Why it's so poor


As a lover of the TV series the film version just falls flat in my opinion, for the following reasons:

1. The recycled material. The new scenes are quite good: I like the bits on the rugger field and when Rigsby's with the camp boutique assistant. But all the other stuff was like a rehash of cold leftovers.

2. The dire music. The old plinky-plonky tinny piano theme tune of the TV series fitted perfectly. The feeble attempt at a glitzy seventies theme tune ('Rising damp is gonna getcha!') is just embarrassing. Why not go all the way and have slide-whistle sound effects when Rigsby falls over.

3. The location. The original TV studio sets were great and added to the claustrophobic feel. The gloomy old Italianate house with its bizarre collection of Victorian furnishings (eg the skeleton in Alan and Phillip's room), creepy garage and overshadowing shrubberies were all part of the charm. But the film moves the location from a detached house in a Northern university town (Leeds?) to a brightly lit terraced house in London, which is just a standard 70s lodging house with no character.

4. The photography. Part of the charm of the TV series is that Rossiter's face was made for TV close ups. The film does everything in middle distance and we lose those great gurning facial expressions.

reply

Those are good points but I thought the movie was actually pretty good. I think it's definately one of the better 70s TV sitcom adaptations; probably the best one in fact. I do agree the new scenes are the best parts. And I have to admit that the disco song cracks me up; and I could remember it clearly five years after seeing the film.

I wonder how well this did in cinemas when it came out. Apparently the "On the Busses" films were huge hits!

reply

Don't forget the premature death of Richard Beckinsale. Okay some TV shows were made without him (and not because he died either) but they just weren't the same.

He should have been in the film. If this was not possible, maybe the whole thing should have been reconsidered.

Please read the comment I left for this title, it will explain my point in a lot more detail and a few other points besides.

reply

All good points from the original poster. One thing to remember though is that when this was on in cinemas in 1980, TV shows were not repeated endlessly as they are now, or available on video for that matter, so people might have only seen the original shows once and might not have recognised that scenes had been repeated from the TV series. Also, I know the house is completely different in the movie, but the fact that it was actually shot on location as opposed to in a studio gives the film an interesting semi-realistic atmosphere.

One other thing: the disco theme song is AMAZING!!!!

Thomas, if you is a mouse catcher, I is Lana Turner - which I ain't...

reply

I quite agree; I wish I had it on CD. But at least I can say I've heard the whole record, and now so can you!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vj3msQTD9Y&feature=related

Someone's sitting there mate

reply

yes,I agree...it was hideous, lacking in warmth and intimacy and the 'disco angle' was utterly futile....

"ah have always depended upon the strangeness of kindness..."

reply

I'm a huge fan of the TV series but this is a damp squib for all the reasons the OP mentioned plus the absence of Richard Beckinsdale. It messes with the established RD backstory in the same way as that "90's" episode did with The Simpsons.It makes me grateful that John Cleese never made a Fawlty Towers movie.

reply

Totally agree with all the points made ! ..... My opinion like others have made , this should not have went ahead without the brilliant and much missed Richard Beckinsale ! .... Just didn't have to same feel to it at all :(

reply

I love the original show and the movie. And the disco theme is awesome. If anything, I find that the recycled material from the show was performed better in the movie. The only gripe I have is Richard Beckinsale not being in it (but Christopher Strauli was good)

reply