24 Hours In A&E Review: Rush Hour Cycle

24 HOURS IN A&E: Wednesday 16th May, C4, 9pm

Docu-soaps are all the rage these days and after seeing people enter the world in One Born Every Minute and depart in Death Unexplained, we see people caught somewhere between life and death as 24 Hours in A&E returns to our screens. As per usual, there are some touching, heart-breaking and joyous moments as we hear from those who work and have the misfortune to end up in the Accident and Emergency department at King’s College Hospital in London.

To be honest, the first twenty minutes almost feel like a cycling safety video and the A&E team explain that most days start quietly, before going mental during rush hour. The hospital sees 5,000 stricken bikers a year (which given the amount of red-lights they ride through, isn’t surprising) and the first patient of the morning is Christopher, who came off his bike in South London. Crucially, he was wearing a helmet and despite a brief scare, leaves hospital after chewing the ear off a nurse who stitches him up.

Things are much more serious for Sarah, who wasn’t wearing a lid when she came off her bike in Brighton. As such when she arrives in an air ambulance she has a list of injuries longer than a Leonard Cohen song and her life is hanging in the balance. “In the movies there’s always someone to cradle you when you’re dying,” explains her friend after calling her best mate’s parents. Luckily Sarah makes a recovery and after seeing herself on TV looking like a tube map, it’s a happy resolution that at one stage seemed unlikely. Presumably she’s either given up cycling or invested in a helmet since her accident.

Read more

Sex, Lies And Rinsing Guys: “Morally, Socially And Spiritually Bankrupt”

Last night’s investigation in to the insidious world of using-good-looks-to-steal-from-lonely-men (Sex, Lies and Rinsing Guys, C4, 10pm) attracted almost 50, 000 tweets and some pretty vigorous debate from the individuals who had the misfortune to stumble across such a vile documentary. I was one such unfortunate.

The documentary chronicled the “rinsing” habits of three beautiful young women whose prey consists of men who are daft enough to donate gifts and cash to them  - in return for minimal effort on their part. One lady – Danica – charges up to 50 quid for ten minutes of scintillating conversation about what she ate for dinner over Skype, while up in Mansfield Hollie receives 200 for six minutes of financial dominatrixing via webcam. “The last deposit you made in my bank account was pitiful, pig”, she faux-rages. “You’re going to have to do better”. Meanwhile blonde glamour model Jeannette demands trips to New York and designer handbags via the medium of Blackberry Messenger.

The girls themselves seem to believe that they are pioneering in some form of feminist campaign whereby women bleed blokes dry in the name of the sisterhood. “Girls should feel well more empowered”, Hollie advises us. But their ambition to level the playing field in terms of power is tragically misguided and their pursuit of “motherfuckers to pay the bills” is likely to have done little to inspire another generation of bra burners. The ladies themselves insist that they are smart business women, using what they have to make ends meet, but their subjugation of the opposite sex (and unwittingly, themselves) sees them pegged back to the same level of your average posh female escort of the Victorian era.

In the great tradition of noughties TV viewing, I turned to Twitter to seek solice in the views of others. Gratefully, I drank from the refreshing pool of other’s outrage. @RichardBiedul twittered: “Channel 4. “Sex, Lies and Rinsing Guys“. These women are morally, socially and spiritually bankrupt. Emmeline Pankhurst would be proud. #NOT“. While @KrisSoAppalled lived up to his alias, “Sex, Lies and Rinsing guys. These girls make me sick”, he fumed.

And it wasn’t just the male Twitterati who were left outraged by these backward gold-digging antics. @Stephren said: “”sex lies and rinsing guys” errrrr women where is your independence?! #whores“. While @MsLisaRogers huffed :”Now fired up & cross having watched the first 5 mins of ‘sex lies &rinsing guys‘ on 4od. And breeethe”.

Have these girls given any thought to what might happen to their “career” once gravity begins to take its inevitable toll on those perky breasts? “It’s about using what I’m best at to make money – just like a nurse”, boasts Danica. The irony is that Danica has actually made a great success of her business and is fully aware of the importance of social media and the internet to promote her business, why not transfer these skills to another role? Exercise your power in the workplace, not just for the sake of a Gucci handbag.

