Golden Oldie of the 90's - Little Voice

I know I know, dubbing a 90's film a Golden Oldie is probably axiomatic. I mean even I was alive when this one was released in 1998. Nevertheless I truly believe and mean to impress that Little Voice is a truly shimmering example of a wonderful film, and this is me recommending it highly.
Set in and filmed in Scarborough, North Yorkshire, Little Voice tells the charming tale of a cripplingly shy girl, played by Jane Horrocks, who has a wonderful talent for mimicking famous voices, and particularly famous singers. Through the pressure of her selfish, domineering mother and a sly 3rd rate manager (played to a tee by Brenda Blethyn and Michael Caine respectively) she is given a relative shot at the big time.

Unlike other musicals, British or otherwise, I don't feel Little Voice sacrifices a great story for the sake of squeezing show-stopping music into the narrative, nor vice versa. The balance is perfect in my view, music lovers are treated to beautiful renditions of timeless classics, flowing through a story crafted and performed to perfection.
As some of you might know by now, when reviewing a film or a TV programme, I place emphasis on the characters within it, and the performance of the actors behind them. Little Voice is no exception, for like anything, musical or not, the quality of performance is key, and I really do feel the core group of characters/performances are what makes this film.

I am a big fan of Jane Horrocks generally, but she is truly sublime as LV; the star of the show, perhaps unsurprisingly, when it comes to Little Voice. To have sung all of the songs to such high standard, which she did, would be stupendous enough, but there is much more to her than that I feel. Every second we see her on screen, I feel Jane Horrocks provides us with a character that is a uniquely perfect blend of fragile, adorable, beautiful, mesmerizing, show-stopping, confident, layered, emotive, talented, and at the end of the day incredibly watchable and lovable.

As I say, she is supported by a marvelous group of wonderful actors providing perfect performances in their own right. Michael Caine and Brenda Blethyn have every right to be praised for their portrayals of Ray Say and Mari; they are a joy to watch. We also get a wonderfully charming, funny and oddly vulnerable Mr. Boo, supplied by the perfectly cast Jim Broadbent. We even get to see an early but greatly received early film performance from Ewan McGregor.

Little Voice truly is a great film, whether you're into musical films or not, judge it upon its own merits, and I think you'll find it remarkable. Great characters, wonderful actors, beautiful music and narrative, just the right amounts of comedy and drama, and oodles of heart; Little Voice has it all. This story has lost none of its popularity in all the time it has been with us, and is probably already a classic film in its own right. If you haven't seen it, I urge you to. I do not believe you will regret it.

Miles Jupp ~ The Lowry Theatre, Salford

Another first (though hopefully not a last!) for you lucky people; stand up comedy! Yes, on Tuesday evening, I had the great pleasure of being privy to the latest stand up talents of Miles Jupp. Over the years, I have been fortunate to attend the live shows of several comedians, each one different, and each one highly enjoyable, from Peter Kay to Chris Addison, so this isn't my first comedy rodeo. This isn't even the first time I have seen Miles Jupp live. Whilst at university in Canterbury, I saw him during his last tour of the country in 2012, with his show Fibber in the Heat, essentially a continual narrative about the time the man in question blagged his way to India to watch the cricket, posing as a journalist. It might not sound like the makings of comedy gold, but I found it rather hilarious, thus I was eager to come back for more two years later, to see Miles Jupp deliver stand up in his own affably "posh", aloof, slightly manic, and  incredibly funny manner.

I am happy to report he did not disappoint. This time delivering what one might call "more traditional stand up", Miles Jupp kept the audience laughing for several hours, delivering witty observations and hilarious rants with lightning fast timing and ability.

He had the tendency to move very swiftly through his words and topics, with constant saturation of that incredibly upper class persona he has become known and loved for. Yet he knew just how to phrase, and just when to pause, and even occasionally when to go off cuff (such as a very amusing incident with a girl in the front row and her camera phone, and a microphone malfunction after the interval). He made no bones of the fact that he had built his career and reputation upon being a rather high society twit of comedy, and he displayed it to us in the Lowry with all guns blazing. However this was at no point a bad thing. For as each minute, and each laugh went on, Miles Jupp succeeded in my view, in ingratiating himself with his audience in a very witty yet warm way.

For me, I believe on both occasions, watching Miles Jupp did not present stand up in a failing-to-breathe, belly-aching way too much. Yet his humour is crisply intelligent, his expression perfect, and his humour-making mind spot on. The word "unique" is probably bandied about too much these days, but going to see Miles Jupp's stand up is truly unique, and one that I loved and would repeat again and again. 

Sherlock Series 3

WARNING: POTENTIAL SPOILERS!


