The Interceptor

 

I'm all for original drama, and I'm all for original BBC drama; many of the Beeb's recent new series and pieces have been triumphs (Ordinary Lies, or Poldark anyone?) but this latest outing - The Interceptor fell way below the mark in my view.

What started out as a mildly interesting rehashed cop drama rapidly delined into a mash up of Eastenders on heat and AmDramRUs.

To me, this looks like a classic case of a new show that didn't have anywhere near a clear cut idea of what it wanted to be. And what's more, when it stepped out into the light, it did not have much conviction in itself either. Lacklustre presence, minimum impact, terribly predictable plot (both week-on-week and the series as a whole) and often shocking performances from a mediocre cast all make for 8 Wednesday nights I'll never get back and a BBC series which I doubt will be returning, or at least I hope not.

Most police dramas are predictable these days - essentially it is all about trying to revamp the idea of "copper catches criminal". And OK fair enough The Interceptor presented this formula in a sufficiently gritty fashion, but that is about it in terms of plus points. Horribly drawn out sequences, a poor man's law enforcement twist (the idea that "Intercepting" crim's phones was what drives it all) which didn't stick anyway, and far too many main and supporting characters popping in and out with not much real impact or flow rendered the whole thing far too bland for my liking. Or worse, bland and boring; by about episode two I found myself thinking - "yes OK, we know where this is going, now stop dragging it all out and get on with it!" 

Talking of characters - the casting of the Interceptor tended towards the terrible more often than not. I was pleasantly surprised to see some recognised and talented names pop up, but sadly they were not nearly given enough to do or to add to the story. Ralf Little and Paul Kaye were featured in one episode each, apparently just for the sake of it, as was Ralf Ineson. Jo Joyner, who generally I am an admirer of, was credited as main cast but she was given so much of a back seat wife-at-home role that she might as well have been reduced to a few choice cameos. And as for the rest of the cast...oh dear. 

Trevor Eve ws the only other recognised name, and he got quite a role as the head villain of the piece, but he was often as wooden as the furniture he was sitting on. I think he was going for steely, moody and menacing, but the result was often cold, lifeless and pretty close to pointless.

Anna Skellern had a certain allure and appeal to her as Kim, but her character and storyline were as predictable as the rest. Ewan Stewart and Lorraine Ashbourne were desert dry and terribly clichéd in the roles of cantancerous Scottish boss and northern rough-around-the-edges second in command respectively. Charlie De Melo shrank into the background so much he might as well have not been there at all, and Robert Lonsdale was so abruptly cockney geezer-esque he should have been in Eastenders, and his attempted forays into PTSD were both laughable and cringeworthy. And finally as for O.T Fagbenle as the lead character Ash...dissapointing to say the least. He did a lot of talking, and a lot of running but at no point did I find his character at all believable in the slightest. It seemed that Fagbenle was under the impression that all you needed to do to lead a prime time BBC show was to either look broody, distraught or dumbstruck down the lens and it was job done. The only leading man function he managed to carry out was to lead most of his fellow cast into utter capitulation and failure to capture any audience attention or imagination.

Apparently nearly all the mainstream critics are in agreement with me, in fact it looks like I'm being generous in giving The Interceptor 2/5 stars. I was very surprised to see that the final episode seemed to be building up to and leading on to another series; I think that might be a tad optimistic on their part, and if by some miracle The Interceptor does come back, I don't think I shall be tuning in again.

Vicious - Series 2

One of the first reviews I ever did here was of the first outing of Sirs Ian McKellen and Derek Jacobi as Freddie and Stuart, two ageing gay men who have been a couple for over 50 years; the basis of this ITV sitcom. At that time I said that, despite a few foibles and faults, Vicious truly deserved to go into a second series. Now, having watched that second series I stand by that, but I am slightly worried about where the show can go next.

Whilst we still got many instances of the brilliant chemistry, cracking one-liners and ludicrous cheek and farce that was present in series one,we also got similar amounts of cringe-worthy moments, overkill, and lack of direction.

