A Young Doctor's Notebook & Other Stories (TV Series 2012–2013) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
35 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
there comes an extraordinary show
TheMediumC25 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
First of all i should warn all the people who wants to watch this show: do not watch it just because you are a Jon Hamm or a Harry Potter fan. This is way more Bulgakov than it is anything else. So it is dark, that's for sure but also fun. You don't know whether to laugh or feel bad at the same time.

The acting is really good as well. Jon Hamm is not performing a very different character than he does in Mad Men though he is pulling off the addict quite well so far. But Radcliffe is no Harry Potter here and it is kind of a test for him. Nonetheless he is doing everything right and after a few scenes, you don't even remember him as Potter. He is a pale skinned, very successfully graduated, unexperienced young doctor. And for that he deserves a greeting.

So, I don't agree with the "not good at all" reviews. I also don't think that it is right to judge the show prejudiced by Mad Men or Harry Potter series. This is Bulgakov. You don't compare Bulgakov with modern cultures movies or shows. You don't compare it to anything at all.

I don't think this show is for everyone but for anyone who likes "quality" and "unusual".
86 out of 90 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Blackly Brilliant
evilqueenbing21 December 2012
I utterly adored this little series. So far three episodes have been shown and I have laughed uncontrollably at them all. It won't be for everyone, being a little too black humored in places for some people's tastes however it had me in bits. Daniel Radcliffe is really maturing as an actor and rarely puts a foot wrong in this, gamely throwing himself into the role of the younger Doctor and his counter from John Hamm gives pathos to his older version and the supporting characters are excellent too, adding to the bleakness with a strong sense of sarcasm.

If you like bleak comedy with some unexpectedly gory moments, I recommend and wholeheartedly hop for more.
130 out of 138 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
How has this excellent story ever got on screen?
siderite2 January 2013
I was watching this mini series of only four episodes, each only twenty minutes long, and wondering. First, why am I watching this? Why am I enjoying it? It is the tale of an inexperienced doctor, fresh out of school forced to work in a small village. Set right after the first World War, or maybe even during it, in a region of Russia so remote that the war would not have counted anyway, it shows the barbaric medical practices of the time, the horrible transformation of a naive and idealistic doctor into a desensitized morphine addict.

But I did enjoy it. It is both comedy and terrible drama. The actors are perfect for their roles, the atmosphere is despondent and the Russian theme of the story gives an air of surreal to it all (even if for me personally, it is at least geographically closer than to an American audience). Even if about terrible things, the film is really quite quite good.

My second reason to wonder is how can a such a good show that is this dark and full of hopelessness even make the screen? Audiences will be shocked and disgusted by a period in human's history that they don't want to acknowledge and a character that is both very close to one's heart, but impossible to accept as similar to one.

I can only surmise that, just like the original short stories escaped the Russian censorship, the show also somehow managed to escape audience's democratic censorship of shows that are too real to watch. Quite hard to bear so much reality, in fact, but found myself immediately looking for clues for a next season. I doubt there will be one, but I would watch it if it were.

The history of the crew that got together to place on screen such an obscure collection of short stories is also fascinating. Do search for it, you will understand more about the background of the series and maybe even make you read the original material, why not?
104 out of 111 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wonderful series
pavanratnaker2 January 2013
Having watched all the 4 episodes have to at this one was superbly made. The story itself is quite a simple one but wonderfully narrated , hence the most accolade should go to the author.Mostly dark humour but will be liked by most and hopefully will have a sense of humour to laugh about some medical topics. The editing is good too especially considering the number of episodes they were aiming for. The direction does justice to the story and the story and plots essence is never lost. Radcliffe is almost made for his role with the boyish looks and is very well supported by Jon Hamm. All the the supporting actors are very good and offer comic support just with their superb expressions.The half hour episodes make it quite easy to watch too . An easy watch but very entertaining.
52 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The Darkest Parts Of Humour, where laughter is the only pain relief
kam-the-sage21 November 2013
Based all on what I've seen of Series 1 only. What to say, eh? Writing this whilst I watch episode 4, again. That's my biggest endorsement of all. Each time watching adds to the depth of it all. And I want to watch it again. People will define this show by many non essential things, the accuracy to the texts its based off, the cast of English actors and of course that this series is defined by Daniel Radcliffe playing the main character. None of it matters for the show we get, as a stand alone, it stands high.

