Are You Being Served? (TV Movie 2016) Poster

(2016 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
30 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Rather enjoyed it.
Sleepin_Dragon28 August 2016
It's been well marketed, and well advertised, but everyone I've spoken to about it have already written it off as a disaster, and seemed hopeful for it to flop.

I made an effort to watch it with an unbiased opinion, despite having just watched the first three series of the original show. I really enjoyed it, I found it funny, and the whole setup was one I could have believed the original cast doing. The performances were very different, and I would imagine could take time to get used to.

Come on BBC, we've been lacking a quality sitcom for so long, maybe that's the reasoning behind this run of prequels and remakes, but as a fan of the show, Please BBC give us a full run, and let it develop!!

It wasn't perfect, and I can imagine purists will hate it, but it deserves a chance. 7/10
23 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
I'm free
Prismark1028 August 2016
Initially I was confused as to why the characters were talking about Jimmy Connors and Simple Minds until it was stated that the series is set in 1988.

I thought it was a reboot with new actors playing the role of the familiar characters from Are You Being Served. Its final series was broadcast in 1985. In fact this is a more smuttier continuation from the original series. They even reference the holiday to Spain in 1977 and Mr Lucas.

This was a one off as part of the BBC's classic sitcom revival season although I expected this would be commissioned as a full series. Simply I laughed out loud a few times as well as chuckled regularly as the episode went on.

It is a little bit cruder than the original series which had its own share of innuendo laden humour. Mrs Slocombe went overboard with her pussy comments and there was the interaction between Miss Croft and Mr Rumbold which was straight from a Carry On film.

Of course the main interest is to see how well the new cast do with the roles. John Challis was good as Captain Peacock, Justin Edwards looked like a man with a bald wig as Mr Rumbold. Of course the hardest part goes to Jason Watkins who steps into his mother's shoes in this episode but also has to fill John Inman's.

I met John Inman several times in the Isle of Man when he used to tour with his saucy seaside summer season farces. So I am likely to be biased. Inman's Mr Humphries was more a mummy's boy maybe to reflect a time when homosexuality on television was not deemed to be as acceptable as it is today.

Watkin's Humphries is probably more outwardly camp than Inman's. Watkins also got the biggest audience cheer when he said 'I'm free.'

The one big change is Matthew Horne playing a genuinely young Mr Grace, a yuppie who plans to drag the department store into a modern era. This means trying to get rid off the older staff and bringing some new technology. He even gives Mr Rumbold an Amstrad computer.

I did notice one thing that bridged the gap between both versions of Are You Being Served. John Inman and Roy Barraclough both came from Preston.
14 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
They're free again!
studioAT29 August 2016
Like many people I was sceptical about the BBC remaking old sitcoms like this, especially 'Are you being served?' which is so beloved by so many.

To be fair, this episode (which felt very much like a pilot for a new series) wasn't bad. There were laughs, lots of them, and some decent impersonations of the original characters being given by the new cast. I felt that the actors playing Mr Rumbold and Mr Grainger (yes, we'll scoot over the fact that he retired in the original show) in particular did a good job.

Derren Litten has obviously decided which elements of the history of the show he is going to use/ignore and this meant nice remarks about the 1977 big screen version of the show and Mr Lucas.

It wasn't perfect (the scenes with Matthew Horne) but if I was the Head of Comedy at the BBC i'd push ahead with a full series.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
No charm, no wit
lbski-5527719 February 2022
A soulless parody that lacks everything that made the original good. The writing is terrible. I love the original and enjoyed AYBSA spinoff but this reboot is painful to watch.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Casting only about 60% well done, otherwise I like it
waynesweatt6 January 2019
So I think they nailed the remake in terms of writing and set. What I think I found missing was some of the personalities lost in bad casting and/or acting. Mr Humphries seems to have lost his devilish, smarmy smile. That's a huge omission. I also think Humphries could act a little less gay but yet be obvious like Inman did. Mr Peacock I found to be somehow grumpier and less dapper than Thornton. Mrs Slocomb was just ok Miss Brahams as well - just ok Mr Grainger was spot on as well as Mr Rumbold, understanding it's hard to find that Nicolas Smith look The new, actual young Mr Grace could stand to make his annoying self less involved.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Absolutely horrible
codexbrett4 May 2021
I wanted to give this a chance as I have loved "are you being served?" ever since I first ran across it on PBS. However, the new actors have completely butchered the characters. I find them irritating, off putting, and bland. It's just not funny, the jokes feel forced. It's actually worse than the movie they made that I made the mistake of buying off of iTunes.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Why Bother?
l_rawjalaurence30 August 2016
ARE YOU BEING SERVED? was a much-loved sitcom running throughout the Seventies and early Eighties that made a star out of John Inman and greatly enhanced the careers of established character actors such as Frank Thornton and Mollie Sugden. Basically a ragbag series of jokes and doubles entendres, it spawned a series of catchphrases including Inman's "I'm free!" and Sugden's numerous jokes about her pussy.

