here

Sample of one of those on this site...

Good Points:
Using off-beat comedy as its primary means of humour (quirky by nature so you need to work with it to get it).
Not afraid to use pauses to allow the penny to drop with the viewer. Speeding-up and slowing down merely adjusts the level of agony for the subject. It's a 'minds-eye' view of a problem really, something which we do sub-consciously every day.
The character development takes place at different rates for each individual. We pick out our favourites and then watch their traits develop in much the same way as we observe our friends and work collegues.

Bad Points:
Not enough Sue White ( 'Nutty Scottishs Woman' ) or Harriett Schulenberg (ditsy/useful but forgetful 'Mum' character).

General Comments:
Green Wing - By using off-beat comedy as its primary means of humour not everything you see/hear will be necessarily 'in your face' type of humour (i.e. instant). I would agree that it will be a personal preference thing - you either get it or you don't, so I am not surprised that the reviews which have been posted, both here and elsewhere, have been so polarised.
Also, using humour references in an original way. How many blokes would have genuinely understood the 'Pink Bunny' storey of Sue White [Michelle Gomez] and Dr. Mac? That line of enquiry was written so that it could have gone a number of different ways and it still managed to finish on a tantalisingly frustrating 'nearly got him' closing line. "Look-out Mr. Bunny...".
For a bloke, it is interesting to see a female take on things (values/frustrations/ambitions), however slanted and unrepresetative they may be. Even the competitive streak between Dr. Mac and Guy on, well, everything, would enable most (honest) blokes to identify with that to some extent. Plenty of references for the Ladies to enjoy their own area(s) of humour in a suitably 'coded-language' sort of way too. Q: How does that rating scheme of Dr. Guy's really work anyway? When the Ladies hear about it they are offended / they hear the score and are then mildly flattered when one is allocated the highest score and devastated when the female co-worker gets a higher rating. Aren't women just as competitive but just on different things ?
Institutional humour will always bring-out the best and worst of what humans have to offer. It is a contained environment giving us a snap-shot of how they work. It's just a representative of real life, i.e., why well-written observational humour is generally so successful. We just see and agree with what matters to us. Humans just tend to be more subjective. Observation is a highly selective activity which makes our enjoyment, or otherwise, of this programme such an individual matter.

Recommended:
Yes

Biber

Check it out!
BA xx ;)