Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.
AboveDeepBuggy Some things I liked some I did not.
filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.
Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.
erawillmoth Considering Bad Education is 'just' a sitcom and therefore not typically expected to have complex characters and plot lines, I think the writing and casting of the series was and remains fantastic. Not only is there witty and well-delivered dialogue, as mentioned in other reviews, but it touches on sensitive issues in an irable way. Let me expand on this, because it is debated hotly and largely disputed, especially for this show.Bad Education is called 'puerile' by a few reviewers online due to its rather rude humour. OK, this is a fair point... but it's well-written humour, even if a lot of it is dirty, and the majority of it is extremely funny. Even the clichéd jokes are delivered and inserted in new ways and the few that aren't still work in the context of the show. If someone was wanting highbrow humour, they shouldn't have chosen a sitcom: the way the humour is written is, yes, 'puerile', but it is funny and it works.In addition to this, the characters each start stereotypically clichéd: this is another point reviewers touch upon in a negative light. But, again, in the context of the sitcom, they are lovable and well-written and consistent, which makes the show. And, even though they START stereotypically (eg. camp gay boy, clever Asian girl, class clown, etc.) they develop throughout the course of the show and develop personalities and hobbies and show sides that you wouldn't expect (eg. the tough bully turns out to be gay) and stereotypes are merged in new ways (eg. class clown turns emo/Gothic). On top of this, it is never explicitly mentioned, but it is implied that we, the audience, are seeing these kids through Mr Wickers' eyes and therefore are accompanying them on the journey of HIM seeing them develop from just cardboard cutout characters in a class he's got to control into real people who respect him and whom he respects. In episode 1 in the parents' meeting, he mentions their talents as aspects of them that nobody else notices, showing he notices and respects them as people - not just learners - and this is reflected in the last scene in season 3.Other good points include the facts that: -Parents match up to their children, psychologically, in appearance, and are (except for the movie... sorry Mrs. Poulter) kept consistent even when in the background. I am especially impressed with the psychological accuracy in the portrayal of the parents and their children. Examples include Stephen Carmichael's ability to be confident and open, matched up to Mr and Mrs Carmichael and their acceptance of their son's personality and sexuality, and also Frank Grayson's mother, whose neglectful and abusive relationship with her son versus the pampering of her dog explains the constant need for her son to assert dominance alongside his need to hide his soft side and 'true self'.-The morals are irable and repeated: even though the humour is dirty and Wickers himself does not shy away from doing ridiculous and immoral things to reach his end goals, morals consistently include 'be yourself: you will be richly rewarded' (such as in Grayson's transformation from bully to confident and proud boyfriend of Stephen), 'people are people not just stereotypes' (each character is complex and respected and liked by the end of the series by every other character), 'things are illegal for a reason', 'sexuality is nothing to be ashamed of' and 'immaturity can be overcome'.-Scenes are reflected subtly to show growth throughout the series, one particular example being (credit to the Tumblr who brought this up) the first and last lines of each character being meaningful and summing up the character in question. Grayson's first and last lines towards Stephen are 'Hi ugly' and 'You look amazing'.-Plus, representation is very inclusive: there are main characters who are disabled, from a large section of ethnicities, strong female characters meeting the Bechdel test (Gulliver and Pickwell talk to each other quite a lot about various issues), and there are multiple and complex queer plot lines which are not trivialised or made into a joke and get their own happy endings... mostly.So, yes. Bad Education could be called 'immature' and 'puerile'... but it really isn't...
giljade-23068 OK, its crass, juvenile, and has spectacularly non-PC dialogue. But it is pure genius IMHO. Banter level indeed reaches stratospheric levels, and it is recommended to subtitles to follow all slang spoken at breakneck speed. I have recently re-viewed some episodes and was rolling on the floor laughing. Here is a one-liner quote, one of a thousand of the surreal dialogue. When asked to ask a question during a visit to the "Petting Zoo and Ink museum" here is what Joe comes with: "Would you rather be a boy with a dog's head or a dog with a boys head?" following Rem-dogs rather non-PC one: "How come you can call dogs bitches, but not bitches bitches?" And BTW I'm no dumb teenager myself having recently entered my sixth decade. I think this has not enough cult following as it should ...
StormSworder Ever wondered why there have been no great British sitcoms to rival the glories of the 20th century? Or no new icons on a par with the Trotters, the Warmington-on-sea gang, the boys from the Dwarf, Victor Meldrew or Tony Hancock? It's simple really. The great comedy writing teams of old were from blue-collar backgrounds. They knew the masses and they knew what made the man in the street laugh.These days, however, TV producers look no further than Oxbridge for their writing talent (if that's the right word). "Bad Education", the life and times of teachers in a modern school, is a prime example of this. The characters are either patronising stereotypes or cardboard cut-outs. The show treats its audience like idiots, relying on swearing and crudeness for its humour ('cos us plebs consider that kind of thing the height of comedy, huh, me old china?) I've no doubt the BBC will try ing it off as "comedy drama", but the drama in the series is so over-the-top it's impossible to take seriously.If you want a TV show about life in a school then try "Teachers". It's a drama series, but it has comedy content which is actually funny and drama which is actually dramatic.
Ideophobe I'll give this terrible education an 8; a score given almost entirely on the value of dialogue. In every concept this show is plainly, used, but the stereotypes stay fresh with a stream of static wit. Banter fights back and forth from start to finish. The character palette is too robust to ever stay looking at one color for long. Characters are stably defined, and growth among any of them is highly unlikely. But as they interact, the extreme envelopes them as you get to sit and watch these kids ride toward utter nothingness mislead by a teacher who seems to be skilled in absolutely nothing but responding to any situation, anywhere, instantly and in the worst way possible. I suggest checking it out if dialogue is your thing the British have been doing it a long time. ~Ideophobe