And then the drums stopped, lightning cleared the sky, the twitterers of Twitter quietly clicked away into the night, and the game continues on. Ladies and gentlemen, the third prolific series of Sherlock is over.
A little while ago, I celebrated the barn-storming return of Sherlock, following a two year wait, with it's epic, twisting and fast-paced first episode. Yet just two short weeks later, it was over and done with for another series, and the legions of fans around the globe are now left fidgeting and twitching in the corner for another indefinite length of time. So, without wishing to repeat myself, I thought I'd just go over the undoubtedly popular series, through episodes one, two and three, commenting on what I liked, what I didn't, what was interesting, what was different; you know the drill. In fact, as this post is covering a whole three episodes, I shall even separate them clearly with bigger bolder type for you, aren't I nice (if slightly patronising)?


EPISODE 1: THE EMPTY HEARSE

Of course, when we had Sherlock back we had to have him back with a BANG! But this being Sherlock, and written and produced by people like Steven Moffat, it was naturally a bit more complicated than that. Yes, there was plenty of mind-spinning action, plenty of drama, more than a smattering of comedy, and quite a few surprises.
I'm sure you know by now the slight conundrum that had befallen fans who frantically wanted to know definitively how Sherlock faked his own death at the end of last series (and if you don't - see my previous Sherlock blog) and I think I was one of those who was a wee bit peeved that the minds behind Sherlock seemed to keep us guessing needlessly. Yet, I did enjoy the perceived lunacy, and the wonderfully epic sequences that resulted.

Sherlock's death/survival was, predictably a main factor of this episode. The other for me was the new and remarkable new depths of character arc and development produced before us. We had the odd new face, as Amanda Abbington was brought in to play John's love interest Mary (yes, we know she's Martin Freeman's real life love interest, but to all the tabloids - stop going on about it; they're both fabulous actors and they're both fabulous in Sherlock). We also got to see a lot of new stuff from the characters we have come to know and love, mainly through how they each individually reacted to Sherlock's resurrection. Sherlock and Mycroft Holmes' relationship was set to another level. which was a joy to watch. We had some lovely Molly/Sherlock moments that I was very grateful for in this episode. And of course, we got to see some totally new sides to the John Watson/Sherlock Holmes relationship. After all they've been through, it was reassuring to know that they still have a few blinders to pull out when it comes to their friendship, be it dramatic, funny or ridiculous. Theirs is a subtle relationship change that begins brilliantly in episode one, and resonates throughout series 3.


EPISODE TWO: THE SIGN OF THREE

The wedding episode! This is the episode which has apparently garnered the most criticism from those who feel the world is obliged to listen to them, yet it is one of my favourite Sherlock episodes by far. All that was discovered, rediscovered and celebrated in episode one, thankfully moved on and was transferred effortlessly into episode two, and then built upon tremendously. Before we even got to the wedding, there were some superb scenes in my opinion, featuring the incomparable Benedict Cumberbatch doing what he does best - displaying the manic, dangerous, hilarious, and wonderfully watchable qualities of Sherlock, all encompassed in the ridiculously great setting of planning a wedding.
Once we got to the wedding, yes we got a bit of jumping about through time and space (sorry for the possible tenuous Doctor Who reference there!) but it really wasn't rocket science to follow, and I felt it displayed a charmingly different way for the Sherlock team to ram a lot of stuff into one episode. From the utterly bonkers and brilliant "stag night" scenes, to not one but several chilling and gripping crime mysteries, some key moments of nostalgia for die-hard fans, to some unlikely relationships being kindled, to that Lara Pulver cameo, and a great array of human moments from almost all involved in the episode.

I really and truly loved this episode. To me, it had everything you could want from Sherlock, and a great deal more besides. If I had to pick, and thankfully I don't because it would be terribly difficult, but if I had to, The Sign of Three might just be my favourite of the series.


EPISODE THREE: HIS LAST VOW

All too soon, we reached the final episode of series three, His Last Vow. This right here is something I definitely DO NOT like, and I know for a fact I am not alone. Steven Moffat, Mark Gatiss - I love your work but, either get on with making the damn show or give us more than three episodes when you do! I realise that scheduling is an issue, and I know Moffat lies and likes to think he is a Moriarty-esque mastermind tugging the strings of his audience like puppets, but really! Come on! Most new BBC series get at least six episodes a series, most dramas getting at least ten. We know you can do it, and we know the wonderful actors can deliver, so I simply ask you to get your act together and give your millions of loyal fans what they, and you deserve!

OK...mini-rant over. Now, the episode. Broadly speaking, it was a belter. Full of fantastic plot, some ingenious twists and character moments, and scenes and sequences that were glorious and a joy to watch. Of course we can't neglect to mention Amanda Abbington here, as her character's dramatic twist was truly the moment and catalyst of the night for me. The development of Molly's story, and the consequences of it, were what made this episode, rendering astounding performances from almost all involved. 