The premise, in 1934 Moscow the Older Doctor is recounting his years as Young Doctor who, fresh out of his doctorate, is sent to run a hospital in the middle of nowhere. From here we see the doctor grow from his naïve book smarts into the stark reality of his situation.

To start it's a comedy for sure, but it holds plenty of drama. Both come equally when needed and play off each other well, think a tragic comedy and you have the basic idea. The jokes range from the minor slapstick to the darkest laughter, and easily not for people who can't laugh at the tragedy that life holds. They're all there for a purpose, the laughter sets up and releases the tension creating a good pace throughout the episodes. The themes are extensive and deep, addiction, loneliness, life experiences, death, healthcare through doctors and patients, and of course medicine. And those are just the heavy themes, there are even themes of sexuality, nature vs artificiality, mentors, past mistakes and many more.

It's well written, it shows a lot and doesn't tell you everything. Characters are well defined, each play their part in the narrative and the dialogue is very well done. Both of the Doctors grow over the series, where from the begin they are totally different by the end. There's a great retrospective segment in the last episode, and by this time we're shown the vast differences between the two. The production is great, you feel like you're there, in the cold, in the operating room, the locations are alive in their own way. The cast act their roles well enough, some characters don't have the breadth of depth as they might, but this is the doctors story and not theirs of course.

I come away from A Young Doctor's Notebook thinking. How can I laugh at tragedy? These stories are based off the experience of the original author, Bulgakov, when he was a doctor himself and we can only imagine the horror of healthcare back then and how it relates to modern medicine. Nietzche says we humans laugh because we realise we are going to die. And here I am now, watching it again, realising that the best pain killer will always be laughter in the face of that horror.
25 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Disturbingly funny
Katherina_Minola16 December 2013
Daniel Radcliffe stars as a young doctor, who in 1917, is sent to a remote village hospital in Russia, where he has to contend with eccentric staff, few supplies, and his own growing morphine addiction. Not to mention the various conversations he has with his older self (played by John Hamm).

In parts, the show is quite gruesome - it certainly made me wince! - but it also manages to be extremely funny - sometimes guiltily funny, as I found myself laughing at the inappropriateness of certain comments and situations.

Daniel Radcliffe surprised me by being very good as the younger doctor, while John Hamm is just super as his older, somewhat wiser self, who tries to stop his younger self from the mistakes he is about to make. The supporting cast are excellent, especially Adam Godley as the dull (to his colleagues, certainly not to the viewers) assistant.

What I really liked is the inversion of the popular 'doctor as hero' storyline. This doctor is most certainly not a hero - he can be uncaring about his patients, filching morphine for his own use rather than for those who really need it, he is a coward at times, and incredibly selfish. And of course, he is able to see himself being all of those things, but is powerless to stop himself.

It's well acted, well-written, will make you laugh and make you squirm - and it's definitely worth watching!
18 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Quite Enjoyable!
gpaloma135523 May 2014
I found the show to be much more enjoyable than I thought I would. This show is hilarious in great places, and makes you really want to get the doctor out of the weather. A Young Doctor's Notebook is very different than other shows, and I am looking forward to season two! It's as addicting as morphine! I wish that the seasons were longer than four episodes a piece, and only being 20-25 minutes long. I almost feel like the show should be a movie instead. However, it's still a great show that will leave your mouth hanging open in all the right places. Daniel Radcliffe is spectacular as the young doctor, and John Hamm delivers a performance that seems so natural to him. I recommend this to anyone who is into dark humor.
11 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A very black comedy, excellently executed, but not for everyone.....
qadirmagsi10 August 2014
First off, hats off to Daniel Radcliffe for trying to outgrow the Harry Potter image he will forever be associated with. He shows us that he is not just a cute boy wizard but a mature actor that can handle diverse roles. Jon Hamm also shows his acting muscle in a role which is much different from Mad Men.

I've never read Mikhail Bulgakov and so cannot comment on how accurate the series is to the short stories of the Russian writer but i can say this with certainty, the series has me hooked. I have seen the first season and it was all good. The found the dark humor oddly refreshing though shockingly gory at times.

Its not for everyone, but if you have the stomach for gore and comedy go see it, you will probably like it.

AZD
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Of doctors and national character
mary_vasilyeva21 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
As a person who has read Bulgakov in the original, I can say that the series has not much to do with it. In fact, it may to a large extent arouse feelings of defeated expectations from those, who expect a serious attempt to reflect the Russian spirit of it all and portray Bulgakov's character on a profound level. Many Russian viewers have written about sketchiness of plot, cutting the original story into shreds, the whole atmosphere being generally out of tune.

The point is that lots of Russian viewers feel robbed of the original story and therefore disappointed, ascribing their resentment simply to some shoddy directing, a script lacking in subtlety and class, and inexpressive acting. That is not the reason. All those aspects are quite legit in their own capacity. They are just miles and miles away from being "Russian". For better or for worse (in my humble opinion, definitely the previous), we face a phenomenon of Russian classics rendition, which is telling more about British national character and literary and cinematic tradition, than about anything else.

Russian literature of the beginning of the XX century is quite a closed semiotic system. One cannot interpret it without knowing the context extensively. And by extensively I mean really extensively. You have to know a lot about the Revolution and the whole run-up to it, read the poets of Silver Age, Pasternak's "Doctor Zhivago", Russian philosophers later to be sent away on the so called "philosopher's ship". And that is only to get the historical context right. Apart from that, you need the literary one, as well. For that it is imperative that one should read Gogol… Oops. Which is impossible due to no adequate translations whatsoever (seriously, if you had read Gogol in English, I congratulate you on wasting many hours of your time).

I prefer to think of this experiment with Russian literature as a study on the essence of British national character, which is quite showing in all the "faults" of the production (which are faults, only if you perceive them as such). In fact, comparing two autonomous variants of "A Young Doctor's Notebook" is far more productive, than seeking for blemishes.

First of all, the principle difference is in the tone of those memoirs. Bulgakov sets a lyrical one: kind humor mixed with sincere sympathy for the main character. The maturing that happens with the doctor is positive, from an inexperienced, boyish and jittery medical student into a calmer and more confident practitioner. This transition does not involve falling into callousness or cynicism. In the British version it is evolution from enthusiasm to total boredom and helplessness to addiction and self-destruction.

Let's take one story as an example, "A Towel with a Cockerel". It corresponds to the episode of amputation that Radcliffe's character has to face. In the original it is about facing one's fears for the sake of mercy and compassion. The girl's father's plea is touching, his gratefulness is heart-warming and the character is far more preoccupied with the girl's fate, than with his own ineptitude. The scene is gory, realistic and dramatic.

In the British version father's character has a purely comical function. The scene of amputation focuses on the doctor's self-reflections. Its conceptual center is far from the ultimate value of human life. It is shifted towards neurotic ramblings, dark slap-stick humor (blunt saw!) and deep insecurities. I find it quite symptomatic that the "drama" part of the series is the deep internalized fear and inability to cope with the outer world. In fact, it is so important one actor is literally not enough. Therefore the older version of the character emerges, lending it some depth of perspective and diachronic approach.

So, the main difference is in the importance of a deeply insecure character, desperately trying to prove himself in front of the scant society present. That socially-awkward vibe was virtually non-existent in Bulgakov's work, because it does not matter so much. There are some comical details, emphasizing the doctor's inexperience and naivety. Naivety is the operative word here, because that enthusiasm and hopefulness is seen as precious and endearing. Everybody is amused, and the character himself does not mind that much. In the series the doctor is mortified by his social faux pas, because that "inability for natural human communication" is one of the pillars the English society is built upon.

With the focus shifted towards the character's inner conflict, one has to counterbalance it with some reasons for such an existential crisis in the outer world. That is where this idea of the hated "frozen pisshole" and the intolerable boredom come from. Actually, in the original there are rueful undertones about the general wretchedness and squalidness of Russia, but those undertones have been a default background for many a Russian book. They are taken for granted, and the instinctive reaction to them is light sadness and resignation with the state of affairs (talk about Russian fatalism). In the British variant the outer world is simply Hell, devouring any person with some level of intelligence and will.

All in all, Radcliffe's character is very British in his need to be accepted in this small model of society, in his intellectual craving for something more in the middle of nowhere, in his self-obsessiveness. The atmosphere on the whole is British due to the predominance of typical black humor, gore, sarcasm, dry humor and even a shade of surrealism, close to "Monty Python" in the absurdity of (I hope, intentionally) gaudy pseudo-Russian theatrical decorations, clashing with the story of a young, ambitious (a dubious compliment for the English) and overly enthusiastic (a deadly sin for the English) doctor, who might as well have been English himself.

From my point of view, if you get rid of ridiculously pronounced "Grachovka" and change the setting into a God forsaken village of Cornwall it will all make much more sense.
32 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Really loved the overall atmosphere, cared less for the personal issues the characters seem to have.
BookHistorian18 February 2013
A young doctor's notebook is based on the book with the same title by Mikhail Bulgakov. It tells the story of a young doctor from Moscow who is send to a village a day's ride from 'the middle of nowhere in 1917's Russia. First of all, I really loved the atmosphere of the series and it's the main reason why I gave it an 8 out of 10. On the other hand, I cared little for the personal problems of the main protagonist. They seemed a bit forced but nevertheless added some depth to the story. I don't share the problem that most people seemed to have with the difference in appearance of Daniel Radcliff and John Hamm. For me those could be seen as the director taking artistic liberties with the story. Both actors do a fine job in communicating to the audience the distinctions that could be made between a young doctor fresh out of medical school and a more seasoned practitioner with his fair share of personal problems.
18 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Blood and pus and pickled sprats—a horror show that's not always so хорошо
The_late_Buddy_Ryan24 February 2014
I read a few of these stories years ago, and I don't recall that they had much in common with the later work, full of outrageous black humor and demonic fantasy, for which Bulgakov's remembered today. In this 4-ep UK series, three comedy writers attempt a seriocomic mashup of the two, plus a back-from-the-future framing tale in which an older (and much taller!) version of the protagonist, now a cynical, drug-addicted burnout, turns up as a sort of shady mentor to his younger self. Daniel Radcliffe displays fine comic timing as the younger doc; Jon Hamm seems uncomfortable at times with the accent (British, not Russian) but gets off some great line readings as the older one. Series hits its stride in the second episode, but our interest started to wane as things get darker and more chaotic in the last two. Seems kind of pointless to be satirizing the monotony and bleakness of rural Russian life in 1917— Bulgakov and his compatriots were about to endure much worse than bad weather and a cigarette shortage. Good supporting cast, esp. Adam Godley as an overly friendly paramedic ("Feldsher" is the term; until I looked at the cast list I though they were saying "the felcher"). I understand why the Russian reviewer who weighed in below was unimpressed, but when the second series turns up on 'flix, we'll prob'ly give it another chance. FYI, snarky guy from the Netherlands, this series was an Anglo-Japanese co-production…
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
surprising
notacat26 December 2013
I've read the original several times and never thought that it is a comedy. But still I enjoy this series. Perhaps, nobody would look it if it were the dark depressive drama. It's always good to find some fun even in such circumstances. And I'm sure, Bulgakov wouldn't mind this interpretation. He was a master of comedy.

I'm not a fun of Harry Potter films, I didn't realized who is Radcliffe, so it didn't prevent me from enjoying the film. If you can, try to forget about Harry Potter before watching. And about Mad Men as well. You'll lose the point if will try to find Don Draper here. I wish I haven't known any artists before.

Thanks to those who took the risk and decided to do that. I'd like to see something of this kind by Chekhov's short stories
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Good filming of a Russian classic / iconic writer
asonov28 July 2017
Well, this is hell of a video story of Bulgakov book. I am impressed twofold. 1. Given all the hysteria against Ru, someone dares to film Russian classics. 2. It is done so cool.

On the negative side: some Romanian / Gypsy melodies go through entire 1s season i am watching. This is too bad. The authentic music is not Russian.

Overall 9.0
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Utterly Captivating
alecschon17 June 2016
I absolutely loved it, it was perfect, captivating. Though a bit odd it's marked as a comedy everywhere, I mean, the fist four episodes may have been a bit comical but it ends utterly depressing, though that isn't necessarily a bad thing, it was ended perfectly. The show was a piece of art.

The whole "younger doctor/older doctor" thing was a bit confusing at first though once its straight in you head I have no other complaints, other than that maybe the duration of screaming got tiresome and numbing after a while.

Also, like I said, don't be deceived by the whole "comedy" thing, its more of a roll your eyes in embarrassment for the dorky-ness and naive- ness of the characters, which can be funny; the show is much more prominently a drama than a comedy.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Poignant and still funny
madisonmoss924 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I don't understand how the bad reviews are here, but most of them suggest the viewer's misunderstanding of dark humor. They also keep calling it American when it is produced by the BBC. As an American who has watched several BBC shows, this is fairly British in style.

