Mind Games (2001)

Firstly, apologies for the looooong delay in writing a new entry - just had a lot on my mind at the moment.

Oh, isn't that a clever link. 'on my mind', 'Mind Games' geddit? oh never mind. (never 'mind' ha ha, geddit?)

Mind Games was another TV drama by Lynda La Plante. I've already covered 'Killer Net', but this one was back to her usual setting of the police force, and a strong female lead character. Fiona Shaw plays Francis O'Neil, a former nun, now expert in criminal psychology. She supposedly has a knack of getting inside the killer's mind to help locate and capture them.

Well that was the hype about it, but in reality she doesn't help the police one single bit. She gives advice and clues, but not one of them is in the least bit helpful, or specific and I just kept scratching my head wondering when she was actually going to say something I couldn't have done myself by reading an A-level psychology text book. 'The murderer is likely to be male, white and mid twenties to thirties'. Well durrrr! (well actually she got one of those wrong too, but I won't spoil it by saying which one.)

The major flaws with most TV whodunnits is they never present the audience with enough suspects, so it ends up being too easy to solve. This was a case in point. The cast list is too short, and after you eliminate the obvious ones (such as O'Neil herself) you just aren't left with enough scope to make it a challenge. Ok, the script is fine, the acting is fine, the basic storyline is also fine, but 'fine' sometimes just isn't enough.

There were several references to the fact she was an ex-nun, but except for one scene in a church, I couldn't see the point in having that as a back story. It really didn't make the slightest bit of a difference. Perhaps I was missing some deeper meaning, but I really don't think I was. It was just La Plante thinking she is cleverer than she actually is. (think back to the Killer Net review, and her laughable knowledge of computer technology)

Thumbs down I'm afraid for this one, but not for the lack of trying. Police whodunnits are usually my cup of tea, but just couldn't bring myself to like this one, no matter how hard I tried. I'm guessing La Plante saw this as a potential series, a sort of follow-up to Prime Suspect or Trial and Retribution, but the fact it remains a one-off episode says a lot.

The River (1988)

What is it with me and sit-coms? I promise more dramas soon, but for now, another BBC comedy from the late 80's.

'The River' defines the phrase 'gentle comedy'. It could also take the tag line 'rom-com' in it's stride too without missing a beat. It only ran for one series of 6 episodes, and was a vehicle for 70's heart-throb David Essex to try his hand at acting...

...OK, he'd already made a few films back in the 70's, but this was his first foray into television.

David played an Essex boy who has moved to a quiet countryside village to work as a lock-keeper. He spends his days bird-watching, bug hunting fishing etc and lying in the long grass contemplating life, the universe and everything. He lives with his fierce auntie who is a card carrying Socialist and works alongside a typical country bumpkin (who ends up in the canal in EVERY episode). To break up the tranquil setting, along comes a fiesty scottish woman on a narrowboat who ends up stranded when her propeller gets fouled by a rope. She stays at the cottage and ends up falling for Mr Essex's charms.

So lets break it down and see if it's any good. David can't really act, although just by playing himself he pulls off the lock-keeper character very well. All he has to do is act dreamy, talk softly and twinkle his eyes at all the right moments. Katy Murphy as Sarah, the love interest is fine, but the script just requires her to fight back everytime someone speaks to her, speak all her dialogue in a raised tone and assume everyone is out to get her.

The country bumpkin, Tom is played by Shaun Scott. One of those faces where you spend half the day trying to remember where you've seen him before (I'll put you out of your misery, it was The Bill). Again, he's a great actor, but all he has to do is act stupid, put his foot in it at least once an episode and fall (or get pushed) into the canal as often as possible.

You might be spotting a trend. There is nothing wrong with the actors, nothing wrong with the concept of the beautiful setting, not even anything wrong with plot...but the script is dreadful. So full of cliches and corn. Does that mean I hate it? No.

It gets a thumbs up, as it has stood the test of time, and it the perfect Sunday evening telly for the whole family. I think it works better watching an episode a week, rather than back to back, just so you don't notice the repeated 'jokes' as much. It could never be viewed as a classic, far from it, but does it have to be?

