Reviews

54 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Ernie (2016)
4/10
One note, slow. Fun sets, decent acting despite direction
22 June 2024
This short film feels very much like what an American kid would do if they were trying to make a 'European' film, down to the narrator's fake accent, French incidental music and Slavic-y names - to be honest from the other side of the pond the pastiche would be bordering on the offensive if it weren't so obviously made by someone very young and inexperienced, so it comes across more like a college student ostentatiously smoking Gauloises, in a black polar-neck, reading Proust coz they've just got back from a family holiday to Euro Disney.

The cardboard sets are fun although unoriginal, the direction very slow and slilted, and the direction of the actors to be basically emotionaless, presumably to seem clever, comes across as very pretenious and makes the piece really drag - it feels sooooo much longer than it is.

Some of the roles are acted pretty well, and the lead manages to elicit some pathos and humour despite the flat delivery his director required and the lack of a narrative being rather problematic for all involved - again an error of youth to think throwing 'suicide' at a script makes a story - it doesnae.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
OK so not 'merican so the big sellers in ep 1 don't work for me
18 May 2024
I'm not a yank so Seinfled and Ferrell (his dubya was ok) are not a big draw for me and I'm not gonna just laugh at them thoughlessly. I mean Ray J was the most interesting and best guest... which is, um, unusual, but then he had to sit there on his own not with the other guests (is there some beef, or were they filmed in chunks coz obvs not live surely, or is it a 'culture' thing?) and the younger comic who was in the extremely unfunny skit portion was allowed one line on the couch.

I like John M and he deserves some good luck and could obvs pull in some favours so I'll try another episode but not convinced it'll do much more for me.

The editing and production are quite fun, the theme music is and announcer are great, the monologue was acceptable if a little self indulgant and the musical guests are alright, but by an large this doens't hit the mark.

Its not weird enough to be cool weird, not parodical enough to be satire and not considered enough in general.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Disappointing with annoying script, poor reading of it and ghastly narrator
25 March 2024
So the sites are interesting, some prehistory, some biological mysteries and global archaeology. The folk who wrote the script and directed the talking heads, however, need some self reflection and serious help to produce something that isn't super irritating. The script is repetitive and its being read in a tacky movie trailer type way by the horrendous narrator and in an exceedinly unconvincing fashion by the (majority of) talking heads - several of whom are really reputable academics (others.... not so much, ya know the History Channel = Hitler type usual suspects) who frankly should've stepped away once they were asked to read stuff that a) isn't particularly educational b) is barely informative at times c) is outside their expertise.

Done two episodes, and love me some archaeology (even pretty cheesy stuff) but its like nails down a chalk board... look obvs not as bad as the weird revisionist ancient alien BS, but just exceedingly irritating so dunno if I'll be able to watch any more eps.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Weirdly Orientalist documentary for 2024 leaves you wanting
21 February 2024
Somehow despite interviewing several Cambodian academics and local archaeologists this documentary manages to minimise their voices and contributions to understanding of this powerful ancient empire.

The narrator speaks over a Dr (Prue Leith, coz one of her kids was adopted from Cambodia?! Kinda offensive in itself, and think her daughter actually makes films so why not get her to do it?!) Experts speaking English as a second language are subtitled despite speaking perfect English (except the French fellows).

There are suggestions that until archaeological sites were investigated by the French or re-opened to foreigners post CPK/Khymer Rouge 'the locals' were ignorant of and not interested in their own cultural history.

Pauline Carroll says whilst 'we' (in the West) can understand Greeks or Romans, Asian cultures are a different world.

Several minutes are given over to showing video from the USA/Vietnam war-exploitative and dehumanising and has absolutely no place in a documentary like this.

Really odd and uncomfortable choices, especially since its more than 45 years since Edward Said wrote Orientalism - there really is no excuse.

In addition the history and data is not presented chronologically, thematically or in order of excavation... just randomly stuck together. As another reviewer has stated the music is really unecessary and distracting. Some facts, like the size of the population, are repeated mulitple times, and Pauline's place in the whole thing seems somewhat redundant (often who have an arch in these shows to ask questions, even if they know the answer, or present current or previous theories but Prue's chatting all over everything)

All this is extremely annoying as the culture and archaeology are fascinating and the new tech/LIDAR scans and better acceptance by archs of local knowledge (as "JB" Chevance acknowledges his guide basically told him there was a big ol' site) give really exciting evidence and it would have been cool to hear more potential theories and future possibilities.

