werner-punz 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!

kep315 I can't understand other IMDB members' criticism of this very funny show. If you like Steven Moffat's other shows, how can you fail to be amused by this? Very much in the same vein as the previous "Joking Apart" and the latter "Coupling," "Chalk" puts its characters into farcical situations from which they have to find their way out of -- and suffer a world of embarrassment while doing so. The writing sparkles, and the acting is superb. The cast understand the meaning of the words "comic timing." And no, I did not find the performance of David Bamber, as Mr. Slatt, "over the top." Speaking of Mr. Slatt, you've got to love that the character starts out -- to use the British vernacular -- a total w****r. But then, in the episode where Mrs. Trippley meets her online sex partner (who goes by the screen name "Meat Helmet," while the dowdy, middle-aged teacher is "Hot Bitch" C'mon, tell me that that alone isn't already making you chuckle), Slatt is actually allowed to be heroic! This is akin to having M*A*S*H*'s Frank Burns turn around and do something noble at the end of an episode. Slatt's honorable action is totally unexpected, but a nice bit of character development nonetheless. All-in-all I'd say don't be put off by a couple of negative reviews. If you like Steven Moffat, or you like farce, watch this show! Meanwhile, I wish someone would put out a Region 1 DVD of "Chalk" so that I can see the episodes that I missed when it ran on our local PBS station, and re-watch some of my favorite episode, such as the one mentioned above.

Theo Robertson 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

VLeung 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.