I managed to escape the whole show by going out this week, but what I did see of "Guilty Pleasures" week did raise 2 moments of slap yourself in the head dumbness.
1) As part of "gulity pleasures" week (ie, crap tracks you kinda like) one act performed Led Zeppelin's Whole Lotta Love. Guilty pleasure... Led Zeppelin... reeeeaaaaalllllllllllyyyy!?
2) Cheryl Cole talking about pre-pubescent manufactured (at boot camp) boyband One Direction's encounter with hundreds of screaming girls on Oxford Street said "boyband's have to deal with screaming girls like you did. Even the Beatles". Boyband... The Beatles... reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!?
This is what Ted is completely right about. Having a singing competition to create a new mainstream pop star is OK if they understand that that's what they are. To compare anything it creates to The Beatles or dismissing such massively influential bands as Led Zeppelin is appalling and just wrong.
Sunday, 24 October 2010
Thursday, 21 October 2010
The Event (Channel 4)
A few weeks ago I mentioned the new US show The Event. This Friday it starts on Channel 4 with two episodes back to back from 9. But is it still worth checking out? Having now seen the first 5 episodes I will say Yes!
Of course The Event is a network show and therefore a different beast to the HBO shows I've recommended, like The Wire, True Blood and Treme. HBO shows are filmed in complete, short (usually 10 or 12 episodes) series and aired in their entirety while the networks are filming while it airs; usually about 6 weeks ahead. This tends to mean network shows are easier to pick apart and can change as the series progresses, depending on the response. And as network shows are always fighting not to get cancelled (especially in their infancy) they need to do more to keep the viewer watching and therefore tend to have something big happen every week. When done right, in the likes of Lost and early series of 24, this makes great entertainment as long as you don't think too much about it. When done wrong it makes for some shoddy TV. For example, later series of 24 seemed like they were written in 4 episode blocks with a massive twist every time it got passed to the next group of writers leading to a series that bore no resemblance to the start within 8 hours; or every series of Heroes after the first where superpowers were turned on and off or characters turned from good to bad and vice verse on a weekly basis just to suit whatever was happening that week, nevermind what happened before.
After just 5 episodes I can't be sure that The Event won't turn into something balls in the future, but for now it's building quite nicely. It's fast paced, mysterious, mostly unpredictable and fun. The characters have been sketched quite nicely and have room to be fleshed out, something Lost did so well, but they are still just sketches; not the fully drawn characters of HBO. Despite everyone looking so beautiful, a constant irritant in network TV, I don't particularly want to slap anyone I'm supposed to like. There is a minor worry in episode 5 where a character did something very out of character, but I'll hold judgement until I see where they take it.
So, if you're at home alone on Friday with nothing planned then check it out. It's nothing on The Wire or Treme, it's much better than Heroes or Flashforward ever were and it's not too far behind where Lost started out. It won't change your life, but it will hopefully keep you entertained.
Of course The Event is a network show and therefore a different beast to the HBO shows I've recommended, like The Wire, True Blood and Treme. HBO shows are filmed in complete, short (usually 10 or 12 episodes) series and aired in their entirety while the networks are filming while it airs; usually about 6 weeks ahead. This tends to mean network shows are easier to pick apart and can change as the series progresses, depending on the response. And as network shows are always fighting not to get cancelled (especially in their infancy) they need to do more to keep the viewer watching and therefore tend to have something big happen every week. When done right, in the likes of Lost and early series of 24, this makes great entertainment as long as you don't think too much about it. When done wrong it makes for some shoddy TV. For example, later series of 24 seemed like they were written in 4 episode blocks with a massive twist every time it got passed to the next group of writers leading to a series that bore no resemblance to the start within 8 hours; or every series of Heroes after the first where superpowers were turned on and off or characters turned from good to bad and vice verse on a weekly basis just to suit whatever was happening that week, nevermind what happened before.
After just 5 episodes I can't be sure that The Event won't turn into something balls in the future, but for now it's building quite nicely. It's fast paced, mysterious, mostly unpredictable and fun. The characters have been sketched quite nicely and have room to be fleshed out, something Lost did so well, but they are still just sketches; not the fully drawn characters of HBO. Despite everyone looking so beautiful, a constant irritant in network TV, I don't particularly want to slap anyone I'm supposed to like. There is a minor worry in episode 5 where a character did something very out of character, but I'll hold judgement until I see where they take it.
So, if you're at home alone on Friday with nothing planned then check it out. It's nothing on The Wire or Treme, it's much better than Heroes or Flashforward ever were and it's not too far behind where Lost started out. It won't change your life, but it will hopefully keep you entertained.
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Film 2010 (BBC1)
The second edition of Film 2010 dropped the live outside broadcast which was so awful last week, but also didn't include any reading of viewer messages which leads me to wonder, why is this show live? Seemingly so Winkleman and Danny Leigh can't give closure to their reviews. Instead they have to just stop and move onto the next piece far too quickly. The two headed reviews weren't helped by this making them feel indecisive. It's by no means a terrible format and will hopefully improve over the series. I've been genuinely surprised by Winkleman who, for the first time ever, doesn't seem drunk and incoherent. Danny Leigh will hopefully develop some confidence because at the moment he comes across a bit wet. He needs to stop justifying himself so banally.
It will very quickly return back to what the BBC's Film show has been since Norman's heyday... something I'll watch if it's on, but won't make much effort remember.
It will very quickly return back to what the BBC's Film show has been since Norman's heyday... something I'll watch if it's on, but won't make much effort remember.