If not, what talent or skills will be relied  upon once the rosy flush of youth has vanished from one’s cheeks? The girls currently maintain that all of their money-grabbing activities are above board and  involve no sexual contact of any kind – but what will they be left with once a mere glance will no longer satiate their hungry clients? It is perhaps little wonder that the mundane, domestic appliances dwindling at the bottom of their Amazon wish lists remain undelivered…those paying clients would much rather see the benefit of a palette of Chanel slap.

But what did you make of the money-grabbing antics?

Let us know via Twitter right here, on Facebook or by leaving a comment below…

56 Up Review: Essential Viewing

56 UP: Monday 14th May, ITV1, 9pm

Michael Apted’s long-running documentary series Up has followed the lives of fourteen British children since 1964, when they were just seven years old. Today they’re 56 and have changed considerably over the years. For the participants, the series much exist as an embarrassing document of the days when they used to frequently wear Parisian night suits and listen to Disco Duck; for viewers it’s a truly fascinating and completely unique insight into lives of others—like Big Brother, but without the idiots.

On this first part of 56 Up (the first of 3 parts to be broadcast) we catch up with Peter, who stopped participating in the series after 28 Up. An underpaid and seemingly uninspired schoolteacher at the time, he became the target of a tabloid press campaign after he criticised the government of Margaret Thatcher. Obviously, the tabloid press aren’t quite so militant today. They’re all sunshine, lollypops and rainbows now, and so Peter’s back to explain where he’s been all this time.

Back in the 1980s, Pete came across like an unexpected mix between Morrissey and Tony from Hollyoaks. Today, he seems noticeably mellower, and trendier—he’s lost the floppy hair. Together with his wife Gabby, Pete now sings and plays guitar in a Gram Parsons-inspired country-rock band. We’re even treated to a short performance.

It’s Neil, however, who is tonight’s main highlight. He began the series as a preconscious and excitable seven-year-old, with dreams of going to Oxford University. But he was rejected, and so he attended Aberdeen University instead. Soon after, he dropped out of education permanently and life dealt Neil a series of hard blows. By the time of 28 Up, he was seen living on the streets, uncertain of his future.

Over time, Neil has miraculously managed to work his way up to become a Liberal Democrat Politian in Cumbria, although he still appears to be unsatisfied with his life. He began the series as somebody destined for a bright future, somebody seemingly comfortable in their own skin. And yet with every instalment he’s become visibly more neurotic and bitter. 56 Up sees him at perhaps his most frustrated. He now dreams of becoming a writer, and is annoyed that fans of Up haven’t discovered his body of work.

Fortunately, due to the nature of the series, Up becomes increasingly more fascinating with every step that it takes. It’s simply human nature to want to know more about these people. And the more we know, the more we want to know. It’s not so much what these participants say that makes the series so brilliant, but what they say in retrospect. As we watch them age, their opinions and ambitions change over time. It’s like nothing else on television. It’s essential viewing.

Starlings Review: A Real Tweet

STARLINGS: Sunday 13th May, Sky1, 8pm

Sky’s latest Sunday night offering had far less to do with Bill Oddie than one may have thought from a cursory glance through the TV listings mag. But judging by the warmth and generosity on display from this accommodating clan, the ornithology enthusiast would have been more than welcome to drop by for a cuppa chez Starling. Bouncy characters and some carefully observed comic moments make this a top Sunday watch, but it is the beating heart at the core of this family drama which makes it shine.

Lesley Sharp (Scott and Bailey) and Brandon Coyle (Downton Abbey) are the loving couple from the loins of whom this quirky family have sprung forth. In terms of the family tree configuration, the Starlings clan is kind of a cross between My Family and Only Fools and Horses, with some characters seemingly grafted straight in; senile granddad (Alan Williams) grumbles about talking cats in the corner while slightly-crazy-overgrown-teenager Gravy (John Dagleish) lingers about saying stupid stuff, with no job or prospects. Sisters Bell (Rebecca Night) and footy-mad Charlie (Finn Atkins) complete the line-up. And then there’s Bell’s boyfriend, Bell’s baby and Uncle Loz…and Fergie… In fact, with so many characters floating about, episode one was more of a meet and greet than a chunky delve into any psyches, but with eight weeks ahead there should be plenty of room to grow.

The family is based in Matlock – NO, that is not anywhere near London – it is in Derbyshire. This unusual setting allows the show to identify its own parameters without the shackles of audience expectation which might otherwise compel an extended northern family into a small semi in the heart of piss-stained Manchester so the show can tackle “societal issues” to boot.

