9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Fugitive (1963–1967)
10/10
One of the very best.
13 January 2024
Possibly one of the most versatile plot-lines ever to grace a television series, The Fugitive, starring David Janssen, details the various adventures of a 'man on the run' from the US judicial system, which has unjustly convicted him of murdering his wife.

The basic story concerns Janssen's portrayal of paediatric physician Doctor Richard Kimble, who's relationship with his wife is strained by her inability to bear children. Consequently, one particular evening, he and his wife Helen have an argument which results in him going out for a drive to let things cool down somewhat. Upon his return he witnesses a one-armed man fleeing his home. Going inside he discovers the lifeless body of his wife; a crime for which he himself is put on trial and subsequently sentenced to death at Indiana State Prison. However, due to the type of fortuitous intervention of fate which only tends to happen in fiction, his transportation to State Prison is interrupted by the derailment of the train on which he is traveling, permitting him to escape custody and head for the wide open spaces just in the nick of time.

So far - give or take a plot detail here and there - this will all be familiar to those who have seen the somewhat over-familiar 1993 movie starring Harrison Ford. But, due to the inevitable time constraints of a feature length movie, as opposed to a 120 episode television series, this is pretty much where the similarity ends. And, despite Harrison Ford's genial low-key acting style, David Janssen is, by comparison, positively somnambulist in the role. But, oddly enough, this is not a bad thing at all within the context of this particular role. Indeed it is Janssen's haunted portrayal of Kimble which is the motivating force behind the entire series. Put simply - this is the part he was born to play. So many other actors - particularly at that time - might have chosen to play it in more traditional movie hero style; which would have doubtless been popular anyway, but would have missed the point completely. But Janssen doesn't miss a trick with this. He understands the character perfectly, never forgetting that this is a man who must be forever looking over his shoulder, and can never trust anyone too much, as, with one wrong move, he will find himself on death row. Despite this ever-present risk of his true identity being discovered, strangely Kimble never sees fit to modify his appearance beyond dying his hair, thereby giving him the least convincing 'secret identity' since Clark Kent. Although a beard and perhaps spectacles would have made him virtually unrecognisable he fails to conceal his facial features at all, making him easily identifiable to anyone who happens to see his ubiquitous wanted posters or newspaper photographs. But, anyway, in true fictional tradition this massive oversight is never commented upon by anyone throughout the long-running series, as he flits from one small-town America to another, whilst adopting a different name and (surprisingly easily) a new occupation every week

Although various peripheral characters (local town sheriffs, vindictive women, degenerates of all description; and also just well-meaning honest citizens) attempt to return him back into the arms of the law, his central nemesis throughout the series is the ruthlessly pedantic, but also thoroughly upright, Indiana police Lieutenant Philip Gerard; as characterised in an equally remarkable performance by Barry Morse. Again, as with Janssen's portrayal of Kimble, Morse's Lieutenant Gerard could so easily have been the traditional one-dimensional cop-good-guy typical of that era; or even - given the dynamics of this particular situation - as the nasty vindictive bad guy. But Morse portrays a far more complex personality than might have been expected. He too is a deeply troubled character who bears an ongoing resentment - and also one suspects, an inferiority complex - due to the fact that Kimble was in his personal custody when the train wreck and subsequent escape of his prisoner occurred. His obsession with Richard Kimble is ultimately damaging to his personal relationships; particularly with his somewhat neurotic wife and, to a lesser extent, with his son; both of whom, by the type of remarkable happenstance which could only happen in fiction, experience encounters with Richard Kimble personally. The son is accidentally 'kidnapped' by Kimble (he's hiding in the back of a vehicle which Kimble uses for escape), and, knowing who this man is, initially distrusts him out of loyalty to his father; but comes to respect him on more detailed acquaintance. Incidentally, this particular episode ('Nemesis') also uncovers a remarkable facet of Lieutenant Gerard's view of his quarry. Despite knowing that his son is travelling with a convicted murderer he, at no time, considers the boy to be in any real danger. This actually reveals; not for the first or last time; that Gerard has some doubt as to Kimble's guilt of the crime for which he was convicted. However, as a dedicated servant of the law he does not permit himself to ask such questions. His job is that of lawman; not judge or jury; as he repeatedly asserts that it is 'the law' not himself which has delivered the verdict against Kimble. He considers that this is sufficient and does not allow that he personally has any right to pass judgement one way or the other. Gerard is not an easy man to like; but then again, it's difficult to entirely dislike him also. He and Kimble are opposite sides of the same coin; both are essentially decent men of unshakable integrity, who just happen to be temporarily on opposing sides as dictated by fate.

