Yes, Prime Minister (2013) User Reviews

Difficult series to pull off under the shadow of the original

[purmalco · 4/10 · 25 March 2016]

I must start by saying I am a massive fan of the original series of Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister.I watched them when first transmitted and later bought the box sets and watch them at least once a year. The interesting thing about them is that, despite them being made many years ago, they haven't really aged. Admittedly the references to finances are out of date as far as amounts go etc, but the situations, to a great extent, still exist in politics today in a similar form. Also the original cast was practically flawless and gelled so well together you really believed in the characters, even the supporting cast was believable and strong.

So this 'reboot' had an extremely difficult job from the start and as I watched the first episode I kept hearing the dialogue in the voices of the original cast. something rather hard to shake off. There were some funny lines but all too often they were less effective than intended because of the totally different way the three main protagonists handled their characters.

In the closing credits it says 'based on the stage play' and, indeed the last 4 episodes are really one main continuing story line involving possible procurement of sexual favours for a foreign diplomat which, at times, almost descended into farce. The other big difference is that the series is set at the Prime Ministers country residence and not No 10, which I can understand as a stage play but feel it detracted from the series as a whole.

I mentioned the principle characters earlier, Jim Hacker was portrayed more as a gurning idiot than an idealist with an average intelligence, Sir Humphrey was too animated to do his character justice and also had an annoying laugh and Bernard Wooley looked more like a rugby player with weird hair than a sincere, eager to please civil servant.

Perhaps if I had never seen the original I could have been kinder, but I feel that trying to bring back a TV programme that was voted as 9th best British Sit Com ever was probably on a hiding to nothing from the start.

Worth a look if you have either never seen the original or can really watch this and forget your memories of the original. Sadly, for me, neither of these conditions applied.

Made me laugh out aloud more times than I can remember having done so recently

[snshami · 7/10 · 12 September 2013]

This show has a serious problem. It has to overcome our memories of the first series. The main reason for this is that they used the same names for most of the characters. The series is set in the current era and there seem to be several plot ideas that have carried over from the original series. In truth except for Zoe Telford none of the new characters measure up to the Brilliant originals. I don't think there was every any hope that was going to happen. The original cast of characters were absolutely perfect in every way. Everyone knows one cannot improve on perfection

As a consequence I spent the first episode comparing the new with the old and feeling quite a bit let down. If I had to rate this series based on just the first episode it would not have rated better than four or five.

Even putting the disappointment caused by the characters aside the first episode is really not that great. The only reason I watched the second episode was because I was stuck on a plane and bored and consequently desperate.

Episode 2 was much better than the first. The actors start loosening up a bit. It was almost like someone had given them a real talking to after the first.

Episode three onwards is seriously funny. In fact I really cannot remember laughing so much recently. Was it better than the first, no that is not possible. But it was really good comedy, nevertheless.

The best character is Claire Sutton played by the gorgeous Zoe Telford. The worst is probably Sir Humphrey. He just isn't that beguiling and charming, manipulative and Machieavellian character that he was in the original series. In fact he is quite wooden and doesn't appear to lead the show.

Still the main purpose of a comedy is to make you laugh. If you loosen up and can let go of the past you will enjoy it, quite a bit. If only they had changed the characters' names it would have been seen as a really good show in its own right.

How did they get this so wrong?

[flyingthor · 2/10 · 2 June 2013]

I always thought that I'd be moved to write my first review on IMDb because a movie/TV show was so amazing I'd have to share my feelings on it. Alas, twas not to be. I've just finished watching the 6 episodes of this reboot, I'm utterly disappointed and more than a little annoyed.