The series was part of a venerable tradition of camp comedy stretching back through the CARRY ON series of films back into the variety work of Max Miller. It was the product of a society constrained by Victorian tradition, wherein sexual matters were not to be discussed in public but only alluded to, chiefly through humorous means.

How times have changed. Camp comedy has been superseded by a much more overt strain of humor that might appear offensive to some but draws huge ratings. Comparing ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS or THE OFFICE with the less in-your-face style of ARE YOU BEING SERVED? is like trying to parallel chalk and cheese; each possesses their own comic style, the product of very different eras.

The passage of time has not been kind to ARE YOU BEING SERVED? In this "reboot" as the BBC likes to describe it, the well-loved characters are played by different actors: Roy Barraclough does a creditable stab at Arthur Borough's Mr. Grainger, while John Challis makes a passable Captain Peacock, even though his screen persona comes across as a lot less refined than Thornton's. Some of the other impersonations are just plain embarrassing; the less said about Sherrie Hewson's Mrs. Slocombe, and Justin Edwards's Mr. Rumbold, the better.

But perhaps the most embarrassing aspect of the whole enterprise is the script, written this time by Daren Litten. Jeremy Lloyd and David Croft's original efforts contained a fair share of bawdy humor, but there was always a certain innocence underneath, almost as if the characters did not quite understand the implications of what they were saying. Here the humor is defiantly in-your-face: each joke is telegraphed by the actors looking at one another and then at the camera, as if prompting us to erupt into gales of unrestrained laughter.

Some of the jokes are downright offensive, especially the references to "seamen" on deck, or Mr. Conway's (Kayode Ewumi's) efforts to prevent Captain Peacock from choking on a lobster bone by coming up behind him and maneuvering himself in a sequence which, to those not in the know, might seem like an homosexual act. When Mr. Grace (Mathew Horne) enters, this is precisely what he assumes. The studio audience erupt into paroxysms of mirth, but as they have been cackling away at almost anything during the previous twenty-six minutes, we might suspect that they are simply a laugh-track dubbed on to the final cut.

Produced to celebrate the sixtieth anniversary of the sitcom genre on television, we are clearly meant to approach this reboot with affectionate nostalgia. In truth, watching this farrago of nonsense makes one fear for its future; perhaps television needs to be led kicking and screaming out of the past into something more innovative, just like Mr. Grace wants to do to the much-loved store he owns.
16 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
I enjoyed the first episode except for the part about the waste.
proudmurray13 September 2016
As an avid viewer of the original series, I remained open minded. The original cast members would be had to duplicate, they were so in sync with each other. John Inman as Mr. Humphries and Molly Sudgen as Mrs. Slocomb are memorable characters. I continued to watch them on "Grace and Favor", so I think I am qualified to offer my opinion. I think the cast choices were good. I feel the new Mr. Humphries is a bit more flamboyant, but I like him. The choice of adding Mr. Conway and a younger Mr. Grace will definitely add a new twist and a bit of flavor. Having said that, after watching the first episode, I want to know where we are going. So bring on more episodes.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
No no no
info-1238830 August 2016
I could only bear to watch the opening few minutes before it was painfully obvious this was less a reboot so much as a sad parody.

Mr Humphries? Please. Yes, he was gay in the original, but he certainly did not go around lifting men's jackets to look at their ass. From what I've read, this "reboot" is just a far cruder version, which completely trainwrecks the intent of the original.

I"m sorry, but no. This is just sadly pathetic. If it gets made into a series, then God help us all because the writers will not have anywhere near the wit of the original staff. This thing will go down in flames (real ones, not those acted by the Imam-wannabee) — and deservedly.
12 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Welcome back sitcoms
camthomo29 August 2016
The problem today is no good comedies are made well watch this everything I was expecting and more loved the jokes and the new casting choices such as Joyce from Benidorm and Gavin from Gavin and Stacy my favourite character is Mrs slocomb and her pussy it was just like watching the original we Brits have one thing we treasure our sitcoms the only thing I don't agree with is the phrase "they don't make them like they use to" clearly they do. I hope they will bring it back for a series I love comedies this has to be the best I have seen in a long time #you have your own opinion don't listen to the critics until you have seen it for your self.

All I can say is it deserves a 10/10
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Problem of current writers
dontakeitpersonal26 August 2021
I kid you not, i really believe we have a problem with writers since at least 10 years. No fresh ideas anymore. It rare that you find good movies or sitcoms. It's either prequel, sequel or reboot. And just terrible writing. I feel sorry for the actors, every where.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Seriously?
toogoodu-5638913 October 2019
Why can't anyone just leave the classics alone? You can't copy them, you can't replace them, you can't.....you can't.....you can't!!!