Ostensibly Kimble's geographical locations (different in each episode) are dictated by his pursuit of the 'one-armed-man' whom he witnessed fleeing the scene of his wife's murder, believing that apprehending this man is his only chance of vindication. However, within the context of the show itself, this is more of a plot device to cast Kimble into various interactions, and often conflict, with certain locals of whichever small community he happens to be in at the time. Frequently he acquires a temporary 'love interest' of sorts; few of whom appear to be entirely mentally stable, which usually requires Kimble to act as a good Samaritan to help out the troubled soul concerned. Equally often, however, the neurotic woman develops an unhealthy obsession which results in an attempt to betray our hero to the law. The flip side of the neurotic woman theme is that of Kimble getting caught up with some dishonest, immature or irresponsible male protagonist creating all manner of other difficulties and dangers from which he must extricate himself, to avoid betrayal, and ultimately capture, by the ever-present and ominous figure of Lieutenant Gerard. Incidentally, in this context it is worth mentioning the extremely high standard of co-stars who actually appear in various episodes of the Fugitive; several of whom appear on more than one occasion, usually as entirely different characters from one episode to another. Viewing this series it can be quite entertaining just to spot actors - usually little known at that time - who became well established stars later on. To name just a few. Warren Oates, Bruce Dern, Kim Darby, Ron Howard, Sandy Dennis, Kurt Russell (and sometimes his dad Bing Russell), William Shatner, Brian Keith, Suzanne Pleshette, Leslie Neilsen, Pete Duel; etc., etc., The list is a long one.

From time to time the one-armed-man himself does appear - although not often - but always manages to evade Kimble's apprehension as surely as Kimble himself constantly eludes Gerard. Indeed it is remarkable that in a country of such vastness as the USA it is remotely possible to track someone who is not even a target of the law. In this regard Kimble is remarkably fortunate that this man has only one arm, because at least that gives him a distinctive physical characteristic which differentiates him from the other hundred million or so males in the country. Although I'm probably nit-picking a bit here, because, to be fair, this is all in the name of entertainment after all. Consequently a substantial degree of 'suspension of disbelief' is required to explain the myriad of coincidences, fortuitous occurrences, eccentric characters etc., which populate this series throughout. But, to greater and lesser degrees, this is equally true of all fictional situations in both movies and literature. And, as far as television shows permit, the Fugitive makes generous use of this phenomenon to great effect throughout.

Anyway; the fact is that, despite all the credulity-straining coincidences, and an unrealistic proportion of eccentrics, neurotics, annoying whining kids, narrow escapes etc., this is a thoroughly entertaining television series; although I perhaps should mention that there is no 'introductory' first episode as such. The story of how Kimble came to be a fugitive is simply related over the opening credits by a suitably grim-voiced William Conrad (later to have his own TV series 'Cannon', in the '70's). Consequently when viewing the very first episode ('Fear in a Desert City') don't think that you have missed something. The story of Kimble's origin as a fugitive is, however, seen in flashback style in a later episode.

Due to the period in which it was made (1963-1967) you will not be surprised to learn that most of it is in black & white; although the final season is in colour. Personally I don't mind black & white at all. In some ways it adds to the period atmosphere, and is particularly appropriate in this case, as it lends a suitably 'film noir' look to the whole thing. And, as all the episodes are in good condition, both visually and audibly; this should not deter most viewers from enjoying what is, in my view, one of the best television shows of all time.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Goodnight Sweetheart (1993–2016)
7/10
So, that's where Lennon & McCartney got all their songs from.
13 January 2024
This very popular show, running for several years, and six series, in the 1990's finally gave television viewers the chance to think of Nicholas Lyndhurst as someone other than Rodney Trotter. Despite what must have been an overwhelming feeling of typecasting for Lyndhurst from the earlier sitcom it only takes a few minutes viewing of 'Goodnight Sweetheart' to accept him entirely within this role as television repairman Gary Sparrow.

Gary is married to Yvonne and they live a relatively happy, albeit uneventful, suburban life together. This all changes - for Gary anyway - when he accidentally discovers the portal to another dimension of time, which takes him into the wartime streets of east-end London, where (with surprising rapidity) he meets, and falls in love with cockney barmaid Phoebe Bamford. From this moment on Gary is torn between two time zones and two women.

These are the plot basics, within which the show's writers manage to create an impressive array of plot-lines and more than fifty episodes. Needless to say that Gary's somewhat tedious and routine existence is dramatically transformed by this remarkable turn of events, as he spends his days flitting randomly between the two eras, somehow without unduly arousing the suspicions of either woman, despite his far-fetched succession of excuses; none of which causes either Phoebe or Yvonne to suspect that there might be another woman involved in all of this. Obviously neither would suspect the time-travelling talents Gary has acquired, but - women being women - it stretches even the most flexible credibility to imagine that neither would become dubious of their wandering paramour's repeated and inexplicable absences. Still, it is all in the name of comedy, and the cast plays it well throughout.

There is only one person privy to all of Gary's secrets, and that person is his best friend (in the present day) Ron Wheatcroft. Only he is aware of Gary's trans-era philandering - leading eventually to bigamy - and only he truly sees Gary for the essentially selfish, callous and self-centred person that he actually is. Although we, the viewer, regard Gary as the nice guy/hero of it all, this is a man who really only ever thinks of his own requirements and desires, whilst making convenient use of everyone else. Ron is useful to him because he is a skilled printer who can produce the appropriate wartime documentation and five pound notes essential to his luxurious 1940's lifestyle. These - now obsolete - type of fivers were eventually removed from circulation in Britain, precisely because they were too easy for forgers to print; but during WW2 they were still in use; although probably few working-class people ever saw one because of their high value at the time. Meanwhile; back in the '40's Gary takes advantage of Phoebe's naivete and her dimwit (platonic) friend Reg's stupidity, to impress them that he is a secret agent and talented songwriter. This last 'skill' being achieved by the simple (for a time-traveller) expedient of playing classic songs well-known to the viewer, but as yet unheard of several decades in the past. All the while Gary is paying his way with an endless supply of forged banknotes, and buying items at 1940's prices which he takes with him back to him own future-time to sell as semi-valuable antiques.

