Very much looking forward to this returning tomorrow night.
https://www.comedy.co.uk/tv/roger_val_have_just_got_in/
Listened to Mark Lawson interviewing the writers (and twin sisters) Emma & Beth Kilcoyne on Radio 4's Front Row tonight, which was quite fun and informative...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b01blzkv/
(the interview starts at about 19 mins in)
Sounds like in this series the unspoken threat to the couple's relationship will come from outside the house, rather than from within.
I couldn't get into this at all, I wanted to as I like Dawn French.
Should I watch the first series before watching tonight or will it not matter?
Don't think it would make too much difference. Aside from acclimatising you to the pace of the show.
The story is sort of interesting, but by Christ it's a dreary, depressing, cloying, unfunny programme. An unbelievable, despite being presented in this very popular faux-realistic manner.
Tim used to love this.
*Sniff
So I really wanted to give the second season a chance.
However, I was unable to resist the urge to write after the 12th minute when they started discussing the cost of the hotel breakfast.
I'd really like to hear from someone who appreciates this show: What is it that you like? Is the banality supposed to be so banal it's interesting?
As an example, Roger has a line where he says "I hope the car passes the MOT because otherwise I'll have to go to the tribunal on my bike." Is that funny? Was it funny in its delivery? Was it supposed to elicit pathos?
Dawn French and Alfred Molina are tremendous performers but I feel like they've been given very little to work with - they have no objective and no obstacles. Without those the show spirals downward into a never ending, never changing natter...
What am I missing?
Quote: Tim Walker @ February 7 2012, 11:22 PM GMTListened to Mark Lawson interviewing the writers (and twin sisters) Emma & Beth Kilcoyne on Radio 4's Front Row tonight, which was quite fun and informative...
Let's hope the Cheeky Girls don't get the same idea... 
Quote: Aaron @ February 9 2012, 12:11 AM GMTThe story is sort of interesting, but by Christ it's a dreary, depressing, cloying, unfunny programme. An unbelievable, despite being presented in this very popular faux-realistic manner.
It's by women for women. It's well observed if you want to look at that kind of thing.
Quote: Safdar Shah @ March 2 2012, 4:50 AM GMTIt's by women for women. It's well observed if you want to look at that kind of thing.
Blimey I must be a man trapped in this body then. Didn't realise it was meant to be a make me laugh comedy.
This series has been very good so far, I think I'm enjoying it more than the first. It's a very well-observed comedy/drama with the laughs/humour coming from the silly/banal things people say and do.
Quote: Safdar Shah @ March 2 2012, 4:50 AM GMTIt's by women for women. It's well observed if you want to look at that kind of thing.
It's certainly by women. I don't think it's for women specifically though. Maybe more for the middle aged.
