He was a lot scarier than Kevin Spacey in the American version. Spacey was good but not nearly as good as Richardson but perhaps that has something to do with the difference in the settings.
@bijouxbroussard American politics is sufficiently different that it made it watchable as a separate work of art. I think it was good. Not being quite as good as a masterpiece is nothing to be ashamed of. Unfortunately American TV series makers have a tendency to think that that if something is successful then another season must be a good idea so it got less good towards the end. TV programme commissioners and producers often forget that the most successful works of art are those that leave you wanting more rather than being disappointed with the more you get. I'm not looking forward to John Cleese's proposed new version of Fawlty Towers for instance. There were only twelve episodes of Fawlty Towers but for many years I was convinced that there must have been at least twice as many.
One of my favourites. I was too young to watch it when it first aired, but I read the book at school and it got me hooked. It looks wuite dated now, but the screenplay and acting are still razor sharp.
The American version is good (I wouldn't call it a remake, it is more a reinterpretation in a different political arena and era) but rather too.long and gets bogged down in procedural detail to the detriment of the drama.
I remember it being an 'appointment to view' as I couldn't afford a video recorder back then. Never saw the Netflix remake, but I can't believe it was as good as the original. Absolutely agree about Ian Richardson: one of our finest actors on screen and on stage.
@Longpatrol There are a couple of exceptions, when the U.S. doesn’t copy it too closely. "Sanford & Son" was successful because it was so different from "Steptoe & Son".