For the entire duration of the war Gary has it all his own way, as long as friend Ron keeps printing the money for him. Indeed Gary's greed and selfishness even extends to charging rent to Ron when he (Ron) moves into the luxury apartment which Gary still owns in the present day; conveniently forgetting that he was only able to buy it (in the '40's) because printer friend Ron provided the money for him to do so. If not for the charm and light touch provided by Lyndhurst's amiable personality; along with some sympathetic script-writing; this would be a thoroughly dislikeable person when you see the real him. Again, only Ron sees this. In a memorable quote he points out that 'You've got a nasty side to you Sparrow.' How true. Indeed, in one episode Ron even voices the opinion that Gary might actually be a psychopath. This subtext to Gary's personality might appear to be looking rather too deeply into the persona of a sitcom character; but it is obviously something the writers were consciously and deliberately aware of, otherwise why would they have the character of Ron even bothering to voice such thoughts and opinions of his supposed friend. Despite all of his character flaws Gary remains sympathetic to the viewer because of his one saving grace; in that throughout his selfishness, he is, after all, not malicious. He is simply amoral, and taking advantage of the remarkable turn of fate which could only happen in TV sitcom land.

At the beginning of series four there is a significant change of cast on the female side, with Dervla Kirwan (Phoebe) being replaced by Elizabeth Carling, and Michelle Holmes (Yvonne) being replaced by Emma Amos. This is only mildly disruptive to the character of Phoebe, who remains essentially as originally written; but Emma Amos is so significantly different in every way to her predecessor that it is difficult for the viewer to maintain interest (or credibility) in her portrayal of Yvonne. Indeed her persona is so harsh and unsympathetic as compared to her predecessor in the role that one cannot help wondering if this change in character reflects some specific and deliberate intention on the part of the writers, or is simply the result of miscasting, which resulted in this actress/characterisation incompatibility. This stretch in viewer credulity is tested to the limit when Yvonne - quite incredibly - becomes a multi-millionairess virtually overnight as the executive of her self-created trendy health-food/cosmetics business. At this point Gary's affections (and probably those of most viewers also) turn increasingly toward his wartime love Phoebe.

As with many long-running sitcoms the writers ingenuity must have become increasingly strained to create new plot lines. Additional characters make their unlikely appearance; such as newfound friend Noel Coward (excellently played by David Benson), George Formby, Clement Atlee, and, even more improbably, Jack the Ripper. Although generally they manage well in this regard, the stories do tend to become somewhat more fanciful as we approach the final series, and indeed as Gary and 1940's cast approach the end of the war, which eventually, and perhaps inevitably, marks the end of the show; apart from one add-on catch-up episode tacked on some sixteen years after the main run of the show ended. This late addition is tolerable, albeit a bit pointless; but no doubt many fans of the show were happy to get this little extra anyway. It's okay, in its way.

Overall this is an entertaining show. Frequently rerun on British television it is well worth watching if you haven't seen it before. Or even worth watching again to remind you of how much fun it was the first time around.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Scott & Bailey (2011–2016)
8/10
A cop show soap - but a very good one.
12 December 2023
Following in the long-established television tradition of the cop-team, which dates back as far as 'Starsky and Hutch' and beyond; Scott & Bailey varies the usual theme slightly in that both characters are women; not entirely unique, but nevertheless remains a variation explored only infrequently within that genre, as witnessed in '80's cop show 'Cagney & Lacey'. Where 'Scott and Bailey' breaks the usual pattern is that virtually ALL of the principle characters are women; a fact which has laid itself open to criticisms of pro-feminist sexism; oddly enough this coming mostly from female reviewers.

It is true that the this view of the Manchester cops is very strongly female-oriented, but this is probably inevitable considering that the whole thing is written by female writers. Yeah, okay, they may have gone slightly overboard in this direction, with most of the male characters being, at best, peripheral and, more often than not, portrayed as weak, incompetent, corrupt, or just plain dim-witted. However, despite speaking from the male perspective, I have to say that this is perhaps judging things a wee bit harshly, and getting too much into political correctness to provide an objective view of what is an absolutely superbly written, highly entertaining, and flawlessly acted television series throughout.

Despite the title there are really three women at the heart of the action. Detective Constable Janet Scott (Lesley Sharp), Detective Constable (later Sergeant) Rachael Bailey (Suranne Jones) and their no-nonsense boss DCI Gill Murray (Amelia Bullmore). Taken individually, Janet is by far the more attractive of the two principles, possessing a warmth, charm and maturity completely lacking in her best friend/colleague Bailey, who is harsh, abrasive, and basically a borderline alcoholic. It is difficult to understand the numerous men (in the show) who are drawn to her. Perhaps they are all masochists? But - that mystery aside - Rachael is (as we are too often reminded) nevertheless excellent at her job; providing that her chaotic personal life doesn't get in the way too much. Fortunately Amelia Bullmore's character is on hand to maintain control over all the personal and professional shenanigans played out through the several series.