I will watch the second episode but go in knowing the presentation will be disappointing but the information won't.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After Midnight (2024– )
8/10
Relaunch/hash/invention of @midnight is bedding in nicely
12 February 2024
So this show used to exist, and TBH I didn't understand why it was cancelled (unless rumblings about a certain host were happening behind the scenes?!) The format is a flexible potentially anarchic way to have comedians, improv bods, satirists, quick witted actors do some light touch political parody and social (media) commentary nightly without having too much of the 'writers room' problems much 'merican comedy has (a lotta yank comedy thinks it better than it is, too much thinking not enough laughing - you're clowns guys n gals) It is also a place for younger, greener, riskier performers to cut their teeth, practice their brand or show another side of themselves without too big an audience to worry about.

The first eps aren't great but its bedding in nicely and Taylor is gaining her confidence in the role.

There is, however, some learning to be had; fake laughing from hosts and out-of-shot production members no no nooooooo -better to look embarrased/make a joke of a failed punch-line/chastise the audiences' lack of taste/give derogatory points - than make out its all equally good or funny, make the unfunny part of the joke riiiiigggght.

Chaos is better than precision for a show like this.

Not everything needs a fecking graphic or if you must make the digital board part of joke... coz the screen isn't captivating by itself.

The guests and episodes that have been the best are the most free - (serious, self absorbed comics need not apply) and many of the contestants who've been the best are 'older' confident, non-stand up types, these comedians/comic actors (several of whom did the ol' show) get the schtick... and they can be as wild as they like (the show is clearly editted it so at least that way you'll capture the energy and enuf content to pick from)

Hopefully the dhow will continue and they'll settle into more regular 'games'/tropes (at the beginning its was a new thing every 30 secs) Best when they have a stable of known games that the audience and players know may come round like hashtags wars, for the win (and FFS you gorra swallow your pride and use twitter too cmon!) Eventually (halleloooooo) there was first Brit player t'other night... there's loadsa Limeys out there so get em booked (we've loads of free wheeling comedy on our TV so they're used to similar stuff - might help loosen up your domestics if they're on set)

EDIT the big sporty night spesh - Wayne Brady, Kevin Smith and Maria - great bookings. You don't necessaryily need yunguns on this show, you need follk who don't give a feck and are happy to improvise and be foolish, whatever their age and background.
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Laughable dialogue and direction and weird unrealistic settings
9 December 2023
It does seem likely that the fact that the head of Channel 4 drama is the partner of the screenwriter of this odd piece may have helped it in being commissioned (as has come out in the press) without producers having the cajones to edit this thing into something watchable - and certainly the barage of publicity to try and get some viewing figures has got summit to do with being a nepo hubby.

The supporting cast, particularly Dennis, Robbins and Dutvitski are fine and do their best with a terrible and thin script. Dialogue and stage direction choices are at times just odd, is it tryna be funny and camp if so its not trying hard enough - fantasising over bin juice, leaving your peeping tom kit for your suspiscous ignored wife to find, a bottle of bubbly to infer a boner - what?

None of the leads are employed for their acting chops, solely for being kinda symmetrical and flauting their bods, but their characters aren't even interesting or filled out enough to be unlikable. Utterly meh. The plot is depressingly predictable whilst clearly wanting to be risque and modern (oooo s£x oooo throuple oooo weed oooo wanking).

Finally the settings and design choices are weirdly un-British - for a while I assumed it had been pitched to be made in Miami or Oz or summit and they just couldn't get the budget (kinda made sense when I realised it was a Dutch remake and a lot of the crew are from the continent) - the streets of Leeds are not covered in masked gunmen, Brits don't walk around the cul de sac in a flimsy nightie after hearing foxes fecking, UK adults don't shimmy in the sand dunes after a smoke and some tequila or do yoga in a studio with the doors open to a forest... nah nah nah its pretty much every scene something is off. In the same way as its not kitsch enough to be camp, its not stepford wives enough to be a comment on suburbia.

I liked the music though, some parts give black mirror or utopia and I'm kinda tempted to watch the original and maybe see what's been lost in translation.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Waste of airtime and budget shows R&J must still have some commissioning sway
17 October 2023
Its such a shame that Richard and Judy's daughter is still so desperate for 'fame' that she has had babies with that weird cheating lump of an eejit poser and allowed cameras into her children's private lives. For what? This 'show' is vapid, pointless, embarrassing and poorly made. She not gonna get a career out of it or even any more episodes, perhaps a coupla hunny to post about protein shakes or gym gear maybe some more 'followers' online, but it really isn't worth pimping out your unconsenting bairns for publicity.