It's a show about an amateur doctor in early 20th century Russia. Gloom and gore aren't spared one bit. But that's the thing, is it actually puts into light how a doctor at the time might go about things - he merely has to disregard all of the bad parts because it's his life and his job and what better than to medicate than with laughter and morphine? It also highlights how doctors become good at stifling their empathy in order to focus on their work. In our lead man's case, this escalates into narcissism, and it's hard to tell if that's who he truly is or if it's the drug's doing.

I love the storytelling where it's mostly show not tell. You have to read in between the lines to get the meat out of this story, so if you're looking for easy fluff that's where you might have gone wrong. As much as it is dark comedy, it is also a very powerful telling if how wretched addiction can be.

Jon Hamm and Danielle Radcliffe are a great pair. It's great to watch the older version of the doctor try to relate to his younger self, even come to terms with his past, and how that affects him later in life. His memory isn't perfectly preserved and it's presented as if he were allowed to view it properly and be amazed and disgusted at the reality. This exploration is highly thought provoking on it's own. Had the show been merely flashbacks to accompany the present tale, it would've felt cliche.

For me, most of the tale was the miserable downward spiral it's portrayed as. I enjoyed the humor very well, but I didn't finish it feeling like it was a comedy. That didn't detract from the show, though. I was left to contemplate many important themes, addiction being the most prominent, and how they were presented in this piece. Both the old and young doctors suffer from it. One is fresher and only admits his problem at the very end to excuse himself from doing the right thing. The other has found himself the pitiful product of such foolishness, and tries with all his might to amend the past to no avail.

Overall, I think it was extremely well done, and anyone who can handle the darkness will love this.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Good overall but do men grow in height after their 20's?
Ashleymyers17 June 2018
Enjoyed both Daniel Radcliffe and Jon Hamm but to have Hamm play the older Radcliffe? I mean he's graduated medical school and working as a young doctor so he'd be in his 20's and 5'5" but in his forties he's 6'2"? Dark comedy/drama - it was different lol and Radcliffe does a brilliant Jon Hamm imitation. On the serious side. It's interesting to see how the young doctor begins his journey optimistically and wanting to change the world, how he becomes jaded and the old doctor realizes his regrets and wishes like many of us do that we could go back and talk to our younger self and change the course our lives.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Bad Taste
claudio_carvalho8 May 2017
In 1917, during the Russian Revolution, Dr. Vladmir "Nika" Bomgard (Daniel Radcliffe) has just graduated in Moscow and is sent to run the Muryevo Hospital in the middle of nowhere to replace the deceased Dr. Leopold Leopoldovich. Along the days, the lonely Mikhail discusses with his team from by the assistant physician and two midwives the means to treat the illness of the local residents. Occasionally he is visited by his older self that tries to warn and prevent him from making mistakes that he will regret. When he has a pain in the stomach, Vladmir becomes addicted in morphine. Meanwhile, he is under investigation of the police seventeen years later.

The overrated "A Young Doctor's Notebook & Other Stories" is an awful TV Series with absolute bad taste. The first four episode are terrible and people should be afraid of any viewer that finds humor in this type of show. After watching this four episodes on DVD, it is not worthwhile buying or watching the following ones. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Diário de um Jovem Médico" ("Diary of a Doctor")
7 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Absolutely not
rainbowfascistparty25 October 2019
I understand why other people liked this but I just couldn't stand it. Maybe I've encountered too many monstrously incompetent doctors in my life to ever find them funny; to me it was all just too horrifying. The dual character of Daniel Whatshisname and Jon Whatshisname was distracting and impossible to sympathize with, the technique did not help the story. Gave it an extra star for Tim Key's appearance, one of my favorite unknown comics.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
I Watched a Whole Season and...
MycroftHolmes23 September 2019
Didn't realize Hamm and Radcliffe were supposed to be the same person. I was working at my computer while I watched, so I wasn't paying really close attention. I never read about it, only watching for the two actors in lead roles. When I finally caught on, I kept doubting it because Hamm is a giant and there is no way he could ever be Radcliffe. Maybe it was intentional that they made the young DR. so small?