Given the circumstances, probably the best one can say about the male characters would be as little as possible: Janet is lumbered with a boring husband; Rachael with a treacherous boyfriend, and Gill with a (wisely discarded) feckless ex-husband. In addition Rachael has a homosexual, murdering, jailbird, brother, Janet an over-obsessive male colleague, who doesn't know when to call it quits, and DCI Gill must somehow deal with everyone's troubles and more, in an attempt to maintain some degree of sanity throughout. Yes, you guessed it; this is basically a cop soap opera, where work often appears secondary to the personal lives of all concerned. This, perhaps over-emphasis, on the emotional side of the characters is probably indicative of the fact that's it is written by women. But fortunately; as soaps go; this is a damn good one, with no risk of boredom encroaching upon your entertainment during the entire five series.

Special mention is deserving for actress Amelia Bullmore, who, apart from stealing every scene in which her character, Gill Murray, appears, also is credited as writer of some excellent episodes. Unfortunately, for her fans, in the final series, her character, having opted for retirement, has disappeared from the show, effectively writing her out of the whole thing in perpetuity. This bizarrely leaves newly promoted Detective Sergeant Rachael Bailey effectively running the whole thing; an improbable turn of events; as it seems in surprising contrast to the frequent irresponsibility displayed by her character so far.

An unexplained peculiarity from the five series is the persistent absence of episode 7 from series 3. Whenever this excellent show is broadcast on British television this particular episode is simply skipped over; moving from episode 6 straight on to episode 8; with no explanation whatsoever. I have attempted to get to the bottom of this peculiarity by contacting the companies concerned, but have met with no constructive response. This appears to be something which is 'not up for discussion.' One suspects that this may be something to do with the current excess zeal for political correctness, in which anything considered remotely offensive is discreetly avoided. However; given that this series dates from relatively recent years; and is hardly 'The Sweeny' or even 'Love Thy Neighbour' (both from the good old 'non-PC' '70's) it is difficult to imagine what could be in episode 7 which might offend even the most delicate of souls.

Anyway; despite this bizarre continuity break in series 3; the show overall makes from excellent viewing. It is well written, well acted, and well worth your viewing time.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Elvis, at his very best.
12 December 2023
First of all; let's set the record straight. There is a persistent and pernicious rumour that the Elvis Presley of the 'Vegas' years was always an overweight parody of his former self. This is misleading to those who are not aware of the facts, and might discourage some from watching this movie. Admittedly, the timing of this movie was certainly fortuitous. Filmed in the summer of 1970 this is Elvis at the peak of his powers as a live performer, captured in a magic moment of time, just before the tragic fall from grace which was to follow during the remaining seven years of his life.

Unusually, there are actually two different versions of this film. This due to the fact that, when originally released, the content of 'That's The Way it is' was substantially different - and indeed inferior - to the, now more familiar version. Directed by Dennis Sanders during Presley's summer season at the International Hotel, Las Vegas, the director may have become overwhelmed by the 'fan phenomenon' that is Elvis Presley; as opposed to the performer. Consequently much of the original version consisted of an ill-advised collection of interviews with Presley fanatics (of varying degrees of sanity), which basically wasted the viewers time - and severely tested the patience of same - for much of the duration of the original version as released in 1970. If you have; or choose to purchase; the two-DVD version which comprises both the original and re-edited versions of this movie you will have a better understanding of what I'm talking about here. But, for those who see only the restored 2001 re-edit, fear not dear reader; this is the version that actually should have been released at the time, and consists of 100% Presley, first of all in rehearsal and then later (superbly) in live concert performance.

Apparently, following production and release in 1970, much of the film shot at the time remained unused in the original edit, which was then stored, perhaps bizarrely, below ground in an old salt mine in Kansas; this presumably being considered a suitably 'dry' location to prevent deterioration of the celluloid stock. This turns out to have been a wise decision, as the rediscovered film remained in excellent condition, as witnessed here in this visually and audibly flawless remake, of which due credit should be accorded to film restorer Rick Schmidlin and his team for their work in bringing these performances back to life. The only small criticism which might be made is the somewhat annoying fact that the movie is in that slightly annoying 'Cinemascope', which plays well on the big cinema screen, but on television reduces screen dimensions to a narrow band which is less than ideal for small screen viewing. Still; having said that; when viewing the movie I quickly became accustomed to this, and it proved to be less distracting than was apparent on first sight.

The first section of the movie consists of Elvis and his small band rehearsing for their upcoming shows; first at the MGM studios in Culver City, and subsequently in Las Vegas itself. Over the years some criticism has been made of Vegas - that oasis of garishness and excessive bad taste - as being a suitable choice of venue for Elvis to use as his performing 'base'. However, this tends to overlook the fact that, unlike almost every other major star, Elvis never performed outside of his home country (the small exception being a couple of dates in Canada during 1957). So, in order to make it possible for his non-US fans to come and see him perform, he simply HAD to be in one specific location for a substantial period of time. This fact is more apparent in the original movie version (perhaps its only notable virtue over the re-edit) where the point about fans coming from all over the world is made clear during interviews with hotel staff.