I can imagine Judy tryna talk her out of it and Chloe whiningly begging the proto Alan Partridge to help her get meetings with ITVX execs but let's be real ITV are sooooo gagging for content they'll put Richard on in the early morning for twitter traction and sidebar of shame articles and film almost any botoxed-lip-plumped loser who'll hand over their home, rights and dignity so long as there is total access and tiny overhead costs.... afterall they've a whole online platform to fill now and still seem to think they can challenge the streaming platforms.... not with this this bollocks they won't.

Chloe get a fecking job and some self respect, and read up on the behaviours of abusive partners please.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Viking Dead (2018)
2/10
Dull repetitive waste of time that makes you concerned about the academics involved
10 October 2023
Exceedingly dull series thats only purpose is seemingly to give a certain, apparently professional academic (who works often with this 'director'/producer- odd) unnecessary amounts of screen time and overseas jollies - where he doesn't visit archaeological sites but only reconstructions and kinda old fashioned museum exhibitions to make banal statements about waterways being used to travel (whaaat.... ?! By boat building communities, holy-stating-the-obvious Batman) and ask the kinds of question that would come out of the mouth of a 7 year old who's reading Horrible Histories for the first time.

Shame as there's been in some interesting recent new material culture, evidence and hypothesis come along but these are all ignored or skated over in order to repeat that the Viking age started with the raid on Lindesfarne and then contradict that, and then state Vikings were just pagan raders of Northern England but no, wait, they were traders well before that.... its actually a gift to be able to write and have a series commissioned off such a poor script (from the mind of that same 'director'/ producer) that repeats and contradicts and repeats and contradicts and repeats and contradicts and... (get the picture ?!) the same nonsense over SIX eps.

I kept on as there are some notable talking heads involved so you keep hoping its going somewhere -the Chair of Arch at Uppsala, some curators from interesting museums, researchers from Tallinn Uni and Gotland but they're not given much of a chance to bring anything interesting to the table (or its all edited out by someone who knows very little about the topic)

The benefit of the series is I now know to avoid anything from Jeremy Freeston, and take with a pinch of salt anything starring (cough) Tim Sutherland.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Boiling Point (2023– )
3/10
So boring, so banal, soooo beeb. Not boiling point, tepid blancmange.
6 October 2023
I haven't seen the film(s) and I haven't watched The Bear so I'm not comparing it to anything, but could only manage a few scenes.

It started with the desperately try-hard one-take panning shot with cliched-character-intros-pretending-to-be-dialogue (from a writer whose entire oeurve is seemingly writing Boiling Point three 'different' times). Then came clunky acting from ex-Eastenders and directors' pets, the horrendous, bordering on xenophobic, fake french accent, the ridiculous and predictable 'funders' vs 'mum calls' embarrassingly implausible plotline, all 'directed', filmed and edited by folk who aren't as good as they have come to believe. There are some good folk in the cast Stephen Graham, everyone loves (seems like a good egg but I've never been blown away) and is defo better than the main cast but sidelined and probs doing the job as a favour, and I couldn't hack it until the brilliant Cathy Tyson or Steven Ogg turned up so dunno what nonsense they were made to do but...I couldn't handle the rubbishness and had to leave the room.

The BBC really need a shake up when it comes to their drama productions - I know they're not necessaryily going for a highbrow or even British audience but I can sniff a beeb production from the cheesey derivative wannabe desperation and usual suspects casts from a mile off. Its not worth a 1, that's silly, but its never a ten so those reviews are defo financed or family.
13 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Good start and different enough 'world' as to potenially make a TWD spin off the audience deserves
10 September 2023
Firstly try and ignore the reviews that focus on all the other TWD real estate and folk being butt hurt about this show runner or that story arch (what is it with this site and whataboutery and biased reviews being allowed through and skewing the ratings?!) and please watch this show for what it is - if you like horror/sci fi/fantasy with a human edge you won't be disappointed.

Daryl Dixon, a character written solely for and perfectly developed for the medium of TWD TV, has ended up in post-apocalyptic France. Suspend your disbelief as he floats into Marsielle on an up turned dingy, afterall this is a show where the dead walk around wanting to eat people soooooo, you know... The setting and casting one episode in look largely good, interesting and attractive looking people with some decent acting chops inhabiting a world that is far enough removed from Atlanta, in terms of places to hole up, weapons to take out walkers and enemies, world views and pre-apoc-political structures etc., as to give an exciting novel feel and make you intrigued plus the same brooding leads, empathy, mystery and innovative gruesome gore to feel like (TWD) home.

