Crowded House

A brief word on a new restaurant experience I had at the weekend. I found myself taking lunch in the aptly named Crowded House, situated between Bury and Whitefield.
I say apt, yet the place had the bizarre sense of being eclectically stuffed with all manner of odds and sods, but also being cleverly spacious. The overall effect was quite confusing, but also relatively pleasant; though the phenomenon of setting chairs of greatly varying heights around the table did give me initial cause to raise an eyebrow.

The staff that man the Crowded House do strike me as typical of a group who are very rapidly trying to take on the world, with a rather gung ho attitude. They are very welcoming, and very polite; yet they are trying to meld together two opposing ideas of trying to do everything for everyone with lightening speed and efficiency, yet also proffering the notion of no rush, and relaxation. This combination can work, but the team of Crowded House do not seem to have perfected that particular art just yet. Offering a very odd mix of restaurant, café, hair salon, photo studio and event venue does all seem a bit dizzying to me too.

If one is to concentrate merely on the restaurant side of things, results are mixed there too. The menu reads well enough, but for what often turns up to the table it is a tad over priced. And I'm sorry but trying to pass off faux-minimalist food at maximum price by deeming it "raw and un-fussy" is certainly not fooling anyone.
The fare that I had was by no means a flop; interesting lamb meatballs followed by a quite delectable piece of carrot cake. Yet it wasn't relaxing enough to tie in with one of the Crowded House's mantras and wasn't great enough to blow any minds once you've left the place.

I do feel on reflection that the Crowded House does have potential, but the team behind it do need to focus. Stop worrying about bombarding the public on all fronts, and the idea of a nice, pleasant and certainly different way of spending a few hours could become something more.

Sherlock - The Abominable Bride

One I've been meaning to review since New Year's - the massively successful, incredibly compelling and bordering on cult classic Sherlock rolls back the years, and breaks all the barriers in reverting back to Conan Doyle's roots. Yes, we got to see messrs Cumberbatch, Freeman and co. shun the modern world Sherlock has smashed its way into (mostly) and don the tweeds and top hats of Victorian London for a one off special.

OK, this is going to sound like me repeating myself for the umpteenth time, but I do feel that if not for a certain chap named Moffat this might have been a belter.
Do not get me wrong - I found this Sherlock one-off very enjoyable; with all the brilliant elements of performance, charm, wit, humour, music and cinematography Sherlock fans have come to know, love and expect.
Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman as Sherlock and John were still on fire; absolutely thriving in parts that were seemingly made for them, and we turned to them in Baker Street once more (if a slightly different version to what we're used to) like we do to two old friends. Una Stubbs as Mrs Hudson was on form too, as was Mark Gatiss as Mycroft, and Andrew Scott's Moriarty was sublime as ever to watch.

And if they had all gone full on with the whole idea of shunning all that had gone before and putting everything into a Victorian Sherlock special, then they might have just about gotten away with it, riding high on throwing out the rule book, and the show's own popularity. But no, in a typically mind-bending timey-wimey twist that even Doctor Who would struggle with, we got this weird mishmash of genres - flitting between the Victorian setting and the 21st century scenes we left off from in series two. Though each individual part may have been crafted and choreographed very well, and with the usual Sherlock panache, the whole thing did leave me very confused and quite annoyed. Tainting Victorian Sherlock with snippets of the original just cheapens the whole enterprise to me really, further enforcing the idea that they merely attempted a Victorian episode just because they thought they could. What's more, the insights we get into the modern Sherlock are horribly frustrating; punctuating quite a bit of the 90 minute special without really giving us as audiences anything towards the overall Sherlock story. Merely cooking up the whole Victorian saga with modern day Sherlock, and then trying to pass it all off as a drug-induced fantasy of the titular hero does seem like a very cheap shot in my eyes.
Also I'm afraid Sherlock's other writer and co-creator comes in for a smidge of criticism too, great though his acting is as Mycroft Holmes. Anyone who knows anything about Mark Gatiss knows that he is a fan of the Gothic genre,and I think he had either been let of the leash with this one, or saw and took his opportunity when writing the Victorian themes. Far, far too much Gothic horror. Yes to have a chilling and thrilling plot is no bad thing, but the sheer amount of clichéd chilling slappings was just border-line glutenous, and certainly quite silly. Even with guest stars like Tim McInnery, this clearly self-driven obsession of the writers came dangerously close to overtaking and smothering the plot.

So yes, an interesting concept certainly, and in the end quite a noble gesture to try and take Sherlock back to its origins. I just wish it had stayed at that. But yet again due mainly as far as I can see, to over-complicated, indulgent and at times arrogant writing, the overall effect, whilst containing quite a few gems, was marred by a very distinct mix up in direction and tone. A self-indulgent Sherlock pleasure trip perhaps but nothing more, and thus I think the sooner they get back to relative normality with the hugely awaited next series the better.

Spooks: The Greater Good

Whilst I was aware of Spooks when it was sweeping the telly-box, and subsequent box set popularity a few years ago I never did get into it. Actually, I don't think I ever watched one episode. So, whilst intrigued how Spooks would do as a big-screen adaptation, I didn't feel too encumbered by previous series baggage, as is sometimes the case when a TV show becomes a film.
However, I feel that even the most die-hard Spooks fan might struggle to defend The Greater Good as anything but a very superficial spy flick.

That said, I think they did make the mistake from the off of trying to compromise on potential audience knowledge or lack thereof. I feel they should have either gone into full-on fandom mode and stuck to things only Spooks fans would know and appreciate, or try to almost "reboot" the concept a-fresh. As it is they did neither, and tried to carry through core themes of the series and attempt to take them to another level, whilst liberally decorating them with new-look Hollywood thriller elements.
The result to me was, despite a few glimmering performances, a rather limp-wristed film that just passes as 104 minutes of escapism but little else.

The most Spooks-esque you could get actually came in the form of seasoned actor Peter Firth as Harry Pearce. Whilst his performance was pleasingly solid, you could just tell he was trying to rely on what he'd done for the previous ten series of the TV show, which is fine as he has a right to be proud of that but it does not, and did not work in hammering a film home. Opposite him we had Kit Harrington who was very much the new kid on the block, but the writers had also tried to deeply envelope him in Spooks lore. This sort of worked, but his use as an open and shut plot device to see the film through was obvious. Apart from that, there was not much performance-wise to note. The great Tim McInnery was a nice touch (and apparently another returning face from Spooks) and the peripheral additions of Lara Pulver and Tuppence Middleton were interesting, but again there was clear evidence of trying to transplant an ensemble TV cast onto the big screen with not nearly enough plot or character to lead things along.

Yes the action and spy-thriller moments were there, and the film did make good use of London in trying to add that Brit-flick tinge. But in terms of expectation and execution, particularly if you just simply take The Greater Good as a stand-alone film, the results aren't positive enough to even resonate before the closing credits.
I am sure it is possible Spooks fans will disagree with me, but as a piece of film-making, as a story and even as a piece of entertainment (nevermind a potential conclusion/finale to the Spooks franchise) the feel and end result was very mixed in my view. Whilst just passable, or just good enough shall we say, I do feel that Spooks: The Greater Good inevitably served up quite a bit of wasted potential.

RIP Harper Lee

1926-2016

RIP Sir Terry Wogan

1938-2016