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 :)

Coogan's Run (1995)

Steve Coogan is best known as Alan Partridge to people of my generation, but he is also an acclaimed impressionist and character actor. Recently he has played a tragic/comic lead role in the drama 'Sunshine' about a gambler trying desperately to hold onto his family life (to much acclaim).

Back in 1995, Alan Partridge was established as a radio chat show comedy, and had just been transferred to TV. 'Coogan's Run' was a chance for Steve to showcase a string of other characters, and prove his versatility as a comedic character actor. It ran for one series and provided 6 individual stories (although certain characters did overlap the episodes).

First off was Paul and Pauline Calf, the brother/sister (both played by Steve) that had already appeared in a few TV comedies and in Steve's stand-up shows. To follow we then had Gareth Cheeseman, a high-flying salesman at a conference (who is almost a clone of Alan Partridge). Next we go back to the 60's for a black and white episode starring 'Ernest Moss' a Handyman who uncovers a plot to turn the local village into an amusement park. Back to the present day for Mike Crystal, a lounge singer who wants his own regular spot at the local social club, and creates an agent called Clint Stallone to boost his standing. Number 5 is the Crump brothers who are obsessed by trivia, and decide to recreate a 70's kid's TV quiz show they lost on, by kidnapping the old presenter and other contestants, and finally 'The Curator' tells the story of the owner of a tiny museum who is pushed a little bit too far by a greedy restaurant builder.

6 very diverse stories, but with Steve Coogan at the helm, not one of them is a disappointment. I suppose for me, the first one (Paul Calf) is the weakest, but I think that is just personal taste as I've never been a fan of that particular character. The way certain minor characters reappear in different stories is a lovely way to link them together, and the supporting cast are all top notch. This series was clearly made with love, by everyone involved and it shows in the performances given.

I'm not sure this could have gone on any further. If another series was made (of 6 more characters) there would be a chance they would start to become watered down. If one character was picked out to have his own series, it would leave you wondering what happened to the remaining ones. For that reason, it is nice that Coogan's Run has remained as it is - as 6 stand alone comedy episodes.

It's worth noting that Ronnie Barker did something identical with the series '6 of one' although that DID end up giving us Porridge and Open all Hours. (review of '6 of One' will follow in a few weeks)

Of course, you can tell by the way I've written this that it gets my thumbs up, but I do it unconditionally. Unlike Sean's Show I don't think you need to be a fan of the star to enjoy this series. I admit Mr Coogan is a greatly talented performer, but the series itself is not great JUST because of him. There is brilliant character development, tight scripts and perfect direction. It's just a shame it seemed almost over looked when it was first broadcast. Well worth checking out if you get the chance.

Going Straight (1978)

There can't be too many TV fans that haven't watched at least one episode of Porridge in their lifetime - I'd go so far as to add 'watched and LIKED' at least one episode of Porridge. It was the great combination of Ronnie Barker as Norman Stanley Fletcher, Fulton Mackay as his arch nemesis, Richard Beckinsale as young Lenny Godber his cell mate and a host of likeable side characters that interact brilliantly to provide an ensemble cast to support Mr Barker's lead. Making the audience sympathise with prisoners was a bold step, but perhaps that is one of the main reasons it has stood the test of time as a classic comedy production.

So it makes you wonder why it's sequel has almost vanished into oblivion. 'Going Straight' was a one series follow up that tracked N.S. Fletcher on his rocky road to staying away from crime and trying to set up a family life again. His wife has left him, and he is being looked after by his eldest daughter Ingrid. Still living at home is his youngest son Raymond (played by an instantly recognisable Nicholas Lyndhurst). Throw into the mix Lenny Godber as a long distance lorry driver who wants to marry Ingrid and you have the basic set-up. Which ever way he turns in the real world Fletcher finds it harder and harder to get a job because of his background, and finds more and more temptation to lead him back into a life of crime.

But it doesn't work. Don't get me wrong, it's brilliantly written and is still a million times better than a host of sit-coms I could list, but it's always going to be compared with it's predecessor and because of that, it doesn't cut the mustard. Perhaps it's because we've stepped out of it's claustrophobic prison setting, or perhaps it's because Fletcher doesn't have the same ensemble of players to interact with (Godber is relegated to being a bit-part now). Perhaps it's the lack of authority figures that Fletcher used to get one over (Mackay makes a great appearance in episode one, but never reappears). Whatever the problem is, it's there and it makes 'Going Straight' a sad addition to the Porridge family.

I must stress again though that it is still a funny comedy on it's own and deserves a lot more recognition, but I suppose the equivalent would be having Basil Fawlty moving away from Torquay and not taking Sybil, Manuel and Polly with him. I'm sure we'd still laugh, but know deep down that something was missing.

I'll give 'Going Straight' a thumbs up as a stand alone TV comedy, but if you are asking me if it a worthwhile sequel to Porridge, then it's a sad 'no'.

