Change Your Image
benjamin-twist
Reviews
Britain's Got Talent (2007)
Entertaining show but too manipulated to be trusted
I liked BGT in the early days but the show has become too manipulated in recent years. Now we not only have footage of the acts supposedly waiting to be auditioned by Simon and the other judges (even though they're actually being auditioned by anonymous staff on earlier dates) we also have footage of acts making their way to the audition, after the audition where hug their family/friends and most perversely miked up members of the audience who make inane or obvious comments about the acts performing (while other pull stupid faces in response to bad/weird acts, not realising they look equally stupid themselves).
Added to this the fact that a lot of the acts are not British and a lot are professional or have entered and won talent shows elsewhere leaves the traditional meaning Talent Show a bit meaningless. In other words BGT so manipulated and dubious you stop believing its real and start thinking its one big con and you're in danger of falling for it.
It's interesting that some of the acts who won (or came close) in previous years including the first winner Paul Potts, Susan Boyle and the 2015 series winner didn't appear at the 2016 ten year final celebrations (go figure).
Talking of which, Richard Jones, the winner of the 2016 final was a very unworthy winner. Not because he stole his tricks - a lot of magicians borrow from the past - but because he didn't perform them well. A lot of the time you can see exactly how he did them (and he made some unforgivable mistakes when he did the trick on This Morning), close up magic is a bad choice for large arenas (relies too much on cameras which is never good) but mainly because he's so bloody boring. The guy has no real presentation style, no clever or funny patter and most importantly ZERO charisma. He's just a tall soldier. End of.
I could just about forgive all that but that crock of rubbish he served up as magic in the final was truly pathetic. A child could have done that routine with the same result. There was just one simple card trick involved which has nothing to do with what he was talking about, and then he brings on the veteran soldier alongside some more of his army mates. When Jules O'Dwyer bought on an extra dog in the previous years final she got criticised. This guy brings on half a dozen extra people with no comment The whole thing's a stitch up. Let the soldier win. Let's be patriotic. Fine but it has nothing to do with magic. But that's BGT in a nutshell, it has little to do with real talent but a lot to do with what they want us to see and what Simon Cowell can get out of it.
The A Word (2016)
It's heart's in the right place but it's too contrived and too drawn out
A drama about a child with autism. Sounds lie a good idea, a good way to get people to understand the condition but it just isn't working. I wanted to like it but the characters are irritating.
Why can't they just be a normal, everyday family rather than a rich middle class family with three businesses? What do poor people do if they have an autistic child? Why the hell are they opening a restaurant anyway? Running a restaurant is one of the most stressful things you can do, especially if you start from scratch. It demands all your time and is a really risky way to earn a living (particularly when it's in the middle of nowhere as this one seems to be). It's also a selfish thing to do when you have young kids with or without autism.
The woman they bought in to help Joe sits and makes sarcastic comments to all the family, managing to wind them all up. And the expert just happens to be a girl the mum knew at school and was bullied by her (of course she was). And this so-called expert ends up arguing the toss with the mum in front of Joe, which must be so good for him. This is just drama for drama's sake and has nothing to do with understanding autism.
If they don't want Joe to listen to music why did they buy him an i-pad? How the hell would a 5 year old know the right words to all the songs even if he is a 'genius'? No one knows all the right words to all the songs.
And why is Christopher Eccleston's character acting like an idiot? And why exactly is he taking singing lessons? Okay so he's going to end up finding out he's on the autism spectrum, but we all worked that out in the first episode. But again this is drama for it's own sake.
This is a 90 minute play stretched out to 6 hour long (and I do mean l-o-n-g episodes). They should have concentrated on the autism and the child and forgot the other stories.
We're Doomed! The Dad's Army Story (2015)
Beautifully made drama with a few factual inaccuracies
It's hard to imagine that any programme about Dad's Army could be anything less than brilliant and thankfully this dramatisation of how Perry and Croft came together to write the classic sitcom is excellent.