As a European, there were a coupla times it felt a wee bit cliched and I was concerned it might go too cheesy/yankie-view-of-the-rest-the-world, but if they've got and listen to cast/writers/advisors/production from France hopefully it won't veer into painting by numbers.

Overall I'm excited to watch this new series, keen to witness how the virus we all carry played out elsewhere on the planet and sure our hero will be just as badass en France.
51 out of 81 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Interesting idea backed by excellent experts
17 August 2023
What a brilliant premise and why hasn't anyone thought of it before?! CSI/CPS/genocide investigators use forsenic anthropologists/archs, but t'other way around I'm not aware of until this series.

Prof Turi King, who has connected her disciplines across archaeology and genetics (with all the new exciting tech/data coming through) in academic and media before and here she joins forces with homocide detective and organised crime expert Rod Demery.

Rod brings fascinating human insights and hypothesis to the last moments of people who have been found dead in mysterious circumstances across time and space - from C20th USA to prehistoric mummified remains. It is engrossing, genuinely makes you think and they've wangled access to some really fab material culture and sites to enable the investigations. Some of the stuff is a bit cheesy but perhaps necessary to tie into these 'murder podcast' times and to illustrate ideas for lay people (the re-enactments, 'witness'/'suspect' shiz) but as someone with a background in anthropology who has always been a bit wary of the 'shove it all in the ritual box' our disciplines have been wont to do, having someone with a real world grounding looking at the most horrendous of human behaviours and applying that to folk throughout history was really useful, eye-opening and a reminder that people have more in common than what's separates us, whenever and wherever we are doing their thing.

I really hope they commission more episodes and that more museums and departments take advantage of this team having a look at what they've got in their archives. Loved it. Watch it.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Gold Diggers (2023– )
7/10
Writer could do better but actors/set/costumes etc working their proverbials off
23 July 2023
Gold Diggers is a bit of a disappointment TBH. Seemed like an interesting premise with a lot of potential and good casting (I was drawn in after seeing Danielle Walker on Taskmaster) Initially it seems as if a fair bit of money and talent has been thrown at the design, sets, effects etc., and the idea of C21st attitudes in an historical context, especially a chaotic Wild West-type one, can lend itself to hilarity and social commentary. The scripts however feel very much like a white fella is playing at being 'right on' and so the humour falls very flat and the characters don't feel right for then or now or as people really - in fact the only roles that so far has been somewhat funny and human is the creepy exploitative rich white guy and the dopey slightly less creepy copper - huuummmm interesting.

It looks like the creator/writer had other people (intersectional women) contribute to scripts but suspect he didn't really listen/learn/take lived experience on board/accept that talent - maybe a learning experience for all involved.

Think I will keep watching, it may improve, and its not baaaaddd just a little childish and cliched (reviewers here are a reflection of the triggered in the current weird culture wars and the odd obvious production plant so hopefully a less biased review will be useful to others)
1 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Interesting documentary on the dangerous unexpected consequences of when people in positions of power display behaviours congruent with narcissism &psychopathy
6 July 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I was not aware of this case of Principal Kenney who hypnothised tens of his students at school, several of whom then died, after seeing how cool teenagers thought an entertainment hypnotist was and how easily they trusted them (bleurgh..... yup that an entirely normal thing for a grown adult responsible for young people's safety and futures to think and say.... bleurgh)

He violated rules of therapeutic intervention, the sacred boundary of teacher/student and basic ethics (including on informed consent/exploitation/power and more), seemingly to improve the performance and standing of the smalltown school for which he was responsible and feed his own ego and wallet.

He uses the epithet of 'Dr' gained from a PhD in 'Educational leadership' (WTF is college/uni nowadays that you can do doctorates in 'educational leadership', what is that?!?!?) to infer he is a licensed healthcare professional. He did no kind of assessment of need, risk, alternative interventions prior to hypnotising multiple teenage students. He filmed the sessions and self published books about and recordings of his exploitation of the student/teacher relationship. The videos of the sessions, well those he did not destroy when the papers got hold fo the story, show mainly teenage boys often immediately with their heads in their headteacher's lap after being put under... incredibly odd and deeply creepy.

