I bet it's a National Trust house. I'm going to go and live in one of their cupboards.
Heading Out Page 6
I keep watching and I keep thinking it's maybe picking up (though on episode 5, it might be getting late for that). But then part way through an episode it veers off and I get frustrated.
The actors are generally likeable. The odd line makes me laugh, and it's clear Sue Perkins is intelligent and a wit. I'm just not sure she has fully succeeded in creating something sustained enough for six half hour episodes.
I wonder if it might have been better with some reworking or redrafting or whatever. I especially think this when I see Nicola Walker's character doing anything, because her character often seems daft in a rather unfocused way, and I even wondered at one point if she was one sidekick too many.
Watched for the first time last night.
To have that much acting talent in one room and still end up with a car crash takes some doing.
This series has just got worse and worse- the gags are not so much formulaic as exhumed. Please allow the cast to run speedily into the distance in their underwear and be done.
When the guy was explaining about which wine to drink in the wine cellar, my wife and I looked at each other and said "Surely they're not about to rip off "Black Books"?" and, to be fair, they didn't quite, although it was very close for a few moments.
If Sue Perkins can continue to get such a strong cast, I suspect there will be a second series, it's sort of good in parts, a bit like the parson's egg. I still continue to watch it possibly because I'm wondering who will turn up next.
Quote: Mannikin Bird @ March 27 2013, 9:00 PM GMT, it's sort of good in parts, a bit like the parson's egg.
Surely the point about the parson's egg is that it's rotten, but he's trying to find a way to avoid saying so and offending his bishop?
I've only seen two episodes of this but it's clear where the principal problem lies - it stars Sue Perkins.
There's nothing wrong with the writing - the character of Daniel is quite brilliantly written - and even better acted by Steve Oram. Much of the rest of it bounces along nicely, but Sue Perkins can't be anything other than herself - and criminally, she isn't trying to be.
How can you expect the audience to believe you are a vet called Sarah when you still look like Sue Perkins? This might seem like a trivial point to some people, but it isn't: when you've written the scripts, the theme tune and executively produced through your own production company then turning up in your own clothes and hair is pretty inexcusable.
It actually makes me angry to see her with her Eton crop, corduroy jacket, boot cut jeans with trainers and black-rimmed glasses. So her vet character exactly resembles her, does she - and wears exactly the same clothes that Sue Perkins wears when she appears on TV presenting something?
The fact that Perkins can't visualise Sarah is the reason that we can't believe in her either.
It just feels like she flicked through a list of occupations and picked the one she thought she could think up the most jokes for - not the way to write anything with integrity or meaning.
Quote: Godot Taxis @ March 28 2013, 1:07 AM GMTI've only seen two episodes of this but it's clear where the principal problem lies - it stars Sue Perkins.
There's nothing wrong with the writing - the character of Daniel is quite brilliantly written - and even better acted by Steve Oram. Much of the rest of it bounces along nicely, but Sue Perkins can't be anything other than herself - and criminally, she isn't trying to be.
How can you expect the audience to believe you are a vet called Sarah when you still look like Sue Perkins? This might seem like a trivial point to some people, but it isn't: when you've written the scripts, the theme tune and executively produced through your own production company then turning up in your own clothes and hair is pretty inexcusable.
It actually makes me angry to see her with her Eton crop, corduroy jacket, boot cut jeans with trainers and black-rimmed glasses. So her vet character exactly resembles her, does she - and wears exactly the same clothes that Sue Perkins wears when she appears on TV presenting something?
The fact that Perkins can't visualise Sarah is the reason that we can't believe in her either.
It just feels like she flicked through a list of occupations and picked the one she thought she could think up the most jokes for - not the way to write anything with integrity or meaning.
I would agree with most of that. I realised during episode 5 how odd it was to see Sue responding to the name of Sarah.
I thought the episode was much better without the character of Daniel, however.
I was really looking forward to Heading Out, I think it's a brilliant idea and still do. I think in practical, it hasn't worked as well as it should have. Some parts are hilarious but other parts of zzzzz-momentos, I am still watching it for numerous reasons such as the whole 'Eve-Anna Skellern (Sexy Lexy from Lip Service) - Sara - will they won't they' story-line.
Well... I really have nothing good to say!
Quote: Godot Taxis @ March 28 2013, 1:07 AM GMTI've only seen two episodes of this but it's clear where the principal problem lies - it stars Sue Perkins.
There's nothing wrong with the writing - the character of Daniel is quite brilliantly written - and even better acted by Steve Oram. Much of the rest of it bounces along nicely, but Sue Perkins can't be anything other than herself - and criminally, she isn't trying to be.
How can you expect the audience to believe you are a vet called Sarah when you still look like Sue Perkins? This might seem like a trivial point to some people, but it isn't: when you've written the scripts, the theme tune and executively produced through your own production company then turning up in your own clothes and hair is pretty inexcusable.
It actually makes me angry to see her with her Eton crop, corduroy jacket, boot cut jeans with trainers and black-rimmed glasses. So her vet character exactly resembles her, does she - and wears exactly the same clothes that Sue Perkins wears when she appears on TV presenting something?
The fact that Perkins can't visualise Sarah is the reason that we can't believe in her either.
It just feels like she flicked through a list of occupations and picked the one she thought she could think up the most jokes for - not the way to write anything with integrity or meaning.
I never rated her. This is very shallow and not convincing on her part. Safe to say, what a wanky show.
Really rather enjoyed these final two episodes. Whilst still not perfect, it felt far more cohesive and coherent a programme. Remains a great shame that they stuck to the tired old 'realism' format as the style of humour was infinitely more suited to a studio audience though. I can't imagine there'll be a second series owing to the ratings alone.
I actually didn't see that twist coming. Was rather good!
I did, thought it was pretty obvious.
I was getting rather annoyed at some of the premises. Especially the unhelpful Special Constable/Waiter stuff.
"Ruth" (from Spooks) is the best thing about this series. Her character is great.