The first scenes where Jimmy tries (and fails) to get a part in a BBC programme but gives his Fighting Tigers script to David Croft in an effort to act for the BBC is a joy and full credit must go to the actors who do a splendid job. The assembly of the Dad's Army cast is equally good, with most of the actors giving believable and witty interpretations of the actors behind the characters we know and love (the only exceptions being Mark Heap as Clive Dunn and Julian Sands as John Le Mesurier which perhaps don't quite work). Shane Ritchie is almost unrecognisable as Bill Pertwee while newcomer Kieran Hodgson is a dead ringer for Ian Lavender.
The eccentricities of Arthur Lowe (beautifully played by John Sessions) and the tensions between Perry and Croft and the stuffy BBC execs are well handled. The period costumes, transport and music are all spot-on. My only criticism is that there some factually incorrect details. Clive Dunn certainly wasn't offended by the classic line "they don't like it up 'em!" - he had previously recorded an equally risqué song called Isn't It A Beauty and would later publish a book of saucy jokes. Equally there is no evidence that John Laurie was offended by the original titles featuring footage of Nazi soldiers. The testing of the audience was done after one episode had been recorded, not all six. There would have been little point in doing testing after all six shows were made because they filmed in front of a live audience and the audience's reactions would already have given them the reassurance they needed that the show worked.
Also regarding the theme song, I wrote an essay on the music for the Dad's Army magazine and discovered that while Jimmy was indeed thrilled that his hero Bud Flanagan was to sing the theme song, when it came to the actual recording poor Bud wasn't up to the job and the final piece had to be constructed from segments of the numerous takes he had done during the exhaustive recording session. It certainly wasn't recorded in one take as they imply.
However despite these quibbles this is still a wonderful film made about a bunch of lovely people and is a fine way to spend an hour.
Cradle to Grave (2015)
Brilliant, well-observed nostalgic comedy about a clever, funny man!
As a long time fan of Danny Baker and a reader of his two brilliant autobiographies I was really looking forward to seeing Cradle To Grave. The first episode was spot on. It introduced us to his family (including his dad 'Spud' and his mum Bet) and his mates in a logical but amusing way and was choc full of funny, charming incidents. My favourite being the story of the rare green tonic trousers who were begrudgingly lent to a friend who dies and was laid to rest in said strides. Others included a visit to the West End to see the hippy musical Hair only for the young Danny to be slapped in the face by a too-close dancing male member. The tone was right, the costumes were right, the music was perfect (of course it was, this is Danny Baker), the scenes were not too long and the focus was always on Danny (nicely played by Laurie Kynaston) who was more-or-less in every scene.
But I have to say that by contrast the second episode was a little disappointing (sorry Dan). Out went the episodic nature which copied the book so well and in came some long-winded scenes focusing on Danny's mum and dad taking a cut-price caravan holiday (Spud's idea of giving Bet a good time) and going to a civic dinner. The former was like an outtake from an early episode of Only Fools and Horses with Spud and Co turning into stock BBC cockney caricatures and I happen to know that the latter story was not taken from Danny's life but from a caller who rang into his successful BBC Radio London show. She was invited to a works "do" and unintentionally ended up dancing with her husband's boss causing much embarrassment. Her version of it was very funny, sadly Danny's version, via Jeff pope, via Peter Kay somehow lost something in the translation. And therein lies the problem, stick to the truth and it's works. Start to tinker with it and it is in danger of failing.
So please, please let the remaining episodes go back to the superb style of the first one and focus on the young Danny and his mates. The real Danny, the one we know and love, with just occasional references to Spud's antics otherwise Cradle To Grave could be in danger of morphing into The New Peter Kay Show (although I suspect Peter had a hand in the writing).
Looking forward to see the young Danny meeting Elton John, Freddie Mercury and Marc Bolan in One Stop Records, the "David Essex" incident and of course Blackie the dog!