Obviously showing direct causation between the deaths of those he hypnotised and his selfish, unethical and unprofessional actions would be extremely difficult and probable cause without reasonable doubt impossible (also there is never going to be sufficient general evidence as to whether the kinds of thing he did could cause deaths/suicides because other hypnotists, apart from PUA, follow ethical guidelines)

The documentary brings the viewpoints of students, some of whom underwent sessions with Kenney others who were friends with those who died, parents of kids including a local journo who covered the case, Dr Kenney himself, as well as licensed hypnotists and others with professional oversight on the matters covered. Its an interesting series that shows the grey areas, geographies/communities and settings that certain types of personality, who get off on power and ego, like to dance and dangle.

Some contributors whether a little naive, still under the influence, or less aware of the nuances of abuse think he was only trying to help, others wanted him to be criminally convicted coz they don't understand how the burden of proof works in the law or in scientific enquiry. The professionals (apart from a coupla from the school who presumably he also did a number on) are much more circumspect and realistic in their contributions.

He, however, did admit guilt in court, as he explains, in order to protect his pension.... I think that statement straight from the horse's mouth says all you need to know about 'Dr' George Kenney. Often these kinda folk have so little empathy that they will tell you exactly who they are, if you're prepared to hear it.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ruby Speaking (2023)
4/10
Unfunny and unrealistic with unlikable, untalented lead
23 June 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Oh dear. Sometimes you've got to wonder what kinda focus group questions have meant production and media companies try and 'make' someone 'a star'. Jayde Adams isn't a good comic and is not likable - being working class, with a regional accent and bigger than your average actor aren't reasons to build a sitcom around someone. As well as the writing being extremely dry, unfunny, predictable and not based in reality (call centre jobs are hellish, the implied 'frission' between a symetrical, middle-class boss and an incompetent unattractive lazy employee would never happen, when working minimum wage in a boiler room call centre you get abused by most customers so you don't feel like a pseudo-social worker plus these kinda jobs are all now outsourced to PhDs in the developing world) the acting quality, writing and direction is really hit and miss.

Finally the 'kooky' angle they're tryna force by having costumes in krazy clashing colours and the customers 'appear' in the office during calls just comes across as really desperate and tacky.
5 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Flawed judging and some delusional contestants but still entertaining
31 May 2023
As other reviewers have stated Glow Up is basically a less good Skin Wars or Face Off - where the artists tend to be much more talented and experienced. It is, however, entertaining in others ways.

It throws a variety of different types of (face) make up challenge at people at the beginning of their make up careers; one week beauty, next TV, another week horror, one on prosthetics (which the main judge can't pronounce which is effing annoying) - this gives the competition a bit of a splatter gun approach, and can result in the wrong people going out if they aren't so good at beauty/gore/fine line work.

The contestants are kids finishing their education, people who work dept store counters/do bits of wedding make up and some tiktok/insta/YT content 'creators' - some are really talented and interesting and lap up and learn from the great opportunities offered by being part of a beeb produced show that gets them onto sets, in front of taste makers, the chance to work with Rankin/another influential photog. Other contestants however have less technical knowledge and skill than a lay person who never wears slap and the delusional self confidence of a millenial/zoomer narc who chooses to stare at themselves for hours and then again and again to edit the video they made of themselves staring at themself. There are usually at least three contestants who are sooooooo pretenious and try-hard they need a good shake from Ma and Pa, made to pay bills sharpish and have their phone locked in a box and forced to have a conversation or read a book.

The judges, both regular and guest, are often pretty rubbish and subjective, and the final face off each week is usually judged very poorly-presumably coz the producers want certain contestants to get through and not coz Val and Dom are actually unable to see when things are symmetrical, afterall they do work in the industry, so should be able to tell colours apart.

For the first few seasons the hosts were two of the most irrating and talentless eejits on British TV, Stacey Dooley and Maya Jama (bleurgh), who also don't know anything about make up or film or modelling (as well as being extremely unlikable) but for the 2023 series they brought in Leomie Anderson an actual supermodel who is also doing a really good job presenting and seems like a genuinely nice person who is interested in and supportive of the contestants - a big step up from Stormzys' ex and that irritating ginger bird who conned a career out of being ignorant about sweat shops.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Diverse dating show that's somehwat realistic and romantic but reviews being blocked
28 March 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Fantastic to see genuinely diverse cast is terms of sexu@lity, race, gender, language, nationality, dating culture - age not so much - wish the '29' year old had used her IRL age rather than 'online dating' age.

A show where what bits people have isn't 'a thing' or a driving part of the drama but just is. Without preaching or over-simplifying it provides a glimpse of bi peoples' experiences of bierasure and biphobia from hetero and homo folk alike -one of the suitors who is openly bi and has a trans ex is overlooked for a macho conman whilst some lesbian suitors play into some 'gold star' narrative nonsense. Even though we are over 50% of the LGBTQI+ community we are largely absent in the media (unless promiscuous/poly, psycho, confused, convertable, a plot point) so thanks for allowing us be and date normally.

Its also nice seeing Americans who are somewhat wordly- who've lived overseas, speak (a bit of) the language, are open to diverse people and don't see Paris (and the rest of the planet) as a pastiche you can 'do' in a weekend.

Really enjoyable modern dating show and I actually was rooting for and shipping some -which I rarely do on these shows.

The only negative distraction is a cast member's yankie anachronistic lip plumping - she discussing 'why' but its horrid to see anyone, let alone someone so young, butcher their face and make themselves come across as weak and superficial and less attractive as a result. There is so much more to you than whatcha look like (these doctors or other 'professionals' involved in destroying peoples bodies and confidence should be struck off)

Shame this site is rejecting any reviews of this cutting-edge show- another example of bierasure?
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rise and Fall (2023)
4/10
Pretty predictable reflection of late capitalist ideologies and attitudes
23 March 2023
So its basically Milgrim's banned experiement, in fact so much so that the first work shifts are a pretty literal a replica, but instead of men with white coats, its men in suits and instead of 'science' being the lever its the possibility of maybe getting a little bit of money - so kinda more like the IRL horror that led Milgram to design the experiments following WWII - but for TV.

Its nothing new, pretty predictable and whilst some of the casting is good and somewhat understandable, it also kinda feels like the UK has run out of complex driven people and producers are left having to pick from pretty unpleasant sociopaths who are lying before they begin (surely not even Ramona's surgeon thinks she can pass for 35!?)

I love reality TV, and people watching, cultures and communities are my passion but I don't think I'll be able to see this one through as it is derivative, dull and discomforting all at once.

Greg James is, I am sure, a perfectly nice fellow but to say he is vanilla would be to suggest vanilla has no flavour, noooo is an anti-flavour, a flavour neutraliser - perhaps this a choice as if the presenter of this show had too much personality or presence them conducting a handful of greedy eejits to enforce what are essentially extremely cruel, dubiously required and (as demonstrated by the fact that Milgram had to drop his shiz) ethically unacceptable experiments/tasks/jobs would seem really dark and machiavellian.

One of the most interesting, probably accidentally, symbols central to the show is the location - a beautiful deco central London building, built to house and allow the development of a public transport system in London and SE UK in the early C20th, was the home of Transport of London for many years (so effectively a public building open to the public doing work for the public) but then once the tube was part privatised it was sold off to be developed into a 'luxury hotel' - but has had to become a set for a reality TV show as there are more luxury rooms in cities like London than there obscenely wealthy oligrachs/Emirati/yankie tourists/Chinese party members/Old Etonians/Instahookers. Short sighted greed, bailed out by tax payers, having to be used for something flippant so as not to sit empty whilst homelessness is rife and workers have to live in zone6 and commute for hours to sweep the floors.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Are most 'merican 'comics' actually this unfunny?
22 March 2023
This Chris DiStefano vehicle works the opposite way to most comedy vehicles - rather than showing off someone's talent or charisma this works by being even more offensively dull and old fashioned than Chrissy's stand-up. Super Maximum Retro Show is a clear example of the fact that both Vice and Kimmel have no discernment or sense of humour. Its tryna take the mick outta retro media and old fashioned ideas but is soooo outdated and boring, and its clearly problematic that they can't book any female comics apart from one lesbian who hasn't been successful for over 20 years so has to accept any invite onto any pseudo-TV show to promote a podcast. The (very few) reputable comedians who realised their agents had lumbered them with this canned laughter BS embarrassment of a waste of electricty should look for better reps immediately. DiStefano should stay online garner clicks and ticks from self hating hispanic 'mericans, trucker Dads and incels.
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tool Club (2021– )
5/10
Misses the mark; not for beginners, not for DIYers, not old or young
22 March 2023
Channel 4 have done it again- commissioned a series where the audience to whom they're pitching is so broad as to be useless. The shape of the show is one large building project over a week of episodes, a coupla of craft projects per ep and a few weird home decorating jobs each week, interspersed with what are obviously supposed to be youtube hack type videos. This means that they'll be demonstrating how to do something extremely basic to a professional (watch me drill this sleeper person employed full time as the handyman on this site) making an elderly person who's never touched a screwdriver mitre using a circular table saw, 'upcycling' without masks or other safety equipment on an enclosed bus and then have a vid about grades of sandpaper with no context or examples of where or how to use.

In addition none of the projects offer much inspiration, they're very tacky, old fashioned and basic, the presenters aren't particularly personable or motivating and seems most have never done any teaching before (it is a skill passing on skills you know) and as a disabled person and activist I found the interactions on the first project offensive and bordering on disablist.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Don't understand how it is possible to get this kinda stuff made in C21st
21 March 2023
The premise, flicking through an on demand service and landing on a selection of reality TV, media staples and recent(ish) trends (well recent for close to retirement rellies Squid Game and Scandi Noir jeez in a fast moving media landscape eeeekkk), as a way of feeding short wee sketches to a broad contemporary audience is a good idea.

Many of the shows whether Love Island, I'm a Celeb, Survivor, Bachelor, Stranger Things are ripe for lampooning and some of the impressions are passable - the hosts of the Block and Celeb are convincing, the SAS fella, Manu and most others are an abomination, but not wrong or surreal enough to make you laugh.

The majority of the show is so unfunny its actually kinda compelling, like how you can write such uninteresting and pointless sketch comedy in the modern world.

The whole thing feels extremely old fashioned a) whilst there are some melanated cast regulars they tend to get the rubbish role/unfunny lines in the sketch b) the same older white guy is always the love interest to young highly attractive women c) yeah the writing, which feels like the team is made up of ya Gran's mate, an extremely unpopular 12 year old & cracker/Dad joke writers (which is kinda one of the regular sketches a pastiche of Netflix comedy specials for unfunny folk)
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
'Parody' that ignores historical &cultural contexts &isn't funny
11 March 2023
This is a god awful. Obviously 'mericans aren't that well informed about history and culture and Mel Brooks, whilst having done some interesting if childish work in his past, is like a zillion now and has had half a century of folk blowing smoke up his whoopsy to the point of not accepting it smells, but surely not everyone involved is so completely detached from reality as to think this was a good idea!

Who did they imagine would be the audience?

Poorly written, overacted sketches, with nothing interesting to day about history or today's world and are plain unfunny, overacted by a whos-who of current Americana - its utterly baffling that no-one (an editor, prodcuer, commissioner, distributor, one fo the actors, sooommmmeeeone) said guys guys, Drunk History, the BBC kids show Horrible Histories, is better satire, more interesting and funnier than this, what's the point/it needs a re-write/I can't be involved.... to be honest its shameful to anyone attached to this horror.

In addition Kroll just creeps me out, dunno what it is, but him appearing everywhere is offputting.
16 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Catfish UK (2021– )
6/10
Catfish on a wee island that isn't as judgemental as the USofA is interesting- Nella needs to stop pulling faces
9 March 2023
So obvs its staged and scripted, its a reality TV show so surely in 2023 no-one is silly enough to think its unedited and unproduced, so those critiques are a bit weird. Its defo different to the US version, tis a very small country, and even the continent (and further afield) are only a short trip away compared to the states. Also the UK is less judgmental than the USA so people are much less likely to catfish here as a result of gender, sexuality, race or (one of the USA's biggest issues) obesity. This means the stories are widely different to those in the states, but this isn't necessarily a problem, as it just exposes a different cultural situation, but it is down to producers to find interesting people and diverse stories, and they need to keep working on this. Most recent season has shown they're struggling as a number of the subjects needing help have been MTV 'stars' and/or social media pseudo-slebs so.... The main problem with the show is the female hosts sitch. Oobah is alright as a host and has experience of how manipulation can happen online so he's a good choice. As for the female hosts, Julie and then Nella. Clearly MTV have realised they've gotta do summit about representation so are like, quick find a black woman as that's the 'opposite' of Oobah. Julie obvs got the job coz of who she's related to.... so OK, MTV there's music link and maybe she could have developed some skills.

Then we get Nella. Nella Nella Nella... she got her career from posting online so presume MTV thought twas a good fit, but she needs to stop with the 'youtube reactor open-mouthed-with-shock face pulling' act - its beyond fake, utterly annoying and completely embarrassing for all involved (you can feel Oobah cringe through the screen!) Nella stop it, authenticity is the way to go.