This could easily have ended up as a clichéd romp through the encyclopaedia of family sitcom stereotypes, but rather refreshingly the funny factor feels unforced and natural. The absence of canned laughter, a sitcom staple which I for one am entirely ready to see the demise of, certainly encourages this organic approach to gag-identification. But humour ultimately comes from the shared acknowledgement that family life – for all its unplanned, inconvenient, tea-stained messiness – is actually really quite amusing, and can even be rather wonderful if you are all pulling in the same direction.

There is, I suppose, room to criticise the family’s lack of concern over what appears to be some fairly serious financial predicaments. A supposedly crippling bill for £4000 – which tortures daddy Colin throughout the entire first episode – is swiftly and painlessly cleared by mum using some secret stash of cash which he apparently had no knowledge of. But presuming that there are families out there who do love each other enough to bump along despite their troubles, there doesn’t seem anything wrong with laughing along with this particular bunch.

Follow us on Twitter right here and be our Facebook friend here…

The Bridge Series-Blog: Week 4, Episodes 7 & 8

THE BRIDGE: Saturday 12th May, BBC4, 9pm

*Read last week’s blog here*

Before we get into the nitty gritty of whodunnit during this week’s double-Bridging, I would first like to draw your attention to what can only be described as the finest scene of the series so far. Having shacked up with his partner since cheating on his wife, Martin is introduced to his colleague’s nightclub lover over the most surreal microwaveable dinner of his life and Saga’s complete lack of social awareness as she lists their sexual activities was nothing short of hilarious. As a colleague she can be a nightmare, but as a character she can put the comedy in hard drama.

“This is Martin. He’s staying with me because his wife has kicked him out.. This is Anton, we have sex now and then.” Golden.

Social ineptitude aside, these two episodes were a dalliance along the wrong track before a stomping breakthrough and at last we seem to have discovered the identity of our disgruntled, truth-telling psychopath – or at least his former identity – after he hijacked a school-bus. It seemed inevitable that the most innocent would be part of the killer’s masterplan at some stage, but thankfully his request was met and the young survived, much to the relief of a gaggle of extras that were drummed up to sit around one television as the clock counted down.

If the involvement of children as the next group of vulnerables was inevitable, then we saw the death of Murdochian hack Daniel Ferbe coming from the other side of the continent. We thought his ecstasy-induced epiphany might have saved him from the chop or that he would be the final lesson, but it seems that Daniel had already sealed his fate many years ago when he accepted a pay-off rather than divulging information invaluable to the killer. Oh Daniel – I shall miss you and your beloved floral man-scarf.

Thankfully we still have Saga, whose ability to find connections is far more developed than her ability to make them. She may still be talking about her menstrual cycle, but she’s definitely grown more self-aware as the series has progressed. At times her relationship with Martin is comparable to that of a curious child and an exasperated parent, yet she’s certainly picking things up during his frequent life lessons. Maybe nobody’s bothered to explain society’s unwritten rules to her before, but she seems interested in them.

Character progression aside, there was plenty for us to get our teeth into this week and tonight’s second episode was the finest of the series so far. We had an exciting red-herring in the form of Anderson and his well-named sidekick Kent Hammer, before the breakthrough came which sets us up a potentially cracking finale next week. The way that Martin pointedly told his wife that they were now hunting ‘Jens’ leads us to believe they had some history there. We know that he cheated Mette before “many years ago”, but who with? Saga noticed that Martin seemed upset by the prospect that the killer could be a policeman at the start of the seventh episode, could it be much more personal than that? Either way, we doubt August will be getting much action on his date with ‘Frida’..

Follow OntheBox on Twitter right here and be our Facebook friend here..

Episodes Review: Sit? Yes.. Com? Ermm..

EPISODES: Friday 11th May, BBC2, 10pm

I watched the first half of the opening series of Episodes, but eventually lost interest when I realised that I laughed more frequently during episodes of Newsnight than during this British-American sitcom. Apparently I missed out, because the BBC would have me believe that while it got off to a slow start, the series ‘came good’ towards the end and the fish-out-of-water jokes were replaced by various love-sex-drug triangle gags. That’s great, but I wasn’t that bothered about what the jokes were about, I just wanted more of them.