Big School (2013)
Totally unfunny, clichéd, derivative rubbish - a real disappointment
I can't believe that I just wasted half an hour of my life watching this tosh. And I can't believe that David Walliams wrote it. It's so bad. Despite its stellar cast it has no likable (or believable) characters, no jokes, no laughter and no place on the BBC. It looks like a cheap imitation of Jack Whitehall's Bad Education and that was pretty dire itself.
I seriously wonder how much Mr Wallians (and the mysterious Dawson Brothers - are they a circus act?) got paid to create this unfunny mess. And did it really take all of them to write it? Philip Glenister takes on the role of the dumb, insensitive PE teacher which has been seen a thousand times before from The Grimleys to Teachers (where it was done so much better). Catherine Tate goes into automatic putting on a series of silly voices and mugging a lot to the camera but without saying any funny lines. There's a fat caretaker who, get this, eats a lot. And the children playing the school kids sit there in dumb silence most of the time perhaps thinking to themselves "is this really a comedy?. I know that's what I'm thinking.
But perhaps the biggest disappointment is Mr Walliams himself who by accident, or design, seems to have created a character who has not had one single funny line.
Big School? Big Con more like.
Accused: Tracie's Story (2012)
Confused view of cross-dressing in order to make an unconvincing controversial drama
The acting in this opening episode of the new series of The Accused was superb, but the whole premise of the story was seriously flawed. Jimmy McGovern appears to have little knowledge of the subject he is writing about. Most transvestites are straight and enjoy the experience of cross dressing with their female partners, and not just for sexual gratification. Cross dressers do frequent gay bars but only because it enables them to drink in a non- threatening environment. The idea that a man like Simon/Tracie (Sean Bean) would drink in a city-centre bar dressed like a cross between Mae West and Madonna is totally ludicrous. What planet is Mr McGovern living on? It was not made clear exactly what Tony (Stephen Graham) was doing when he visited Tracie. Were they having sex, if yes then why not show it (perhaps McGovern didn't know what they would do to each other). But why would Tracie start a relationship with what was obviously a married man without discussing it and laying down some ground rules? It just lacks credibility.
But perhaps the most bizarre aspect of this whole charade was the fact that Tracie was having a relationship with a psychopath who would rather violently stab his wife to death than tell her than he is gay - and not just an ordinary gay man but one who likes older men in unconvincing drag. Add to this ridiculous courtroom scene when Tracie addressed the court in full drag and you have all the makings of a really bad drama.
There were so many embarrassing moments in this grubby little play: The scene where Tony tells Tracie he will only be seen out with her if she looks more convincing as a woman, the scene where Tracie visits Tony's wife for a makeover and stares at her breasts and the fact that Tracie agreed to go away with Tony after he publicly humiliated him. What does it all mean? It means that Jimmy McGovern is a lazy writer and should do his research properly. I feels sorry for the actors who are no doubt proud of their performances but should really have looked at the bigger picture.
The problem with a lot of McGovern's scripts is that he can't make up his mind what he is writing about. In this case Transvestism or murder. He takes a controversial subject or story (no doubt lifted from the pages of a Sunday newspaper, in this from 1978 judging by the out-of-date concept) and twists it to suit his limited experience. If he seriously wanted to write about cross-dressing then why not talk to some real cross-dressers and use their experience to tell the story. That would certainly be a lot more realistic that this tosh.
