has to overcome our memories of the first series. The main reason for this is that they used the same names for most of the characters. The series is set in the current era and there seem to be several plot ideas that have carried over from the original series. In truth except for Zoe Telford none of the new characters measure up to the Brilliant originals. I don't think there was every any hope that was going to happen. The original cast of characters were absolutely perfect in every way. Everyone knows one cannot improve on perfection

As a consequence I spent the first episode comparing the new with the old and feeling quite a bit let down. If I had to rate this series based on just the first episode it would not have rated better than four or five.

Even putting the disappointment caused by the characters aside the first episode is really not that great. The only reason I watched the second episode was because I was stuck on a plane and bored and consequently desperate.

Episode 2 was much better than the first. The actors start loosening up a bit. It was almost like someone had given them a real talking to after the first.

Episode three onwards is seriously funny. In fact I really cannot remember laughing so much recently. Was it better than the first, no that is not possible. But it was really good comedy, nevertheless.

The best character is Claire Sutton played by the gorgeous Zoe Telford. The worst is probably Sir Humphrey. He just isn't that beguiling and charming, manipulative and Machieavellian character that he was in the original series. In fact he is quite wooden and doesn't appear to lead the show.

Still the main purpose of a comedy is to make you laugh. If you loosen up and can let go of the past you will enjoy it, quite a bit. If only they had changed the characters' names it would have been seen as a really good show in its own right.

Other reviews have said it all nearly. This remake of a great classic show is a waste of TV time and it a total let down. The comedy - what little there is - is very poor. That's partly down to the very dire writing and the rehashing of material that simply is out of date. The actors in it are wasted. They have poor material and although at times maybe trying their best, they peacefully fight a lost cause.

I loved the original and was willing to view any new series with the notion that it must stand on its own also and not just be judged on its previous history and calibre of shows. On its own sadly, it really fails - clearly without a doubt - in a lot of ways. Other reviews have covered the reasons why and in detail. I cannot disagree in any way, shape or form.

...And that's a shame. At the start of once hope - there was only bitter disappointment in its wake.