Be that as it may, I found it funny and will have to rewatch now.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Well worth viewing!!!
I happened on to this while browsing Netflix late one night. I am so glad I did! What a gem! The comedy is dark & funny. The acting is top notch. Daniel Radcliffe is definitely not Harry Potter here! Watching him, as The Young Doctor, struggle with The Old Doctor is simply brilliant. The supporting characters are quirky. The storyline is strong & well written. The setting is bleak, but watching them adapt & deal with the hideous conditions & medical practice of the time period is fantastic. I will watch again & again because 4 episodes is not enough! I highly recommend this to anyone who likes dark comedy/dramas. You will not be disappointed!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Series with great potential
inesacite1 November 2014
This is an extraordinary series with entertaining situations, great costume and set design, and excellent dark comedy. I like everything about it; its style, humor, and actors, except the length. For me, the idea seems very promising and it could really be prolonged into a standard TV show. Currently, there are two seasons with 4 episodes each of 23 minutes. As I see it, in 8 episodes so much has happened very quickly that I did not get a chance to fully enjoy the series and its brilliance. I simply think that the show is definitely worth watching and it can be quite addicting which makes it a shame it is not further and better developed as, I believe, it could really reach a wide audience and be really successful.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Disappointing
thade-912-3483743 February 2014
The series failed to convince me. Acting is no more than average, even John Hamm cannot save the otherwise poor cast. The story is set in some remote location in Russia. I have no idea where it was actually shot, but the special effects leave a lot to be desired: Artificial snow falling in front of a snowy landscape. The young doctor lugging his suitcase over snow-swept planes. The doctor covered in ketchup or mayonnaise every time he comes near a patient, depending on whether it was a delivery or an abscess respectively. All clearly photo-shopped and unconvincing.

The worst thing is that in struggling through episodes 1-3 an acute sense that I was watching an American perspective on Siberia never left me. The atmosphere of the series is not Russian at all.

This is just a weak attempt to make a quick dollar, an embarrassing underestimation of the audience: cheap!
5 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bloody awful
YoSoyUnHombreSincero14 August 2016
And I do mean bloody. I believe it was supposed to be a comedy-drama. Well, it ended up demonstrating little comedy and no real drama. I found it mildly amusing at times, but mostly gloomy, depressing and gory – and I mean gory in a way that only detracted from what was for me a pretty boring show. No one is very convincing. Terrible casting. In their scenes together, John Hamm, as the Older Doctor, towers over Daniel Radcliffe, who plays the Young Doctor. Was this supposed to be a Doogie Howser-like character who started practicing medicine at 14 years of age and then presumably experienced a growth spurt before turning into his elder incarnation? Or maybe the Older Doctor took to wearing elevator shoes later in life? As for the accents, I don't get why Hamm had to struggle so for a British one when the characters were all supposed to be Russian. (Perhaps the producers thought, 'Well, this is intended for a British audience, most of whom would be turned off by a US accent in a local production.') Overall, just very disappointing, especially considering the talent involved.
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Oh Good God!
michaelradny14 September 2015
This is a show that I would make. It feels so Mighty Boosh-esq, whilst also maintaining a strong sense of originality and its own brand of amusing comedy. It is fantastic in so many ways, and for that I give it props. This is a show that is almost so perfect, except for a few minor slip ups, that it becomes something of an epic in its own right. Truly a glorifying view into English TV shows and the nature of British comedy.

One of the better shows I've seen on Netflix, and one of the best shows I've seen ever. It's addictive, fun and funny. It's so mystically fantastic that you forget that this show is being held in such a backwards world that you begin to assimilate their world with ours. I just can't stop rambling about this show.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
One of the funniest shows i have seen in a long time
jensmickey25 May 2014
It takes very few series or movies to keep me focused, and fewer to make me laugh out loud as this one did. Maybe this is why i decided to write my first review ever about this series; it is THAT good. Tagging this series as a drama is very wrong though; the story, the way it is presented and the acting itself makes it a proper comedy, and one of which quality and wittiness i do not see much of lately (unfortunately). I have not read the book it is based upon, but it does not matter in this case as the show stands for itself and might as well do it with great pride. The script was written with a loving hand clearly, because the dialogues are tears-in-your-eyes-laugh-out-hysterically-loud funny. The acting is superb and the actors fit their characters perfectly. The whole mix makes this series a great joy and a burst of optimism for life and for the future of TV.. Well done!
1 out of 3 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