Other reviewers are right to mention that sometimes a person can like an original so much that any replication of it will never come close in their eyes. There may be a little of that coming into play with me, but I tried to keep an open mind when I started episode one having heard little else about this production other than it was being made, and who the PM would be. When I realised who was writing it I began to get excited, perhaps some of the magic of the original would find its way into this modern version, but then I noticed that this version was based on the play and not the original radio/TV show which I found curious. I've never seen any stage productions of Yes Minister/Prime Minister but assumed that if it was using something close to the original scripts and was going in a similar direction then it would surely come close to the high standard set in the 1980's. After seeing Gold's reboot of it I'm not as sure! The acting is laughable in all the wrong ways, the casting was all wrong; Zoe Telford does a poor job in her role, the modern Sir Appleby isn't convincing enough to play the role of Hackers nemesis, and the guy they cast for Bernard just looks terribly out of place. Haig does an OK job as Prime Minister I guess, but was still a source of annoyance for me. Overacting, poorly delivered lines, bad camera work, rehashed gags and the overall plot of the six episodes all came together to make for one hell of an insult to the original cast and fans.

I find it bizarre that the producers of the reboot didn't notice this, or even some of the programme directors at Gold. I can only assume that they may not have been as familiar with the original as they thought, that or they were trying to distance themselves from the original in an effort to modernise it for today's audience. If this was the case then I believe it was a huge error to take yesterdays characters and put them into today's world, it just didn't work, even giving the rehashed characters new identities may have made it more bearable for me. When the conditions are right a show can be timeless. Perfect casting, natural acting, quality writing and respect for its audience. The original Yes Minister show had all these things. The relationship between Jim Hacker and Humphry Abbleby was nothing less than genius, the two actors played so perfectly off each other it never gets old. In all of the episodes that were released I never once thought that any character that made an appearance, no matter how small, was out of place or unnecessary, they all brought something to the plot that made it that little bit funnier and more plausible. Each and every story in the original could be applied to today and still be relevant; the relationship between politicians and the civil service will never change, there's always some country somewhere in crisis, always under the table deals going on at national level, still the same old frictions within the EU.....The problem with the reboot is that they took the characters from the original but none of the quality, and seemed to spend more time trying to make Hackers character look like a buffoon than trying to be humorous overall. Hacker was never an idiot, he mightn't have been at Appleby's level intellectually, something which Appleby delighted in quite often, but an idiot he was not.

In short, if you are a fan of the original I wouldn't recommend this show, give the original another spin instead, something which I will be doing after posting this. If you've never seen the original then make sure you watch that first, watching this failed attempt first could ruin it for you.

Unrestrained and ill considered

[soupster1 · 2/10 · 26 January 2013]

I am neither a writer nor a programme maker, yet the failings of this relaunch are as obvious as a rotten kipper. I am astonished that writers of this calibre, allow this flaccid imitation to besmirch the memory of one of the greatest achievements of British television of the last 50 years

I really wanted to like this. I didn't expect it to be as immediately brilliant as the original series... but I did expect to be reminded of superb satire and exquisite parody. I was more reminded of catch phrase based sitcoms and early 1970's social exploitation 'jokes'.

The new characters (with the same names as the originals... why?) are not just lacking, they are bereft of any of the qualities of the original cast. Gone is the restrained diffidence, it is replaced with theatrical 'mugging'. Sir Humphrey's new incarnation has 100 times the facial expressions of the original, yet conveys 100th of the gravitas. 'Bernard' needs a deranged hairstyle to denote his inadequacy (we all know funny hair is good for a laugh)... and Hacker is hysterical instead of authentically bemused.

Will it improve when all concerned 'find their feet'? I really hope so... but there is a lot of ground to make up on this showing. I want to apologise for every criticism I have made over the years of American remakes of British programmes. I was wrong. We remake our programmes far worse than you do.

I do not why these people say so many mean things to this version

[tintti-1 · 9/10 · 13 February 2013]

First, I have to admit that I did not watch the old version before this one and English is not my native language.

However, after I get into this and compare these two, I have to say the new one is more entertaining to me and the performance of the actors is surely much more wonderful.

Admittedly, the old version might be really classic and I may not be able to fully understand and appreciate the essence of the old version. But it is really mean and unfair for some people to belittle this excellent new version.