Although there were SOME funny bits in there, it wasn't the same.

It would have been better to have it modern day, with all new characters.

I'm so sick and tired of classics getting dragged through the mud and corporate greed!

Out of all the billions of books out there, with billions of stories, and billions of scenarios.............movie and show makers just can't stop degrading the classics!
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Uneventful attempt at reviving a BBC classic
lasvegassins00728 February 2017
As a devoted fan to the original series, I had high hopes for the further adventures of the team of Grace Brothers. Having just finished watching this episode for a second time, holding out hope I had missed something the first time around, I found it to lack the charm and wit of the original. Granted this is the one episode with this new cast but I found this group of actors to have little to no chemistry together. The way these actors portrayed these classic characters was too far away from the originals. Any good actor should make a role they play theirs but the interpretations presented by these actors not only made me miss the original cast but also made thankful that the BBC passed on making further episodes. It wasn't just the acting that was horrible in this episode the writing was atrocious with forced humor that just didn't come naturally or play smoothly. With a stronger script a different cast maybe things would have turned out different for this remake/retelling of a beloved series.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Much better than I expected!
pfr168529 May 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I was expecting this to be a cheap cash-in knock-off of the original series (which I own on DVD and have seen MANY times), and I was very impressed.

On the downside, Humphries doesn't look nearly as wet as the new character played by Jason Watkins, and Miss Brahms (Niky Wardley) didn't seem to fit in, but the rest of the cast was done very well. Roy Barraclough was great as Mr Grainger, John Challis carried the Captain Peacock character very well, Justin Edwards did an uncanny lookalike for Mr Rumbold, and Sherrie Hewson was an excellent Mrs Slocombe (probably the hardest role to fill). Kayode Ewumi as Mr Conway ("we shall have to get another Mr Lucas!") fit in great as a new character who looks to get all the hilarious scenes as Trevor Bannister did. If they go with a series, we'll have to see how the new Young Mr Grace (the original Young Mr Grace's grandson) does. Arthur Smith made a different, but equally funny, Mr Harman.

Yes, it's not going to be the original series by any means, but it looks like it has a lot more potential than I expected when I first heard that they were remaking the show. Setting the show back in 1988 is going to have some drawbacks (which was necessary in order to keep generally the same cast of characters), and they're going to have to explain the discontinuity with Grace and Favour (the store was shut down by Mr Grace who later died in a scuba accident, sucking on Miss Lovelock's equipment for all it was worth) but the formula for success looks a lot more promising than the alternate (New Young Mr Grace reopens the store in 2016 and brings in a brand new set of characters).

One thought - if they do go with a series, wouldn't it be nice to have Mike Berry (the only surviving main cast member) come in as a customer?
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Wtf
shanewolf-2860217 August 2018
Only watched a few minutes and switched off. Load of rubbish. Just watch the original series that's 1000 times better than this reboot rubbish
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Don't waste your time
anaraciean12 July 2021
So I absolutely love the original Are you Being served the cast was absolutely amazing. So I decided to watch this reboot and I feel they could have done soo much better. So they took the exact same opening from the original and just reused that, And I feel that they could have done so much better in casting Mrs. Slocum and Mr. Humphreys, The only one they cast all right was Mr. Granger.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Why Reboots?
fcabanski9 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Why reboot? The Young Mr. Grace wasn't bad because he was a new character. Mr. Conway wasn't bad because he was a new character. They could have done the same with the others - children or nieces and nephews of the original crew brought together to work in a modern store - maybe even an online retailer.

Instead, it's a bunch of pretty bad actors and actresses doing bad impressions of characters from the original series.

The laughter doesn't fit. When Mr. Humphries utters his "I'm free" in a non-Mr. Humphries way, the laughter is like "AH, ahahaha, there it is!!!" But there it wasn't.

This is crap. I can't believe people made the decision to air this after seeing it.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Note to BBC:-..Please don't do this again,nor "Porridge",nor........
ianlouisiana19 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
"Keeping up appearances"....and do try and find some new writers that can actually write comedy that is funny rather than resurrect mouldering comedic corpses. Only Mr J Challis really looked as if he knew what comic acting was about and his Captain Peacock was miles away from the late Mr F.Thornton's and not merely an impersonation. There's still a place for broad humour even on the spavined BBC,but the late writers of "Are you being served?" have had their heritage plundered and coarsened and their much - loved characters turned to stereotypes spouting clichés. If "Mrs Brown's boys" can be allowed to push the telly envelope with humour that reminds me of "Old Mother Riley" of 60 years ago,surely today we should be able to expect TV comedy that reflects life today? Mr D.Little managed it in the brilliant "Benidorm",but it can't have been easy for him to have bridged the 30 year gap,even with the not inconsiderable help of Miss S.Hewson. So,let the dead rest,BBC;They made us laugh many years ago,and for that they deserve our love and respect.Not a macabre plundering.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Avoid this mess of a show
NikTesla2 September 2018
This is nothing more than a lame attempt to cash in on a beloved show.

