Frasier (2023)

If fans are looking for something new, they won’t find it here, but there is something so charming about dusting off and polishing up a past relic that makes it as refreshing as you remembered it.

This is not one of those revivals whose very existence will force you to consider your own passing life and impending mortality. And Grammer is so completely Frasier — a deceptively unsentimental character in a basically sentimental show — that the new edition, for all its innovations, wraps itself comfortably around him.

It may be a rented Boston brownstone rather than a swish Seattle penthouse, but Frasier is back in the building.

Unlike the wretched reboot of Sex and the City, Frasier’s team has managed to update the comedy’s situation, incorporate Frasier’s greater age and its different challenges and diversify its casting without apparent strain. It feels like an organic progression rather than something flung together by a frightened committee.

The old faces are missed, and the tone is resolutely old-fashioned. But Frasier proves a versatile sitcom hero once more, heading back to his original city for new escapades with plenty of warmth and invention. Craniacs should be sated.

The show totally works. The comedic beats, witty repartee, and comedy of errors-pratfalls and misunderstandings are all still there.

“Frasier” 2.0 rekindles the joy brought on by cunningly constructed lines delivered with perfect timing and attitude.

In comparison to other revival series to recently roll out, there’s an authentic feel to Frasier’s return that keeps it from feeling too much like a faded photocopy of the original.

Through the first five episodes, the new “Frasier” proves adept at the classic sitcom form and it’s certainly funnier than many of the CBS comedies viewers have seen in recent years.

To be fair, the revival does begin to find its stride in later episodes, especially when it leans into the proudly pretentious tone of the original. (We even get a conversation spoken entirely in Latin!) But beyond the superficial similarities — the pithy title cards between scenes, Grammer crooning “Tossed Salad and Scrambled Eggs” over the end credits — this just isn’t Frasier.

The new Frasier sometimes feels a little dated. The comedy and pacing is very ’90s sitcom, the laugh track even more so. But here’s the thing about nostalgia: It’s addictive AF.

The new show has its moments — there’s a lovely tribute to Martin and to Mahoney at the end of the premiere episode — but it lacks the consistency, rapier wit and heart of the original, and doesn’t offer enough originality to merit us booking further sessions with Dr. Frasier Crane.

Sweet, sad, nice, and a tad dull.

The revival relies on the same style of witty puns and double entendres as the original series, but the journey from setup to punchline is often clunkier. Even the fact that the new episodes are five to 10 minutes longer belies the fact that nothing here is quite as tight as in the original.

While Grammer slips into the role like its an expensive pair of loafers, he’s surrounded by a closet full of sneakers. They’ll need some breaking in.

There are some decent gags in the revival, but the hit rate is undeniably spottier, leading to plenty of moments when the (apparently real) crowd is losing their minds as you stare at your screen, stony-faced and numb (maybe that's just me). Still, Frasier stands out as one of this year's most pleasant surprises – albeit, partly because the potential for failure was so huge.

The new “Frasier” is perfectly palatable, especially for someone who’s worn out every episode of Dr. Crane’s previous escapades. And after a rocky first episode, the cast settles in a little better than one initially fears. But it’ll have to do a lot of legwork to lift itself to the annals of David Angell, Peter Casey, and David Lee’s iconic sitcom.

Little may remain other than a title and an endearing snobbery, but, just like Theseus’s ride before it, the spirit of Frasier remains intact. Not quite seaworthy, perhaps, but just about afloat.

The jokes start to become increasingly and glaringly repetitive, relying on the confusion of the characters rather than a more clever sense of charm. Frasier's return could easily find its footing as time goes on, but there is much that has proven to be rocky in the early stages of this return.

The interactions between Frasier and Freddy's firefighter colleagues Moose (Jimmy Dunn), Tiny (Kevin Daniels), and Smokey (Renee Pezzotta) are reliably amusing, but whenever Dr. Crane is not on screen, Frasier suffers.

Grammer remains as game for silliness as ever, but everything else about this “Frasier” ultimately feels more tired than inspired.

The show leans hard on the parallels between Martin’s disapproval of Frasier and Frasier’s disapproval of Freddy. That’s a markedly derivative framework: good for driving an episode or three, but it doesn’t feel capable of powering a series.

It’s odd to see how much effort Grammer has put in to make this revival happen, only for it to come across as a cautious, defensive maneuver. All that effort just to bring back this?

Without the friends and family we saw associate with the radio host in Seattle, there's something just slightly off about this reboot. It means well. And it knows the motions of what a show like "Frasier" should be. But it's not quite right.

The new “Frasier” is a little too content to coast on nostalgia.

This doesn’t really work, not for a lack of trying. It really lies in the writing—where old Frasier’s jokes and character signposts were witty and incisive, new Frasier’s are hacky and hammy, covering too-familiar tropes and topics. .... For all my issues with this revival/spinoff, something undeniable is that Grammer has still got it.

But what's the value of recreating the same dynamics in the namesake character’s life without establishing new challenges for him? The revival forces us to ask that question, especially in the creaky two episodes currently streaming, directed by the legendary James Burrows.

In time, the formula may work. But right now, the organic warmth that inspired the pandemic binging isn’t there yet. .... Grammer overshadows everyone sharing the screen with him other than Lyndhurst, an English comedy legend best known for the 1980s sitcom Only Fools and Horses.

Forget trying to live up to Frasier 1.0; with its mild jokes, forgettable characters and uninspired storylines, Frasier 2.0 barely makes any impression at all.

While watching the first five of the season’s 10 episodes, my interest in seeing more of the character was never stoked, and I was bored with his moves only a few minutes into the premiere.

Frasier Crane becomes the latest classic character to set sail for a mediocre, anticlimactic return, the god of bounds be damned.

Without anyone to offset Frasier with some comedic heft of their own, the reboot is the equivalent of salad, minus eggs.

It’s one thing to say that the new Frasier is missing the chemistry between the cast members that made the original series so special. But it also tries way too hard to parallel the original in the most crucial spots, making it painful to watch at times, and not nearly as funny as it could be.

The show strains to find reasons to throw these characters together in humorous situations. .... The writing, in other words, disappoints. Gone is the fizzy dialogue of Frasier’s heyday, replaced by dated “Baby Shark” gags and broad exchanges.

The whole endeavor feels like a very superficial read of what makes the character, and what made the Nineties version of Frasier, work.