(2004 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
False Advertising
chriswyc12 May 2004
how diabolical was this show exactly?

the cast may have been have been 'all-star' but the outcome was anything but comedy.

the sketches seemed to be cast offs from the comedians' other shows that weren't funny enough to be used earlier.

the one-offs such as "ladder crazy" weren't too bad, mainly because it had Steve Coogan at his best- charicatured loony- but the repetitions of vic and bob's material, such as "monkey trousers", "I'm a nightmare" and the Roxanne spoof, were just not funny.

It seemed to be an attempt to copy the Fast Show's surreal skits, with repetition the main comic technique, but they forgot to include any humour.

I just hope that for the majority of the people involved (Coogan, John Thomson, David Walliams, Reece Shearsmith), this was just a one-off and that they had some fun acting out the sketches, cos there is little fun to be had watching them.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
As Vic himself would have said in his Novelty Island days: Very Poor!
ApplePiePerson26 July 2004
This show had so many funny and capable performers yet this is not enough to save any show with no decent ideas, writing or sadly, any laughs at all. It was a complete waste of talent, resources and money. How it got commissioned on such feeble material is a mystery. It s a prime example of how sometimes TV executives overlook basic essentials of content because they are dazzled by an overall weak idea. If the material was better, it would have been marvelous. i would have loved to have seen classic performers like Ronnie Corbett and Richard Wilson appear with younger talent like Steve Coogan, Matt Lucas and Ronni Ancona. But an idea alone does not constitute a programme - least of all when it is messily executed and severely lacking in jokes.

All involved should be ashamed of this 'look, we are all best mates and funny as well' lazy half-arsed excuse for a comedy show. NOW GO TO YOUR ROOM AND MAKE US SOME GOOD SHOWS, YOU MUPPETS!!!
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
1/10
Most of these "Stars" you won't find funny
tvargan13 July 2004
What an odd idea. Some people enjoy Vic Reeves, most people don't. Some people like Steve Coogan, others don't find him funny."Wacky" comedy is a niche, and usually has a cult style following. "Ladder happy" and "Monkey Trousers" aren't the kind of sketches that most casual viewers would enjoy. Some people might enjoy Ronni's impressions, many people simple don't find them funny or interesting. ETC. So why the makers of this thought it was a good idea to put so many different styles together is beyond me. Odds are the average viewer won't find most of this funny. This show just proves that although these actors are all well know they are really sole performers. The "Boffins" sketch was very dire, for example, and the acting seemed strained and somewhat wooden.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link
10/10
A melting pot of humour!
dharakharn-imdb4 June 2005
With so much talent, it is no surprise this is a very funny show! There are many sketch shows out there right now, and I think it is all too easy to present a funny, lovable character like Harry Enfield's Kevin the Teenager, The Fast Show's Spanish News Team, or Little Britain's Lou and Andy. The All Star Comedy Show (or Monkey Trousers as it is known nowadays) gives you such a wide variety of jokes and humour it never gets old.

Some programmes get a load of characters, give them catchphrases and simply place them in various situations. The All Star Comedy Show/Monkey Trousers not only has the odd repeating character, but also loads of new, fresh characters and situations that have 'guest-spots' so there is always something new and funny to see, without it getting too old too fast.

Harry Enfield's 'Brand Spanking New Show' wasn't as good as the original because the main actor, Enfield, made a mistake about what humour to use. Because there are so many different actors and comedians on the show, the sketches are wide and varied and different so you rarely see the same faces over and over again. I think that is the beauty. It is a melting pot of different ideas and jokes all mixed together to create something forever funny!

If you don't believe me, judge for yourself. If you still don't like it, then I am surprised you do not like such diverse humour!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote!
Copied to clipboardCopy link

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed