SceneByScene Reviews

The House Across the Street (2022)

For most of the programme only a rating of 6/10, but then gathers pace to reach a 7 or 8

[9 May 2024]

Too unclear in its telling. Too 'waffly' for most of the drama.

I liked the premise - when I finally realised what it was, although even that was not absolutely certain! - i_e_ that we weren't supposed to know if the protagonist (played by talented actor, Shirley Henderson) was involved in the death or not. But the problem was: this basis was unclear for much of the first 2 episodes. So the story's central purpose was invisible for half of the 4 parts.

And in any case I don't like being 'toyed with' that way by TV production companies. There is a way of being vague about 'whodunnit', without playing twisted games with the viewers. Stories should always be clear in their purpose, even if that purpose is - ironically - to be vague!

"You're wrong about me: it's you I'm here for" and other script lines seem effective . . . The text here serves its purpose: the vagueness in the words could mean the protagonist is there to 'get' the other woman or to help her. This line should have served to keep viewers enthralled. But adept script lines like this are lost in the general muddle. As the way the story is laid out just stretches everything on and on. So, instead of a good script clarifying things, confusion ensues.

A more adroit style of telling it would have been worthy of the story's plot. A sharper feel would have done wonders. But there was no such stylism. I didn't mind the concentration on the lead character's character & psychology, rather than police procedures etc. After all, we've all seen edgy crime thrillers aplenty, and they do tend to follow a model. So this drama's novel angle in a crime story was a refreshing approach. No, the problem was that the drama didn't do this approach well enough. We weren't sure what the protagonist was feeling, thinking, or doing for most of the time. And that should not be the case in a TV drama.

The programme was so annoying to watch that it took me a fortnight's gap between each episode to drag myself through the whole thing! ,-)

Too many hateful looks at neighbours; too much gossiping over the garden fence . . . All these stylisms were left unclear as to their relevance to the story. They instead just seemed an unnecessary focus on neighbourly nastiness. Pointless camera time. And it felt like they were tropes taken straight out of a soap programme. And played straight to an audience just so they too could gossip about the gossipers on-screen!

So this was another case, sadly, of Channel 5 focusing on the lowest common denominators amongst the viewers. As C5 have done too often, in their recent TV output.

Kudos to Henderson, though. She did more on-screen crying than I have ever seen an actor produce in one drama, and to good effect. She's excellent in the role: so believable as both a victim and a perpetrator . . .

And the other actors were equally as worthy. It was the ambience of the drama that was wrong, not the casting or work of the acting team.

The programme all seemed a bit soap-tastic ("Ooh! So WHO shot JR?!"), rather than clever. Too many over-lingering shots by the camera of each of the characters . . . Was the killer him?! Was it her?! Over-dramatic piffle, that just made me not much care.

Such a shame, as if the drama had been given a different style, an intelligent programme would have been produced.

Fortunately in the end scenes the emotions in the plot run high, and the endless dragging out of the story ceases as we see a worthwhile finale. Finally we find out what's been going on. And we see why the lead character had been behaving the way she did. Her true - and deep-seated - nature is revealed. And a conclusion to the tale is given to the viewer that is original, and sadly believable. So much so that the excruciating previous 3½ episodes now - surprisingly - seemed almost worth the wait.

So in the end the programme might be said to be worth a 7, rather than the 6 I had been thinking of before that point.

Nonetheless, I prefer the pace and creative approach to the story of other miniseries of this year: 'The Inheritance' & 'Coma'. Both are well made, and deserving of the viewer's time. The good thing is that each of these miniseries are a Channel 5 release, so both dramas put C5 in my good books.

That Certain Feeling (1956)

Not good . . . till it finally gets better

[5 May 2024]

Doesn't pull any weight - despite 3 strong actors as leads - till the last third of the movie.

At this point, we are treated to some humour at last . . . And connectivity between the characters. Eva Marie Saint does a surprising scene of a comic drunk song dance, with Bob Hope. As if she finally felt at home in the role, Saint suddenly springs to life and is at last believable in the film. And the viewer finally gets to see the chemistry between the characters of the ex-wife & ex-husband.

Up till that point Saint had looked like she was doing the old trope of an aloof ash-blonde clothes horse. Maybe she was told to by the production team, so no shame on her as an actress, but you just couldn't see within the film plot how two such opposing character types as she & Hope had ever had enough connecting them to get married. Now, finaly, we could.

I must say, I have only ever seen Saint in two other roles that I remember ('Waterfront' & 'Northwest'), where she also does the Grace Kelly/Tippi Hedren thing of largely just posing on set as an ice princess. Seeing this 'TSW' film now makes me realise that Saint had hidden talents that were probably never really tested on screen. The great costumier Edith Head's outfits are, as ever, gorgeous. But they basically hide the character in Saint that we should have been shown. Being beautiful could be a huge burden to an actress & entertainer back in the '50s . . . !

Poor George Sanders is somewhat typecast as a pompous Britisher {as the Americans DO seem to love naming us! ,-) }. Sadly he is plagued by a ridiculously over-convoluted way of speaking. This is clearly deliberate: his character's annoyingly verbose and self-centred style. But when you put it in at the start of the film, with the mix of Hope & Saint failing to set the screen alight for an hour, it just produces a dirge of scenes for most of the film.

Bob Hope has some superb lines, right from the start and throughout the film. He delivers them with typical aplomb, and with the usual brilliant comic effect. This at least makes HIS input create a watchable movie. So there is no falting that character or the scriptwriters' skilled involvement - thus far - in the final movie. But he seems to be sailing alone in this vessel. I was honestly thinking this was the worst film I had ever seen Hope in, till all changed . . .

As fortunately, one hour in, the chemistry between the 3 players changes. At last, we see a comedy movie worth its salt. So in the end the film was rated a 7/10 rather than a 5 or 6. Shame it didn't show any of the 'zing' Pearl Bailey references in the movie, earlier on. Now that WOULD have been a complete winner of a film.

Joint Account (1989–1991)

A warm and pleasant tale

[15 April 2024]

What a delightful comedy of manners!

It's far more genteel than many TV comedies of the 1980s-onwards.

Rather than a classic sitcom with punchlines aplenty, it gently observes the needs and desires of the characters.

The comedy element explores the problems of the executive class in Britain. And many of the lifestyle choices are as relevant now as they were back in 1989-1990 !

It's a polite way of smiling at the middle class and their stresses.

The programme's approach is to be friendly towards the two protagonists, rather than critical. The viewers sympathise with the characters' concerns. It's a warm and pleasant series to watch.

Note: it's a consecutive series, where each episode has a storyline that follows on from the week before. (Rather than each episode having a stand-alone plot, as per many sitcoms.) So it's best to watch the drama in the order the episodes were originally released.

Its stars are two stalwarts of British comedy. Peter Egan is, as ever, faultless. And Hannah Gordon brings an elegant style. The two actors play off each other well, in a humorous pairing.

John Bird's character is a refreshing negative influence on the drama, a bit of humorous darkness thrown on the likeable duo. He's the 'colleague one loves to hate'. And Bird makes me chuckle in every scene he plays.

There is just enough wit in the script to make the viewer smile, but enough pathos to make you believe the characters are true to life.

The series is well worth a watch if you want to enjoy a comedy that provides a more in-depth dramatization, rather than broad humour. In this series there is far more on offer than just a chortle every minute.

Madigan (1972–1973)

Richard Widmark is, as ever, superb

[11 March 2024]

Not the best storylines. Somewhat hackneyed plots i_e_ we've seen the key points before. So the overall offering of the series is passable rather than outstanding.

But Richard Widmark is, as ever, superb. A gruff but likeable character. So the series is worth a look at, just to see Widmark in action as the tough cop, roaming the city streets to 'get his man'. Or equally worth viewing if you're a fan of gritty US police shows of the 1970s.

Especially worth watching as the series only lasted 1 season, and at only 6 episodes is short and to the point. It's a piece of pure entertainment, and Hollywood TV history.

One episode has a different feel to the other five: 'The London Beat'. So it stands at odds with the rest of the series. But it is a lightly humorous episode, the comic element brought by the ever-great George Cole. The guest star is a surprise, in such an American series. But as the storyline has Madigan visiting England's capital city, as part of his police work, it all pins together well. The US-versus-UK character differences are wittily reflected at several points in the plot. As are the practices and strategies of British vs American cops. Deftly done. Widmark looked at home is this lighter episode, as if he really was enjoying the British experience. And if you're a fan of the talented English actor and his comedic skills, then George Cole's inclusion in the cast will be a treat. Who would have ever thought he and Widmark would conduct traffic around central London together?! In a hilarious scene, Widmark grins as he yee-ha's the London cars and buses as if they are American buffaloes! Delightful.