Anyway; getting back to the reviewing; this is a thoroughly engrossing movie, in which Presley comes across well in every possible way. He is in excellent voice throughout, with good looks and superstar charisma to spare. If you are already a Presley fan you will certainly not be disappointed; and if you aren't a fan then you probably will be after watching this film. Also attractive is his genial personality and slightly self-mocking sense of humour, which is constantly evident in his good-natured interaction with his musicians, and also the film crew themselves. During the live performance sequences this is especially impressive, as his warmth and unpretentious interaction with fans is entirely natural and unaffected, as he jokes around, kisses girls (it's all very tasteful I assure you), and even wanders across the room amongst the audience; watched with no little anxiety by his manager Colonel Tom Parker.

Presley on-stage is truly a fascinating performer; forgetting the voice (which admittedly nobody could) he is/was a master of understatement and incidental gestures. Whilst so many other rock stars, past and present, throw themselves all over the place trying to gain crowd reaction, Elvis achieves this seemingly without even trying. Still, I guess that's why he's Elvis, and all the others are just all the others. He really is the most watch-able of performers and appears to be completely unselfconscious of the cameras capturing his every move; making this all into a riveting, and rare, insight into one of the 20th century's genuine phenomena.

For some reason much has been made of the fact that the performance of 'I just can't help believing' has been omitted from the film. To some extent this ongoing perplexity is understandable due to the fact that Elvis is seen, during the run-up to the show, worrying about getting this song's lyrics the wrong way around. Taking this into consideration it seems likely that the song's omission was simply an oversight in continuity, although it is certainly true to add that, even in this 'special edition' version, not all available performances were included. Possibly - bearing in mind the apparently bottomless pit of ongoing, and profitable, Presley obsession - there may have been a view, even then, to releasing more extant footage at a later date; some of which actually did turn up on a video entitled 'The Lost Performances'. But, you can't have everything at once can you?; and quite frankly 'Elvis -That's The Way It Is' should contain enough high quality Elvis performance to - temporarily at least - satiate even the most rabid Presley fanatic. But anyway; when all is said and done; why on earth are you wasting your time reading more of this review. Get cool for once in your life and go watch the movie. You'll be glad that you did.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dempsey and Makepeace (1985–1986)
7/10
Take it lightly, and you'll have fun watching.
3 December 2023
This quirky and memorable '80's cop show represents a rare cross between tough guy TV such as 'The Professionals' and lightweight action fun like 'The Avengers.' Its main visible assets are the well-balanced cast and some decently written scripts. Michael Brandon and Glynis Barber are certainly made for each other. Their initial male/female antagonism is something of an overused movie-plot cliché. He thinks women are unsuited for police work, whilst she regards him as a boorish burden which she must endure. The 'referee' between them is provided by their tough boss, Spikings, played well, and with gruff understatement, by Ray Smith. Whilst being every bit as tough as Dempsey himself, he too disapproves of Dempsey's New York ways and his over-readiness with a gun but, unlike Harriet Makepeace, has a certain natural empathy with him - being a pretty formidable no-nonsense character in his own right.

This show has often been derided by fans of 'serious' cop drama for its (admittedly) somewhat absurd improbabilities and free use of gunplay in a country which doesn't normally assign firearms to police officers. Much of this is cheerfully explained away by the fact that our two heroes are part of a new unit named SI-10. This presumably being some policing experiment which therewith permits its officers to go around shooting up the bad guys as if London were just another suburb of Dempsey's home town New York.

The basics of the plot are that James Dempsey is in hiding from the corruption-ridden NY police department. To keep him alive long enough to testify against the cop bad guys he is sent secretly to London where he is teamed up with the aristocratic glamorous cop, Lady Harriet Makepeace. Of course this is all highly improbable nonsense; but it serves to provide the framework for the show and sets the stage for all that follows throughout the three series.

To some extent this unlikely situation setting would appear to be inspired by the 1970's John Wayne movie 'Brannigan,' in which the Duke is let loose in England with a female partner (Judy Geeson) to keep a wary eye on him, as he wreaks havoc upon sundry bad guys; finds time to organise a traditional western bar-room brawl, whilst simply making up the rules as he goes along. In this context Michael Brandon's character plays John Wayne, whilst his own female partner initially rides shotgun on him, keeping him marginally under some moderate sort of control, whilst gradually, and ironically, becoming ever more like him in his/her free-shooting ways. By the time we reach series two - or thereabouts - any plot pretensions are rendered pretty much redundant, with the pair having evidently reached some understanding, and mutually despatching the baddies whilst exchanging quips and the occasional sexual innuendo. She begins to appreciate, and trust, Dempsey's innate decency, courage and integrity; whilst he realises that maybe he has underestimated her all along. The subtext, to the viewer anyway, is an underlying emotional and romantic attachment between them, which remains (wisely) unstated throughout the entire run of the show.

