IMDb user comments for
"The Office" (2005) More at IMDb Pro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 36:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

359 comments in total

---

835 out of 1317 people found the following comment useful :-
Surpasses the brilliant original., 15 January 2007

Author: yfguitarist from usa

After reading all of the horrible reviews coming from the UK, I felt the strong desire to comment. I learned that most of the reviewers bashing it have only seen a few (at most) episodes from the first season - many haven't seen it at all, and are simply bashing it because of an overwhelming sense of pride in the original. I'd be surprised if this review isn't skimmed over and marked unhelpful by them. Obviously I'm not speaking to all the British, but the majority that unfairly judge this show with little to no basis in the truth.

This whole fanaticism is juvenile and petty. The casts of the US and UK versions love each show. Ricky Gervais even wrote and executive produced a few episodes of the US version. Open your minds, people! Most of the US fans KNOW that it's based on a British version. It has gotten the credit it deserves for being a brilliant and hilarious show.

But the American version is also brilliant and hilarious. I've read comments ranging from 'bad acting' to 'direct copy', neither of which are true. The first season may have had its borrowed bits, but that was to get it on its feet. The second and third seasons have proved that it is a show entirely on its own, with scenarios and characters having NOTHING to do with the UK version at all. The acting is just as convincing and real as the UK version.

I've even read that Michael Scott is devoid of David Brent's humanity! In actuality, Michael Scott is shown as far more human than David Brent, who was more manipulative (albeit, poorly) and heartless. The US version still has the cruel elements of the UK version, but it balances these awkward, painful moments with tender, human moments, which makes it more enjoyable and watchable.

As for the humor, each show has its own moments of subtlety, detail, absolutely outrageous moments, awkwardness, pain, cuteness, ridiculousness, and vulgarity. The UK version was groundbreaking. But instead of blindly basing your opinions on bias and arrogance, see the US version for what it is - a brilliant, brighter version that, in its first season, simply used the framework of the original (the characters and basic situations) to get started with.

This is the funniest, smartest American television show in recent history besides Arrested Development. Not since Seinfeld has a show made me laugh so hard and smile so much. These three shows get better with each viewing and are great because there's so many levels of humor, from the apparent outrageousness to the minute details that are noticed after repeated viewings and are often funnier than the surface material.

---

449 out of 623 people found the following comment useful :-
Humour is a funny thing . . ., 18 June 2006

Author: BobbyUK from United Kingdom

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Admittedly I absolutely adore the UK version (got both seasons on DVD) so was intrigued to find out what the US were capable of and, as of yet, only got to see the first three episodes of the US version.

First the good points, the US version avoided the laughter track (which would have been the kiss of death), still retained the dodgy camera-work (some people who hated this style seem to misunderstand that slick camera-work is not a priority on fly-on-the-wall documentaries)and at least, to some extent or other, the show retains some integrity to the original.

However, I think one of the differences of the two shows (comparing is inevitable - sorry)is the sense of humanity within them. See, in the UK version of The Office, you can almost see the amount of pain David Brent goes through in his effort to impress people, Gareth Keenan's social inability and his botched attempts at frustrated flirting that end up as sexual harassment, Dawn Tinsley's long-suffering and unfulfilled ambitions and Tim Canterbury's lack of confidence to push forward to try and better himself are all poignantly on show in very subtle ways.

The US version seemed to reduce itself to a set of stock characters. For example, Michael looks too conventional and his part is played too one-dimensionally for his role to work so he appears just stupid and nerdish rather than looking beyond the eager to please ego to find a man constantly seeking validation underneath the delusions of grandeur. Jim seemed far too cool and confident and in control of his surroundings to really endure the pangs of anxiety when office chaos occurs and Dwight just seems like a nasty piece of work as with Gareth you could tell he was overcompensating for his own insecurities - yes, different shows perhaps but some things needed to stay the same for the humour to work. I also think the Pam/Jim romance was overdeveloped too soon and therefore the struggle within the both to accept wasn't allowed to shine through so when they did finally realise each other's feelings for each other the pay-off would be considerably smaller (in the first episode alone Pam was humorously embarrassed by Jim's ability to guess her favourite yoghurt flavour - corny at best, lol).

The fact that the US actors seem like they are acting badly rather than normal everyday people acting up in front of the camera doesn't go in it's favour either.