We also got a new villain in the shape of Charles Augustus Magnussen. Maybe it's the comparisons to Moriarty which I suppose are inevitable in cases like this, or perhaps the rushed nature in which they tried to set up and develop the villain, but I was in two minds here. Many praised Lars Mikkelsen for his cold, serpentine approach to Sherlock's new nemesis, and indeed in several areas I join in praising him. His scenes with guest star Lindsay Duncan were disgustingly brilliant, and his "face-flicking scene" with Martin Freeman was great to watch. Yet almost everywhere else, including when he faced off against Sherlock, to me it felt like he was trying way to hard. In trying to set this villain up as this incredibly clever, dominant, audacious, uncaring, powerhouse of a threat, I think that more often than not, we saw the strain with which Mikkelsen was trying to make his character believable. When everything was brought down in a close, personal way, he excelled, yet in trying to set up Charles Augustus Magnussen as a villain in such an epic way like they tried to do, I think sadly they failed in a lot of areas.

Speaking of Moriarty, how this episode, and the series ended, whilst being epic in nature and still a clever twist, left me feeling a bit hollow. I thought we were gearing up to something brilliant with series 4, when it looked like Sherlock might be jetting off to lands and adventures unknown. Yes I knew he'd have to return to London and John eventually, but that, in my view would have been a brain-blowingly brilliant way to lead into a new series. But no. We got the apparent shock-horror return of Jim Moriarty (which I for one enjoyed but could kind of see coming a mile off, ever since Sherlock's resurrection; if they brought him back you could tell they would want to bring his ultimate foe back too). Thus Sherlock was given immediate absolution and brought back to save the day.

Regardless of little niggles though, I loved series 3 of Sherlock, as I know did legions of others. It's return was well and truly due, and hopefully they won't keep us waiting that long for the next round of adventures. In the meantime, and if you haven't seen it already, Sherlock series 3 still graces iPlayer, and I believe the DVD has just been released, so have at it! Remember...the game is never over...

The Great Sport Relief Bake Off 2014

It seems like the Great British Bake Off has been around a lot longer than it's mere 4 series suggests. Yet currently, it is now pretty close to achieving TV institution status in Britain. Of course, as well as the regular series, there have also been a smattering of specials, and this year's Sport Relief was not only a nice way to watch the show if you never had before, but was also charming, lovely, funny and warm hearted to watch. 

In case you haven't worked it out by now, this is about a baking programme, so if that is not your thing at all, then disregard these words, the star rating, this entire blog post altogether. Yet if you are even remotely interested, then Sport Relief Bake Off provides you with 4 hour-long shows over 4 consecutive nights of baking delights, as well as a few balls-ups, with often hectic and hilarious results.

Nevertheless, for every disaster that befalls the Bake Off tent (which, let's face it, is one of the main reasons we watch it - perfection every time would be so boring) there are at least a matching number of inventive and delicious bakes. Joining judges Paul Hollywood and Mary Berry, who are TV stalwarts now, whether you like them or not (ahem - whether you like Paul or not, I haven't made up me mind yet, how can you not love Mary Berry?!) was sublime presenter Sue Perkins, who normally co-hosts the regular show with Mel Giedroyc. But Perkins only handled episode one, handing over the reigns to Jo Brand, who actually I didn't think suited Bake Off at all, and then Omid Djalili and Ed Byrne, who did.

Of course, this is the show that is truly make or break, thanks to the people on it each time, and with Sport Relief, every episode gave us 4 new celebrities (actual properly recognizable celebs - not like Celebrity-Dine-Bushtukka-Big Brother-tripe-a-lot) to watch, laugh with and admire.

As well as the obvious mix of baking brilliance and hopelessness which comes with every episode, this I feel again, is a nice way to get into Bake Off. Unlike the regular series which demands you follow a set of bakers over weeks and weeks, Sport Relief's edition gives you 4 new people each episode, who solely compete against each other for the prize of "Star Baker". Yet in essence, it's for charity, and it's four people baking and having a bit of fun, and you do too watching them. Each nightly crop was interesting, yet for me several stood out for various reasons. The hilarious Johnny Vaughan and Alistair McGowan. The lovably ditsy Helen Skelton and Jamelia. The beguiling and elegant Samantha Bond and Bonnie Wright. And the wonderfully endearing and watchable Michael Ball and Jane Horrocks. There were a few who I didn't think took to Bake Off mind. Presenter Emma Freud was to me quite "unique" (in other words she seemed off her trolley) burning holes in carpet and caramelizing bacon with chocolate, yet despite this she did quite well on the show! Also, Olympic cyclist Victoria Pendleton, whilst displaying some ability baking-wise, did have the most "diva-ish" Bake Off journey I feel, if that's at all possible. Starting apparently lackadaisical about the whole thing, just wanting to enjoy it, to becoming a little self-obsessed and overly dramatic towards the end of her episode.  

At it's core though, Sport Relief Bake Off was good, wholesome, fun television; like all other episodes gone before. I feel that, by and large, it is totally deserving of it's ever-growing popularity. Long may it reign.

Roger Lloyd-Pack, sorely missed

RIP 

ROGER LLOYD-PACK

1944-2014

St. Andrews

 

Right, now you're really getting a curve ball from me. Definitely thinking outside the box. Branching out to unknown and uncharted territory. Travel. A review, of a place I've been to. Wow. Yet another first for this blog, possibly the WILDEST ever! Not just any place mind you. This place (as depicted by the usual highly amateurish photos that accompany me going on about being out and about) is St.Andrews, Fife, Scotland. *FREEDOM!* Sorry, couldn't resist.