Whilst being lively and entertaining; visually this show suffers badly from the era in which it was made. The 1980's as a decade has not aged well; the typically awful fashions and hair styles of the period are unfortunately on full display; and the sight of an attractive woman like Glynis Barber attired in men's business suits is something that any sane heterosexual male viewer can easily do without. I know that most people will wear any old rubbish in the name of fashion, but what on earth were the wardrobe department (and indeed the 1980's) thinking of??? Possibly someone in the production team had similar misgivings, as this aspect of the show's 'look' becomes (somewhat) less visually offensive as we reach the latter part of the first series.

Overall, this is all just good unpretentious action and fun. Dempsey is a man of many skills; really whatever the occasion demands. He can sky-dive - with or without a parachute - he is something of a motorcycle stunt-rider, and is even skilled in bomb deactivation. She is always ice-cool under pressure and, overlooking her dreadful fashion sense, never has a hair out of place whatever the situation. Of course it's all completely bonkers, and far removed from any semblance of reality, even by the standards of television cop shows past and present. It cannot, and should not, be judged harshly in comparison with any of the purportedly 'serious' cop shows - which are, in themselves, absurdly unrealistic; albeit in a different way. This is well cast, well acted, and well done in its own way.

Fashions aside, this show is stylish, classy, and definitely worth watching; in no small part due to the charisma and charm of the personable actors involved, and their innate personal compatibility. Take it all lightly and you'll have a good time viewing.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
It should have been good..., but.....
24 October 2023
I'm surprised at how many people have given this tedious movie such good reviews. I'm also surprised at how boring the film was, given a decent cast, and the visual benefits of attractive scenery in the French countryside. It's true to say that neither Pamela Franklin nor Sandor Eles really has the charisma to sustain lead roles in the requisite manner, but they are both capable character actors and probably make the best of what limited opportunities this dire plot (such as it is) presents them with. But the real problem with this tiresome waste of time lies in the unimaginative directing style. Nature intended this script to become a Hitchcock film, but forgot to put the man himself in the director's chair.

At the outset this promises to be a riveting movie, about a couple of young female friends on a cycling holiday in France, which turns sinister as the two girls become separated following a trivial disagreement. But very quickly this all descends into repetitive tedium as it resorts to one cliché after another. In order to create a sense of menace toward the two (very soon just one) young women, the film is loaded with sinister glances and 'enigmatic' camera angles which are presumably intended to convey much meaning, but actually say nothing at all. Added to this are various, and highly improbable, actions; such as the Sandor Eles character destroying the film spool instead of giving it to the girl. Considering that his acquisition of the film was allegedly that it might provide some useful information for his investigation, this destruction is not only illogical and counter-productive, but it is transparently contrived, in that it serves no useful or credible purpose other than to make his character appear dubious instead of decent. Then there is the eccentric old man suddenly flashing a sword around, again to no real purpose, other than to increase the apparent jeopardy of Pamela Franklin. The surly attitudes exhibited toward the girl by the cafe owner and her mysterious - although apparently unwelcome - intermittent male visitor, are again improbable in the extreme when considered in the context of normal human behaviour; particularly in this situation of someone running a small roadside business, who would presumably strive to be welcoming toward the customers. From start to finish not a single predictable 'sinister' cliché is overlooked; all invariably failing to hit the intended mark, and achieving nothing other than to increase the boredom level which is relentlessly (and mercilessly) maintained throughout.

Really the entire film is like this. It's one of those annoying movies which you continue watching, almost against your will or better judgement, simply because you are constantly waiting for something relevant to occur. You tell yourself that it can't continue being this boring throughout; but eventually you realise - too late - that you have been deceived, when nothing of the slightest interest ever actually does happen. None of the characters are filled in with any detail; motivations and sub-plot are non-existent; and the supposed 'twist-in-the-tail' ending is 100% predictable. By the time the true villain is revealed the viewer is probably well past caring anyway.

Interestingly enough there has been a remake of this film in 2018 which I notice has almost unanimously poor reviews. I cannot comment, having not yet seen this version, but is is quite incredible to imagine how it could possibly be less interesting than the 1970 original. I confess to being intrigued toward seeing this version sometime, simply because I'm genuinely fascinated to think that it is even possible for this newer effort to be somehow less entertaining than the earlier movie.

Honestly, I wish I could have liked the film, because I liked the scenery and the cast. But I guess that the responsibility for this waste of time in your life must lie somewhere between the writing and the directing. Both were deadly slow in pacing and tension (or lack thereof), and they really should have paid the extra money and hired Hitch for the job.

Definitely compulsive viewing for insomniacs. If this doesn't cure you then nothing will. Everyone else should find something more interesting to occupy 99 minutes; such as watching paint dry perhaps.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Detectorists (2014–2022)
10/10
An unearthed treasure
24 October 2023
An interesting variation upon the sitcom format, this is a gentle easy-going half hour (per episode) to spend in the company of two close friends Andy and Lance. Confined within their respective tedious blue-collar jobs and uncertain personal relationships, they find escape and psychological respite through their mutual interest in metal-detecting on summer evenings and during the weekends. The setting for this lies in the fields and countryside of an almost old-world version of rural England, although actually set in the present day, where the sun seemingly always shines and the tantalising prospect of buried historical treasure awaits just ever so slightly out of reach.

