39 of 43 people found the following review helpful
A diabolical liberty, my son!,
This review is from: Minder 2009 Series 1  [DVD] (DVD)
I can see this series is splitting people, but I genuinely can't believe that anyone with fond memories of the original can bring themselves to like it. It all boils down to whether it's worth remaking these things and why anyone would want to at all. Remakes are usually pointless (Gus van Sant's Psycho, the recent Friday 13th) or so bad they beggar belief (Nicholas Cage in The Wicker Man, Sly Stallone's Get Carter, Vic and Bob as Randall and Hopkirk). Just once in a while, it works. The new Doctor Who has been hugely popular and the new Reggie Perrin got close to what this Minder tries to do, an honest attempt at a re-imagining.
But honestly, this is pony.
Why? Well, Lex and Shane try hard so it's not really their fault (Lex is as convincing a Londoner as someone from Norfolk will ever be). It's...
a) The original Minder was set in the seedy streets of Hammersmith and Fulham. This one makes London look so beautiful that you wonder whether Boris Johnson's office put up some of the money. It doesn't work.
b) In the original Minder, the relationship between Arthur and his minder (and I for one didn't mind a jot when Gary Webster took over from Dennis Waterman) was always close to being exploitative. Here it's sentimenal, verging on homoerotic. No, no, no!
c) The original series gave many comic and dramatic actors plum roles but generally BEFORE they were famous. The desperate reliance on major comic actors and actresses here grates no end.
Well, that's about it. But if you really liked this version, please do yourself a favour and check out the original. It really is so much better.
Arthur, forgive them. They know not what they do.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-6 of 6 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 23 Sep 2010 09:46:22 BDT
Ehh ... in fact, as a purist, I refused to watch it. Stand on me, you cannot 'remake' something unique, my son ...
Posted on 2 Nov 2010 19:09:42 GMT
J. Mero says:
A bit like the retarded yank-wanks trying to remake 'Ladykillers', and that with the wet willy Tom Hanks. Gimme a break! What's next, - a repainting of Mona Lisa to suit American lack of taste??
Posted on 28 Jun 2012 17:33:16 BDT
S Moore says:
I couldn't agree more with your comments. You hit the nail the right on the head. This remake was absolute crap and a complete waste of TV viewing time.
Posted on 24 Jan 2013 18:44:33 GMT
Last edited by the author on 24 Jan 2013 18:45:50 GMT
I agree with you about remakes and reboots. Dr Who the new series worked because it was written by fans of the original Dr Who '63-'89 run who were therefore in tune with what made the series work. Most remakes or relaunches fail because they're made by people who just see them as a quick buck or money for old rope. Like that truly dreadful Yes Prime Minister relaunch.
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2013 18:51:06 GMT
Dr. George L. Sik says:
Yes, absolutely. In the mid 80s, I wrote for the Dr Who fanzine Cygnus Alpha (under the name of Denis Richardson) and many of the fans from those years contributed to the 'zine (Paul Cornell and Gary Russell spring to mind. I think Russell T Davies was a subscriber. Not sure about Steven Moffat!) The fact that fans go on to make a programme is surely good news for its authenticity and the passion that goes into it.
In reply to an earlier post on 28 Jul 2014 19:15:24 BDT
In fact, this is not a remake. This was a follow up featuring Arthur Daley's nephew Archie.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›