The Bleak Old Shop of Stuff

1. Think of a wacky and innovative new idea for a sitcom based in Victorian England. 2. Knock together 6 half hour long scripts containing witty dialogue which can instigate genuine reactions of laughter from an audience. 3. Assemble a cast of experienced successful comedians and comedy actors and some new faces. 4. Hand them scripts and ask them to act out the scenes in full costume.

Sounds like a perfect plan.

Until you watch the show and realise that the Emperor has no clothes.

Will it improve and become more coherent as the episodes accumulate? One can only hope so.

This show is a hoot. It's goofy and funny and all the performances are good. The sets are fun and there are several jokes in the background that are clever. However, one cannot focus on those things due to the director using that hackneyed "shaky camera" technique. It's as though the cameraman was put on a boat while trying to film the scenes taking place on land. It's vertigo- and nausea-inducing and totally unnecessary. The camera never stops swerving around. I recently read a quote by famed Hollywood director George Cukor that is appropriate: "You should never move the camera unless you have to. If you do a lot of fancy footwork, maybe they notice you as a director, but I think it hurts the story." I definitely notice this director and I'd like to give him a good sock in the jaw because he definitely hurts the story. It's as though he didn't trust the writers and the actors to deliver, so he distracts with his own attention-seeking gimmicks. He has ruined what could have been a fun show to watch over and over. Instead, it's unwatchable.

"The Bleak Old Shop of Stuff" is a four-episode British series which pokes gentle fun at Charles Dickens and his style of telling stories. Considering that Dickens' stories can be a bit dated to read or dramatize, I was thrilled to see the tales inspire this very weird comedy. It's in some ways like the Blackadder shows...but not nearly as mean-spirited (I actually LIKE the mean-spirited aspects of Blackadder). It's all amazingly silly and enjoyable...but less so if you've never read any of Dickens yourself. I especially like how the show made fun of "Great Expectations", the god-awful story they forced us to read in 8th grade! However, I am sure that Dickens purists would be shocked and hate seeing all this...but as for me, I loved it all.

Normally I'm a great fan of surreal humour, but someone please tell Mitchell and Webb that they're not funny, and that Stephen Fry always plays himself (at least not since Jeeves and Wooster). This was mostly a bunch of random, and not very funny lines strung together.

Oh, and it's riddled with cheap CGI too.

This was a great opportunity for sending up Dickens, but it went down like a lead balloon. I watched "Rev" and "Life's Too Short" not long afterwards - and was stunned by the contrast in writing, acting etc. This programme was written and acted by people who are incredibly self- satisfied, and think they're cleverer and funnier than they actually are.

All the usual suspects turn up on this programme - you know the ones always on QI, Have I got News for You, Never Mind the Buzzcocks and Mock the Week. All of these shows are quite good, but you have to ask exactly why the BBC is hiring these same folk repeatedly, or using the same production companies/agencies. Bit of a closed shop really.

I give this show two stars for one reason, Johnny Vegas is its saving grace as the Artful Codger. Definitely one to avoid...

I thought it a smashing success in so far as it managed to uncover our expectations towards these oldy-timey-feely Christmas programs and build up a not-altogether-unpleasant-to-the-eye caricature or formula of the whole business. In our silly and trusting ways, we incline towards taking that, which is portrayed in a more serious manner, as trustworthy representation of actual fact, or indeed merely more likely to convey 'the way it really-really was', the selling of dodo-crisps or what have you is perfect in so far as it exposes the core of the genre (and of the entire medium, while we're on the subject) as something that is wholly constructed and artificial. One wasn't 'sucked in' as with films that are more tightly woven, but the characters, albeit superficial, were still entirely charming on an as-is basis and as the unnaturalness disturbed the viewer, it also set off a thought process thereby also including the them, which is something that these mini-holidays usually don't succeed in doing. So nods to Messrs Mitchell, Webb and Fry.