Racial insensitivity and typing "turrets" aside, I enjoyed my time in St. Andrews. The circumstances of how I came to be there are pretty boring and irrelevant here really, sufficed to say I went there and back in a day, thus consequentially I only spent a matter of an hour or two in the actual town of St. Andrews itself. What's more it was on a normal Wednesday afternoon, nothing particularly unusual was occurring, and the weather was mostly a compendium of wet and windy throughout the day.
I know, gripping stuff. The sure-fire path to a spectacular experience. And yet, despite all the elements, circumstances and constraints that were set upon me, the place still made quite an impression on me regardless. Yes, I was aware of the history, the pedigree (golfing, academic, all that jazz) and the reputation of the place, but none of that was really detrimental; neither building me up to knock me down when I got there, nor do I think blinding be with proud and touristy blinkers. It was just another consistent and integral thread to the tapestry of the place. As I said, I wasn't there long, so if anything I just stuck to the main core of St.Andrews, if such an area exists. Still it charmed me in an unusual way. The architecture, the mix of the well known and the unknown, of originality and mundane, the atmosphere, the archaeology, hospitality, history, people culture; it all felt like it was fed through the feel of the place.

As I say, I wasn't there for very long, and I don't think I truly saw St.Andrew in it's usual state of student, tourist, and golfer saturation (though I did see a healthy smattering of all these elements). However, I would happily live there. I feel that if it felt good to walk around St.Andrews on a cold, grey wet Wednesday afternoon, to see it in it's prime, however and whenever that may be, would be quite something.

Lincoln

As opposed to summer 2013 films that I never saw, this one was shown in 2012 and it was Lincoln. Personally I was intrigued but not so passionately interested in seeing Lincoln when it arrived in cinemas (I know - blame me as a philistine for wanting to see something like Wolverine over this film if you may). However, I then witnessed the globally acclaimed, multi-Oscar smash hit that it turned out to be for a lot of audiences, and I was only to happy to give the DVD a watch and finally see what was apparently an instant classic.

Yet whilst I certainly don't feel it was a bad film, I was nowhere near as blown away by it as everyone else apparently was.

It was quite an odd experience for me watching this film. At almost every turn, I could see the work and craft that had gone into each individual element and performance. Yet at numerous key instances, the attitude and approach that came along with it did not fit, and in some cases rendered such hard work mute.

OK - basic plot points I enjoyed. To see Lincoln's journey toward the end of slavery in America was fascinating. To see a portrayal of Lincoln at the end of his life anyway was fascinating. I do not have the historical nouse to tell you how authentic or acurate it was, but in terms of perceived authenticity for an audience, I feel this film was pretty high up there. Not only that, but each scene was shot beautifully; not too flashy, rather gritty and earthy sometimes, yet the look of the film felt crisp and sharp, many scenes were just a joy to watch cinematically and aesthetically.

Though it was shot to a high standard, for me the musical score was disappointing. Forgive me, as I only tend to mention the score of a film when I don't like it, yet this is sadly another case of that. This time, it was John Williams behind this soundtrack, who is quite possibly the most legendary and iconic movie score composers of his, or any age. The score-to scene setup was atmospheric enough, but nothing too special in my view; there were no real auditory wow moments.

I said the period of time this film focuses on was fascinating in many ways, and I stand by that. But I was somewhat dissapointed that a film so widely publicized as this "prolific" and "awe-inspiring" view of the great American president, didn't show more of his time on this Earth than the last few months of his life. Surely they're not trying to say this time was the only time worth looking at? 

Now let us move onto the cast, which in many cases for me was the crucial element to this film that let it down somewhat. Of course we start with Daniel Day-Lewis, the prolific and respected actor headlining the film. Again, I refer to the odd mix of experiences watching this film, with regards to his performance. I could blatantly see the hard work and preparation he had gone to in trying to make this character come alive, which in this instance I feel is a good thing. But it was almost as if he knew it too throughout every scene he featured in, and wanted to emphasize it completely to audiences at any possible moment in a non too-subtle, and even a haughtily arrogant manner. 

Maybe some of this was intentional and I'm just reading it wrong, I don't know. What I will say is that the result, whilst being just enough to drive the plot forward, was not that pleasurable and inspiring to watch. Day-Lewis' approach to the character may also have contributed to what happened when he tried to portray depth or diversity of emotion. Most of the time he played Lincoln subtly, and measured, which I feel worked well. But when the time came for the character to snap out of this with a bang, in moments of anger, sadness or frustration, I felt it did not come off that well. Thus Lincoln looked like a man who could not commit mostly to one emotional state, as if his mind was not in sync with his face and body. This resulted in precious few screenshots that might of worked to convey what he was meant to be feeling; most of the time the hallowed president looked like a badly controlled gangling puppet, with facial expressions as statuesque as his memorial in Washington DC. Again it really was a shame for me as I could see the effort and determination in Daniel Day-Lewis' eyes. It's just a shame that a lot of the time he did not let that be expressed throughout the rest of him. I wouldn't want to deny him his Oscar for his performance, but for me it just didn't work.