A Very Peculiar Practice (1986–1988)

Superb, until it changed dramatically in style in the second series

[4 March 2024]

We watched this series for the first time(!) 37 years after it was first broadcast. And we liked it from the outset: it had style and originality, intelligence and warmth. But then we quit: after the third episode of S2.

The programme altered in style and feel after series 1. The drama changed from being witty, satirical, and sassy - with supreme black comedy, but all the time being intensely amusing and enjoyable. The programme initially offered great political comment on universities & the culture of the 1980s, had the usual pithiness of a campus drama, and had several likeable characters . . . It was bizarre and at times surreal. And it made us laugh.

But by series 2 the programme was overly dark, with a deeply manipulative character as the new romantic interest. Her bullying - at times near-sociopathic - of our lovely lead character was shocking. An ex-boyfriend of said woman (a new lady lecturer to the uni) began roaming the college grounds, physically assaulting her right in front of the viewer, i_e_ on camera. What's funny about that sort of violence? This had been a black comedy that was now becoming a pure dark drama.

Of course, we hoped the lady lecturer character might soften as the series went on, but as we watched more of the 2nd series she just became even more histrionic and demanding. NOT a fun viewing experience . . .

There were more changes. The female doctor altered her nature between series 1 and 2, from being flirtatiously coercive to being aggressively conniving. She was now actively damaging other uni staff, and abusing her position of trust with both the female and male students. Disgusting behaviour for a medical professional . . .

And the V-C of the uni was recast as a new character in the 2nd series, as a moneymaking obsessive. This Americanisation of the uni would have been funny had the two lead female characters been played as more likeable. Instead we got two - nay, three (including the US V-C) - horrors of predatory uni staff. We had lost the previous V-C of series 1, who was an academic, and though greedy and devious was more 'normal' than the new V-C. This more acceptable personality had made that comedic character somehow whimsical, and the viewing of his conniving antics was more easy on the watcher than the new character in series 2.

I mean, I know it's a black comedy as opposed to base-level comedy, but there IS going too far in radicalisation . . . !

Then, by episode 3, sex workers were being employed in the medical department by one of the lead doctors. Oh dear, too 'channel 4' an approach to a comedy. It must have been titillatingly shocking to audience in the '80s - and a real watercooler conversation at work the next day (like 'Fifty Shades' in the 2010s) - but really it's just unpleasantness on the screen.

Too much nastiness . . . Not enough wit and amusement. So episode 3 was the end, for us. We skipped to the last episode, skimming through the final eps just to see what happened to our lovely hero. We even watched the 1-off special set in Poland. Ay caramba! . . . we realised we HAD make the right decision to dump this drama after ep 3!!

I would have given the programme an 8-star rating after watching series 1, but after series 2 showed its colours my rating plummeted. As the two series of the programme were so strikingly different in their style and appeal. I've still given it a 7, though, as 6 seems too low.

Shame, because for the first series it was intelligent and edgy, but also offered likeable and fun enjoyment.

Birds Like Us (2017)

A diatribe of a movie

[27 February 2024]

Oh dear. At two minutes I wasn't 'getting' this movie; at five minutes I realised I definitely wasn't enjoying it. Even the intro sequence had pained me, with its pinpoint of light meandering all over the place for what seemed like an endless time (we actually thought our DVD player had broken!).

By ten minutes I had surmised I couldn't even follow the bizarre mood of the film. I didn't understand its odd camera angles, recoiled from its unlikeable main characters (who were also drawn to be far too grotesque), and the non sequiturs of the script just messed up any storyline. So I decided to persist no more, and hit the power 'off' button.

The main problem was that the DVD's artwork had marketed the film in a particular way, that turned out to be grossly misleading. The artwork was made with a bold font and cheery prime colours, had illustrations of fun-looking birds on the front, and a sassy tag line of "Feathers will fly". In other words it looked like a standard animation film: fun, great for kids, with a comedic script to suit the roster of British actors in the cast. Instead, it turned out to be a VERY different style of film: sombre and laden with message, full of semi-artistic allegory and fable. Had I been expecting that - ie been in the mood to watch a 'worthy' film - I might have been able to handle the movie's symbolism and mystic tone. But I wasn't. And when the film wasn't even well put together, which I discovered as it continued, I simply had to give up on it. It was just a sequence of unrelated, disjointed scenes. A diatribe of a movie.

I don't even feel I can give the film any kind of a star rating at IMDb, as I only managed to digest a little of the total offering. And as it was initially a viewing failure because of misleading branding and advertising, we were not best pleased. Dishonesty is not the best policy! I hope the next animation film we pick up is made truer to its pictorial description.

Crime (2021– )

Sadly, series 2 ruined the greatness of series 1

[9 February 2024]

In a nutshell, series 2 ruined the greatness of series 1. Not because of the murder story in the second series, which was as intriguing as it should have been, but because of the interminable extra bits. Unnecessary and just confusing.

His sister's affair with a victim's sister, his nephew's cross-dressing, his step-father's last-minute revelation of a knowledge of the event that had traumatised the lead character since childhood. All of this was unrequired in a detective series.

Everyone seemed to have a secret connection to someone else in the story. Too many coincidences re who knew who. This made the sub-plots unlikely; and thus irritating. There was a young cop who couldn't shut his mouth (an unlikely character in the police force, I'd hope), sexual dalliances that were also ridiculously superfluous, a daft comedy scene of twin-like lookalikes that was completely unneccessary, and an older cop that was a perv in secret. Not to mention an anti-Christian story segment that - though the 2 'Christians' were complete hypocrites and deeply dislikeable - was again extraneous to the crime story. There was far too many side-lines in the drama.

Few of these parts gelled with any other part of the story. The programme began to look like a badly storyboarded production, rather than the super programme of series 1 that I'd planned to rate 8 stars.

The extra story parts made me wonder at times what I was watching; a crime show, a comedy, a family soap, or a posh-porn drama?

A slightly gratuitous nastiness/vulgarity began to be seen as the episodes ran on. One could of course say that this was the effect of the author Irvine Welsh - after all he wrote 'Trainspotting' and 'Filth' which are both very violent and edgy - but it seemed largely unjustifiable in the story.

All the sub-parts seemed unnecessary. And, frankly, the connections between them - and their connection to the main story concept, the crime - were badly written. At times the script veered all over the place. The segues required between the story components weren't present.

It was as if several scenes had not been completed by the story creators before the drama was made. Bad editing all over. Resulting in a poor exposition.

Even in the final scenes we are left unclear as to what is going to happen on several levels: what does Lennox's "See you on Monday" meean? As he had just emptied his office, was he not off to a new life? At times the end scenes made me sense a bad US TV movie was being played out on the screen; schmaltzy and saccharine. And that is not what I had watched in the first series, nor tuned in to watch in this second series. As a TV viewer, I don't like being played with, or misled . . . It's dishonest.

Overall, the most likeable parts of this second series were the continued story of how Lennox's past was still affecting him: a believable depiction of extreme stress on the human mind, PTSD, and the effects of triggering. Plus there was a watchable and good element in the detective work Lennox carried out on the murders: we saw key cop procedural processes, ending in a solution to the puzzle. If the viewer could ignore all the irrelevant side-plots then the drama offers a good whodunnit.

And I believed in the character of his boss, played by the great Ken Stott. And the part was cleanly written in this second series. Stott's character's frustration at having to adapt to new work terms and protocols was bang on for a man his age in the workplace. And I have to mention his witty scriptline homaging TV's 'Taggart' - "There's been a mu...". This was the one funny part in the series that seemed appropriate to the drama.

The series lacked much warmth, and at times the relationships between too many of the parties became salacious and sadistic. This was implausible. If a human is flawed it doesn't mean they are psychopathic. The only kind and healthy association within the story was between the police boss and Lennox. It was the only heartwarming human connection in the drama.

At least the acting in the production was good. The camaraderie between the boss and Lennox was well played. And Dougray Scott was superb in the role, as he was in series 1.

But, sadly, the negatives - such as the lack of cohesion and purpose in the production - overcame the combined positive qualities of the drama. So in the end my planned rating of 8 for the production was dropped to 5. Too much was added in for the second series, and it just drowned out the clarity of the main part of the story.

