Coops's profileMSN TV Blog: The Remote ...PhotosBlogListsMore  |  Tools Help |
|
November 27 Punched In The Gut By Boy A
At 24, Jack is released into an unrecognisable adult world ("What's a panini?") with a new name, a new job; a new life. Only his case worker Terry (Peter Mullan - superb) knows his true identity. In the meantime, the media is on the prowl with tabloids and magazines offering rewards to anyone who discovers his whereabouts. But anonymity is both a blessing and a curse. Jack, desperate to re-build his life and seize this second chance, has to contend with never being able to tell the people he gets to know and love of his true past and the monstrous secret he must keep hidden, afraid at every turn he'll be found out. Although fictional, it's nigh on impossible to watch Boy A and not think of the James Bulger case. I'll never forget the absolute horror the entire country felt when the CCTV revealed little James being led away, not by an adult male paedophile, a natural presumption perhaps, but by two little boys. Jon Venables and Robert Thompson (as they were named back then) are now the age of Boy A; James Bulger would've been 17. This tense film, clouded with a sense of foreboding, forces viewers to confront dark, emotive, haunting issues and it's a harrowing watch; my heart was in my mouth the entire time. Thanks to a nuanced, layered performance by the excellent Andrew Garfield, Jack is a three-dimensional character: vulnerable, violent, conflicted, insecure, loyal, tormented. Although the moral ambiguity is a definite weakness (we first encounter the 10-year-old rather shrewish victim snogging another boy - yeah right - before she berates Jack's friend), contrivances, such as the rescue of a little girl, Jack's apparent ignorance of DVDs (as if) and the way his true identity is uncovered, should be overlooked to see the bigger picture here: simplistic notions aren't so simple. Despite being flawed in some respects, Boy A remains thought-provoking drama of the highest order. Relevant reading: Today I am mostly lovin' - Judge Judy. Still lovin' that show. Judge Hatchett et al? Fuhgeddaboutit. MSN Editor Coops November 26 Repeats. Repeats. Repeats. Part 1Guys, I'm going to tell you about one of my most traumatic television experiences. I had a family do my mum wouldn't let me out of way back in 1983. It was a Friday night, it was 10 o'clock and as far as I was concerned, I should've been in front of the TV watching Cheers on Channel 4. I was obsessed - and I mean obsessed - with Cheers, especially the Sam and Diane relationship. I'd never seen anything like it (Moonlighting's Maddy and David were a couple of years away. Incidentally, they were clearly modelled on the Laura Holt and Mr Steele dynamic in Remington Steele). As soon as I got through the door, I pressed rewind on the VCR and to cut a long story short - I'd timed the video and buggered it up. No Cheers. The episode I missed? It was entitled One For The Book. I actually cried. I was inconsolable. My mum didn't understand why I was so upset about a TV show. What can I say? Obsession and puberty is not a nice combination. I finally saw that episode ten years later when Cheers ended and Channel 4 repeated the entire series from season 1.
Ten bloody years.
Back then, you either had to ensure you were home or that your VCR (or someone else's) was recording otherwise - fuhgeddaboutit. These days it's all about 'Second Chance Sundays' or 'Catch-Up Tuesdays' or whatever other name broadcasters contrive for early repeat showings. Is there an urgency to watch trashy period drama The Tudors on a Friday night? No. I can watch it again the very next day. Do I really have to plonk myself in front of The X Factor on a Saturday night? Not really. I've got 24,432,635 chances to catch it on ITV1 or ITV2 in the coming week. Did I make a date with Victoria Beckham: Coming to America on ITV1 or The Kylie Show? Nope - one guess why. Even premier US dramas get the instant repeat treatment: Californication, Ugly Betty, Dexter, Heroes, The Sopranos (when it was on E4), House (The Hallmark Channel used to repeat it in the wee hours after screening it earlier in the evening) et al.
I'm not complaining...exactly. Instantaneous repeats are convenient; there is no denying that. And broadcasters have to fill their sister digital/cable/satellite channels with something I suppose. However, I am beginning to develop an incredibly laissez-faire attitude towards certain programmes because I know they'll be on again in the coming week. I'm not sure how good that is for broadcasters. And in addition to TV, one can also catch-up online. Fact is, it's virtually impossible to miss event-TV now. Who'd've thunk it? Monsieur, with these repeats, you're really spoiling us.
I don't mind when it's a show I'm enamoured with ("He Marvin Gayed his own nephew. The boss of the family"), but endless repeats of Tango-skinned lollipop Vicky Becks ? Puhleez. Whenever I watch One For The Book now, I still remember those ten years of hurt. I would've given anything for what we have now so Famouseccles, my Spurs-supporting friend, you asked me for my opinion on repeats; this is part 1. I'll save part 2 for Christmas because I've seen the forthcoming schedules. You'll never guess what's coming on yet again...
Today I am mostly lovin' - When preconceptions get smashed to pieces; Will Mellor was a revelation in episode 3 of The Street.
Today I am mostly hatin' - Still no DVD release for series 3 of Just Good Friends and its wonderful 1984 Christmas Special. Good thing I've got them both on VHS...
MSN Editor Coops November 17 Scud Turns DudLadies and gentleman, I have witnessed a TV tragedy of epic proportions. Incidentally, it's also a sporting tragedy. Years ago, I watched in awe and utter joy as an 18-year-old Mark Philippoussis defeated Pete Sampras in the third round of the Australian Open. He has (had?) a thunderous serve and impressive one-handed backhand. On that fateful night, he served 29 aces, some as fast as 128 miles per hour. He covered the net like a rash, he ripped winners and passing shots past Sampras from every angle. It was fantastic; the world was his oyster. I took an interest in his matches, keen to see him progress further, but it didn't quite happen for The Scud (his nickname for obvious reasons). In terms of winning Grand Slams, he's one of those gifted people with bags of natural talent but very little end product. In other words, he's doomed to be tennis' Jimmy White.
After catching a promo on E4 for his US reality show Age Of Love, I decided to tune in. Allow me to first explain the premise. In essence it asks, is love ageist? Seven women in their 40s (nicknamed 'the Cougars') vie with six women in their 20s ('the Kittens') for the affections of Mark Philippoussis. Sounds vomit-inducing already, doesn't it? Try watching it...
As an Aussie geezer, I'm not sure what the tennis pro made of these plastic-looking American women. The ones in their late 30s and early 40s are as beautifully preserved as Tutankhamen and they've all got Hollywood smiles and great figures. I had tons of fun picking out the ones with cosmetic surgery - you could park Concorde in their cleavage. Seriously. Each boob lives in a different postcode and is harder than Ray Winstone. Don't get me started on the kind of pap they spout either - it's straight out of a US soap like The Bold & The Beautiful: "Mark, you are a wonderful man, a special man, an amazing man. When I started out on this life journey, this incredible experience, I wanted my soulmate to have all the qualities I've found in you..." Yuck!
I'm not exaggerating when I say that this is truly a nadir for television. Why Mark why? Why? Why?!? A discerning viewer will feel all the things that should've prevented Mark Philippoussis signing on the dotted line in the first place: shame, embarrassment, chagrin, discomfort, mortification. It's beyond bad - remember Jade Goody's idiot boy Jack on Celebrity Big Brother? Worse than that. I expect media whores like WAGs and WAG wannabes to do anything in the pursuit of fame, but Mark Philippoussis?!? Game, set and match to the almighty dollar. I am in mourning. Ladies and gents, a minute's silence for a once great tennis player....
By the way Janice Dickinson, of course you can say black! I have no idea when or why it became politically correct to refer to blacks in America as 'African-Americans', but there's no way that's rolling off my tongue. And for the record US peeps, I abhor 'bi-racial' too; it makes people of mixed race sound like some sort of science experiment. Horrible.
Today I am mostly lovin' - The Marks and Spencer advert featuring Antonio Banderas is a gem. The attention to detail is spectacular, right down to the fonts. Every time I see it, I want to pull out my How To Marry A Millionaire video or watch Marilyn sing Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend from Gentleman Prefer Blondes.
Today I am mostly hatin' - 'Dave'. What a stooooopid name for a TV channel.
MSN Editor Coops November 09 Kimberly Stewart - Why?'It Girl'. If you see these two words anywhere, don't waste your time. If it's a magazine ('It Girl Reveals All!'), don't buy the magazine. If it's a newspaper ('It Girl Tells All!'), don't purchase it. And if it's a TV programme, do something more entertaining instead...like listening to country music while watching paint dry. Invariably, 'It Girls' cannot be defined by an actual career - so they have this blah title instead to elevate their status. Tara Palmer-Tomkinson used to be an It Girl ('It Girl' Tara Palmer-Tomkinson spotted on Oxford Street....'), but she has now progressed to a level where the preceding mantle is no longer required ('Tara Palmer-Tomkinson spotted on Oxford Street....') and like SJP (Sarah Jessica Parker), TPT is also known by an acronym. All she needs now is a man to help her obtain a couple nickname a la TomKat, Brangelina et al.
I'm talking It Girls due to Living With Kimberly Stewart. Yet another absurd Living reality TV show. Why not yawn through the promo, like I did?
And the blurb on their website is a hoot: 'LA It girl Kimberly Stewart thinks it is time she delved into the London property market, and is keen to have a base in the capital city. But, before buying a property she is sampling the London scene by renting a London house for a few months, and rediscovering her British roots at the same time. As her career is on the up and up the fashion icon, TV personality, model and soon-to-be-singer is travelling around the world more and more, and needs two perfect flatmates to live in her new abode and also look after it whilst she is off jet-setting. Having hand-picked the potential flatmates from hundreds of applicants, the final 12 were selected...' yada-yada-yada.
Give the publicist a medal for managing more than a sentence about an extremely vacuous socialite. I laughed until my stomach hurt when I read the bit asserting that her career is "on the up and up" - on which planet? She's so shallow, she makes Paris Hilton look like Germaine Greer. Suffice it to say, the programme itself has no entertainment value. I can't even file it under 'so bad it's good'. It's just a Jurassic-sized pile of dinosaur doings. Why Kimberly Stewart? There are any number of equally talentless, empty-headed zelebs on this side of the Atlantic - start with yer average WAG.
However, this show does confirm one thing for me; Living is easily home to the most stoooooooopid, pointless, nonsensical reality TV shows in the UK. Don't believe me? Dirty Cows (Tara Palmer-Tomkinson hosts as 10 city girls compete to bag 'a hunky farmer looking for love'). Pete's PA (what does Pete Burns need a PA for?). Jade's PA (what did Jade Goody need a PA for?). Jade's Salon. To The Manor Bowen (camp interior designer Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen moves his family to the jungle - yawn). Dirty Dancing: The Time of Your Life (think Simon Cowell's Grease Is The Word, but with a focus on dancing...and lower viewing figures). I could go on, but you'd lose your will to live. Don't get me wrong, there is some good stuff on Living - but they do showcase the worst of reality TV. And as for Ms Kimberly Stewart? As Living has kindly taken the time and trouble to remind us that her career is "on the up and up", I'll look out for a respectable write-up. I'll also ensure that I don't hold my breath...
Today I am mostly lovin' - Anyone watching The Flight Of The Conchords on BBC Four? Their songs are absolutely genious.
Today I am mostly hatin' - Is it just me, or was Happy Birthday Bafta, on the whole, toe-curling television? There were some good bits but...oh dear.
MSN Editor Coops November 03 October MailbagRegular readers of this blog will know that the first entry of the new month is about looking back. I've perused all the feedback and mail sent in during October. Here's what you've been saying...
I wrote a feature entitled Ban The Puppets! which prompted some users to write to me. One MSN reader said: "I wonder if they are also your opinions, or just opinions of others you were writing about?" The only view I find myself siding with are concerns about the gibberish language exhibited by The Teletubbies and The Flowerpot Men. Personally, I never do that "Oooooshie-boooooooshie" baby talk stuff to kids. But that's just me. Decide for youself - here's a Flowerpot Men clip that will stay with you all day...
Generally, the editorial I write for the MSN TV channel falls into two categories: opinion pieces and features. One recent example of an opinion piece was my summation of The Sopranos. Another centred around TV's Most Annoying Personalities. In effect, it's a rant. But it's my own personal, purely subjective view of the people who get on my last nerve. Features? Self-explanatory. See the likes of Brits That Are US TV Hits and TV Stars Who Became Movie Stars. Thanks to andythebass for writing in with this "I read through your article on disgraced puppets, however I notice you missed one.....apparently The Clangers were in trouble because some people could work out what they were actually saying....in one particular episode they were actually swearing! (the makers of the programme admitted it was true) Unless of course it was a bit of hype for the programme!" Cheers andythebass, very interesting.
As always, an emotional night at the Pride Of Britain Awards. MSN reader Steve wrote in to say: "I just don't get this article. The link to it was 'Stars Dazzle at Pride of Britain Awards'. Surely the stars of this event are the brave people who receive awards?" Absolutely. I agree with you 100%. However, at the time the gallery was put together, our picture sources only had images of the stars at the event rather than the people it was created for. I hope you'll see that I did my best to redress the balance by devoting the bulk of the article to some of the brave deeds of the wonderful recipients.
Here in my blog, I've had loads of comments about the entry I wrote entitled: Gorilla + Phil Collins Does Not = Chocolate. Check them out for yourself. Suffice it to say, the majority of you think it's a fab advert. I do too - I just don't get the connection. There was also a considered response to a throwaway remark I made about John Barnes' TV presenting skills, or lack thereof.
Finally, we've received a great deal of negative feedback about our new TV Listings service. Complaints centre around the speed, the look and feel and results returned from searches. I feel your pain - believe me. However, we are determined to iron out the teething problems and ask that you bear with us.
Thanks for all your comments and messages guys. Keep them coming in. That's it for this month as far as the mailbag is concerned.
MSN Editor Coops |
|
|