Lincoln's leading lady, First Lady Lincoln played by Sally Field, is another dissapointment for me I'm afraid. Some of the inter-play between the two was interesting to watch, but again most of the time Sally Field seemed incredibly obvious in what she was trying to do, rendering her character two-dimensional at best, even cliched.

However there were some positive cast and character moments in Lincoln that kept me glued. The portrayal of Lincoln's children (both young and old) and even at times his relationship with them, was quite different for me, and worthy of recognition. Joseph Gordon-Levitt who plays Lincoln's surviving eldest son deserves a lot of praise I think, despite his role and screen time being overshadowed perhaps. David Strathairn was very good, this performance being a jewel in a rising career (including star turns in several of the Bourne films, and in my opinion a brilliant guest star appearance in House MD a few years ago).

The star that I feel stood out by a mile, and is most deserving of all his acclaim and more, was Tommy Lee Jones in his portrayal of enigmatic, mysterious, yet inevitably incredibly compassionate Congressman Thaddeus Stevens. Though he was only nominated for an Academy Award, of everyone involved in Lincoln, I feel he deserved to win his. Incredibly refined, confident and watchable. Tommy Lee Jones, who I'm sure many will certainly already know as a great actor with a long and varied career, gave one of his best performances to date.

You may have noticed I haven't mentioned the director, which might seem like a terrible mistake on my part, for he is simply Steven Spielberg. Enough said, or so it should be. For despite his incomparable reputation and track record, I feel the director may be displaying similar symptoms to his main star, which sums up this film for me. Both he and Day-Lewis seem to be supremely confident in their own hard work and ability, which should result in an awesome film, but instead results in a distinct air of arrogance and cockiness about their approach, and a film that is not as clear cut and impressive as they might like. So for me, despite a few saving graces, Lincoln is a film that may well be enjoyable and different, and might end with its leading man walking dramatically and defiantly off into the distance, but is also a film that surely but sadly all too soon, scuttles out of my memory.

Theatre Archive - the results of a bit of blog re-shuffling

I've decided to re-jig this whole blog malarky around a bit. Seen as the separate "Arts" page hasn't been updated in terms of things reviewed for a while (though hopefully I will feature pieces of that ilk in the not too distant future!) and seen as how I have taken to reviewing things on the main blog post section anyway, I thought I'd alter things. So - I am now getting rid of the individual Arts page, BUT I have now also gained a new category of review piece in this here main section. MY COLUMN will still exist separately, featuring various bits and pieces, and hopefully for some time too + feel free to question, chat or comment on anything at all, on the COMMENTS page or if you prefer, most individual posts have comment facilities. As for the three production pieces below, despite being written several years ago now, the productions were just as real and my comments and opinions, such as they are, are still the same. If you haven't seen them already - enjoy!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOSFERATU

TR Warszawa and Teatr Narodowy

Inspired by Bram Stoker’s “Dracula”

The Barbican Theatre

Review by Samuel Jackson

Wolfgang Michael as Nosferatu and Sandra Korzeniak as Lucy in Nosferatu at Barbican Theatre. Photo by Alastair Muir. Appeared in The Telegraph 1/11/12

Nosferatu. A chilling revamp of a gothic classic, seeped in chills, tension and vampiric frenzy. No, no and no. Any attempt at this from the start, when met with a detailed but seemingly confusing set was dispelled when the first of the cast opened their mouth. A story spoken in Polish with English subtitles on stage seemed to me, if done well, to be at least an interesting concept to begin, sadly whoever was in charge of that technological branch had either dropped off or dropped out, as had many of the audience. Confusing subtitle display that did not link up to whomever was speaking and actors who lacked conviction or at times diction, even when equipped with microphones, soon sent any Polish/English interest out of the window and made for a bamboozling and tiring narrative to follow.

In terms of the story and characters, the main protagonist, Dracula himself, played by Wolfgang Michael was very much the tired old man the character apparently claimed to be, but he needed almost sheer darkness on stage with some loud and oppressive music to appear mildly threatening, let alone the terrifying vampire of legend. Add to this poorly conceived and unrealistic attempts at charm and sexuality, from the living and the un-dead, and soon I found myself wondering if anything at all interesting would ever occur in the seemingly never-ending 110 minutes.