The character are charmless cardboard cutouts of the ones from the original show, missing the charm of the originals. Mrs Slocombe is played by someone far too young, especially for someone who was supposedly still in the same position 3 years later and the voice is totally wrong. Mr Humphries' campiness is way overblown on the reboot. Ms Brahms is missing her normally boisterous self Mr Grainger is not the stereotypical older employee he normally is. Captain Peacock does not carry the right level of faux military pomposity. Mr Harman is just plain crude and obnoxious. Mt Rumbold is not the same clueless middle management stereotype from the original.

Thankfully all of the negative reviews from fans and the media the reboot was immediately killed off.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Political correctness gone beserk
riggo-7350319 July 2019
Awful casting and script. An insult to the original. The Lucas role is just idiotic
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
They should have left the original alone
hdsimmons26 May 2021
Some things don't need to be redone, especially when the original was perfect. Embarrassing really.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
exactly what you might expect, really....
Brucey_D28 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
'Are You Being Served' was a staple of family entertainment in the 1970s. It somehow managed to limp on through several series, which was a good run for a show that relied almost exclusively on a few well-worn gags of dubious taste, and in which more or less nothing ever actually happened.

This remake simply shoehorns different actors into the same roles as before, with the same kind of dialogue, and pretty much identical characterisations for the most part, only this time set in 1988.

At best it is no more amusing than the original; at worst it is just dull, with some characters (such as Matthew Horne's) seemingly inherently lacking in any kind of comic potential.

Those who liked the original series will find the new actors grating slightly and those who didn't know the original I suspect will find it a peculiar and outdated kind of programme.

I honestly don't know why they bothered; they say even a dead cat (or should I say squashed pussy...?) bounces but I don't think this one will.
7 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
made me nostalgic for old series
braquecubism1 June 2020
I didn't like seeing new actors in old characacters. Miss Brahms, Wendy Richard, had an edge, I live in a detached house (as opposed to old London row houses) you can't top John Inman and MollySudgen. the one character was Mrs Scolumd, caught her expression, and nuiance, but younger & prettier. it was kind of awkward even in the seventies,but bec of the charm of the actors it was a feel good show. i didnt like some of the gags, & this seemed a bit mean spirited and gross. They are all dead, John Inmn 2007 to 2017. SAD
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
No we're not!
tjhyb117 August 2018
Missed this first time round, caught it by chance when UKTV ran it instead of one of the original episodes. My first thought was how awful it was. Which was also my second thought. Why bother remaking an old favourite if the actors - some of them well known from other shows - simply attempt to impersonate the original cast? Why set it at a time which contradicts the original show's sequel? John Inman's Mr Humphreys was never as camp as Jason Watkins' version. Arthur English's Mr Harman was never as boorish as Arthur Smith's portrayal. Writer Derren Litten appears to have depended entirely upon second-hand memories of the original show for his inspiration rather than going back to the original episodes and seeing how they were put together for himself. And what on Earth is the audience on? Hysterical shrieks of laughter for some mildly amusing aside? God help them if they ever get to see an original episode, there'd be mass coronaries everywhere.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
An unnecessary remake
Horst_In_Translation29 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
"Are You Being Served?" is a British half hour comedy short film that aired 2 days ago and I read about rumors that this one could be turned into a full series. In any case, it is a reboot/remake of the known long-running British sitcom of the same name and the two people who worked on this one here are writer Derren Litten and director Dewi Humphreys. I have to say I am not familiar with any of the cast members here, but British audiences probably think different about these. I myself must also say that the only one I found entertaining in these 31 minutes was Roy Barraclough playing the oldest from the gang, a character that has probably many entertaining stories to tell. One of the aspects I liked the least here is (in a desperate attempt for diversity) that they added Kayode Ewumi playing a character that has not appeared in the original series I think, only that people could not accuse this show of being racist or so. I personally do not think that a young Black fella fits in with this traditional old group of white gentlemen, not because the actor isn't good but because it's just pretty strange to watch and really it feels the only reason I can come up with this is the one I gave earlier. At least, I would not say that the argument of adding new ingredients to old recipes makes any sense here. Then again, I have never seen the old version, but after seeing this one, I must also say I have almost no interest in seeing the new version unless it drastically improves if it gets picked up for a whole series.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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


Recently Viewed