Frasier (2023)

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.