On paper, Episodes should work. There’s a TV show within a TV show, a Hollywood A-Lister lampooning himself and a couple of talented Brits, all staple ingredients for clever and incisive comedy, but unfortunately none of this quite transfers itself to the screen. You can dissect the various aspects of the show, but for me, the bottom line is simple. It isn’t funny enough.

Read more

Have You Been Watching.. Planet Earth Live?

PLANET EARTH LIVE: Thursday 10th May, BBC1, 8pm

Look at these little cuties!!
Yes yes, baby meerkats are an adorable lot, but unfortunately their young lives are frought with peril..
I’ve no doubt. Attenborough’s been banging on about it for decades. Is this programme of his doing as well?
No my friend, this is something very different. It’s kind of like what Countryfile would be like if it was filmed in Africa or North America and followed bears and lions.. instead of sparrows and badgers.
So have these animals been given names and had human emotions foisted upon them by misty-eyed hippies?
Yes. There’s an otter called Dali, a bear called Braveheart and last night we even heard the tragic tale of a lion cub who’s forced to play with a stick because he doesn’t have any mates..
What?
Yes I know, but the viewers have been absolutely loving it. Twitter is flooded with people asking what Juliet the Bear is up to..
Who have they been asking? Do these animals have time for Twitter?
Julia Bradbury and Jeremy Clarkson’s weasel Richard Hammond (or their researchers we should say) have been fielding questions. When they’re not doing that the pair are accompanying a vast team of highly-skilled camerafolk as they track the struggles of some young animals in real-time..
Sounds like one giant Nature soap.
Well I suppose it is really. That Cayman which scoffed the Peruvian otters is definitely Phil Mitchell.
So is it on every Thursday?
No, just like a real soap, there are several episodes a week. After starting on Sunday, there was a half-hour slot last night and there’ll be another hour episode tonight, followed by the fourth on Sunday. It’s all available on the iPlayer if you’ve missed anything..
Great stuff. Any chance of Richard Hammond being mauled in tonight’s episode?
Potentially. We’d say there’s more chance of him getting involved in a Walford-style love triangle with James May and Clarkson though..

Follow OntheBox on Twitter right here and be our Facebook friend here..

Antiques Uncovered Review: Under Aspel

ANTIQUES UNCOVERED: Wednesday 9th May, BBC Two, 8pm

As Karl Marx famously never said, “Antiques programmes are the opium of the people”. Their hypnotic effect has entire households enthralled; mother truly believing that the chances of discovering ‘gold in that there attic’ is directly proportional to the amount of programmes consumed. So the second leg of Lucy Worsley and Mark Hill’s journey into the “social and historical context” of antiques should provide another golden opportunity to learn and maybe even earn. It does – if, boys and girls, you make it past the first five minutes.

Bursting onto screens with all the crazed enthusiasm of two escaped puppies, the history-hungry pair return to explain the back stories of a number of artefacts and hold scripted conversations with each other in expensive country houses. If Enid Blyton could have been involved in writing a scripted-reality antique documentary series, Antiques Uncovered would be it.

This week the Aryan duo is investigating travel-themed antiquities. Flitting seamlessly between a Victorian carriage clock – used for travel, that makes sense – and rather more tenuously-linked Wedgwood pottery which depicts exotic destinations, the travel theme appears rather a burden to our excitable pair. Zooming from one era to the next takes its toll on this weary viewer, but such trivialities do not stop them from plunging headfirst into the spirit of it all; Worsley bounces about in the back of a carriage while Hill watches a potter make pottery to “uncover” more about the antique.

No surprises there, the modern presenter is no longer permitted to glide about – Aspel style – making knowledgeable remarks to camera (more’s the pity). Given this pair’s seemingly bottomless enthusiasm and knowledge of their subject, it is a shame that their sing-song exchanges take centre stage. “What’s the attwaction of these little knick knacks?”, Worsley asks of a wide-eyed Hill who is twiddling with a tiny Japanese figurine. As if she doesn’t know. As if we do, so tell us and not her, Mr Hill, and end this tiresome charade.

If you are able to forgive the wide-eyed gallivanting, there are actually some useful antique-hunting titbits of info on offer here. The identifying features of neo-classic design make a handy checklist for any budding bargain-hunter, but the presenting team’s attempts to make the antiques discussed “accessible” will no doubt have already put off many viewers over 15. Fittingly, Worsley and Hill end the show taking daft photos of each other at Blackpool Pleasure Beach.