The UK version thrived on the fact that you were going to feel very uncomfortable watching the show, that was the genius behind it - the long protracted silences, the embarrassing events, the overinflated egos getting their bubble's pricked time and time again . . . all completely lost in the US version. The pace was also deliberately quickened too so hitting the pain barrier was kept to a minimum and therefore the effect was lost. It gives me the impression that the US producers were scared that if it got too uncomfortable to watch that the audience couldn't handle it and therefore would be turned off - shame really.

All in all, at least the US are attempting to make a show that isn't frightened to deal with everyday average people in an everyday environment but it has a long way to go yet. I still can't decide whether we English overall are too sadistic as a nation or whether the Americans have accepted mawkish sentimentality as the norm but one thing for sure, this show in both versions displays how a situation can be interpreted in two entirely different ways by two totally different countries.

---

442 out of 610 people found the following comment useful :-
Not as bad as I thought it would be, but..., 24 March 2005

Author: Jason Akamatsi

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

When I found out that they were making an American version of The Office, one of the most heart-stoppingly good situation comedies, I thought, "Why?" I thought that it would be simply awful, like many Americanised shows. I found a link for the Myspace pilot. I started it, and it actually wasn't too bad. It really wasn't. I really enjoyed it. It was really good. One of the funniest bits was where Mr. Brown got the little card that said "black" (I won't go further than that, and the show didn't go too far into that anyways, but it was really funny just seeing that). To be honest, it was one of the most excellent Americanisations of a British shows. There were some great moments, like the east Indian woman coming back into the room and the boss going "Hallo! Welcom to my stor! Vuld yu like sum gooki-gooki? Tri my gooki-gooki!".

However, I felt much of the time that the characters were rather lifeless. You couldn't really feel for them. They weren't as deep or real as the original BBC characters, to whom you could relate even if you'd never been in an office. The boss just wasn't good enough for what the original set the bar as (the David Brent character going down in history as "most annoying boss"), although he tries, really hard. One never really gets into Jim, who was originally Tim (good one, NBC). Pam (aka Dawn) isn't quite as well-played as Dawn's character. And the hideous syncophant (Gareth) has been replaced by a simply-annoying Dwight.

But what really makes the show a lifeless slug is the running time, which is barely twenty minutes. The whole thing seems far too rushed, and there just isn't enough material to satisfy the typical BBC-Office-watcher. The jokes aren't quite as good as the original, and there are so few of them. The pilot never really goes into anything, although the real show may prove different. However, a good feature in The Office is that NBC didn't spring for a laugh track, which would've ruined the show.

All in all, The Office is a feeble shadow of its British counterpart, but it still manages to please.

---

352 out of 594 people found the following comment useful :-
the problem for me.........., 29 March 2005

Author: very3 from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

the problem for me was some little things.having worked in various offices I can tell you Americans don't act so mousy or reserved and nervous as shown on the American version.

it may seem right how English people are but not Americans. also, sometimes a boss sets the tone for an office. and seeing how he is such a clown, it baffles me how people would be so reserved in his office.

there were some bright spots, but the British version was so good that its hard for me to get over it and accept this version even though I am American and want to like it. I will give it a shot though.I need to find a good series to watch and seeing as I thought the original office ended way too soon, cripes after only 2 seasons??come on!

---

458 out of 808 people found the following comment useful :-
The Office....you're fired!, 5 January 2006
Author: mcfly-31 from anaheim, ca

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I'm just thunderstruck. All the buzz around this show, it making Time Magazine's Best of 2005 list, huge ratings. Well, tonight as favor to a friend, I gave it a look. Usually I don't take the time to review something I don't like (which is basically all of today's TV), but I was so stunned at how atrocious this was, I had to say something. I checked out "Booze Cruise" I believe it was called, where all the employees boarded a ship. Not only is the directorial style distracting, but this may be the unfunniest "sitcom" I've laid eyes on in my life. It was as bad as an actual office during the day; uninvolving conversations, characters and a storyline I didn't care about, and just shockingly boring. They say humor is relative, and maybe I just don't "get it", because this is a hit. But I'd bet a buck that if you stuck 20 people in a room and turned this on, stone-cold silence would be your result. Just mind-numbingly dull.

---

410 out of 721 people found the following comment useful :-
Who Cares If It's Funny If The Directing Gives You A Headache?, 4 January 2007

Author: neileiseley from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I mean really. What's with NBC shows and the ShakyCam? Do they think they're going to get big audiences by making their audience want to go to the bathroom to part with their dinner? And never mind that shaking the camera constantly is completely meaningless and adds absolutely, nothing, zilch, nada to the interest of the story. Rather, it detracts from it to the point where it becomes just plainly unwatchable.