What's more, whilst Mckellen and Jacobi were still on fine form by and large, their fellow cast seem to have hit a rut. Frances de la Tour as Violet started out briefly in episode one as mildly amusing (only when bolstered by the great Celia Imrie who guest starred) but ended the series looking simply lost and a tad tragic. Philip Voss as Mason almost faded into total obscurity this series (though this wasn't too much of a loss as I often found him to not contribute that much and any humour originating from him was minimal at best) and whilst Marcia Voss as Penelope had some of the best lines of the series, it did sometimes feel like she was just there for the sake of it. Finally we have Iwan Rheon as Ash, who of all the supporting cast I feel is the most important, but again after a certain point his character seems to have reached an impass, and there were a couple of cringe-worthy moments from him too.

As I say, Jacobi and McKellen are rightly the stars of the show, and their ability to deliver on their lines and characters is second to none. Yet whilst we got a couple of developments in their storyline (involving the modern issues of gay marriage etc) there was little in terms of direction as each epsiode went on; it's as if the writers thought they could just plonk these characters in front of audiences and hope for the best.


So yes, I am glad that Vicious came back for a second outing, and on balance I feel it just did enough to justify a second run. Yet without real movement in the direction of the characters, whilst still keeping that simple comedic genius that is still in development stage, I fear as to whether we will see Ian McKellen and Derek Jacobi hurl insults at eachother as Freddie and Stuart again.

Wimbledon

Each year, there are a few films or TV programmes that I repeatedly and often quite religiously go back to, depending on the season or time of year. Though I don't always follow the Wimbledon tournament (though this year I have watched a couple of matches) I do often insist on watching the 2004 film of the same name. To me, it still has a certain appeal, and resonates with me in a resilent, neo-classic sense. Though not quite Four Weddings or Notting Hill, in terms of a truly timeless British romcom, I feel it is up there. So, a quick word then on Wimbledon...

I think it is important to consider above all else when watching Wimbledon, that it is in essence a nice film. And that is not a bad thing. Often modern films of various genres have to have some sort of barrage of plot twists, conflicts, and problems to attempt to peak audience's interest. Not here. In the case of Wimbledon - the tournament itself is in prime focus as quite a an element or backdrop (depending upon how much of a tennis lover you are) but we simply have a man who loses his way, finds his way, falls in love and *SPOILER ALERT* wins Wimbledon.

That's it; it's a nice film; a nice watch. And there is nothing to detract from the pure yet very simple lght-hearted, funny and appealing joy that watching the film play out brings.

Though I have long since been a fan of Paul Bettany (watch him as Chaucer in A Knight's Tale - pure genius!) this is the first time I saw him in a leading man role as thirty something disillusioned tennis player Peter Colt. Though his grip on leading man status was often as breezy as the rest of the film, Bettany's performance was quite refreshing, and still had enough class to easily pull through. Alongside him was a smorgasbord of casting quality, though a few didn't come off in such a good light. The delightful Celia Imrie and Robert Lindsay were welcome faces, though they didn't get nearly enough screen time, and actually thinking about it - that was the story with most of the supporting cast. Colt's family - played by James McAvoy, Bernard Hill, and Elanor Bron were all great names and great talents to have, and whilst their quality was still plain to see, I just feel it was a shame that their characters were a tad flippantly written, and their screen time limited. So too was the case with a few foreign imports; Sam Neill and Jon Favreau were surprise but pleasant faces in the casting crowd, but they especially just seemed to be thrown in there for the sake of it at times.

No, rather dramatically and unabashedly the core focus of Wimbledon remained on Paul Bettany, and Kirsten Dunst who played opposite him. Whilst on one hand Dunst was horribly predictable, transparent and clichéd, she did manage to sizzle just enough and her chemistry with Paul Bettany was still quite tangible to watch.

So, if the actual tournament on the telly box isn't your thing, if you jut want some tennis-themed light entertainment, or just a good simple Brit flick, then go for Wimbledon. Whilst I don't think it is mind-blowingly brilliant, it is consistently good enough to keep me coming back year on year.