Briefly I thought the story could be saved, when Abraham Van Helsing suddenly appeared. Yet even this supposedly hardy and able character shrank into ineptitude with his fellows, serving as another cog in the wheel of boredom that Nosferatu was. All this seemed almost to be confirmed by the cast who, when it was all finally over took their bows (for what I feel was an incredibly undeserved four times). They had faces that were extremely lacking in emotion or even the slightest recognition of the audience facing them. Maybe they were trying to embrace their inner vampire, or maybe they too were aware that what they had just given was monotonous, poorly done and mundane

(PRODUCTION SEEN 2012)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOME LIKE IT HIP HOP

ZooNation Theatre Company

Written by Kate Price & Felix Harrison

Marlowe Theatre Canterbury

Review by Samuel Jackson

                                        Some Like it Hip Hop Photo by Simon Wells, appeared in The Telegraph 28/10/2011

For many, the theatre is all about the spectacle. And if, like me of late, you have been attending theatre productions that have been very engaging and “watchable” yet have not provided a show-stopping smorgasbord of what many often dub the “wow-factor”, if you’re missing such elements of spectacle, then look no further. The currently touring ZooNation troupe offer a fast paced, fully flowing whirlwind of brilliantly choreographed dance, and wonderfully original music, all wrapped around a somewhat classic love story.

Some Like It Hip Hop boasts a freshly new and modern musical, offering something that has rarely, if at all been seen before – a musical story based upon hip hop music. Unlike some musicals where a story is presented, and regularly punctuated by musical numbers to help it along, this production is very much driven by the music and the dance. The fact that ZooNation is very much a group of choreographers/dancers rather than an actor-based team is rather apparent. Not that this is a bad thing, indeed there are times when the acting abilities of some are allowed to break through the fast-paced musical rhythms of the show and take centre stage. Springing to mind here is the character of The Narrator, by far having the most lines in a variety of personas and accents, his Welsh tones in particular having me in stitches at times. That’s another aspect to mention – this musical is funny. As well as being dramatic and powerful, the story is also punctuated with musical slapstick and light-hearted moments, that feel like they should not work when thrown into such a mix, yet for me they surprisingly do.

Faults? Well I think at times there is so much music and so many dance sequences that the narrative is sometimes lost and rendered implausible. This however I think is surely dwarfed by the overall enthusiasm and massive amounts of energy presented throughout. So, if you’re yearning for that bit of spectacle, in life and in theatre, then I urge you to look into Some Like It Hip Hop, for you will surely leave smiling.

(PRODUCTION SEEN 2012)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Unilever Series - These associations

created by Tino Sehgal

Tate Modern

Review by Samuel Jackson

One of the things I like about the whole idea of reviewing theatre and performance, not that I am expert on the matter by any means, is the variety of what one may encounter. In Britain alone the sheer volume of different forms of live media is boggling. At the Tate Modern in London however, I may have met an incomprehensible barrier to that. Unusually there was hardly any promotional material at all to suggest what Tino Sehgal was hoping to achieve and convey; the experience it seemed, must be truly seen to be believed. Well, I saw it, but I’m not quite sure what I believed.

I walked in to the vastly cavernous room of the Turbine Hall, and my only inkling that this was an actual “exhibition” was that there were quite a lot of people about. Yet these were just normal every-day people; there was nothing to differentiate the performers from the public. Apparently past Unilever shows encompassed everything from gigantic metal slides to millions of poppy seeds; this was taking minimalist to the extreme. What followed was what I could only describe as a very confusing mix of intense talking, which to me seemed nearly incomprehensible, jumping and skipping about, very alarming but sweetly melodic singing and cult-esque chanting from those who seemed to be enacting Sehgal’s vision.

At times I felt like I was living a scene from a horror, or perhaps sci-fi film (especially when the repetitive chanting of “Humans!” began) and at others I felt like I was an incredibly prudish Englishman being accosted by a completely inhibited rebel. I expected this to be something reminiscent of Performance Art. Whilst I am struggling to comprehend how These associations may be deemed “art” I can sort of see how performance comes into it. Whether standing awkwardly on the sidelines or actually getting up and joining in, as some seemed to be doing, one could not help to be immersed in the “spectacle” when in that room. Yet equally for me, once out, it was something best forgotten and not something I wanted to repeat in a hurry.

(EXHIBITION SEEN 2012)

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Here we go - the second part in Peter Jackson's blistering return to Middle Earth, following last year's introduction to the tale of Bilbo Baggins and his many companions and adventures. I might have another look at that one at some point but for now, let us move on to the latest chapter - The Desolation of Smaug. I might as well say here and now - SPOILER ALERT, as I don't think I can talk about the film to the optimum level without divulging a few. 

OK, broadly speaking, I found this film highly enjoyable. Spectacular sequences, intriguing characters and action abound; this film is certainly up there with Peter Jackson's other cinematic masterpieces. In comparison, I feel the first film was a bit lighter and slightly more innocent (though in a sense that reflects what occurs in Tolkien's book) and I also feel this second installment didn't flow quite as well; you got the sense of a bit more padding involved, but we shall get to that later.

Firstly - the positives, of which there were many. In terms of knock out scenes and sequences, "the river episode" was mesmerisingly beautiful to watch for me. A combination of great acting, real-life stupendous camera shots and ridiculously good CGI, made this escape/battle scene a joy to watch. Pure, true to the book, involving a lot of characters, plenty of action, and plenty of charm. Fantastic.