Silent Witness: Effective Range - Part 1 (2024) Season 27, Episode 1

'McCallum' meets 'Silent Witness' !

[7 February 2024]

An excellent episode of 'SW'! And about time. Recently there have been one too many patchy episodes. But fortunately it is normally worth the wait for another episode with 'SW', as it eventually - sooner or later - picks up and offers viewers a better episode. And this time too, the wait was worth it.

An interesting story, with good casting, a perfect script, and a superb ending. The story was believable, the actors spoke a script that sounded like real humans, and the characters pertained to who they were. A pleasant change to some recent eps that have the characters sound like completely different people to those we know so well; and sometimes even - ROFL - sounding like strange androids of some sort!.

The two halves of the drama flowed well together, the scene-setting was bang on, and the camerawork fitted in nicely. A good sense of cohesion to the production.

And . . . At last! After over a quarter of a century, we finally get to see the chief actor from the 'McCallum' pathology drama meet his counterparts from 'Silent Witness'. (. . . You'll have to remember the forensics dramas of 1990s' TV to get the point - wink-wink!)

I watched both 'McCallum' and 'SW' back in the day. And rewatched 'McC' during the depressing time of COVID lockdown. At that point I was looking for something to make me feel TV was still worth watching, and this 'classic' series seemed to offer what most modern TV show don't: dependable enjoyability. And . . . The rewatch in 2020 was everything I was hoping for. I was delighted when I enjoyed 'McC' as much then as in my initial viewing of years before.

So it was great to see John Hannah again, playing a different pathologist in this 2024 ep of a TV forensics drama.

John Hannah was great in the role. He balances the character well, staying on the edge of who he is, giving nothing away, until he needs to. And the regular actors from 'SW' matched him in equally good quality performances.

The blend between the characters is nicely done. As is the careful use of flashbacks, from present to past and back again. And the well-written episode made all the difference to the outcome of the production.

As for the episodic plot: the psychopath was so well written as a role, and so well acted, that I felt intensely angry at his actions within the story. His abusive manipulation of his young son, and the long-term effect on his two children, had me incensed. Now THAT'S believability! True suspension of disbelief is difficult to find in TV dramas. And this episode offered it in droves.

Everything blended. Good TV all round.

In all honesty the drama could have been played out to 4 or so episodes. It would have felt better paced, if it had been drawn out. As it was, the now-standard 'SW' duo of episodes didn't give the story the time to tell the tale to its best effect. It all felt a bit squashed into the two halves of the story. So it would have been great to see this particular story extended.

But, as it was, it was a good turnout from the canon of 'SW' episodes.

Malpractice (2023)

Super

[29 January 2024]

Excellent miniseries. Well written. Paced to perfection. Intelligently shot.

It didn't drag on too long, nor was it truncated to too few episodes. The casting was superb. And the actors performed brilliantly.

The plot also dealt with a very topical issue: the problem of addiction to prescription - rather than street - drugs. And touched upon the stress of the recent COVID pandemic as well. A strong story that had me hooked through all 5 episodes. Yes, at times a few characters were over-scripted (namely the duo on the internal investigation panel), which was grating, but this can be forgiven considering the quality of the rest of the drama.

It's great to see GOOD telly made once again, considering all the 'pap' put out by TV these days, both in too many other miniseries and in non-dramatic broadcasts.

They didn't labour the 'ah-ha' realisation moments. The viewer wasn't treated like an idiot. So there was no feel to this of a soap-y and lightweight miniseries. This one will stay with the viewer for some time. And it is a good memory.

Chalk (1997)

Supremely funny

[27 January 2024]

In a nutshell: exquisitely funny . . .

I hadn't seen this comedy series before, nor even heard of it that I remember, when I came across it on an online player in 2023. So I watched it mainly for the cast, many of whom are still known to us. I didn't expect great things of the funny aspect; I was just intrigued as to how it played. After all, if the series was good, I would have heard of it before . . . Right? Wrong! It was a delight to find the series is far better than the passable - or the just OK, or perhaps even pretty poor - that I expected. As, boy!, when I watched it, did I enjoy it!

I cannot believe I had never heard of the series. It should have won awards for the script, the storylines, the casting, and the comedy performances. And especially David Bamber; I can't believe he didn't win an award - or several - for his brilliant performance. He never falters over both series. His timing and delivery is spot on. He leads the players without trying to drown them out.

The other cast members are also superb. Several actors are even more well-known now than then, so went on from this to even greater things. There are reliable regular performers - well known from earlier comedy series - in cameos or in key roles; and introductory roles for newer actors. All skilled in their spot. The team gels brilliantly. An exercise in perfection.

Funny, clever, but never contrived or overdone. The programme did what it should: it makes the viewer laugh. And as for the prompt end after only 2 series: at least the last episode offered a neat - and likeable - finale for the characters. The best comedies have warmth as well as pith, so that we can appreciate the characters and get to like them. The closing episode offers us this feature: it makes us warm to Bamber and see him in a different perspective than we have so far. A neat ending then.

The programme only lasted 2 series. The reasons it was cancelled stun me. There is no WAY this this TV comedy should have got such a bad pasting after series 1 that it was cancelled - which is apparently what happened. WHAT was going through the minds of the deciding personnel?!

Yes, it's a farce, which no doubt didn't fit into the trend parameters of late-1990s TV. Farce was pretty old-school and sadly out of favour by then. Shame, as I have recently seen Steven Moffat's 'Joking Apart' series, which is another farce-based humour of the 1990s and like 'Chalk' is superb. I haven't laughed so much at a comedy in years, and I wasn't pressed by fashion prejudice to belittle such a classic form of humour. So could gladly ignore the out-of-style label that 'Chalk' was no doubt handed back in 1997 when it was cancelled.

I got to laugh out loud through all 12 episodes of 'Chalk'. Ditto Moffat's 'Joking Apart' TV creation. Both comedies are well worth the time-investment. Having waited a quarter of a century to discover the two TV programmes, I am delighted some genius decided to put them online. What a gift for 2024!

The Suspect (2022)

Astoundingly good

[5 January 2024]

In a nutshell: one of best miniseries dramas I've seen this year (2023). And this was such a surprise, as so often in past years this type of drama has been made to a humdrum standard. But this one isn't: it's superb.

Well-written, not too predictable in its wording, nor catering (as many recent dramas seem to do) for the foreign-translation market.

The more I watched the story play out the more I enjoyed it.

There are several surprises within the story - much to be expected in a psychological thriller - but again the twists are quite believable. The story & script avoid the old clichés quite dexterously.

The plot is credible, and the ending spot-on. The conclusion of the tale couldn't have been easily foreseen, and even if/when it was guessed by the viewer it wasn't treated to what I now call a Hallmark TV movie style ie infantile & crass.

The actors give good characterizations. Aidan ('Being Human') Turner is superb as the Doc. I haven't seen him in anything since 'BH', as I was never drawn to 'Poldark', so it's good to see him play such a different role, and so well. He looks very different, too, with a very full-on facial adornment of a flourishing beard! ,-)

The supporting characters are well portrayed too. Adam James especially plays his part well. And I expect to see more of Bobby Schofield in the future. The two investigating cops are unusual, and likeable, avoiding much of the usual stereotype of TV detectives. Yes, they make limited deductions at times re the Doc's involvement in the case, but that is often a feature in this type of psych thriller where the protagonist is being hounded by the police. The brief introduction of the Doc's parents is neatly done. There are enough side characters to fill the story without blowing the balance from the mainstay of the plot. The personalities of the Doc's friends and colleagues interplay well into his life. There is warmth to the tale, as well as excitement.

The extra story elements that are revealed in the last segments are subtly brought in, and never treated to a cheapening 'ta-da!' angle (that I have sadly seen in many a recent Channel5 miniseries).

The cinematography is bang on. No scenes are extraneous. None of the characters seemed unnecessarily stretched out, just to fill screen time. 5 episodes was just what this drama needed. Overall, there is just enough of everything, but never too much.

We used to see a lot of these psychological thrillers on TV back in the '90s, so it is delightful to see one again. And this example is a great return to form: it is rewarding to see that the production team have not hackneyed an old plot. This drama manages to incorporate a solid storyline while adding several credible twists and turns.

On a deeper level, it's a great tale re the tragedy of what can happen to a family if legal charges are misaligned. Let's hope this kind of thing happens less in life than we fear it does.

Apparently the drama is based on a book. But it is down to this adaptation working that makes it a good rendition of the tale. All too often a TV representation falls foul of the original novel. This drama has fortunately done credit to the book, from what I can tell. Let's hope the novel writer agrees! And let's hope that the TV production crew keep an eye on the writer for future work. Or at least pull together an adaptation of another good story: they did this drama so well . . .

Candy Cane Lane (I) (2023)

What a sad waste of Eddie Murphy's great talents . . .

[10 December 2023]

Oh dear, oh dear. Largely a perfect example of how NOT to make a Christmas movie!

Effectively a diatribe on the wonder & magic of the Christmas spirit. No fun, no levity, and little delight to make it worthwhile viewing in any way.

Fortunately a few elements make it as least likeable in parts. There are a few excellent one-liner jokes - so funny they actually made me laugh out loud. I like to think these particular scriptlines may be the result of the Saturday Night Live influence on the movie. So, kudos to the writing team for these winning quips. But other than that, the movie is a waste of 2 hours of the viewer's life.

Such a pity. There are some past Christmas movies that really hit the mark, made by a variety of film stars over the decades. These all have their place in Hollywood history. So, for the great Eddie Murphy to bother to make one of his own, after decades of being in Hollywood, this film really should have been well put together. But it wasn't. If it had been edited and fine-tuned till it worked, the movie might have - well - worked!

So, shame to see this opportunity so badly wasted.

The premise is hardly new to film. Here in the UK a similar plot of neighbours competing over Christmas lights - and the moral of overdoing the in-fighting - was done to perfection by Robson Green & Mark Benton back in the Noughties. That was 'Christmas Lights' (2004). And numerous other offerings have done the same tale well enough in other countries and other decades.

This film just ruins the plot concept. Everything in the movie is overdone: it's frenetic, unevenly paced, out of control, and predictably (and badly) scripted. Like many poorly made films it is either edited to too brief a runtime, or as in this case rambles on endlessly. The children are the usual stereotypes, ditto the wife, and the same with the neighbours. Not to mention Murphy's character as the dad & husband. There is no originality in the film where it is needed, and too much invention - to a chaotic level - just where it isn't required. And the longer the film goes on, the more convoluted it gets.

There are parts that shouldn't have been put in, eg an anti-Christian 'joke' that goes widely off-mark. The barbed remark is frankly offensive to Christmas itself . . . The film is, after all, supposed to be a Christmas movie, and although Christmas covers far more than one thing for many people - family celebrations, the season before the warmth of spring, partying & togetherness, the end of the calendar year, pagan festivities of old, and a variety of other purposes - it also of course covers Christianity. I consider that 'joke' insulting to the very purpose of Christmas: both the Christ-related part and the more encompassing general spirit of kindness. It is gross . . . And unfunny.

The film doesn't appear to have any clear purpose: it doesn't know what it wants to say, or how to say it. And there is too much of everything. Although the animation characters of the '12 Days' is new and clever, it seems not to fit in with the rest of the film. (Though in fact the rest of the film doesn't seem to fit into the rest of the film . . . !) The set of live-miniatures of Christmas Village characters - more animation - are amusing, but again do not seem to segue into the rest of the story. And one set of animation characters in this film would have sufficed.

Then there is more confusion added to the mix: competing presenters of seasonal TV, teen troubles, an evil elf, current bosses to impress, 10 lords a-leaping turning up at school sports day, and yet more . . . All this needs to be digested by the viewer. Not to mention the task the family have to complete, of finding the gold rings before the clock chimes on Christmas Eve . . . Then 'Santa Claus' suddenly turns up, swooping in on a sleigh! Oh dear. Just because you CAN say or do something in a film, doesn't mean you should. Less is normally a case of more . . .

There are a few excellent moments: when Murphy's character is appalled to see Valentine's Day goods on sale at the market at the same time as Christmas goodies. And a lovely disagreement amongst the Dickensian 'figurines' about the old argument as to whether 'Die Hard' is a Christmas movie. Lovely!

But there are not enough laughs throughout the movie . . . And not enough cohesion in the storyline to even work out what this film is all about. Clarity is all-important in most film plots, but we don't see it here. Halfway through the film I still couldn't work out what exactly I was watching . . . (Harrumph!)

No, for a good Christmas movie I shall continue to watch from the roster of great Hollywood & UK seasonal films. One of my favourite Christmas movies simply has to be Frank Capra's 'It's a Wonderful Life'. It covers the 'ups' & 'downs' parts of Christmas to perfection, and is as relevant today as it was decades ago.

And for a good Murphy movie, I will delve back into his past greatness. There is plenty there to choose from. Need I mention, for example, the superlative 'Trading Places' . . .

The Ghost Writer (2010)

Excellent . . . . until it isn't . . .

[3 December 2023]

Overall, not too bad. Largely deft, with an intriguing plot. An intelligent adaptation of a political thriller. With a story that scarily echoes the real world of sometime UK-US political relations. We constantly feel on edge . . . That parts of this story could all too easily be true to life . . .

It has lovely moments of Hitchcockian style - without being in any way a cheap copy - including evocative background music. Hitchock loved to use the masterworks of composer Bernard Hermann; Polanski here uses Alexandre Desplat, to great effect, and as he often has in other films. Two artists working in unison.

Quiet action scenes make the film wonderfully atmospheric. Even the car 'tracking' scene has little action to it, and avoids being the chase sequence other films would have presented. The scene is nicely played down to a stealthy pace. Again, a wonderful homage to Alfred H.

It is a dark film in content and in style, but that adds to the mystique of the story. Layers are revealed as the plot moves on, until we see what has really been going on.

So: it works fine as a movie . . . Until it doesn't! . . .

Olivia Williams' character is written unevenly. We are never told why she is so angry with her husband. Then the character is seen in the political power module of the film. A very different personality. In the end her character almost seems to be two different people, and so far apart in nature as to be unbelievable.

There are several other plot holes. McGregor never explains why he throws down the gauntlet to Williams, and unless he was on a suicide mission it was a foolish move. His character appeared desperate, before the very end scenes, to go home and get away from it all, but instead he gets more involved. So the viewer should have been told if indeed he had a deathwish or had given up trying to exit the situation and move on to enjoy life elsewhere.

These gaps form noticeable chasms in the story. Which is a shame, as a bit of reviewing the movie pre-release would have meant the production team could have filled in the necessary missing elements.

Fortunately the actors do a very good job. So no critique there. Brosnan is perfect in the casting, playing a handsome once-powerful man, and looking and portraying the part to a 'T'. And McGregor is excellent as a behind-the-scenes ghostwriter, seemingly unassuming until he steps up his involvement in the story. And he plays the role to perfection: a man who is rather low-key by nature but then changes, as events take course, to dynamic and effective. Then there are the minor characters - played by such as Tom Wilkinson - who appositely complement the big players.

The cinematography is excellent. The greyness of the scenes - with frequent drenching rain - sets the rather dark & murky environment the ghostwriter has inadvertently become involved in. Scene-setting works: the severe-looking sharp-edged granite house of the former P. M. is like a gulag, restraining the once-powerful man. Costumes suit the characters perfectly. The incidental music is ideal: while not interfering with the course of the story, each musical piece adds just enough nuance to the scene.

The story runs along nicely, largely well put together . . . But then rushes the last 10 mins. The protagonist (Ewan McGregor) discovers a secret code - thus solving the mystery he has been investigating - incredibly quickly. And we are not told just HOW he works it out: there was no lead-in justifying such a momentous discovery in the mere moments it took. Plus Olivia WIlliams' character's key interplay was just dumped in suddenly at the end of the film, with little of the required explanation as to her role with her husband when he was the P. M., and how her involvement developed.

Certain scenes are particularly catching. I DID like the scene where a chain of note-carriers pass the piece of paper that will tell Williams what McGregor knows. It was a stylish, and original scene - worth an Oscar in itself! However, the rest of the closing scenes falter. The revelation at the end is rushed: it is neither a neat 'Ta-da!' nor a fully fleshed denouement. It's just a 'mushy' end to the tale.

I also liked the car-off-camera moment at the end. Very subtle yet slick. Although I'd be interested to know if the end of this film matches the novel from which it was adapted . . . I feel not . . .

The gaps that we see in the film damage the end product. The final scenes of the movie make the film uneven and skewed; whereas much of the rest of the film is well-balanced, so can't be faulted.

So, at the end, the film seems to just suddenly cease, falling flat on its face. Lots of build-up in the preceding hours, then it loses its way. Ingenious parts and moments of promise earlier in the movie fail in the end to deliver the clearly defined close it deserves. Such a shame.

Frankly, due to the patchiness of its content, the film is worth only 6.5 stars. However, I've had to opt for 7 stars as 6.5 is not on offer at IMDb. Increasing the star rating to 7 (rather than rounding it down to 6) is a reference to the features of the story that are good. Thank goodness for those good attributes . . .

Acceptable Risk (2017)

Sadly little more than lightweight piffle. Mainly harmless . . . but irritating. And not worth investing even a few hours of viewing time.

[28 November 2023]

This is one of those programmes that seems to have been written for people who think of it as a high-gloss, clever drama. But, sadly, it isn't.

What a shame. The usual predictable plot: a bad thing happens to the new husband of a nice woman, and she is left finding out more and more about the truth re his life. All the while she is struggling to be a good mum to her 2 children. The peace of her life is ruined. We have seen this type of story a thousand times before . . . !

Layer upon layer of her husband's true circumstances are revealed . . . So it should have been interesting as a drama. But instead there are too many incredible plot points.

The main character has an old job that her previous employers beseech her to return to. This is ludicrous, as no boss has ever done so in quite such a self-humiliating way. She is clearly meant to have a high-level demanding job, but somehow we don't see her as the executive type. It all seems made-up. The character is unlikely; rather like Nancy Drew, thinking she can solve the crime when the cops can't. Teenagers believe in Nancy Drew - but then they're teenagers, so that's to be expected! So maybe younger people who watch this series will believe this near-on tosh. As for adult viewers, I'd have expected grown-ups to be told a tale about a more believable character. So why do the producers think their adult audience will believe in our protagonist, when she is created so cartoonishly?!

Overall, it looks as if the producers decided that if they pop a female character in shiny, sexy, mega-heeled red shoes - and add a trouser suit - then she will come across as a clever executive . . . But this is not the case! If instead they had created her character as a woman working in an average job, I'd have had more respect for the drama. Then the story would have felt more realistic, rather than just an excuse for a dress-up.

The woman seems to have gone through a marriage ceremony without having found out anything about her intended. She hadn't even asked him where his relatives are, and which of them will be turning up for the wedding day. As she'd only recently lost her husband to a fatal accident, this quick marriage is also unbelievable. To have 'snaffled' husband #2 so quickly, with two young children in play . . . ! She also has seen no photos of his past. That a woman could do that, with vulnerable kids to protect? And - as we are told that she is a lawyer - would a woman of her executive status, achievement and intelligence really make such a risky move?! Daft indeed!! In fact, IMO this is just one example of the series being purposely designed to make some viewers feel superior - superior to a character who could make such foolish decisions. Again, tailoring the drama series to a particular type of audience. This restricts its target viewership.

Other hackneyed plot features also get dragged into usage - like the sister who is her only support, but rather conveniently (for our heroine to look the better of the two) is less successful in a steady career, plus is divorced with a conman for an ex-husband. A nice line in sisterly competition then reared its predestined head. Very soap'ish.

Plus the old tropes: Was her obsequious old boss the evil killer? Is the head of the police department part of the deception? Why had her hubby the business sales director secretly carried a gun? Was her sister also secretly involved in some way? And had her previous husband also been murdered as part of the same cover-up?

Not to mention overdoing the dramatic ploys. Just when we think we have seen every type of conspiracy possible, there is another introduced. The Americans (CIA), the Canadians, the garda, local Irish politicians, ex-policemen, big pharmaceutical company businessmen . . . Is NO ONE free of suspicion, the world over?! Do me a favour! TV banality, indeed. At times verging upon predictable trash.

Plus the pace of the story in this TV programme is - as is the case with many badly constructed TV dramas - too slow. Dear, oh dear . . . By the second episode I was already frustrated by the overall dallying of the plot. That's not good, considering there were still 4 episodes to sit through.

I all too often find the output of recent TV miniseries dramas dull and predictable - as if made on a shoestring budget and as if expected to be put straight to video. The style of these programmes is frequently clichéd and lazily formed; almost made to a bad TV movie standard.

So I began to wonder, when watching this particular series, if maybe I'd had little expectation of quality. Meaning I had set the bar too low, and so I saw what I feared I might? Thus a self-fulfilling prophecy, perhaps? But no, I then realised, as I have seen the lead actress, Elaine Cassidy, play several well-created parts in excellent dramas, I WAS expecting an average - or even better than average - TV drama. Sadly, I saw instead a finished product that was just a plain old let-down.

It is not all bad - it doesn't have a bad storyline, for example - but I don't like all the unbelievable parts. They seem unnecessary, a case of repeated deus ex machina. These plot strategies make the story both stupidly simplified and at the same time annoyingly elongated. Surely audiences don't need pandering to the lowest denominator, that much?!

It wasn't the worst ever TV miniseries I have seen, but it wasn't good enough to have spent 5 hours of my life watching. And it took me over 3 months to plough through all 6 episodes of the drama: I found it so unlikeable, I kept putting it off.

So this WAS one of those predictably mediocre outpourings. And a disappointment.

Starlings (2012– )

Oh dear - another case of a viewer website miscategorising the genre! This is NOT a sitcom, nor should it even be classified as a comedy drama.

[27 November 2023]

Oh dear, another case of miscategorisation. Yet another TV series where the genre of the programme is misclassified at the online viewer.

This is NOT a sitcom (as the viewer website states). It is not even a comedy drama. It is instead a lightweight feelgood drama with comedic elements.

I was expecting a fun series. Which is what a comedy offers. Instead I was shown a drama with a lot of touching moments, but little to actually laugh at.

Comedy is escapism, and is largely designed to make the viewer laugh. This programme is neither an escape from reality, nor can be said in any way to be largely comedic.

What it reminds me of is so many lightweight likeable dramas of the 1990s, set is a community/village/etc where everyone is part of a pseudo-family. This lot of characters ARE an actual family, but the 'extended family' feel is still there, as there are a lot of relatives living in the same building. Nothing wrong with that type of feelgood drama, but that's not the kind of programme I signed up for.

So I am switching off after only episode 2 of the 1st series.

I don't think I can really rate the programme at IMDb with any stars, as it is not what I was led to believe. So, as I was in the mindset to laugh at an enjoyable comedy, cannot rate something that DIDN'T make me laugh.

This incorrect classification is a growing flaw at online viewers, where miscategorisation abounds. I do wish online players would learn how to correctly categorise their TV series and films. It now occurs at loads of Web viewers. I am tired of seeing chillers labelled as thrillers, fantasies as sci-fi, horrors as action, and programmes such as this misdescribed as a comedy! . . .

Shame, because I love Matt King in so many programmes. And as he co-wrote this - plus acts in it - I was expecting more than just one giggle per episode.

Gentlemen Marry Brunettes (1955)

Oh dear. Moments aren't bad. But overall: unbalanced . . .

[22 November 2023]

Bizarre, challenging, but with elements that make it enormous fun to watch. (. . . Well, to watch once, that is!)

Everything in the film seems either overdone or too cut short. Rushed and erratic. Or not sufficiently explained.

I think it would have been better if they'd cast someone other that Jane Russell in the film. Purely because the casting of Russell makes the whole story confusing. Although viewers are led to believe it is, the film is not a sequel to the 'Blondes' film that Russell starred in with Marilyn Monroe, just two years earlier. It isn't even the same two characters. It's just a story by the same author (Anita Loos).

And as Russell plays the opposite of her character in the first film, the loss of the sassiness that she does so brilliantly is sadly felt in this follow-on movie. I think many viewers would also have been confused by Russell playing the 'ditsy'/amiable type of character that Monroe took in the earlier film.

So a new cast would at least have made the film stand on its own merits. Instead, it ends up being seen as a 'sequel' to a hit film . . . And - as we all know that sequels invariably pale in comparison to the originals - it is indeed a weak film.

Further character muddling ensues. The two female leads also play, in flashback scenes, the characters of their own mother and aunt, only altered to wearing 1920s clothes & with peroxide blonde hair. This made the clarity of characters - who-was-playing-what - even more confusing. Then, at the end of the film, Russell even plays her own mother, greyed up to look elderly. OMG . . .

Russell sings & dances well, but it's not enough to save the film. One or two good dances or songs do not a film make, not even a movie of the musical genre.

Jeanne Crain does well enough in the musical numbers, but surely Hollywood had another actress on their list who could have sung ALL the songs in the role as well as danced?! . . . maybe both the actresses were trying to break away from the stereotyped roles that actors of the studio-controlled era had to play to?

I later realised that this might have been a part-purpose of the film. I found out after watching the movie that this was a film produced by the star, Jane Russell, and her husband, in a brand new production unit. Russell had after all been in the business of show for some time, and would have by that point seen - and put up with - quite a lot of Hollywood's antics. So this was Russell's chance to put her OWN views across. Unfortunately this viewpoint wasn't made clear, and it was lost amongst all the razzamatazz in the film.

And not good razzamatazz, even for a show musical. Attempts to recreate other eras of musical comedy films went too far. The musical numbers are all phenomenally OTT. I only later realised that in some instances perhaps that was the point: the producers were sort of homaging - or half-laughing at - the grandiose Busby Berkeley era of films. For example, the stage songs were set to ridiculously unrelated stories, the performers wear pointless costumes (why a gorilla, for goodness sake?!), and with a huge corps of extras dancing unnecessarily in the background. But this homaging went too far & became insulting rather than flattering. The movie almost seemed at times to be a mick-take of itself, and I don't think it was trying to do so. Shoddy result, then.

As for the songs that are supposed to complement the film's plot, in the age-old way of film musicals: rather than being touching & evocative, nearly all the songs that the stars perform are instead horribly over-orchestrated. The music arrangement of each song is almost unbearably fanciful . . . Oh dear, how to ruin a classic Hollywood showtune. The dance sequences, too, had everything - including the kitchen sink - thrown in!

Too much of most things, and not enough of everything else . . .

As for the way the film was pieced together: in a tale that should have been neatly segued, most of the scenes don't flow into the next, smoothly or indeed at all. So the sequence of events in the storyline is vague.

The best scene & script sequence was when the 2 girls were trying to sell their song-&-dance act to various Parisian nightclubs - without having to agree to strip off, a la burlesque, in the process. Finally, a well-written sequence.

And the best standalone scriptline? When Jeanne Crain's character says, after awaking from a nightmare that viewers had just been shown via a dream sequence: "Dreams?! I'm having nightmares in CinemaScope!" Now that DID make me laugh. And at last, an in-joke that was clearly referenced and on point.

Other than that, the film is, frankly, out of control.

Fortunately a few redeeming factors arise: repeats of lovely Broadway & Hollywood musical songs by Rodgers & Hart, etc (just ignore the OTT orchestration!); stylish 1950s costumes; excellent dancing; and a bit of wit scattered into the script.

Shame the rest of the story is a jumbled plot of inconsequential actions. Unbalanced, is the word . . .

Nonetheless, it has to be seen - if you like 'Gentlemen Prefer Blondes' - just to watch a bit of Hollywood history!

Compulsion (2022– )

OK if you like very lightweight viewing ( . . . VERY lightweight viewing !)

[7 November 2023]

Frankly, this TV miniseries is often little more than humdrum hooey.

It can't be criticised much though, as it never tries to be more than lightweight. And as Channel 5 now create a LOT of miniseries dramas of this base level, the end result is not surprising. This is yet another of Channel 5's standard output of miniseries - ie not very original.

It's of a low level quality rather than a poor quality, as it's not badly made. It's just been tailored to the lowest common denominator. There's always something in these C5 miniseries that every householder can connect with. And that 'something' is sadly not anything that is of any real interest to me. It's a bit like watching an on-screen depiction of a Mills & Boon novel, ie it's a story that doesn't aspire to be a great work of dramatic depth like Tolstoy's 'Anna Karenina'!

There are too many of the tropes frequently used in this level of TV drama: the new best friend who might in fact be plotting against our heroine, the old best friend who might be after aspects of the heroine's life, the husband who . . . (Need I go on?!)

It's hardly difficult to work out what's going on in the plot, from the get-go. So that's the end guessed, right from the start! Where's the fun for the viewer, then?! Boo . . . Hiss . . . !

The best thing is seeing Hayley Mills in a non-typecast role, as an elderly - but dangerous - moneylender. The twee necklace of pearls she wears around her neck, while calmly delivering dark threats, gives us evil personified. Superb. And the two acting leads, Leanne Best and Anna Chancellor, do a good job with their roles. Plus it's nice to see an old face from 'The Bill' on our TV screens again. It's just that, put together, the drama is, well, banal. And largely predictable.

The only tweak to the end is in the last few minutes. But then the extra bit seems false, and badly explained. Why did AC's character capitulate so quickly to LB's character's account of events? After all, it could have been fiction, or a false memory. Plus we are left unsure as to whether the heroine will now go off and 'find' herself, without her family. Will she admit all to her boss? Will she ever trust her old best friend, who now seems a jealous unreliable madam? (That bit struck me as a pure soap-drama plot. NOT good!)

We now see the friend as intrinsically weak and our heroine as strong; but it doesn't feel relevant to the story. In other words, too much is pushed on the end of the 4-part drama. And pushed badly. Instead of being a neat twist, it seems laden and uncomfortable.

As with too many TV dramas these days: it's a case of style over substance. We are now seeing our heroine portrayed as stronger, and probably going to come out of the events a better person, but in fact that element doesn't ring true: it's too rushed. All this calm certainty is a complete about-face from her broken-down mood of the previous minutes! Oh dear, it all seemed so engineered: someone must have told the writers to pen this silliness. I sensed a horrible US TV movie plot there.

Ah well. Watch the drama for what it is, expect no more than it offers, and you won't go wrong. Otherwise . . .

Personally, I shall try to veer away from any more Channel 5 miniseries of this type. They just aren't worth the investment of my viewing time. I shall instead go and watch ITV's 'Malpractice': a miniseries much more to my liking . . . A more layered drama, with elements of depth, a more exciting storyline, and put together with some 'zing'.

Extant (2014–2015)

Starts well. But then loses the plot . . . becomes meandering & purposeless.

[6 November 2023]

The series started with a sharp style that promised good things. Excellent photography, good casting, a neat feel to the storyline, plus a good dose of mystery to interest the viewer. Yes, some of the features have been seen in a lot of other sci-fi dramas/films, but that didn't lessen the programme's strength. And until about episode 8 this panned out well.

Then it started . . . What I now call the delaying effect! We see it too often these days in TV dramas. The storyline began to meander all over the place; extra characters were suddenly introduced who then misleadingly became major players; key characters were lost through death; plus extra backstories of the characters were suddenly introduced and then played out as a main feature in the drama . . . In other words it looked like a hundred other storylines were being introduced just to keep the viewer hooked.

There was no longer any purpose to the story, or clarity in its vision. The plot became more & more convoluted. Some of the characters - who had been at least basically believable - started to do stupid things that didn't fit their nature, or their job level/IQ. And something the US studios love to subsume viewers with in their dramas: conspiracy of the worst type . . . The endless type!

Steven Spielberg notwithstanding, there was no way we could carry on watching this production.

We watched the first 10 episodes of series 1, and halfway through episode 11 . . . And then watched no further.

I had intended, after episode 10, to watch to the end of the first series, and THEN decide if I wanted to carry on viewing into series 2. But I couldn't stand watching it to beyond halfway into episode 11, let alone to the full 13 episodes of series 1!

I think this is a first for me, not to watch even a full episode before I quit watching a TV programme! But at episode 11 I could see that the growing fears I had sensed earlier - of rambling, misleading story threads - were coming true. And that was it. We switched off mid-episode. With (sad) relief. What a lost opportunity. For what could have been a good - and succinct - drama.

Cannes Confidential (2023)

Not original enough to be worth watching. Sadly, only 2 or 3 redeeming qualities.

[25 October 2023]

Mehhh. The style is hardly new. We've seen it a million times before. Two sassy people meet accidentally, in bad circumstances, immediately fall out, acerbic lines ensue. Then they realise they will be working together/running into each other all the time. And so a love/hate relationship is already set up. Will they, won't they?, is the topic of the next few episodes/series, I guess . . .

The problem is, it has the hallmarks of too many of the cross-boundary dramas I have seen recently. They have different nationalities playing against each other, set in one country. And they are often made by two or more contrasting nations (in this case Denmark & the UK). The different culture thing is not new to TV, over the past few years, but sadly in most circumstances it does not mesh well in a television drama. It just makes for confusing TV. I think the studios release these kinds of multi-nationality dramas, hoping lots of different cultures will also want to view it. As if all that matters is selling the drama to as many nations as possible.

Bring back TV that has a direct purpose. To entertain us. Plus, in the case of a police drama, to have us scope out 'whodunnit' along with a realistic lead detective character in front of us on the TV screen. At least that way we are using our brains to solve the puzzle. Engaging TV. That's the way it should still be made.

Instead we have something very much like 'The Mallorca Files', yet again. But this time with the Brit in the male role & as the renegade, while the European takes on the female role & that of the state detective who is oh so confined by the cop rulebook.

'Midsomer Murders' has done lightweight cop drama for years. And (a few episodes aside!), largely to great avail. It is what it is and no more. It does not have pretensions to being anything other than good fun. And I love the French series 'Candace Renoir' and 'Balthazar'. They both work extremely well too. Great crime stories, with likeable characters and interplay. All these cop series have the pitch in the right area. They all mesh perfectly. But this UK-&-Danish series set in Cannes does not . . .

The characters mainly feel unreal, as if the production team had to play it safe. Which they probably did. It looks like they nearly duplicated characters - and lines - from other shows. And with little original angle added . . . Why, oh why, just repeat things?!

Oh, and parts of the storylines are so improbable they are incredible! DO tell me how a clever baddie managed to leave evidence of their ill-doing in an unlocked van?! And in part of the art gallery property that was strangely left accessible to all attendees at the gallery event?! Was the baddie a child?! (P. S. no offence intended to children, here!) No! Daft?! . . . I think idiocy would be a more appropriate description for what that was!

There is not enough in-depth characterisation of the lead protagonists, and absolutely no enticing plots to the crime part of the episodes. In other words, little to actually care about or believe in.

Even the backplots as to why 'King' lost contact with his daughter - and why the cop father of 'Delmasse' is in trouble - don't really appeal to me as much as they should. Because I don't like the empty crime part to the TV series. I do not like being led to believe that I am investing in a crime drama, when I am investing in nothing close to the genre. What I am viewing is instead vapid nonsense.

The series is just a waste of some beautiful locations. And if I had WANTED to watch an armchair travel series I'd have hunted out a travelogue TV programme, not this dirge of non-drama.

I can almost see the subtitles that will be plastered on the screen if the studio sell this series to 1001 other countries. Oh dear . . . Why bother, with a script that is largely as uninspiring as this?!

We've recently had 'The Madame Blanc Mysteries' fed to us on UK TV. Again, much the same flaws prevailed with that programme as with this. And then 'Murder in Provence', followed by 'Signora Volpe', were dumped on the viewers. Some excellent actors are the key players in those dramas. And the performers - in all these series that are set on the European continent - do their best, but, with material to work with that at times is hackneyed hash, little can be done.

Yawn. Let's get original, TV executives.

We are about to stop watching some of the other cross-boundary dramas. Sadly, they are just too much work to comprehend the style of output, and this effort is not worth the payoff. Give us a good crime plot to make an episode worth our time, and we might just try watching another one or two. Maybe . . .

As for this series alone:-

(1) The whole series needs to be reenergised, and given a different framework: less predictable safety, and more clever storylines. A more dynamic style would give it the lift it badly needs.

(2) A less Peter-and-Jane level of dialogue is badly needed. English is a complex language and has lots of nuances. The tone of delivery is often lost in the script in this drama, particularly when lines are spoken by actors who aren't native English-speakers. Some of these are the lead players, and they seem truly out of their comfort zone with the English language dialogue. The drama needs subtlety brought into the script, so that we can fully understand what the characters are really saying and feeling. Again, in this flaw I do not blame one team (in this case, the scriptwriters): they are after all just one party, and are writing what their bosses at the TV studio tell them to, and in the style they are told to.

There are, thankfully, a handful of redeeming factors to this series:-

(a) At least in this drama the two leads are not BOTH cops, PI's, or just hobby-investigators. So some original conflict is brought in to the plot. And we are left to puzzle out the intriguing question of just who 'Harry King' really is . . .

(b) And Jamie Bamber is bang-on in his role, as the slightly suspect but playful English gentleman-about-town, who seems to know a lot of people in all the right places. Delightful characterisation.

(c) The best thing overall is the occasional excellent script line - of barbed but humorous repartee. For example in the first episode - "Death of a Jester" - in a scene at a modern art gallery, while the 2 leads are viewing the art pieces: 'Harry King' says to 'Lieutenant Delmasse', when she bluntly shows him 'the finger' to indicate he should get lost: "Ah, the digitus impudicus . . . Beautiful!" Wit, at last.

A few positive features, then, in the characterisation and storyline. And it is badly needed, to make the series stand on its own merits in any real way.

But it is not enough to keep me watching. After lasting through episode three I shall be sad-but-glad to be hanging up my spurs on this drama, mid-series.

One of the best TV programmes that had the 'will they, won't they?' romance premise was made a long time ago: 'Remington Steele', back in the '80s. It was warm, witty, likeable, playful, and - though a lightweight series re the detective issue - had some fine storylines across the episodes. And the flirting was believable. It lasted 94 episodes - over 5 series. That tells you everything about the success of the programme!

My best advice? Go seek out Pierce Brosnan as 'Remington Steele', and you'll find a better alternative viewing: a superb & fun series well worth the watch.

The Unexpected Mrs. Pollifax (1999 TV Movie)

Resounding good fun

[22 October 2023]

Not sure how true this is to the original book (or the later 'Mrs Pollifax' novels; maybe it's an amalgamation of several of the titles?) but the result is a TV movie that is resounding good fun.

A month ago I watched the Rosalind Russell version. A very different feel, but then it was made nearly 30 years before this 1999 offering. The story in this later version veers away from the path of the Russell 1971 plot, very early in the film. The plot then brings our lead character back to mainstream Europe and away from Morocco. Presumably this was to make the story more familiar and safe to American viewers (Paris being somewhat of a dream to most Americans, it seems!) This did not happen in the '71 version. But does it really matter?

Lansbury, as ever, plays a lead character brilliantly. Yes, she has in this film taken on another role of the more-able-than-she-looks Marple-esque type, somewhat repeating her 'Jessica Fletcher' days. So, yes, it might seem a bit déjà vu, but then we know she does this type of story to great effect. It's amost tailor-made for the actress.

The film does have its poor moments. Daft features and events are let into the plot - for example, if all the world's spies knew what their enemy agents looked like, there wouldn't be any need for secret spy armies! And the last ten minutes of the film has far too many events squashed. But as a case of a little widderwoman being sent on a spy mission in a case of mistaken identity, we do not care. It offers a good story, with fun characters.

Sublime. All-round entertainment. 8/10.

Shanghai Noon (2000)

A rompfest of good fun, superb action sequences, and cool lines

[14 October 2023]

A gem. Finally watched this 23 years after it was made! And it was well worth the wait . . .

A fun action-adventure film. And just what I had been looking for that evening.

The 2 lead actors spar off each other to great effect. Wilson with his laconic Texan drawl and relaxed ways, even while being a jobbing train robber, and Chan with his action sequences and astute ways.

Worthwhile watching if just for the lasso action scene. Supreme. It makes you wonder just how many hours of practise - and fight choreography - that scene alone took to finalise.

Of course, there is the usual homage in a movie of the Western genre, to the Sergio Leone movie's glint-and-gun sequence. But it does not come across as too much of a cliché, though it's been seen a million times before; it is instead just perfect for the shoot-out scene. And the other scenes that homage Western films have the same deft touch. "How 'bout that: it's a Mexican stand-off," the baddie growls, "Only we ain't got no Mexicans." Just enough praise of past Western tales, without the film losing its own spark in the process.

There is a sublime moment when Wilson's character mishears Chan's name - "Chon Wang" - as 'John Wayne'. "That's right, John Wayne is here", he says to the baddies. The other hero is named "Roy". And there is a character, named "Van Cleef"; and yes, he is a baddie, and is dressed all in black, flat black hat & all. With great teeth covered by an evil smile . . . And narrowed eyes to boot! Divine references to Western movie greats.

The timing of the scenes is perfect, not too slow, and - somewhat surprising for a 21st-century action film - not too fast. The action scenes that intersperse the drama are dynamic BUT do not drown out the characters' interplay. Chan's martial arts are phenomenal, to say the least (& I speak as one not usually interested in that genre of film). Any slightly how-do-they-keep-going-that-long moments in the plot do not matter, as the story does not offer realism as such, just good old-fashioned derring-do! And that is what it succeeds in.