Why does NBC think it has failed to attract an audience after spending millions launching, re-launching, re-re-launching and buying awards to this pale excuse for a sitcom.

It makes you long for boringly filmed sitcoms with a stationary camera. At least you could pay attention to the jokes.

---

406 out of 718 people found the following comment useful :-
A total failure., 24 March 2005

Author: ddrysdale2005 from United Kingdom

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Just watched the pilot (or was it the first episode?), called 'Diversity' or similar. Straight off I'm going to say this is a total failure. I am a big fan of the original series (and yes I am British) but watched the US version with an open mind, trying not to compare it.

But it is terrible. The characters are wooden, cut out caricatures of their British counterparts...and unfunny ones at that. Both Brian Baumgartner (Kevin) and Steve Carell (Michael Scott) bring the show down almost from the outset. The character of Kevin looks like he was written under the same analogy as above....copy Keith but make him even 'funnier' (i.e. make him even more gormless). And it doesn't work.

The editing is almost non-existent with inappropriate cuts and the look of the whole thing is just a failure...like someone said, it is meant to be filmed in the style of a documentary but it just looks like a low budget film school project.

The only glimmer of success I can see comes from Gervais (the absolute genius behind the original) and Greg Daniels whose jokes, although very similar to the original, still offer a few new laughs.

My biggest complaint though is against the acting and the line delivery. The jokes themselves are funny, but the way they are delivered (badly) takes the edge off it all. In one particular scene, Carell's character steps over the line to demonstrate how to insult someone and verbally abuses an Indian woman. Although this sounds harsh, if Gervais had delivered the line it would have been spot on and hilarious in a dead pan way. However Carell's delivery of the joke was a shambles and to be honest, came across as racist and not remotely funny.

Please NBC, don't put this on the American public anymore.

---

468 out of 859 people found the following comment useful :-
Painful to watch!!, 25 March 2005

Author: marymm320 from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Wow this show is horrible! All the actors are doing horrible impersonations of the original characters. And it just comes out BAD! The worst new characters have to be the boss and Dwight. These two actors are butchering the original characters. Ricky Gervais is an amazing actor and comedian, the guy playing his character should just stick to commercials, where he belongs. Dwight is also horrid, at least the other actors try to recreate their British counter parts, has he even seen the original?

I love, love, love the British version and wish US television would just leave British humor alone!

---

472 out of 868 people found the following comment useful :-
Comedies are supposed to be funny, right?, 24 March 2005

Author: shakawtwf from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I'm currently watching the first episode with one eye on the TV and one on the computer. From what I see it appears that they're trying to capture the irreverent humor of "Scrubs" (another show that doesn't use a laugh track). If this show had a laugh track, at least someone would be laughing. I've seen Steve Carrell be funny (on "The Daily Show") but he just isn't here. He seems surely destined to becoming a funny guy who isn't funny anymore.

This show is this year's "Coupling", another purported hilarious British show that lost everything in it's trip across the ocean. In all fairness, I never saw the British incarnations of these shows (which is fine since I have no intention of watching the American versions either).

---

483 out of 907 people found the following comment useful :-
Blasphemy! A Brit who likes this version as much as the original!, 12 January 2007

Author: rebel66 from Canada

As a fan of the original "Office" I was, of course, skeptical about the American remake. We have many shining beacons to shows that have bombed badly when transferred across the ocean. However, pinch me I must be dreaming, this version of the show is actually very good. I should also point out that I'm British and, as blasphemous as it might be to my fellow countrymen, I believe that the US version to be every bit as good as the original with excellent casting and smart writing throughout.

The first season was a little spotty, especially when translating the British show verbatim. However, once the writers came up with original story lines and situations the, American, office really took off. The second season was an incredible achievement and is just carrying on where it left off in the third season.

Steve Carell is well suited to the role of Micheal Scott, lending his character a certain pathetic quality that even Gervais's David Brent did not have at times. The supporting cast is equally as good, especially Rainn Wilson as the assistant (to the) general manager, Dwight Shrute. Wilson deserved, at least, an Emmy nomination for his troubles.

If you dismiss the show out of hand then you will definitely be missing out on one of the best shows on TV right now.

---

---

Page 1 of 36:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
External reviews	Official site	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history