Another show-stopper for me, the whole conception of Smaug the dragon was utter genius. In the first film we were given teasing shadows of him in flashback but now, in his titular film, we saw him in all his glory. Motion capture and CGI rendered Smaug beautifully; constantly something to behold. Every shot featuring the magnificently evil beast was brilliant. Add to that the deep, uncanny and incredible vocal talents of the equally incredible Benedict Cumberbatch and it is certainly a winning combination. Although, I have one slight issue regarding Smaug. It is not an issue with the dragon itself it is with Jackson's decision to draw out his time on screen. The pieces taken from the book were pretty faultless, yet here I bring in the first bit of "padding"; they added a whole scene where Bilbo, Thorin, and the rest of the dwarf company try to fight the dragon and drive him out of the mountain themselves. Though this sequence was quite spectacular to watch, it did feel labored, odd and slightly unnecessary. What's more, it gave us an extended cliff hanger to the next film (which is, very annoyingly, going to be released in a year's time!). I thought the Desolation of Smaug would not only refer to the destruction the dragon caused but also his eventual demise. Unfortunately we only got the latter here, yet I can only hope we get to see the end of the brilliantly brought to life dragon in a spectacular fashion in next year's film. 

Stand out characters and performances now I think. Firstly, I think we need to address the titular Hobbit. If you thought Bilbo Baggins was slightly overexposed in the Unexpected Journey (played by not one but two great actors) then if anything in the second film, I think we find him slightly overlooked and overshadowed. Don't get me wrong, he is given plenty of screen time (he is The Hobbit after all) and he is given key roles in various parts of the film. But somehow I feel there is just too much of an overpowering sense of other forces at work, rendering Bilbo's role as still present but also not too stand-out, in comparison to that of others. This I feel, is not necessarily a bad thing. The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings films are of course great ensemble movies, but if you miss Bilbo slightly in this one, perhaps you might want to again blame "the padding" as a reason why we don't get to feel the impact as much of our hairy-footed friend. 

It is almost always a joy to watch Sir Ian McKellen at work. He gave life to Gandalf to life in The Lord of the Rings, and his return to Middle Earth has been met with huge acclaim and rightly so. This film proves no exception. Gandalf is always a wonderfully warm, clever, funny, powerful and dynamic character to watch for me. Even his "extra" bits in the film will receive no complaint off me as, without wanting to give away too much, they were fantastically acted and stupendously shot scenes, and I cannot wait for his return in the third Hobbit film.

Other characters? Well I feel they've fleshed Bard out a bit compared to his turn in the book, but again I feel this is a good bit of embellishment. Each member of the Dwarf company's scenes, from the book or not, were mostly great to watch; I feel we now have thirteen fantastic personalities to enjoy here. Stephen Fry's Master of Lake Town was a wonderful surprise performance for me, and it was lovely to see Sylvester McCoy return for a brief spell as Radagast the Brown again.

I think it is fair to say that there is an awful lot of elf oomph in this film. Legions of fans around the world whooped for joy at the unexpected return of Orlando Bloom as Legolas. Mostly I am in agreement with them, and I feel this pre-LOTR Legolas is very interesting and exciting to watch. We are also introduced to his father Thranduil, King of Mirkwood. AKA Lee Pace, who gives an extremely regal and ethereal, yet resolutely human performance.

An entirely new character, and a welcome boost of femininity, comes in the form of she-elf Tauriel, played by the beguilingly beautiful and brilliant Evangeline Lily. I for one have enjoyed watching Evangeline Lily since her LOST days; not only is she incredibly pretty, but more importantly she has shown great range as an actor, which she brings to Tauriel, the gentle, beautiful elf one minute, and the haughty, confident and kick-ass warrior the next. I credit Peter Jackson here greatly, and I love what they've done with Evangeline's Lily's character here. However, just as a slight niggle, I am not entirely sure whether introducing a distinct hint of the love triangle between her, Legolas, and the dwarf Kili is a good move to make. Again it seems like they're just doing it for the fun of it, or as a means to justify the presence of the characters, which isn't really needed. We have another film for this to go somewhere, but I have an inkling it may fall flat.

On balance then, this film is a slight shame in some ways. Almost every aspect; character, acting, action, imagery, music, they're all great to watch and wonderful when they come together. It is just the overall 'grand design' that comes across - in that here more than the previous film, we do get a sense of plot-stretching. I do not dispute the genius that is Peter Jackson, but you really do get the sense that he is buying for time (and no doubt profit) in quite a few places here with the decisions made by him and his team in the making of this film. Well, he's got what he wanted - he's managed to push it to a third film. Most of us know what's coming, all I hope for is that we will get it in the way that we, and these films deserve. I hope they know what they're doing, and I hope in a year's time we end this incredible series on an all time high.

