And I do not understand why the show gets so much beating. In my opinion this show really is excellent. Well the first two episodes were not that great but it picks up a load of momentum at the third episode. Which seems to be typical for a Steve Moffat sitcom. I would rate it among the best sitcoms Britain has ever produced.The show itself is a farce at its best, it is not along the lines of Fawlty Towers, but you definitely can rank it as high as a Black Adder, Coupling, or The Young Ones! I am watching the first season, and all I can say is that I am happy I bought the DVD!The problem probably with this show is and why it got smacked so hard, according to the internet, that the original press release compared it to Fawlty Towers, and everyone was disappointed it was not! Well even Green Wing is closer to Fawlty Towers than this show, all I can say is clear your mind from every prejudice, give the show at least a run until (including episode 3) and then decide for yourself!All I can say is thanks Steve Moffat for writing it and thanks for the entire staff pulling it off!

CHALK must be the most heavily criticized sit com to have been made by the BBC during the 1990s . That`s hardly surprising since it`s one of the worst sit coms the beeb decided to make. Perhaps the reason for the critics panning was the fact that the BBC decided to tout it as the new FAWLTY TOWERS ! .Yep you read that right , mind you many of the premises of CHALK may have worked if set in a hotel in Torquay but FAWLTY TOWERS had two outstanding comedy writers in Cleese and Booth and the cast were convincing and that is the key to comedy - just like in the best sci fi you have to be totally convincing on the writing and acting fronts . CHALK fails because the acting is truly awful especially David Bamber who`s idea of comedy is gurning and acting in a totally OTT manner , and going back to some of the episodes premises , if I remember correctly one features a corpse and another involves school inspectors . Ah so that`s why they`d work in FAWLTY TOWERS , they`ve already been used in Cleeses and Booth`s masterwork.And I did notice that other reviewers at the IMDB have decided not to make their names and locations public. Is this in case the BBC will hold a grudge against them putting the boot into their baby ? I hope not and I have praised much of the beebs work in the past , and that`s why I`m surprised they can commission rubbish like CHALK

My friend watched Chalk. He saw David Bamber and said that he had nightmares. The show was that bad.Although David Bamber didn't do it alone. The entire show was a complete failure. Saying that the fact that it had an ongoing understated and unconsummated love affair going on made it like an American sitcom is hogwash! American sitcoms would never have a married man carry on so unless his wife was insane and never actually appeared on-screen. Even if they did, the fact that David Bamber was one half of this couple makes it highly implausible. We were already asked to transcend the lines of plausible reality when we were asked to believe that any woman would marry him. To think that another female would be attracted to him is impossible to swallow.If anyone else had been in the role of Slatt, this show might have been palatable. However, it was not to be. I conclude by saying that this show should carry a warning label- avoid at all costs!

Chalk is one of the most underrated British sitcoms. I'm not pretending it's one of the best, but it deserved attention and recognition and admiration. It WAS just farce, but it was funny, well constructed, and beautifully acted. What lifted the programme above the norm, though, was the love affair, which was handled terrifically. The difference between British and American sitcoms, what makes the US ones so popular, is they're good at building on-going unconsummated love affairs into the plots - Ross and Rachel, Frasier and Niles, Caroline and Richard. They make you want to keep watching. Although the complicit insanity of David Bamber and Nicola Walker was very understated throughout the first series, it was there. In the next series, it began to come to life - this was perfect pacing, and the episode where they both draw diagrams to show how they're not compatible was nearly brilliant.It's not as good as Press Gang, of course - nothing is (and I'm not crazy, I'm sensible and clever in real life) but it's clear that Moffat is our best hope for producing a sit com full of great lines and a romance you care about. I wish he'd write something new now. How about a return to Spike and Lynda - they must both want to do it, if it's as good as Press Gang. She could be working her way up a ghastly tabloid, or the editor of a local paper, or well, I am getting into crazy territory now. But he should do it.