Written and directed by MacKenzie Crook (who also plays the role of Andy) this activity of metal detecting in its genteel setting proves to be almost as therapeutic for the audience as it is for the two protagonists and their half dozen or so colleagues of the Danebury Metal Detecting Club, who are essentially cast as the 'good guys.' They are pitted throughout the three series against their professional rivals and comedy 'bad guys' in the 'Antiquisearchers' club nearby, whose leader Phil (delightfully played by Simon Farnaby) and his right-hand-man Paul are constantly and ineptly attempting to thwart our heroes in their search for a lost Saxon hoard believed to be buried in a field nearby. An ongoing running joke in every episode is based upon the fact that Phil and Paul bear an uncanny resemblance to 60's folk duo Simon & Garfunkel, leading to a sort of undeclared competition between Andy and Lance to see who can achieve the best quotes from Simon & Garfunkel songs whilst simultaneously scoring points against their likeable enemies, who remain entirely unaware as to the meaning of such references.

This is, at heart, what might be termed a 'comic buddy movie,' where the boys have all the fun, and the women are somewhat peripheral to the central theme. Lance and Andy are essentially misfits in their conventional world. At home they struggle to deal with domesticity, whilst at work they have absolutely nothing in common with anyone. These are self-educated, TV-quiz-show-addicted, intellectuals, surrounded by colleagues to whom they simply cannot relate. Andy is in a long-term relationship with his despairing girlfriend/wife Becky, whose long wait for domestic fulfilment seems forever doomed to failure until the elusive Saxon treasure is eventually found. Lance, meanwhile, still pines after his former wife Maggie, who dropped him without a second thought when she took a fancy to the hunky, albeit sleazy, manager of the local Pizza Hut.

Relationships change and develop throughout the three series; as Lance eventually sees Maggie for what she is and, probably to the delight of most viewers, subsequently falls in love with the pretty tomboyish lady mechanic Toni played, with understated charm, by Rebecca Callard.

These are the basics of the show, although there are various peripheral characters, eccentrics and sub-plots coming and going; such as the incredibly nutty local landowner Larry Bishop, who may or may not have murdered his wife years before. Does she lie buried in the field owned by Larry? If so, why on earth would he happily grant permission to detect on his land - except for one small area which he firmly deems to be off-limits to their attentions. Ex-policeman and metal-detector club leader Terry is determined to find out the truth, which eventually leads to an explosive discovery in the forbidden area of land.

All of this and much more is delightfully played out over the three series and two Christmas specials, as writer/director MacKenzie Crook and his excellent cast maintain the viewer interest without any tedium or lack of inspiration whatever. The only disappointment from my perspective is that there was (so far) no fourth series. But then again; having seen the dire fate of most long-running shows when the writers eventually and inevitably run out of good ideas, I imagine that Crook wisely decided that it's always best to quit whilst you're ahead.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A good time for one and all
24 October 2023
The eponymous characters are actually a firm of Private Investigators located, appropriately enough, in Stratford-upon-Avon. That said, don't be deceived into anticipating a tough detective drama, because this is all played lightly and often for laughs.

Luella Shakespeare is a sassy blond woman who buys her way into a partnership with the amiable and rotund Frank Hathaway; whose threadbare detective agency also employs an out-of-work actor named Sebastian Brudenell. His Thespian talents - although permanently under-appreciated by the theatrical profession - nevertheless come in handy for undercover assignments whilst he awaits his big break on the stage or in films. In this context much credit must be given to Patrick Walshe McBride whose performance in this show is often a scene-stealer in its own right, and a consequent delight to watch.

Each episode is an entirety in itself, and there is no ongoing plot to keep up with. This enables a wide range of guest actors and an impressively imaginative variety of storylines. Apart from the three leads only the harassed local cop, Joe Keeler, and his more agreeable boss Christina Marlowe (who is in the first two series only), appear regularly albeit sporadically in most episodes. Incidentally, this highlights an amusing aspect of the show; that so many are named after Shakespearean characters; and yet no-one ever comments upon this unlikely coincidence, despite this being set in Stratford-upon-Avon, and especially given Sebastian's intimate knowledge of the complete works and its characters. But, this improbability aside, the acting is of a high standard from all participants, as is the writing, which presents the viewer with an impressive (if sometimes unlikely) array of imaginative plot-lines. Once in a while, as a sort of 'added attraction' the character of tech-genius 'Spider' appears, to assist with his apparently limitless computer and internet skills. Darren Evans is suitably eccentric and amiable in this role, with his weedy-geek persona and appearance to match.

An interesting peculiarity in this show is the way in which everyone - even including teenagers - seem to live in rural-cottage type accommodation. This seems improbable in the extreme given the cost of this type of housing; but no explanation is ever offered as to how this can be afforded by even those characters on low incomes. Still, I suppose the viewer is not really expected to question with such logic; only to enjoy the attractive settings, which are a significant part of the show overall.