George and the Dragon (1966)

In the year best remembered for England winning the World Cup at Wembley, a new sit-com hit the screens. Sid James, already a household name from Hancock's Half Hour and a handful of Carry On films was the lead, and his nemesis was Peggy Mount. Peggy had been known for several stage shows and a few TV appearances but George and the Dragon was her biggest part to date.

So, the basic plot. Sid plays George, a chauffeur/general helper to a retired Colonel who also employs a gardener called Ralph and a cook/housekeeper. After Sid has caused 14 cooks to leave due to his wandering hands and advances, Peggy Mount is employed (Miss Dragon) who is more than a match for George's schemes and ideas. What follows is 4 series of George trying to get his own way, and Miss Dragon being the fly in the oinment and cutting him down to size.

..but it's more than that, and not as bland as other 60's sit-coms can appear. The classic comedies of the era have stood the test of time (Hancock, Steptoe etc) but the ones we still remember are because of the excellent script and writing. There are SO many that disappeared without trace. George and the Dragon is one of those that has vanished, but perhaps shouldn't have done. The script isn't always top notch, and the comedy relies largely on Sid James' comedy brilliance, but is that a bad thing?

One of the nice touches of this sit-com is that is doesn't cliche itself. In several episodes George and Miss Dragon actually work together to get what they want, which creates an unusual chemistry for the viewer. One that means you are keen to see what happens next week. Do they REALLY hate each other, or is there a touch of mutual respect?

A side note here about The Colonel. He is played by the wonderful John Le Mesurier, but not sure he quite gives it 100%. The problems in his personal life are well documented, and here it's almost as if he is happy to play a 2-dimensional character to provide the laughs for Sid and Peggy and then just pick up the pay-cheque. You must have seen his portrayal of Sgt Wilson in Dad's Army (you HAVE haven't you?) Well you know that sort of dreamy, far-away look and manner he always had? well the Colonel character here is just like that, only without the intelligence to back it up. Ralph the gardener isn't much better, another 2-D part to set up the punchlines for the two main stars.

However, I think therein lies the only main flaws with this comedy. After watching the first two or three episodes I thought it was going to be a run of the mill trashy 60's comedy, but by the time I had finished all 4 series I was gripped. It took me a full series to warm to Peggy Mount's character, but once I had, she was a perfect side-kick to Sid James. Neither of them steals the show, it's a perfect double act performance.

It's not A Galton and Simpson production, so it doesn't have the sharp script of Hancock or Steptoe, but it still stands up as a credit to the decade and it's a shame it doesn't get remembered as often as other shows from the era. This one gets a thumbs up (perhaps the opening few episodes get a thumbs down, but with a total of about 26 episodes made, that's not a bad percentage)

Lock, Stock....(2000)

One major success in the British cinemas at the end of the 90's was 'Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels' a home grown gangster movie with the right mix of comedy, action and a wickedly inventive script and plot. It made names of director Guy Ritchie and one of it's stars, Jason Statham has taken Hollywood by storm as a martial arts fighting actor. It's sequel 'Snatch' was just as successful. Chances are, if you're ages between 20 and 40 right now, you've seen them both and if you're male, you would have either or both in your top 50 films.

So what of the TV spin-off that ran for 6 episodes (plus a pilot) in 2000? Was it any good? Was it worth making? I'm a bit undecided here.

Basic idea. 4 mates own and run a pub called The Lock. They boost their cash flow with a bit of underhand wheelin' and dealin', duckin' and divin' (all to be said in a crap east-end accent). This naturally gets them on the wrong side of a few gangsters that they end up having to do favours for. By the end of each episodes, someone is dead, the 4 mates have somehow managed to stay alive and they no longer owe the favour.....just like the original film.

..and here is problem one. It feels like they take the original film plot, change a few characters, incidentals and locations, shorten the story to one hour and then call it a new episode. If you strip away the plots of the TV episodes you end up with the same basic story-board everytime. What that leads to is you will have a favourite episode out of the 6, and feel the rest are just bad carbon copies.

Then you have the cast. Not one single actor or even character from either of the Guy Ritchie films makes an appearance. Doesn't that say a lot? How Scott Maslen (currently in Eastenders) ever gets through casting auditions I'll never know - he couldn't act his way out of a soggy paper bag.

It has a bit of violence, although most is implied. There is blood, swearing and east-end gangster talk, making it feel more cinematic rather than TV fodder, but it's hard to make a case to support it, based on the fact it falls SO far short of the film it is based on.

Want a rating? OK, on the whole it gets a thumbs down I'm afraid, but I did say you will end up having a favourite episode. Mine is the finale, 'Lock,Stock and a Good Slopping Out' set in prison. That one episode gets a thumbs up.

If you are a fan of the films, then you MIGHT find something to enjoy here, but I doubt it. You'll just end up ejecting the disc and slipping the original movie in instead. If you weren't a fan of the original, then there is nothing to recommend here at all.

p.s. Look out for Martin Freeman (now Dr Watson in the new Sherlock and about to play Bilbo Baggins in the new Hobbit movies). Here he plays a Dutch 'importer' in a couple of episodes with the dodgiest accent ever! (yes, even worse than Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins)