29/07/2016

Top Gear 2.0



















OK...it's been nearly a month since the series ended...I think that is long enough for the dust to settle. So...Top Gear series 23, or as it is more commonly known - the first series of the latest Top Gear format since Clarkson & Co's departure. No, no and no again.

As you may have seen in the archive of this blog, I was gutted when the era of Jeremy James and Richard's Top Gear came to an end; I celebrated it for better or worse and I did cast some speculation about whether it could ever be bested, or if anything could even come close.
The new series confirmed for me, and for what seems like a considerable chunk of the viewing audience, that it could not and did not.
For my part I would go as far as to say that it set the brand, feel, appeal and general tone of Top Gear back by a long long way. Taking a re-heated shell concept and trying to embellish it with badly conceived and arrogantly executed add-ons that felt woefully last minute and almost completely cringe-worthy is not what I would call progression. In truth I wanted to give up on it after episode one, and felt similar urges throughout, yet stupidly hung on until the end hoping against hope that it would improve into some semblance of the Top Gear legions have come to know and love. For me, it did not. Now you may be saying at this point - what's the point in hankering for a show that is past,?One that is clearly separated from TG's future and - stop comparing the latest outing to something we will never see again (unless you are a regular viewer of Dave). And you'd be right. Part of the reason I hung on and watched the whole series is because I was open to being receptive to the novelty of new Top Gear, and the idea that I may somewhat enjoy it. But sadly 9 times out of 10 I did not. At times it made me wistfully sad and hankering for the old days, but a lot of the time it just made me angrily despondent about how cacking awful things were.


There were inklings of things that I liked; precious few saving graces. The production values and the plethora of awe-inspiring cars has not changed, though why should it for the Beeb's flagship motoring entertainment show. And contrary to reservations I had, I found Matt LeBlanc to be quite the revelation. Yes his American, brash and occasionally big-headed Hollywood mannerisms did jar with me and did not seem to fit with the Top Gear ethos, but his petrol head nature and enthusiasm was obvious and infectious and he was clearly the pick of the presenting crop. 
Yet apart from that...not much else floated me boat. Again there was idea after rehashed idea from the old series, given a half-arsed respray and presented at a different angle that just didn't work. The "epic" challenges, the star in a car segment (come on - "rally-cross" instead of Reasonably Priced ain't fooling anyone!) the races, the Stig, the writing (or apparent lack thereof) and even some of the plain old auto tests were just obvious carbon copies taken from the old series, juggled around and presented in a supposedly new and fresh way, yet somehow seemed to be constantly trying to hark back to the good old days of yesteryear. The results were tragic, not fresh or interesting at all, woefully predictable and did nothing at all for the image or appeal of this supposedly brave new world of Top Gear.
And speaking of the presenters, yes LeBlanc was good, but good God he was one of many! Again I think this is a massive clanger dropped by the production team, as before you even judge the individual presenters themselves, the fact that you have six of them is just baffling. Once more I feel it was a case of not knowing where they wanted to take the new show, trying to hark back to old themes, whilst trying to please everybody; presumably by fetching in a presenter for every demographic you could think of.
So let's go through them then. 
Matt LeBlanc: As I say, good, solid, approachable, oozing petrol head class and unexpectedly his Hollywood glamour and charm didn't clash with Top Gear as much as I thought it would.

Sabine Schmitz: I applaud the idea of getting a female presenter, and I applaud the idea of getting a kick-ass German driving legend, and former Top Gear cameo specialist too. But she was given nowhere near enough screen time and when she was featured she was made to appear very stylised and almost faked in her tone and delivery.

Eddie Jordan: Again sounds good - former F1 legend to present a big car show. Yes Eddie Jordan did provide a modicum of comic relief and down to earth ruggedness, but again barely any screen time did not lead to any tapping into of the man's knowledge, ability or appeal. 

Chris Harris & Rory Reid: These two I put together because they seemed to jointly be the biggest afterthought ever. Yet ironically they represent for me the biggest missed opportunity in terms of fresh presenting. They were not even introduced until half way through the series, and it seems like they just seemed to be plonked there to again widen the demographic and to play very much the back up band to what was apparently the main event.

Yet the biggest and most glaring f**k up for me (and seemingly again for most of the viewing nation) throughout this entire venture of new Top Gear was presenting Chris Evans as star host of the show. Do not get me wrong - before episode one aired I was quietly optimistic about his appointment - I had no real opinion of him from other ventures, he was a renowned petrol head, and his passing appearences on old Top Gear seemed sound. 
But give the man the job of fronting new Top Gear and boy oh boy does he turn into the most self-absorbed, loud, clichéd arrogant prick I've seen on TV for a good long while. His road tests seemed to again feature re-heated innuendos and clichés (stuff you wouldn't find in even the worst of Clarkson's back catalogue) always shouted and done with very little finesse - which I either took to mean he was treating audiences like idiots or seemingly he had delusions of grandeur that he was delivering gospel. The same can be said of his celebrity interviews and his general studio demeanour in between. Not once did he seem anything other than self-obsessed, self-absorbed, pathetic and generally a provider of terrible viewing. I am so glad he resigned quite quickly after the series ended, though I imagine not out of the pure unadulterated shame which is severely warranted.

As I said a year ago when Top Gear as the fans knew it ended; the old guard were not perfect. Yet they fashioned a format and an ethos that managed to delight fans globally for over a decade. To see all that cast asunder and almost obliterated by a load of poorly conceived, poorly executed, arrogant and almost infantile ideas that some people have had but are broadly unequipped to carry out is not only anger-inducing it is also quite sad. I have no doubt it was the financial success of Top Gear gone by that motivated someone at the BBC to green light what eventually became this car crash of a mess (pun intended). Now all we have to do is wait and see whether they and Top Gear itself can survive long enough to regret it.




20/07/2016

08/07/2016

X-Men: Apocalypse


















Here lies my take on X-Men: Apocalypse, the latest chapter in the longest running superhero film saga to date. When I reviewed the film's predecessor Days of Future Past back in 2014 I like many other fans declared it pretty much perfect. I revelled in the way it was done, and I also expressed great optimism for a potentially broad and open future direction for the characters and the franchise.
Whilst I wasn't expecting an even bigger and better film this time around, I think I was expecting something a bit more dynamic. Yes it was a great X-Men film still, but unlike previous ventures in the franchise, it didn't really excite me with anything new.

The key plus point of this film for me, lied with its ability to rest on and run with what had gone before. I think Bryan Singer knew what had been done right and what perhaps might have been evolved as much as possible up to a point, so he just seemed to build on that. This may also be seen as quite an arrogant move on director Singer's part - in that he seems to have just pointed to all the films gone before as evidence of how great this next one and he are supposed to be. Many of the brand new elements (of which there aren't that many) fall distinctly flat in originality and impact, and it is the building upon of X-Men key elements which saves the film, and indeed which makes it appealing in my view.

Yet we must mention the plus points of which there are many. Namely, the cast and characters we now know and love. No original X-Men this time (apart from an epic if slightly diversionary cameo from Hugh Jackman as Wolverine) so we rely on the younger generation to entertain. Whilst the idea that another ten years has supposed to have passed without really ageing anybody wasn't fooling anyone, it was still good to see some familiar faces. Jennifer Lawrence still managed to captivate as Mystique, and seeing James McAvoy become even more immersed into the role of Charles Xavier was a joy (including him finally becoming bald!). Michael Fassbender's Magneto and Nicholas Hoult's Hank McCoy/Beast did not really progress further, but seeing their trademark characters in the roster still felt reassuring. The re-introduction of Rose Byrne as Moira McTaggert and Evan Peters as Quicksilver again was nice but in terms of impact it just sort of felt like window dressing; and killing Lucas Till's Havok off just after he was brought back definitely felt like a misconceived and poorly judged clanger. We also got a repeat of the X-Men: First Class formula - namely giving us new actors playing younger versions of classic characters. It worked with First Class and on the face of it so too this time. It was fun to see new versions of Cyclops, Jean Grey, Storm, Angel and Nightcrawler, though the former two did appear superficially mismatched in terms of their character development (again it didn't seem clear where their characters were going - especially Tye Sheridan's Cyclops being a shy underdog one minute then a brash wannabe-jock the next). And sadly for me the latter three were reduced to barely more than embodiment of special effects and a chance to show off diverse mutant power sets. Yes it was visually impressive and yes it sets up for the potential future, but to see X-Men staples reduced to poor bare bones did not sit well with me.
It was interesting to see an X-Men film yet again expand on the massive cast of characters - featuring the first appearance of the likes of Caliban, Psylocke, Jubilee, and of course the titular villain - Oscar Isaac's Apocalypse.
Yet because of the poorly executed story (which is a shame as the original comic book could have been fashioned into gold) a heavily clichéd villain, and not much in terms of character development overall, none of the new or old faces were really able to carry the film to greatness.

It sounds like I'm slating X-Men: Apocalypse - I'm not. Plenty of action, plenty of great X-Men moments, and plenty of homages and expansions of what had gone before, all coming together quite well. It is a very good X-Men film, but mixed plot direction, not enough new impact and a seemingly lack of coherent thought towards the overall tone of the film does not render it stratospheric-ally brilliant for me.






02/07/2016

Catering Combo

Just though I'd proffer my two pennyworth in regards to two relatively new experiences I have had recently. The first being a brand new one in the form of Hotel Football, and the second being the first time in over a decade within the establishment of Stanley House...


HOTEL FOOTBALL





















On the 14th of May 2016, Manchester United were due to play AFC Bournemouth, in their last game of the Premier League season, and like several times previous, my Dad and I had secured tickets to watch it. Football fan or not, you may remember this particular fixture being on the news at the time as it did not happen, at least not when and how it was originally intended. What was thus discovered to be a "dummy" training bomb had been left unknowingly behind by security staff, forcing Old Trafford to be evacuated and the game to be abandoned.
If that had been the be all and end all then a day would have been sadly and annoyingly wasted. Fortunately, for the first time as well as watching the match, we had also managed to secure pre and post hospitality at the Hotel Football.

Located slap bang next to Old Trafford, the modern, crisp and imposing building plays host to thousands of football fans and enthusiasts every year, and on that particular afternoon we were among them. The catering and hospitality staff saved what would have otherwise been a lamented and wasted day in my view.

Providing first class fayre for lunch, doing so with swift polite and friendly style and manner, and for easily and definitively creating a brilliant atmosphere where football and United fans from across the world could sit, relax, congregate and enjoy together in a unique and positive way (along with a few guest appearances from United legends too!). Pre-match was one thing, but post-unexpected evacuation and hurried reconvening of guests, they all rose admirably to the challenge, recreating the superb setting and ambience we were treated to before the game.
The game was of course reconvened days later and we returned to Old Trafford again to see a respectable scoreline (see my season round up in the BLOG ARCHIVE) but really it was the experience created next door surrounding that particular match, the first time round, that stood out for me. Thank you kindly Hotel Football - I salute you!



STANLEY HOUSE


















I know several people who are on regular terms with Stanley House, the ever expanding, traditional hall/modern boutique hotel crossover located in Mellor, boasting one of the finest hotel, spa and dining experiences around.
I however had not frequented it in years, until tonight when I adjourned for dinner.

I was expecting plush, slightly vulgar levels of attempted nouveau-riche in design and atmosphere. What I was not expecting was for it all to actually work. Yes the decor and design of the Grill on the Hill restaurant was a tad chintzy and in your face, but the levels of luxury, whilst not necessarily tasteful in the classic sense, did invite you in and once you were settled, did provide a nice place to be. Add to that attentive, welcoming, if a little stylised staff and you're already onto a winner.

But by far the highlight was the fayre which those at Stanley House were offering to match their uniquely high brow image. It all read well, and it all looked equally sublime. I myself was treated to a staple and beautifully cooked  pork belly starter, a uniquely presented but delectable fillet steak, and a divine peach souffle.

It may be an acquired taste going to Stanley House, but it might just be well and truly worth it.







RIP Caroline Aherne

Directors UK - News - Caroline Aherne: an appreciation

1963-2016