The Wolverine

Along with DC's Man of Steel, Marvel's The Wolverine (OK, I like all kinds of films - but I do like me a good comic book film - so sue me!) was another film that came out in the summer of 2013, and also one I kicked myself when I didn't get to see it. However again; praise DVDs! I found Hugh Jackman's sixth outing as the mutant with the claws a blistering, barnstorming, emotive, excellent powerhouse of a film.
You might expect the star of the show to obviously be Hugh Jackman...and you'd be right. It sounds simple, but in theory it is perfectly possible for him, great actor though he is, to have lost it for some reason. Happily however, thirteen years after his first outing as Logan aka Wolverine, Hugh Jackman is as incredible as ever when donning the claws (bone and adamantium in this one for all you die hard fans!) Yes it is a comic book movie at the end of the day, but all you drama snobs - pah! I say to you! Jackman's embodiment of Wolverine, which heightens and evolves every time, is a great lesson in how an actor not only lives and breathes a character and all that the character entails (and believe me with Wolverine it entails a lot!) but to also give it such lasting longevity that audiences, fans or not, flock to see it again and again.

Turning now to other aspects. This film is based on one of the classic Wolverine comic stories, often called "the Japanese saga" and it is brought to life, helmed by director James Mangold, in a very beautiful, crisp and diverse fashion. In many ways, Japan is just as much a star of the show as any of the actors. It really is a belter of a story with plenty of action sequences Wolverine fans have come to love. Yet, in a world where Marvel seems to be focusing on massive crossovers and epic nature universes (which don't get me wrong are often ejoyable) this story, even the action, seems very character driven. This film promised more than any other, to get to the core of Wolverine's character, and let that flow through the narrative, which is exactly what it delivered. Yes there were a few "comic book-esque" sequences towards the end but it was all wonderfully done in my view.
Also in the cast list, we were treated to a host of Japanese actors who might not be familiar to Hollywood film-goers. Tao Okamoto played female lead Mariko, and the blossoming relationship between her and Logan was beguiling to behold. Rila Fukushima's feisty, fighting companion Yukio, who may come off as slightly cliched at times but is still interesting to watch. Also among the Japanese cast list we see more established names like Hiroyuki Sanada and Will Yun Lee, who were both great and ideally suited to their roles within the film. We also got to see the welcome return of Famke Janssen, who X-Men fans will know and love as Jean Grey. Her extended cameo was very welcome for me, as I believe it provided yet another integral layer to the story. Another great, and slightly overlooked in my view, breakthrough performance came from Russian actress Svetlana Viktorovna, who played the sultry yet deadly mutant villain Viper.

This film did incredibly well at the box office and it's easy to see why. Hugh Jackman is already due to reprise his iconic role again, in the hotly anticipated mega-movie X-MEN: Days Of Future Past and a rumored third solo outing for Wolverine, and it is easy to see why. Yet taken on its own merit, this film was brilliant, different and incredible watching, from possibly the most famous X-Man. What's more it fits brilliantly into the canon of X-Men films, and long may we see more of them, and of course Hugh Jackman as the Wolverine.

The Eagle and Child ~ Ramsbottom's revamped staple pub deserves to be celebrated

Another slight foray into the world of food/restaurant critiquing here. Anyone who has lived in and around the area of Ramsbottom in Lancashire (which in itself is rapidly becoming established as a quite a name in the world of North West culinary achievement) will tell you that The Eagle and Child has been going for donkeys. A staple watering hole for regulars for generations, it has also gone through various iterations of providing "a bit of grub" under the helm of various guvnors over the years. Recently however, I sampled a slice of the latest Eagle and Child incarnation, and was pleasantly surprised.

Apparently, the new regime "opened" the Eagle and Child (or their version of it) in October 2011, led by a man simply known as "Glen", and it has since gone from strength to strength. A new interactive and edible beer garden, an intuitive and apparently highly successful youth training scheme, and a whole host of awards from the likes of Thwaites, The Great British Pub Awards, and the Observer.
All this of course, I have since found out with a bit of research. However on Saturday I spent a little while in the Eagle and Child and found the whole experience very enjoyable, on the whole, and what's more, all the work the staff claim to be doing was easily visible to the eye of the humble customer.

The place was packed, they struggled to fit walk-ins in and they obviously had great call for their services, so whatever they're doing seems to be working, even over two years on. Their front of house staff seemed decisive, organised, and welcoming, despite being quite rushed it would seem. With regards to their youth training scheme - despite one or two  (one young boy walking around and speaking with a constant dazed and bemused expression and who also didn't seem to know the difference between a lemonade and a latte - which was slightly off-putting) they seemed to be doing quite well. Also, for simply trying hard to train these young people and openly advertising the fact that they are; I cannot help but admire the Eagle and Child for that.
Though I was only there for a spot of lunch, their culinary hospitality still leapt out at me. My honey roasted ham hock sandwich, served with some remarkable 'pastry-tortilla chips' that I'd never seen before, was most enjoyable. Not only that, but I did read the full menu (which can currently be found on their website) and almost every dish sounded deliciously intriguing. Well worth a look I think.

So yes, overall I feel that the new minds behind the regenerated Eagle and Child are doing very well, and I am quite impressed with what they have produced. I reccomend it to anyone who has not been, and I for one would welcome another visit.