Follow us on Twitter right here and be our Facebook friend here…

Cardinal Burns Review: Hot and Cold

CARDINAL BURNS: Tuesday 8th May, E4, 10.30pm

Cardinal Burns is not subtle comedy. The eponymous Cardinal and Burns have constructed a handful of Grotesques for their début television sketch show; an Über macho Lady Killer, a suburbanite Banksy, as well as an extravagant French animal trainer for film and television. (The animal, in this case, is an anthropomorphic French fly, which smokes what I assume to be Gauloises.)

Cardinal Burns starts bombastically, a fast paced homage to 28 Days Later where a man on a bicycle pedals furiously through a tunnel to escape a group of sprinting zombies. It’s a short sketch, and perhaps the most representative of the show itself. It’s impressive cinematography serves as a reminder that Cardinal and Burns met at film school. This led me to expect a gag addressing the oft-questioned lack of bicycles in zombie films (c.f. Daleks and stairs), or maybe even a comment about the dangers of cycling through rush hour London. I was wrong. The sketch ends with a zombie eating the hapless cyclist’s knob. They might as well have superimposed a large arrow pointing to the E4 logo on the upper right corner, then narrated some marketing data about the channel’s intended demographic. Young people! Dick jokes!

Yet, after a disappointing start, Cardinal Burns hits its stride, the scene with the frenchman and his fly is terrifically silly. The over the top French stereotyping was hardly elegant, but was as fun to watch as, I assume ,it was to film. The spoof of a police procedural which is interrupted by a prolonged orgy of vomiting made me splutter out a laugh, although I remember laughing when Family Guy did a similar vomiting scene several years earlier.

As such, Cardinal Burns was a frustrating watch for me and I mean that in the best possible way. The best sketch involved an actor auditioning for an advert, following absurd and contradictory instructions from the director. It’s by no means an original premise for a sketch, but it worked because of the superb delivery on behalf of the actor playing the role of the director, who delivered his lines with such plausibility that I assume he has in-depth experience of Shoreditch wankery. Unfortunately, the physical comedy was too dominant, to the detriment to the rest of the humour.

If Cardinal and Burns can redress the balance, then there is a lot to look forward to..

Follow OntheBox on Twitter right here and be our Facebook friend here..

Great Ormond Street Review: No Easy Watch

Great Ormond Street: Tuesday 8th May, BBC Two, 9pm

Cancer is a cruel and unpredictable disease which succeeds in extending its vile reach to all who encounter it; sufferers and supporters alike. But when a tumour and the super-toxic treatment that follows are thrust upon the giggling youth of a toddler, the heartache is multiplied ten-fold. It is this tragic incomprehensibility that has managed to draw documentary-makers back to the hospital wards of Great Ormond Street time and again.

But Shona Thompson succeeds in bringing something uncomfortably new to the ward-walking trope, interviewing doctors and parents frankly about the decisions they each face in caring for these extremely ill children. Sensitive but not lavishly sentimental, insightful but not voyeuristic; it is clear that Thompson has calibrated this two-parter with outstanding care. There is no doubt that it will make anyone who has lost a friend or relative to cancer reaching sniffling onto their sofa cushions, but as one doctor points out “the motivation to try and understand the disease better…comes from the times when we don’t win”.

In truth, it is not exactly difficult to generate a strong emotional connection between a viewer and the parents of a four-year-old brain tumour sufferer who has been operated on five times without success. A bit of slushy piano or perhaps even one ill-crafted sentence will suffice where that is concerned….But where the documentary triumphs is in its exploration of the intense complexity involved with making a decision about a suffering child’s future; “the difficult line” between artificially-extended life, and a tragically early death.

The cameras follow each of the three families featured from consulting room to private conversation, to operating theatre and home again with time afforded by Thompson for full and frank coverage of even the most difficult of conversations. One of the most harrowing scenes involves a mother deciding whether to put her daughter thorough treatment which could kill her, or enjoy the time they have left. These conversations are not supposed to be heard by others, they are private and intensely emotional. But the time dedicated to each family and the full explanation of their predicament prevents the documentary’s most challenging scenes from erring into gratuitous voyeurism.

Follow us on Twitter right here and be our Facebook friend here…

Next Page »