Do Not Adjust Your Set (1967)

Another TV comedy from before my time, but one that has a great influence on my favourite comedy shows, without me even knowing.

Any lover of TV comedy has probably heard of 'Do Not Adjust Your Set' simply because it brought together two thirds of the Monty Python team. The other two (John Cleese and Graham Chapman were working together on 'At Last the 1948 Show') DNAYS was written by Terry Jones, Eric Idle and Michael Palin and as well as these three comedic geniuses, it also introduced us to a young David Jason.

So what was the format? Technically made as a children's comedy sketch show (although many parents used to rush home early from work to watch it) it was a collection of very short skits and sketches with single punchline jokes. Running through the show were musical interludes by the delightfully bizarre Bonzo Dog Doh-Dah Band, the brain child of Neil Innes (who stayed with the Python team as their musical creator, including the later movies).

The sketches were really varied, both in subject matter and laughter value. Some were REAL misses when it came to being funny, whilst others were laugh out loud hilarious. You can see the germ of Python breeding throughout - the anarchic nature of some of the humour. Terry Gilliam joined them from the second series, providing additional material and his now famous animations too, which completes it as the 'Junior Python'. Not a bad title really, as it was a) aimed at children and b) the earlier version of the classic show.

Now the next thing I say is going to surprise you....

DNAYS gets my thumbs down. No, I'm not joking, it does. I say that based on the show itself, not on what it eventually gave us. I am not decrying the fact without DNAYS we wouldn't have the dead parrot sketch or Life of Brian, but that's not what this blog is about. DNAYS is far too dated and far too hit and miss when it comes to laughter. I'm sure if I was aged 9 in 1967 I'd think it was the greatest thing since the invention of Dib Dab sherbet, but only because there was nothing to compare it with. Judging it in 2011 as a 37 year old, it just doesn't cut the mustard. There are a few sketches that are so cringe-worthy you almost need to look away, and one or two of the Bonzo songs are not even funny on a surreal level.

I am a massive fan of Python, and a big fan of everything David Jason has done both comic and straight acting) and there is no reason for anyone involved in DNAYS not to be proud of what they did, but more than 40 years on, it is best left in the archives, rather than being introduced to a new audience.

Whodunnit Part 2

It's been a while, but I'm finally back online. Thought I'd kick-off this second wave of reviews with a flashback to my first one - the 70's panel game 'Whodunnit'.

I mentioned in my earlier review that later series were hosted by Jon Pertwee, and recently I've had the chance to watch the complete second series, so it seems appropriate to offer a follow-up review, comparing it to the first. Does it keep improving? Or perhaps it reached a plateau and went on a steady downhill decline...

Good news is it gets no worse, and improves on some of the basic errors of the first series. Jon Pertwee is a slick presenter, follows his auto-cue well and keeps the program flowing. When the murderer is revealed they also now have a flashback to how the crime actually happened which was a major fault with the first series. No longer do you sit there scratching your head wondering how it all transpired - now you can actually see the crime unfold. There still seems to be a million loopholes in every plot, but hey, it's only TV.

A strange point crops up in series 2. Two of the episodes have the TV studio dressed up to match the murder scene. I thought it was a really nice touch (one set in a WWII bunker for instance, with the celebrity guests acting like a military tribunal), but for some strange reason they revert back to a plain white set for the end of the series.

They still have audience participation, but thankfully that has been trimmed right back, and we don't get subjected to as many dodgy fashion victims as Mr Woodward had to endure. Series two also has a wonderful collection of celebrity panelists - Harry H. Corbett, Rodney Bewes, Henry Cooper amongst many others. A real 'who's who' of 70's culture.

Of course this gets a thumbs up. The first series did, and this is a marked improvement. The murders range in difficulty from one that is far too obscure to one that is so obvious you assume you can't be right (but you are) but I guess that is another positive appeal to the show - it caters for all abilities.

