Anna Lowman

First Look: Plus One

Is it any good? Well... it's fairly good. While it is not particularly my type of comedy, it has to be said that there are some great characters.

Andy Hamilton and Guy Jenkin Interview

A short Q&A interview with the writers of the show conducted during the build up to the second series.

Argumental Review

Everyone impressed, with Rufus Hound finally getting the chance to really shine on TV, and Brigstocke playing up brilliantly to his angry young man persona.

TV Scoop Review

One major failing was that Kay was clearly so intent on making the show as realisitic as possible, that he forgot to make it different enough to be worth the exercise - there were barely any jokes in the results show at all.

Positive Blog Review

Don't look now, but I think something pretty amazing just happened. A new comedy show was broadcast, after an advertising campaign that made it look promising and - wait for it - IT WAS GOOD. Really good in fact!

The main problem with this comedy is that the writers have apparently decided to replace the jokes with an unremitting coarseness - the swearword count is impressively high - and to produce characters that no-one in their right mind could give two hoots about. The only performance that has anything going for it is James Lance as Timebomb, as at least he has a bit of whithering, self-deprecating wit about him, but mainly the actors seem to be on autopilot.

And this is all a great shame because it should be a good idea. The likes of Heroes shows that we love our comic book heroes, and showing them on their days off should be a great starting point for comedy. As it is, No Heroics is just another reason why ITV is known as the graveyard of comedy.

This sketch show - which lurches constantly from humorous to frustrating - gets off to a great start again this week with a skit involving hoodies stealing a three-seater bicycle and then terrorising little old ladies at double-speed, Goodies-style. Other sketches, however, fall way wide of the mark, and those that rely on character study as much as jokes can leave you feeling rather more bemused than amused.

The first series was entertaining enough, and while many of the sketches wouldn't have felt out of place had they come out in the 1980s, I guess you have to congratulate them for sticking to what they know. Maybe. At the very least, it's unlikely that the two comedy legends will have lost their touch completely, and so we can expect Harry and Paul's usual mix of parodies and character-based sketches to provide a fair few laughs.

The first thing that struck me was that the casting seems a bit back-to-front - doesn't Warren normally play the fun-loving, love 'em and leave 'em types? He certainly does it well in Hustle. Here, unfortunately, an actor who is so brilliant at playing gregarious characters is lumbered with an absolute dullard while Armstrong gets all the fun. And Patrick is fun to watch (especially against the tetchy and rather dislikable duo of Martin and Jen. Okay, especially Jen).

There's an assumption in TV circles that comedy-dramas are generally comedies that don't have enough jokes. Here, I think, the intention was probably always simply to make something solid, frothy and diverting, and on those rather unambitious levels it certainly succeeded. It was popcorn TV, and didn't pretend to be anything more.

The format may be derivative, but team captains David Mitchell and Lee Mack are such masters of their (admittedly rather specific) craft that the BBC could broadcast footage of them sitting together on a park bench, bickering like an old married couple, and I'd happily watch it.