Oh and both the usual hosts could do with a wee bit more empathy thrown in, which includes telling off those that need it and boosting the self esteem of those that've been had... that Nathan fella from Geordie Shore who sits in when the girls are away is better, he actually seems to give an eff when someone is hurt.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Interesting if frustrating two parter-reveals police homophobia, lawyers' arrogance &loved ones' pain
8 March 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I wasn't aware of this case until this documentary and it is, no doubt, perplexing, upsetting and disturbing for all involved.

Some of the most irritating parts of it are, however, related to the egos and of the cops and lawyers, and this could mean that the loved ones of Robert (a lawyer who had put his brilliance, training &skill towards making the world a better place rather than accruing cash or kudos) may never get the answers they deserve.

The outright homophobia of investigators/prosecutor that entirely distracted them from properly considering, collecting and following evidence, whereever it took them.

Why would the heck would a prosecutor bring any case at all, when there clearly was insufficient evidence to convict? Ego? Re-election? (the system in the USA is weird in this way, why not get the best lawyers to prosecute rather than those needing to be electable?! Why are they so often involved in the investigation-stay in your lane so you can be objective ffs) Most frustratingly for me as a viewer was where was the evidence collected about connections to Mr Wone's work at Radio Free Asia? An organisation funded by the USA government that will obviously be a target of certain republics that don't like their propoganda bubbles burst or firewalls breached? Might a nation like that have operatives in Washington? Do they collect information about what's in the closets of law makers and policy influencers int' capital of their arch enemy? Do they have a history or getting rid of problems in ways that are unexplainable or don't look like a hit? Could they have people who can get in and out of places undetected????? Nothing, nada, this significant part of the victim's life & potential motive not even touched on.... I hope to god it just wasn't covered in this doc, that was sooooo focused on BDSM and open relationships, and that it was considered and properly investigated by the police (and Kirschner?!) I'm in no way suggesting certain people are innocent or guilty (under 2 hours of a peacock doc that is fixated in exactly the same way as the investigating officers can't reveal anything of the sort to a viewer) but there are real flaws in how 'merican justice allows male egos and biases to run roughshod over all sense and objectivity to the detriment of victims' and their families.

Rest in Peace Mr Wone and thoughts to his loved ones.
8 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Bake off but cooked in a much hotter oven and biting will break your teeth
6 March 2023
In early seasons there is much more innuendo, and shots of handle pulling etc designed to make the viewer think about smut... but in more recent seasons they've veered away from that - dunno why, silly double entendre, whether a soggy bottom or a moist rim make these reality shows particularly and peculiarly British - so feel this is a loss.

Another way the show is a little different to GBBO is that you get to see mastercraftspeople (judges and the occasional guest) demonstrate their considerable skill every ep and watching proper potters make objects we use daily outta mud with a wee bit of slap and tickle in a coupla minutes is bloody amazing.

It is also much easier to guess which contestants are likely to win/do well very early. You can't really quickly skill up or play with ceramics under pressure (like baking) and its much more expensive/impossible to practice, so many newbies and weekend amateurs won't have ever tried raku, some ways of decorating, made something entirely watertight (beyond a mug) until they're on TV.

Finally the new presenter Siobhan - sure she's a lovely woman and great actor but whether its the script or her off the cuff, its not really working. Sorry. Also docked a star coz of it. Sorry.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Super (I) (2010)
9/10
Dark, odd, realistic(ish) take on isolation, vigilantism, vanity, money, sex and faith in the USA in C21st
5 March 2023
It came out the year after Kick-Ass and is the film that Kick-Ass pretended it was. Horrifyingly pathetic homespun Supers perpetrating ultra violence with household objects spewing out directionless due to jealousy lonliness and impotence.

Its a critique of the USA's C20th/C21st Superhero myth-making that usually uses the white cis hetero male lone wolf saviour who always gets the girl and never gets in trouble - when actually in that land that demographic are much more likely to be a serial killer, drug dealer, dodgy 'businessman', gun runner, exploitative pastor, school shooter or domestic abuser.

If Clockwork Orange's drooges were in 'merica 50 years later and convinced themselves they were saving people by smashing them up.

Great cast given the chance to get out of type casting, interesting filmic choices, decent laughs and utterly disgusting moments in a film that will stay with you. If you can stay with it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed

 
\n \n \n\n\n