Chance in a Million (1984)

Sorry, back to the sitcoms, and this is one that you might remember. Actually the name might not ring a bell, but half way through this review you'll probably go 'hang on! I remember watching that!'

It's one of those shows that was well loved when it was broadcast, had great audience figures but disappeared without trace far too quickly. No idea why it's not seen the light of day in a new era, perhaps made by the wrong studio originally, or the rights are owned by a crappy distribution agency. For whatever reason, this is a forgotten gem that needs to be brought back into the limelight.

So what do we have. Tom Chance is an average, middle class guy, lives alone in a decent house, but is single and looking for a partner. He finds a soul mate in a 'timid' librarian and together they form an unlikely bond. Of course there has to be more....in this case Mr Chance is plagued by coincidence. Whatever he does, whatever he says, however he acts, it will all end up in a frightful mess because of unlucky coincidence.

..and it does, and it's funny and it works SO well. The more I think of it, the more I think of 'One Foot in the Grave' about 5 years later. Think about how Vixtor Meldrew just couldn't get anything right? No matter what he did it all went pear shaped, or he'd make catastrophic errors of judgement? Tom Chance is like that, although he's not retired and he already knows he's bound to fail because of his lack of luck.

Who do we have starring in this forgotten sit-com then? Well Tom Chance is played by non other than Simon Callow (you know the fat gay that dies in Four Weddings and a Funderal). His librarian love interest is portrayed by Brenda Blethyn (The quiet one in Little Voice and Secrets and Lies) It ran for three series, and each episode gets more and more bizarre, but at the same time, because we are used to his problem of being plagued by chance, they become more and more acceptable.

There are some lovely running gags, such as the fact Tom downs a pint of lager in every episode, and the so called timid librarian constantly ends up in her underwear trying to throw herself at Tom. It is SO well written and crafted, it doesn't matter that you know where each episode is heading, it's a joy to watch the disaster unfold.

Of course this is a thumbs up, I love it and wish it was getting more air time. Why do we get 'My Family' ad nauseam, but classics like this go unrepeated?

The mind boggles

p.s. Offline for three weeks, now but a couple of Ronnie Barker reviews to follow when I get back.

Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking (2004)

That might be the longest title you'll see in this blog. I guess it counts as TV, despite being a one off drama, it was only made for a television audience, so I'm claiming it.

There could be several tangents during this blog entry, so be warned.

Made for the BBC, this was a one off Sherlock Holmes story, but instead of being based on any of the original Conan Doyle stories it was a unique adventure. What they DID include was Holmes, Watson, and Inspector Lestrade. Watson is engaged, on the verge of marriage (which doesn't fit with the Conan Doyle stories at all, as Watson found his future wife in the first adventure and was married throughout the rest of his adventures) but his fiancee plays a key role in helping Holmes with his current investigation, so lets not split too many hairs.

The basic plot is a series of girls being murdered, their bodies found to be clothed in the garments owned by the previous victim, one silk stocking forced down their throat and another tied around their neck. Suspicion falls on the house of a Duke who is to host a ball to be attended by the current King.

Ok, first tangent. This is technically a sequel to another BBC Sherlock Holmes production two years earlier. On that occasion it was the famous 'Hound of The Baskervilles' and so many critics began comparing it to previous interpretations on the classic story. Personally I was a big fan, it brought something new to the tale, and ranks up there as one of the greater interpretations of the story. It did well to keep close to the original book (except for a a slight embellishment for the ending) and had fine performances for all the cast. Richard Roxborough wasn't known to me, but played a great Holmes, and Ian Hart was perfect as Watson. In this new story Ian Hart returned as Watson, but now we had the more famous Rupert Everett as Holmes. Personally I think he does a fine job, but tries a bit too hard and almost seems to be attempting to be Basil Rathbone in modern form, rather than invent his own interpretation of the classic character.

Tangent number two, how do I judge a Sherlock Holmes story that isn't based on an original tale by Conan Doyle? I'm a great fan - of the books and all TV and cinematic versions - but when it's an original whodunnit, the only way I can judge it is if I feel it works as a Holmes adventure. I guess it does, but I really couldn't see Conan Doyle getting involved in the subject matter that is covered in this particular adventure. I could almost imagine it as a Midsomer Murder (but back dated to the turn of the 20th century)

Spooky I should mention Midsomer Murders, considering Inspector Lestrade in this adventure is played by Neil Dudgeon - the new Inspector Barnaby

I think the main flaw is it feels too modern, despite being set in the first decade of the 1900's. No one puts in a bad performance, but the script could easily be lifted and stuck in an episode of Cracker and no one would bat an eye-lid. There is also a lack of that quintessential Sherlock trait where he takes a quick glance at something and comes up with thousands of facts about the person. I can't think of one Holmes story where he doesn't do that, except for this one.

I could go on for days, comparing it to Rathbone, the Hammer films, the Granada Jeremy Brett shows, the modern 21st Century BBC tales, but I won't. I'll leave it as an open ended review of a tale I don't hate, but nor do I rank it in my top 5 Sherlock Holmes films. Thumbs up? No. Thumbs down then? Not that either. It's wavering. I might come back to this review in a few weeks if I finally settle on a fixed opinion.

Killer Net (1998)

What does the name Lynda La Plante mean to you as a TV viewer? Perhaps you are old enough to remember her as an actress in Rent-a-ghost, but chances are you are more familiar with her screen-writing skills. Prime Suspect and Trial & Retribution are of course her biggest successes, but in 1998 she turned her hand to another drama, based around the world of the internet.

What was the computer world like in 1998? Well the internet existed of course, but wasn't as wide spread as it is today. You'd need to remortgage your house to own a home PC and laptops were the size of a small car and needed three burly weightlifters to move them around. The idea of surfing the net from your phone wasn't even a concept back then (in fact, mobile phones were still only just being reduced from brick-size.) There was an explosion of interest though in the internet about this time, with net cafe's cropping up, and Lynda La Plante couldn't let this craze pass without exploiting it for her own gain...

..if only she'd done a bit of research first though...

Ok, basic plot: Set around three university students who share a house in Brighton. One of them has his own computer and after getting more and more involved with a mysterious woman, he eventually finds himself playing a CD ROM game called Killer Net. It takes over his life, planning and executing the perfect murder, to the extent that he is the main suspect when a real murder crops up that follows the one he had played out on screen.

The TV drama was split into three distinct parts (Not sure if it was broadcast in two or three parts, but the plot is definitely in three distinct sections). Firstly we have character development, set-up and the introduction of the game. The second section is all about the game itself, planning and trying to get away with the murder of a young girl on the streets of Brighton. The final section switches to the police's point of view as they try to unravel the case of the REAL murder.

I have such a soft spot for this drama. I must have seen it right through 20 or 30 times, but I still find it charming. I can't help but laugh though at the massive howlers Mrs La Plante has left in when it comes to what computers can and can't do. You have to watch it with an open mind and just breeze past the gaping plot flaws. The murder and it's subsequent investigation are water-tight, so don't think she didn't get those parts right because she did.

You also have to raise a smile at Jason Orange's first foray into acting. This was made just after Take That had split up for the first time and whilst Gary and Mark tried their hands at solo careers, Jason wanted to have a stab at acting. Don't remember seeing him in anything else after this....I wonder why.

I have to give this a thumbs up, simply because I love it so much, but am not blind to how bad it actually is on paper. It is nothing compared to her other works (the early Trial & Retributions are first class) and so I only recommend it out of a sense of loyalty to it. I can't defend any of the acting (hardly any stand-out performances at all) and the script just seems a bit wooly. It does act as a whodunnit, although I seem to remember working out who it was very early on the first time I watched it, so I don't think it's too much of a brain-buster. Not sure that's the point of it though.

Filmed on location in Brighton, so if you know the area, you'll be able to spot a few familiar landmarks. Due to the subject matter, Killer Net was dated the moment it was released...

..but I still like it :)