The plot is excellently paced, not to mention entrancing. The women in the cast offer their hand in several action/martial arts scenes. The humour is bang on. And all the while we watch the guys on their exciting mission . . . As O'Bannon says to Wang: "We have a princess to save".

Fun, fun, fun, all the way.

The Invisibles (2008– )

Superb. Just superb. Even when viewing a second time around !

[12 October 2023]

I have now watched this miniseries twice: once when it was first broadcast on TV, and again this year - 15 years later, in 2023.

It is as good now as it was back in 2008.

Funny, touching, and dramatic. Pathos is blended with comedy to just the right level. We believe in all the characters. It's a chance to see human nature in all its colours, and laugh all the while at the guys' antics . . .

Anthony Head and Warren Clarke spar off each other to great comedic effect, Jenny Agutter adds sass & style. And the younger Dean Lennox Kelly adds his own edge. Several star guests give depth to the finished product. Overall, true casting genius.

All-round entertainment. Oh how marvellous a TV drama can be, when the whole team - actors, writers, et al - put it together so well.

You & Me (2023–2024)

NOT the stated category of "romantic comedy drama", but the end result is at least good enough for viewers to get something out of watching the miniseries

[10 October 2023]

1. First, a quick comment re series category at the ITV player :

Yet another TV series/film that gets misclassified! :-(

This series is NOT in the "romantic comedy drama" niche that ITV claim, it's in fact a drama with a lot of sad moments. Why oh why do the TV channels do this?! If a viewer is in the mindset to watch a horror film, they won't want to watch a romcom, and - ditto - if wanting to watch a funny series then they won't want to watch a tragedy! I know I wasn't prepared to watch something so sad.

If it's a good & moving drama - as it was in this case - the TV production/admin department might think that any errors re classification of film is OK. But no, it isn't. As I chose this series because I wanted to laugh. Instead I was brought 'down' to quite a sad & sombre mindset, because that is what the series is - a serious story.

. . . All these online players supplied by TV channels/Amazon/etc really do need to research their classifications system, as it just isn't working!

Ah well, ITV, at least it was a GOOD series.

2. As for the programme itself :

Fortunately the drama series works, and is enjoyable viewing. Well acted, by fresh faces (for me at least) in the three lead roles. The target audience seems a bit younger than me - but the production team & writers knew what they were doing with this one. Yes, it a bit predictable in style - so does not reach a star-score of 8/10, for example - but it puts the series' point across well. And that is the first thing any TV series/film must do: tell its tale & clearly.

It is worthwhile noting that a few of the events in the drama are unlikely in real life. This naivety clearly gears the film to romcom fans aged under 23. However, the dark point to the lack of reality is that these features/events can be a bit misleading for observers. So I hope no young viewers head off to London thinking any of the following lovely events will/might actually occur in the Big Smoke!:-

(a) In huge cities like London you never have the good fortune to meet the love of your life in a farcical & hugely romantic encounter while running at a bus stop and chasing a disappearing bus.

(b) You NEVER then meet the 2nd love of your life in another farcical but endearing encounter, this time at a café. (In a fun case of mistaken identity, straight out of a Shakespeare comedy!)

(c) You also never find that the 2nd love of your life lives in exactly the same borough as you - in other words just around the corner. It would be convenient if they did, but normally you were lucky if they lived on the same side of the city's river as you did! ,-)

(d) As for meeting a gorgeous someone at the local lido; don't be daft!

(e) You never meet lovely people at a pool who already - by pure chance - turn out to know your sister or friend, let alone have dated several people you know. (Big cities are NOT friendly little villages!!)

Through the above 5-plus features, the TV drama is written rather like a junior Richard Curtis romcom! So all in all, quite unbelievable in some aspects. Sadly, this could be perceived as a misleading representation of big city life. Adult viewers will 'get' that this plot is indulgent nonsense, and so is not something to set your hopes on; but teenagers may well not.

The good news: the miniseries is short enough to invest your time in, even if at the end the viewer is still frustrated at the wrong classification. At only 3 episodes, most viewers won't - hopefully - end up thinking they've wasted their time (or too much of it), even if they find that the series is not to their taste.

Yes, it's a right old weepie. And yes it seems targeted at 15-to-17-year-old young women. But, if you take it as just what it is, it does the job well. And as it has some nifty surprises in the plot, these unexpected turns make the drama less saccharine and more respectable.

The main thing for me, as I shall never watch such a youth-oriented drama again - if I can help it! ,-) - is that it was well made. Congrats, ITV. Let's see more such well-spun dramas on your TV channels.

House of Cards (1968)

Just a bit too slow . . . It needed a bit of 'zip' in the pacing

[11 September 2023]

There is little wrong with this movie. But then there's something just not right . . .

Then as the film rolls on the flaw becomes clear: the movie is paced a tad too slow.

It's well acted, well written and beautifully filmed. The incidental music works, the minor characters are played well, and the storyline is quite believable. If it had been a bit more sassy in pace & energy then the film would have worked better.

George Peppard has a laid-back attitude to his character. Which would have worked excellently had the pace of the film been more upbeat: we would have sensed a man fighting his surroundings, yin against yang. That would have fit in nicely with the story. But as each - pace & protagonist - were so leisurely, this stance took the film almost to a frustratingly downbeat attitude. I believe relaxed was more Peppard's own style in life re his profession, as I gather he refuted being a star - despite the studios loving his being a 6 foot tall blonde hunk of a man. Instead he preferred to do things his own way. (So he missed his calling then: as he seems truly an actor suited to the '60s & '70s, rather than a box office screen idol of the decade he started acting, the '50s.)

The best points are when the writer surprises us ((no spoilers here!)). At these points the film really starts to take off at last . . . Only to then lose that all-important tempo. Disappointing. As the rest of the film seems to offer little in unexpected moments, or any real excitement. And as the movie is meant to be a suspense story, with all the associated moments in a thriller of unforeseen turns, such 'zip' is what is lacking.

Had it been less maudlin in feel, I could have rated it higher. Sadly, as a thriller it doesn't offer much in the way of thrills! Insipid it is, inspiring it (sadly) is not.

Shelley: No News Is Good... (1982) Season 4, Episode 3

Insightful, with eloquent writing. A gem.

[6 September 2023]

Such writing cannot be bettered. In this episode we see the couple as intellectuals of the '80s, discussing their societal concerns.

The characters are eloquently described by the writers, & well portrayed by the talented actors.

The scene opens with the couple watching the evening News on TV. Shelley trumps with his usual dry comments about politics & the state of the world, while Fran gets annoyed at the society being offered to their new baby and plans to send the premiers of world superpowers a 'Mothers Against Nuclear Arms' petition.

The episode reminds us of issues that mattered to many intellectuals/concerned citizens in the early '80s: the bomb going off, losing a promised job offer, house prices, banning juggernauts in domestic areas, and the terrors of living in a potential post-nuclear society. Not to mention becoming a middle-aged trendy, losing the idealistic convictions of youth, considering asking terrorists not to terrorise us please, quoting Mary Whitehouse, and wanting to slaughter the entire government Cabinet . . .

Hmmm . . . I began having vibes of what the French call 'Plus ça change . . '! ROFL! This was made even more germane later, after S & F go to see a new film at the cinema, when they critique the movie because it had 37+ murders in it - one of which turend the victim to "pedestrian puree", as Shelley adroitly puts it. The Green Cross Code that he also refers to has lost the omnipresence it had in the '70s & '80s, but the rest of what the young couple say in the episode is - scarily - still all too pertinent in today's society. Beer HAS gone downhill. And violent films DO breed violence. Hey-ho! ,-)

When Mrs H pops in to babysit, Shelley as usual winds her up with his usual savvy flair. "What time is it?" asks Mrs H, & Shelley replies "'Crossroads' minus 12". And Shelley telling Mrs H that the neutron bomb is a sort of atomic bailiff that leaves the property alone and just gets rid of unwanted tenants. Which Mrs H then believes & approves of - "speaking as a landlady" - with all her might.

Plus Shelley's ingenious answer as to what to do in a 4-minute bomb warning? Make a cup of tea, of course!

Genius. The scriptwriter balances social comment with comedy, to supreme effect. Such writing is sorely missed on modern TV.