Accused (2010)
Confused view of cross-dressing in order to make an unconvincing controversial drama
The acting in this opening episode of the new series of The Accused was superb, but the whole premise of the story was seriously flawed. Jimmy McGovern appears to have little knowledge of the subject he is writing about. Most transvestites are straight and enjoy the experience of cross dressing with their female partners, and not just for sexual gratification. Cross dressers do frequent gay bars but only because it enables them to drink in a non- threatening environment. The idea that a man like Simon/Tracie (Sean Bean) would drink in a city-centre bar dressed like a cross between Mae West and Madonna is totally ludicrous. What planet is Mr McGovern living on? It was not made clear exactly what Tony (Stephen Graham) was doing when he visited Tracie. Were they having sex, if yes then why not show it (perhaps McGovern didn't know what they would do to each other). But why would Tracie start a relationship with what was obviously a married man without discussing it and laying down some ground rules? It just lacks credibility. But perhaps the most bizarre aspect of this whole charade was the fact that Tracie was having a relationship with a psychopath who would rather violently stab his wife to death than tell her than he is gay - and not just an ordinary gay man but one who likes older men in unconvincing drag. Add to this ridiculous courtroom scene when Tracie addressed the court in full drag and you have all the makings of a really bad drama.
There were so many embarrassing moments in this grubby little play: The scene where Tony tells Tracie he will only be seen out with her if she looks more convincing as a woman, the scene where Tracie visits Tony's wife for a makeover and stares at her breasts and the fact that Tracie agreed to go away with Tony after he publicly humiliated him. What does it all mean? It means that Jimmy McGovern is a lazy writer and should do his research properly. I feels sorry for the actors who are no doubt proud of their performances but should really have looked at the bigger picture.
The problem with a lot of McGovern's scripts is that he can't make up his mind what he is writing about. In this case Transvestism or murder. He takes a controversial subject or story (no doubt lifted from the pages of a Sunday newspaper, in this from 1978 judging by the out-of-date concept) and twists it to suit his limited experience. If he seriously wanted to write about cross-dressing then why not talk to some real cross-dressers and use their experience to tell the story. That would certainly be a lot more realistic that this tosh.
Watson & Oliver (2012)
Derivative, unfunny drivel from two very average 'comedians' (with a lot of canned laughter)
I just started watching this on BBC2 and I can't watch any more. I really can't. It's so pathetic and annoyingly unfunny. Watson and Oliver are the BBC's latest comedy 'find' and I wish they'd left them where they found them. This is so derivative it's embarrassing. It's like they watched the last series of French and Saunders (the totally shameless, doing-it-for-the-money, unfunny one where Dawn and Jennifer were both past it) and decided to copy it lock, stock and barrel. Throw in a bit of Catherine Tate, some Julie Walters (Ms Walters please sue) and copious amounts of truly irritating canned laughter and - hey presto - a crap series by two Z grade comedians.
What's on? Watson and Oliver. My advice is to switch off.
Five Days (2007)
Pointless premise for a so-so drama with confused message
This five part BBC drama is a bit like it's other flagship drama The Streets. That is well made, well acted with some interesting story lines but is confined by the Show's premise that all the characters live in the same street which limits what happens to them.
Five Days is similar in so far as limiting the action to five days it gives little room for the story to breath. And the title implies that the action takes place over five consecutive days but it doesn't, so why bother? But what a disappointing story it is. Like the last series it starts off well with the discovery of an abandoned baby in a hospital and death of a young girl who jumped in front of a train. Was she pushed? Is there a connection between her and the baby? And we meet various characters who are on the train whose lives are connected in more ways than one.
But as the episodes progress it becomes more apparent that they are going to have a hard job successfully tying up all the loose ends. It's it a bit far fetched to believe that the driver of the train is in a relationship with a woman who is seemingly responsible for the death of the person who jumped of the bridge. Also there is a lot of stodgy stuff about the Muslim faith and a couple of young men who have been to Pakistan for terrorist training. All this bogs down the plot rather than enhancing it and it's hard to see what message the writer is trying to convey. We get to the last episode expecting answers to all the questions raised earlier but a lot of these are mentioned almost in passing and you are likely to loose concentration waiting for something interesting to happen.
The most unbelievable part of the last episode concerns the baby's Grandmother and her confused motives. She snatches the baby and takes him to the baby's mother who is a hopeless drug addict. Her plan seems to be that seeing the baby will force her to give up drugs and become a proper mother to the child. But the grandmother is also an ex-junkie and would know how difficult it is to come off drugs and anyway the girl dumped the baby in the hospital because she didn't want it. Also considering how manipulative the grandmother is it's hard to see why the baby's father would be so comfortable in her presence when they are both at the shopping centre with the social worker. She is the key to the whole story but her actions are explained in a few mumbled sentences at the end.
All-in-all a great pity because the series has a good cast (especially Surrane Jones and David Morrissey) but in its attempt to be too clever it failed leaving this viewer with a slight feeling of being cheated.
This Is England (2006)
Well made but ultimately confused...
This film is well photographed, brilliantly cast and impressively acted. There's a lot of attention to detail with the clothes, cars, music, etc, evoking the early 1980s beautifully. However the whole skinhead cult had more-or-less died by 1983 (even in the North where this is set) and the only real boots-and-braces skins around then were either in extreme factions of the NF or were gay skins on the gay scene.
Also the film's central theme is wooly to say in the least. This probably has a lot to do with the fact that the writer (Shane Meadows) has combined parts of his own story with the cast's own real life stories and other elements but this has made plot nonsensical.
As it is Meadows is poking a finger at racists and thugs by saying that they are a bunch of misfits. This is perhaps best displayed by the shot of Combo's gang walking through town shown in slow motion with no two of them looking the same. Young Sean feels he is an outsider and so joins the gang to become someone (like Jimmy in Quadrophenia) but is forced to confront the gang's racism. However scenes of Combo and his 'gang' terrorising local Asians and spouting off about patriotism, as well as attending an NF meeting, are clichéd to say in the least and here the film looses its way.
I get the impression that Meadows wanted to set the film earlier in 1980/81 when the whole skin/NF thing would make sense but has been forced to set it in 1983 to put it after the Falklands conflict. This is so Sean's dad can be a casualty of the war which gives Sean a sense of loss, a reason to be an outsider and a reason to join the gang. This brings up one of the film's (proposed) themes which is about patriotism. However this theme is confused because, far from criticising the troops in the Falklands, National Front skinheads embraced it because they were standing up for England. However this theme is seemingly dropped about two thirds of the way through the film and so when it ends with the shots of the Falklands war it becomes meaningless. Why not drop the patriotism theme and set the film in 1980 when the skinhead thing would make sense (a lot of kids got into the Two Tone/Ska thing at that time and as a result the NF did try to recruit a lot of them), then everything else might fall into place.
Parts of the film do work and are charming, almost funny (eg the scene where Sean wants his mum to buy him a pair of DM boots) but there are some bizarre elements which must be addressed:
The idea that Smell, who is supposed to be about 17/18, would be happy to have Sean as her boyfriend when he's only 12 (and is about half her size) is frankly ridiculous. If it were done purely for comic relief it might just work but the fact that the characters have an intense discussion about the relationship means it is supposed to be deadly serious.
Combo is supposed to 32. Even back in the early 80s if a 32 year old guy hung around with teenagers people would think he was either retarded or a pervert. But he and his even older mate (who looks like a gay leather clone or a roadie for ZZ Top) mix with the kids as though it were normal. This is not normal, it is bizarre.
The scene where Combo confronts Lol about their 'relationship' and presents her with a gift he made for her in prison is equally bizarre. Violent, racist thugs just don't do this sort of thing.
But the oddest part is the ending where Combo beats up the black guy Milky. It has been suggested elsewhere that this is because Combo is himself mixed race (like Milky) but he is insanely jealous of Milky's life and so goes for him. This would be barely credible if it were actually addressed in the film but the writer has omitted to make any of this clear, thus making the whole scene confusing and rather ugly.
It would have been so much better to see a film about skinheads and their lives without making it a film about racism and violence but I guess that's never going to happen. But if you're going to try and do something different then DO something different. Don't do what the creators of This Is England have done and combine shock tactics with embarrassingly cliché after cliché. It just doesn't work.