Monday, 18 October 2010
Film 2010 (BBC1)
I forgot about this so I watched it on my Wii. The idea of Claudia Winkleman reviewing movies sounded a very wrong one. For one, she's a woman and we all know women can't concentrate long enough to watch anything over an hour long unless it includes moody vampire nonces, ABBA songs or a group of women suffering personal tragedies together, but being happy and empowered in the end. Thankfully she's accompanied by Danny Leigh, film reviewer for the Guadian and man. At least he will make sense. There are also spots fronted by the "team" of Chris Hewitt from Empire and Antonia Burke a novelist with no heart.
The show is broadcast live for some reason. The only reason seemed to be so
Chris Hewitt could interview Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley and... Spider-man... fuck, I've forgot his name... not Tobey Maguire, the new Spidey... he's in The Social Network... Andrew Garfield! I remembered. Anyway, they did a live interview and it was a shambles. Other than that nothing was really gained from the live broadcast.
Winkleman and Danny Leigh both give their opinions on the films and Winkleman actually spoke coherently, so I was pleasantly surprised. This could be interesting when they get movies they don't agree on if they get to bicker live. Other than that it's not really much different.
The show is broadcast live for some reason. The only reason seemed to be so
Chris Hewitt could interview Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley and... Spider-man... fuck, I've forgot his name... not Tobey Maguire, the new Spidey... he's in The Social Network... Andrew Garfield! I remembered. Anyway, they did a live interview and it was a shambles. Other than that nothing was really gained from the live broadcast.
Winkleman and Danny Leigh both give their opinions on the films and Winkleman actually spoke coherently, so I was pleasantly surprised. This could be interesting when they get movies they don't agree on if they get to bicker live. Other than that it's not really much different.
A History of Horror with Mark Gatiss (BBC4)
The second part focusses almost completely on Hammer and was much better than the first. The story of Hammer is far more interesting and expansive than the story of Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff for a start. Then there was the excellent section in the middle where we learn about Hammer's influence on Italian horror and Roger Corman, which made me want to watch the Edgar Allan Poe Vincent Price movies.
Gatiss loses most of the creepy paedo when talking about Hammer, although it does creep back in the middle section. My main problem is the style everything is presented. Shots of Gatiss walking around looking thoughtful while we listen to a voice over comes across almost pompous. There's even a protracted shot of Gatiss pouring a cup of tea that holds a good 10 seconds longer than makes any logical sense. It just irks me. I'd rather see footage relevant to the voice over.
Gatiss loses most of the creepy paedo when talking about Hammer, although it does creep back in the middle section. My main problem is the style everything is presented. Shots of Gatiss walking around looking thoughtful while we listen to a voice over comes across almost pompous. There's even a protracted shot of Gatiss pouring a cup of tea that holds a good 10 seconds longer than makes any logical sense. It just irks me. I'd rather see footage relevant to the voice over.
Saturday, 16 October 2010
X Factor (ITV1)
Insult of the Week - Louie Walsh to Matt Cardle "You remind me of Bono". That's the polite way of saying "you're a cunt".
Highlight - Cheryl Cole had a new, red, hairdo which included a fake plait that sat on her shoulder like a bloodied rat.
Highlight - Cheryl Cole had a new, red, hairdo which included a fake plait that sat on her shoulder like a bloodied rat.
Thursday, 14 October 2010
A History of Horror with Mark Gatiss (BBC4)
The former star of League of Gentlemen and now novelist and writer on Dr Who and Sherlock brings us a documentary series about Horror movies. This first part looked at the first golden age of Hollywood horror, from the 1920's to the 1950's.
Gatiss openly admits that this series will be about very personal horror movies and he is clearly passionate with the films he discusses, but everything is somehow very dry. You expect such a creative, funny writer to bring some fun to the script, but he doesn't. Instead he delivers information in an overly theatrical way which, I assume, was intended to bring the fun to it, but he came across more like a paedophile museum guide for a school trip. Creepy.
I worried early on that this was just going to be another documentary about the same old films as the first 15 minutes mainly cover Dracula and Frankenstein, but things get more interesting after that with sections on James Whale, Freaks and RKO. By using Darcula and Frankenstein the episode does has an arc as Lugosi and Karloff stories litter the hour and finish it off.
Despite the dry yet perverse delivery this was a pretty interesting hour and I learnt quite a bit; the middle 30 being particularly good. The second episode looks like it's going to cover Hammer although I hope it covers more. And I hope there's more John Carpenter, I want to listen to him talk about Horror, not the (now) 100 year old woman who was in Dracula.
Gatiss openly admits that this series will be about very personal horror movies and he is clearly passionate with the films he discusses, but everything is somehow very dry. You expect such a creative, funny writer to bring some fun to the script, but he doesn't. Instead he delivers information in an overly theatrical way which, I assume, was intended to bring the fun to it, but he came across more like a paedophile museum guide for a school trip. Creepy.
I worried early on that this was just going to be another documentary about the same old films as the first 15 minutes mainly cover Dracula and Frankenstein, but things get more interesting after that with sections on James Whale, Freaks and RKO. By using Darcula and Frankenstein the episode does has an arc as Lugosi and Karloff stories litter the hour and finish it off.
Despite the dry yet perverse delivery this was a pretty interesting hour and I learnt quite a bit; the middle 30 being particularly good. The second episode looks like it's going to cover Hammer although I hope it covers more. And I hope there's more John Carpenter, I want to listen to him talk about Horror, not the (now) 100 year old woman who was in Dracula.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)