I just try my best to be objective based on my subjective culture background. Just my humble opinion for myself: this new version is 9 and the old version is 8.5.

Awful, just simply awful

[pmc31-1 · 1/10 · 12 February 2013]

Rumour has it that the BBC turned this show down, probably the best decision their commissioning team has ever made. The whole thing is a mess, badly written jokes badly (over)acted.

The remake has its roots in a stage farce and it sadly shows.

GOLD made two mistakes with this show, one commissioning it in the first place then the massive error of scheduling it just ahead of far superior original, which makes this look like a relic from the 70's.

There is room for a good, new political satire, especially with The Thick Of It possibly coming to an end, but badly remaking a classic is not the way to go.

My advice, if you feel the need to watch this don't. wait until the show is over and watch the subtle acting of Eddington, Hawthorne and Fowlds, and stop the sadly late former two spinning in their graves...

Good (in context)

[footballmonkey · 8/10 · 6 August 2013]

The 2013 version essentially follows the plot of the stage show version (even using the same set if I'm not mistaken).

When I first heard there was going to be a 2013 series I was worried and excited at the same time.

Worried - these things are never going to be good as the originals because the original characters, actors and time of the original is ingrained in our memory. It's like a song that has many cover versions....you tend to like best the one you first grew to know.

Excited - was keen to see how the modern version would pan out.

Having seen the stage show I was pleased in a way the story was the same as it meant I now had an aide-memoire for my day at the Trafalgar Studios. Obviously a stage version has certain limitations and I'm guessing Gold's budget restraints meant this remake had the same.

The big questions is - is this series a remake or a modern spin? It's neither really. The characters are very similar, there are references to the original and some modern references. Which of course there has to be with the passing of 30 years.

Those wanting it to be the same as the original will be disappointed. Those wanting it to be a modern cutting edge version will be disappointed.

Those who want some light-hearted entertainment with an homage to a great, great TV series and who are prepared to see it in that context will enjoy it.

It's not the classic the original was. It's not the worst ever.

Me personally - I enjoyed it (with the exception of the canned laughter - excessive and mistimed)

Do I prefer the original - yes. Is this as bad as most say - no.

Lighten up and have a bit of fun.

complete rubbish, Goodman miscast and Haig overacts AGAIN

[duncan-holding-770-188063 · 2/10 · 14 November 2013]

This show should never have been brought back.The original series was superb with wonderful performances from Paul Eddington and Nigel Hawthorne supported by Derek Fowlds. this is just a farce with Henry Goodman miscast and completely ruined by David Haig playing exactly the same character he has made a living so doing since the thin blue line nearly 20 years ago. The man chronically overacts and makes the character look stupid and inept. At least in the original The writers got away with the Hacker character in the role of Prime Minister. There is no way on earth you can believe David Haig is the PM. Please let me remember the program for what it was.

Unnecessary reboot

[Per Hedetun · 3/10 · 24 January 2013]

It is very popular among reviewers to scoff and mock comebacks, sequels and remakes. The reviewer will often proudly proclaim how much better the original was, and how "they don't make them as they used to". This attitude is, no doubt, often just a form of posturing and an attempt to show sophistication and discernment in taste, without actually forming an independent opinion.

I, on the other hand, have no problem going on record saying that, for example, the Star Wars prequels were surely not bad. Objectively they're not much different to the original trilogy, and if one likes that sort of thing the prequels are just more of the same!

With that said: as a huge fan of the original Yes, Minister/Prime Minister-series, I was very excited to hear that they were launching a new series in 2013. As long as Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn were at the helm, what could possibly go wrong? Well, wrong it went.

What we have here is a very pale "reboot" of the original. Firstly, the production itself feels very cheap. Granted, this shouldn't matter if the performance and writing is good enough. Sadly, the actors (sole exception being David Haig) are not up to snuff, and the story lines are just recycling many of the gags and jokes from the old series.

This, then, is indeed a reboot in the truest sense of the word: they've simply updated the political situations to ones that are more familiar with 2013's audience.

I find this is completely uncalled for. While some of the political crises the original Jim Hacker, Sir Humphrey and Bernard were facing in the 80s are just for the history books today, the actual SATIRE in the original series is timeless! Avoid wasting your time on this, and just get a good DVD-box of the original.

Not worth even 5 minutes

[overere-621-876654 · 1/10 · 1 March 2013]

Totally dreadful attempt at the Yes Minister franchise.

Canned laughter which is totally miscued, vain attempts at punchlines, unfunny actors trying to force humour and failing miserably.

I loved the original 3 series with Paul Eddington. These are an absolute insult.

Watch only if they are the only thing you have on USB and the world is about to end.

There seems to be a complete lack of originality in TV currently, no new funny ideas, just vain attempts to rehash successes of the past.

Do not waste even your last minutes of life with this!!!

WORSE THAN BAD

[philip-challis1 · 26 October 2019]

Back in the eighties the original series was a masterpiece but this if you imagine a few years after The Mona Lisa was painted and everyone praised it Da Vinci says it needs improving and draws a moustache on it people would think that he was mad, well Anthony Jay has done the equivalent. This is dreadful he did a stage version which was even worse.

Slow to start, but captivating

[gareth-pn · 10/10 · 15 February 2013]

I found myself looking through the television guide one evening, having difficulty seeing anything other than reality TV shows, documentaries on some celebrity that haven't heard of / don't care about or sports when I came across the first episode of the new Yes, Prime Minister.

I admit I was skeptical at first as I was not a big fan of re-runs of the original series, not that I had given it much chance. But I am glad I started to watch this, it does start off a bit slow, but I now find myself captivated and looking forward to the next episode. I especially look forward to seeing Henry Goodman's appearances as Sir Humphrey Appleby, the man is a comic genius.

I say, watch it from the beginning and give it a fair chance and thank you if you have read this far.

Don't bother viewing - simply terrible in every way.

[jazz_jeff · 1/10 · 16 July 2013]

Other reviews have said it all nearly. This remake of a great classic show is a waste of TV time and it a total let down. The comedy - what little there is - is very poor. That's partly down to the very dire writing and the rehashing of material that simply is out of date. The actors in it are wasted. They have poor material and although at times maybe trying their best, they peacefully fight a lost cause.

I loved the original and was willing to view any new series with the notion that it must stand on its own also and not just be judged on its previous history and calibre of shows. On its own sadly, it really fails - clearly without a doubt - in a lot of ways. Other reviews have covered the reasons why and in detail. I cannot disagree in any way, shape or form.

...And that's a shame. At the start of once hope - there was only bitter disappointment in its wake.

Personally I think it's very good

[stian-martin-342-232342 · 9/10 · 20 April 2013]

I do not understand the many negative reviews posted here, in my opinion the show is very good.

I don't usually watch any British television series, but this one caught my attention when it aired on Norwegian national television a late Saturday recently. It is a very amusing portrayal of the way modern day politics is conducted with a witty and dry sense of humour, another good example of sophisticated British comedy. It should be noted that I have not as of yet seen the original series, but I think that only means I'm not biased by having any feelings for the different way the first series was done compared to this one.

Overall this is an excellent series which I personally think might receive a very good reception in Central-Europe.

Disappointing remake

[ldlazarus · 2/10 · 29 August 2013]

If you watched the original series you might be highly disappointed by this remake.

The success of the original series can be expressed in three words: Eddington, Hawthorne and Fowlds. The parts they played fit them like a Savile Row suit. Also, the scripts were pertinent to the times and the series was a welcome counterpoint to the Thatcher years.

This remake falls short in many areas. Primarily, the actors were miscast. I have seen Mess'rs Haig, Goodman and Larkin in other roles and they are very good, if not talented actors. But, respectively they did not display the diffidence, pomposity and pedantry that was depicted so well by the original players. In fact they appeared uncomfortable in their roles - like an ill-fitting suit.

In one respect this reminded me of the remake of Sgt. Bilko. Steve Martin, as talented as he is, is no Phil Silvers for whom the part was tailor made.

Secondly, while the scripts were OK, they certainly lacked the bite of those from the original. I was hoping for something more timely. The closest they came to it was when David Haig engaged Robbie Coltrane in a lively discussion of Scottish independence.

I was looking forward to seeing this new take on "Yes, Prime Minister. What I took was huge disappointment.

No Prime Minister

[Prismark10 · 3/10 · 4 March 2014]

The original Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister is a classic. The writers Anthony Jay and Jonathan Lynn hit upon a formula that satirised the administration of government and made it funny with both gentle and cutting wit.

Some of it more nearer to the truth according to the politicians of the time.

The new series looks cheap because it's made for satellite channel UKTV not the BBC. I think the cast looked uncomfortable and did not feel right.

Henry Goodman maybe should had played the Prime Minister. His Sir Humphrey is more urbane, aloof and calmer compared to the wily, scheming and at times abrasive Nigel Hawthorne.

David Haig who plays Jim Hacker comes across as manic and unsympathetic whereas Paul Eddington in the Yes Prime Minister version was more in control and calculating especially with his dealings with Sir Humphrey.

Worse still, in the intervening years we have had 'The Thick of It' and Malcolm Tucker which reshaped the political comedy climate and made Yes, Prime Minister look like old hat with its neutered Sir Humphrey.

Political comedy for the lowest common denominator

[peeqaboo · 1/10 · 28 July 2013]

As a great admirer of the original BBC Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister series by the same esteemed writers (Jonathan Lynn and Anthony Jay), I very much looked forward to this programme. The fact it was cast aside for broadcasting by the BBC (despite still being credited as its series producer!) probably was a bit of a give-away with regard to the quality on offer...

I'm afraid it fails across the board. Where the original series made apt observations on the goings-on at Westminster (the UK's political centre), this one is based on crude generalisations, ridiculous and out-dated (sometimes slightly racist) views on "developing" countries, an under- developed understanding of EU politics and crass caricatures of political figures and office- holders.

It fails as political satire (the one thing you could really count on Lynn and Jay to provide in the past), it completely fails as a comedy (didn't laugh once and I really did stick it out throughout series 1) and unfortunately the acting is completely below par and I fear ALL parts were horribly miscast. Especially David Haig, who is probably known for his dire over-acting, shouting and face-pulling (see also the horrible, fortunately not re-commissioned comedy The Wright Way), unfortunately deliver some cringe-worthy performances. The supporting actors are also not bringing their A-game, despite scripts that could have worked better if the actors weren't treating the entire thing as one big farce or trying to provide examples for how comedy should NOT be done.

Failing as political satire, failing as a comedy and not providing even one strong actor to at least carry some of it along make this programme a complete write-off from start to finish.

I would hope Jay and Lynne would give it another go, with a better cast and stronger satire (based on sharper, more intelligent observations - and thus not just playing on oil/geopolitics and EU-scepticism which are easy targets for low-brow audiences who don't have proper political insight), but I fear this programme will be such a flop, it may not ever happen again during their careers.

The low rating doesn't make sense

[Simon-h-201413 · 10/10 · 2 February 2014]

I've watched this show twice and still think it's funny. I don't understand why the rating is so low. Is it because the tree-huggers are mad just because he show made fun of the global warming issue? And the Scots are mad because it's upfront about the economic situation of the UK? Or is it because the BBC is mad because it made fun of the BBC's redundancy? The show is funny because its sarcasm worked, but it's heavily criticized because its sarcasm worked. However, I am yet to watch the past episodes, so I guess it's the reason why I'm not as influenced as the others. I'm simply judge this series according to its own quality. Maybe the past episodes are even better, but it doesn't make the new series is a fail. It might also mean people have become less open-minded as they used to be in the 80s.

Seen Today, Forgotten Tomorrow

[krunkk · 1/10 · 21 July 2016]

I sat down to watch this series in good faith, having been delighted by the original ... it was crushing sitting through this excuse for comedy. Whereas the original was witty, intelligent, funny, dynamic & entertaining, this 'reboot' had none of this & was simply painfully unfunny, moronic & completely forgettable. It felt more like a US sitcom, where the characters are empty-headed fools without depth, humour, warmth or anything memorable or likable about them. I'd like to write a longer review, but there is little point tearing a lifeless corpse of a show limb from limb, if you've sat through this show already, I sympathise with you, if you haven't, avoid this dumb, depressing production. AVOID & STAY AWAY!

A different perspective

[chaitannya · 10/10 · 4 March 2020]

I saw the series, 6 episodes straight & enjoyed it thoroughly & by the looks of the reviewers I guess I am the only one to enjoy it. It may be because I haven't watched the original series & perhaps most Indian (My nationality) don't even come anywhere close to this quality. Most comments are harsh particularly pointing out how it differs from the original show. I guess there should be objectivity in review. Perhaps the plot would not stand the scrutiny of critics, but after it did made me laugh & that's what a good comedy show is all about. The earlier series may be gold, but if this one doesn't come closer to it thrashing it is unfair.

IMO from the neutral perspective it is was brilliant & actors really got under the skin of the characters well.

Nothing Like "Yes Prime Minister", More like "3 Clowns and a Girl"

[666_666_666 · 1/10 · 9 June 2015]

Save yourself and don't bother with this unless your doze of laughter is "3 perpetually-smiling idiots running around trying to stimulate IQ of lowest common denominator".

Such a disgrace to the original series.

You will find none of the wits and charm.

You will have to put up with irritating characters.

After 3rd episode, you will delete this crapola and go back to watching original.

As one Brit put it: Brits mess up British comedies much worse than Americans.

Never should have been made

[Tak005 · 1/10 · 9 October 2021]

The Yes Prime Minister series will go down as one of the great classic British comedies. History has taught us that the classics can never be remade with the same results. The maker of this show has not learnt or remembered this lesson. This should have never been made.

A total waste of my time!

[paulywliu · 1/10 · 8 July 2016]

It's an insult to the original series! The casting is wrong, the acting is childish. The dialogues do not show any wit at all. I failed to have a single laugh or even a slight sense of fun at all. I really have no idea how they can get it so wrong. Why bother to use the original names at all? I can't find the resemblances at all. I guess BBC is correct not to do the reboot themselves but let some other people do it and fail utterly.

To make matter worse, I find the show annoying most of the time. The only reason that I can survive all the 6 episodes is because I still have the misplaced wish that it will improve. But I was wrong.

Trust me! DON'T waste your time on this!

Simply Appalling!

[N0TY · 1/10 · 6 January 2014]

I've been watching the original series since it was first released in America. This "reboot" is simply dreadful. The actors are all accomplished, but are painfully miscast.

Bernard should be a little mousy civil servant and here, he's as big as a professional wrestler.

The two other male actors might work if they had switched places.

Hacker was always reserved and stodgy of the two.

Sir Humphrey was more emotional and animated.

The woman is just there to please feminists -- which is fine with me -- but those roles are usually hollow or superfluous.

Look at it again and see if I'm not right. It almost made me sick to watch five minutes of this rubbish!

Revolting travesty

[imdb-21460 · 1/10 · 14 August 2021]

The original show, Yes (Prime) Minister, was a subtle, clever, and extraordinarily funny set of series which caught the attention of a nation and entertained them all. This reboot is a screaming farce with terrible writing and direction, and quite extraordinarily hammed-up acting. The story lines are repetitive (one joke is used three times), poorly researched and presented, and ultimately quite repulsive. I loathed this show, am sorry I watched it, and am glad it was not renewed.