All in all this is a very enjoyable and likeable show. So far, at the time of writing this, there are four series (and a Christmas special) for your entertainment. As I said earlier, this definitely isn't for serious thinking about, and it doesn't make demands upon your intellect; but it is good fun when you want something on the lighter side; and there's nothing wrong with that. I recommend it.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Saint (1962–1969)
10/10
This is definitively 'The Famous Simon Templar'
24 October 2023
This is the show which made a huge international star out of Roger Moore, after about fifteen years of wasting his talents in Hollywood and a couple of lesser successes in British and U. S. television. This recognition is fully deserved, as he is simply superb in the role. For my money this remains the very best thing he ever did; and yes that includes the James Bond rubbish; in fact, especially so.

The Saint character has been portrayed on film by a number of actors over the years, both before Roger Moore and - God help us - after him also; but no-one else even comes close to this unique portrayal. Put as simply as possible; Roger Moore IS the Saint. This is one of those rare occasions when an actor and a role are made for each other. This is the same as Basil Rathbone being Sherlock Holmes, or Errol Flynn being Robin Hood. After these shining examples have been established there is simply no point in any other actor even bothering to attempt the part. Although it may be the case that this is not exactly as written in the original Leslie Charteris novels, this is nevertheless how nature intended the character to be.

Running for six series (or 'seasons') there are well in excess of a hundred episodes; the early ones, starting in 1962, are of course in black & white, changing to colour for the last two series after 1967. As it happens the early episodes tend to be somewhat superior to the later ones, and the show overall benefits substantially by the extremely high quality of co-stars featured throughout. To name a few: Sylvia Syms, Oliver Reed, Stuart Damon, Finlay Currie, Patrick Allen, Elspeth March, Wanda Ventham, Donald Sutherland, Ronnie Barker, Suzanne Neve, Edward Bishop: and so the impressive cast list goes on; some appearing more than once, although rarely as the same character on more than one occasion. In one exception to this, a special mention is deserved for semi-regular guest star Ivor Dean, appearing in a memorable, and humorously lugubrious, role as Templar's friendly nemesis Inspector Claude Eustace Teal. His presence invariably livens up any episode in which he appears.

Roger Moore has rarely been given the credit he deserves as an actor; indeed often being unjustly denigrated for his light touch and not-too-serious approach toward acting. However, his performance as Simon Templar is actually far more detailed and nuanced than it might appear at first glance. A lesser talent might (and often does) play the role of hero as simply a case of besting the bad guys and getting the girl; but Roger Moore's portrayal gives us a character of some complexity and emotional depth. This is a man of essential decency who can, nonetheless, display a degree of ruthlessness toward those who attempt to take advantage of the weak and helpless. Not averse to swindling ill-gotten gains out of the villains, he is primarily a man of good motivation driven by his desire to deal out justice in his own way, rather than concerning himself with the technical definitions of the law. This seeming ambiguity often places him in some compromise with the police, who regard him with almost as much suspicion, and occasionally even dislike, as do the villains themselves. The exception to this rule is, of course, his friendly opponent Inspector Teal who, one suspects, reprimands Templar whilst maintaining a cynical twinkle in his eye; and whilst munching on the ever-present peppermints. Indeed, in one of the later episodes, he even briefly 'teams-up' with our hero, in order to serve a greater purpose.

Most television and movie heroes represent some official, or at least semi-official, organisation. Traditionally they are cops, FBI agents, or even private detectives; this vocation providing them with their motivation, or opportunity, for fighting crime. The Saint is unique in this regard, in that he is entirely freelance. He is, in fact, nothing other than an ordinary citizen; albeit with an extraordinary courage and resourcefulness. This presents the character with a flaw in logic. Why does this average man encounter so many extraordinary situations and circumstances to deal with in every episode? This anomaly is never addressed or explained throughout the entire run of the show. Obviously the answer to this is simply that it presents an exciting adventure for the viewer to enjoy every week. That and the fact that he is of course 'The Famous Simon Templar' as we are reminded by one of the characters in the memorable catch-phrase opening of each episode. A second unanswered mystery is created by the fact that Simon Templar appears to have no known source of income. Is he the beneficiary of an inheritance, and therefore independently wealthy? This is certainly never suggested or implied at any time. Yet he travels the world in some luxury, whilst driving an expensive car and living in a central London location, whilst socialising with the rich and titled. Indeed, everyone appears to be acquainted with Simon Templar, and yet he remains something of an enigmatic loner despite seemingly being the friend of all the world.

Some of this may be looking too deep into the character, which is after all only intended for our entertainment. Nevertheless it is a curiosity in a television series running for almost eight years that no attempt whatsoever is made to give this character any semblance of a background story. Perhaps some of this is touched upon in the original novels; if so it would have been worthwhile to make at least an occasional reference to this in the television adaptation.

Still; putting aside these finer points of character detail; this is a massively entertaining and enjoyable show. In my opinion one of the very best television adventure series of all time. And the late great Roger Moore is the driving force within every episode, with good looks, personality, and charisma to spare. If you have - by some massive oversight - never seen The Saint, then I would recommend that you do so at your earliest opportunity. I assure you that you will not be disappointed.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed