last-picture-show

This started off well with a terrific cast and a good premise but has sadly transgressed into typical fluffy BBC fare with a nice family with nice problems and not much to say. Okay one of their kids has autism but that is no longer the focus of the show. And some of the characters are really annoying.

A bonus is seeing lovely Christopher Eccleston regularly jogging in picturesque countryside in shorts but he doesn't have a lot else to do apart from shouting at everyone and sleeping with his singing teacher (yes his singing teacher, as you do).

They should just call this show The Hughes Family or The Restaurant and just make it comedy-drama about a family who live in Yorkshire and want to open a restaurant and the drop the half-hearted Autism stuff.

Come on BBC you can do better.

The great beauty of the first four series of Jonathan Creek was not only trying to guess how they did it before Jonathan did but observing the relationship between the two main characters, Jonathan and Maddie (and later Carla). While I like Sheridan Smith and her character I feel that the spark is missing here. If the tale of ghostly deeds they were trying to solve had some credibility it might not matter. Sadly it does matter here because the story is a mess.

Rosalind Tartikoff's tale of satanic goings on at the Catholic school were unfathomable. There is also something wrong with the timescale. The text message mentioned the Circles of 1968 but Rosalind referred to it being exactly 50 years ago which would have been 1963. Also it was never explained who sent the photo and the code note to her. But even if you accepted all this confusing nonsense why the hell would Rosalind now live just a few minutes from the school that haunted her so much? As Victor Meldrew would say I Just Don't Believe It.

I still can't fathom why Fariba felt the need to move her father's body (or at least his head) from the barn to the study. Why was it necessary to hide the fact that he was into magic? He was performing a magic trick with Brad not having S&M sex with him! But even if you go along with this ridiculous premise then there are a few questions that even the newly brainwashed Jonathan would be compelled to ask in the circumstances: How did she know that Rosalind would peer through the keyhole? When it came to remove the body why didn't she just chuck the head out of the window with the clothes and shoes? And when she found a few minutes to retrieve these items before the police turned up how come she didn't leave telltale footprints alongside the two prints of the boots? Added to this why didn't Brad remove these items having helped her dispose of the rest of her father's remains?

And the magic act that Jonathan and Joey witnessed through the barn window was a bit pathetic. I know one of the magicians was dressed as a tribute to David Renwick's friend Ali Bongo but I can't believe that Brad would carry on doing shows like this so soon after the chain saw accident. Also wouldn't the tricks be more daring/dangerous than a pumpkin head floating in the air?

And finally the embracing plot of the conspiracy theory-proving film on the DVD. Wouldn't it have been simpler for the agents to remove this from Franklin's study rather than leaving it for Jonathan to find? Also why risk killing Franklin via the accident with the chainsaw when it may not have proved fatal? And I knew as soon as I saw that statue of the angel at the school that it would land on someone's head.

I noticed some continuity errors/goofs: - How did Pryke see the photos on the stairs when he is confined to a wheelchair? - The globe still shows Africa after Rosalind and the doctor break down the door but it shows South America in the photo Jonathan has of the same scene has at the end. Considering this was the way in which he uncovered the truth it was vitally important to get it right. - Why did the doctor take a crowbar into the house when he turned up? He didn't know anyone was locked in a room, all Rosalind said to him was "get over here now"? - Also Joanna Lumley clearly doesn't know if her daughter's character is called Fabria or Fariba as she uses both at different times (I'm sure at one point she called her Fabreeze). - Why would the male secret agent have a comb when he has cropped hair? Jonathan would usually have spotted that straight away. - After Joey is grabbed round the neck in the Quiet Room she doesn't bother to tell Jonathan what has happened when he gets there, she just points at the picture and he somehow guesses what has occurred.

There were a few moments of the old magic such as Joey and Jonathan's meeting and the scene in the theatre foyer but even these were flawed. Eg the misunderstanding regarding Jack/Jacqueline's gender. This would have been perfect for Maddie but coming out of Jonathan's lips sounds wrong as he's not that insensitive. Plus a lot of the comedy in the old shows came from Jonathan's dislike of 'other people' Here he has become one of those people so he has no one to kick against.

All-in-all a mildly entertaining but seriously flawed show. Perhaps David Renwick has been taking the same de-talent pills that Caroline Aherne took when she returned to write new episodes of The Royle Family and managed to ruin all the things that made it so much fun. Let's hope he stops taking them before the next series comes along.

This long-forgotten Thames TV children's drama series (originally broadcast 1 October - 7 November 1968) was directed by Mike Hodges (best known for Get Carter) and was scripted by Trevor Preston who wrote other Thames series Ace Of Wands and episodes of The Sweeney. It combines a psychedelic pop soundtrack with swinging London locations and fashions, to great effect. So while not a music show as such it tapped into the genre with its self-consciously hip style of writing and direction, and by utilising current trends in pop.

The 6-part series was made to promote the London region whose territory Thames had just secured. Based on a novel by Aylmer Hall (published by London Transport), it was designed to encourage teenagers to visit the Capitol's various locations and was described by director Mike Hodges as "a microboppers London trip"! The story centres around three teenagers who search London for the mysterious 'Tyrant King' after overhearing a telephone call in an old house. The only clue they have is a strange drawing found in a wallet dropped by the villain. The trio visit numerous London locations including The South Bank Centre, St Pauls, The Shell Building, Carnaby Street, The Tower of London, The Commonwealth Institute, Kew Gardens and Greenwich. Being filmed entirely on location gives the show a fresh, urgent feel and dispenses with harshly-lit studio scenes that bog down so many dramas of the period and the London landmarks are shown off to good advantage.

Guest stars include Phillip Madoc as the mysterious 'Scarface' and Murray Melvin as the creepy villain 'Uncle Gerry'.

But it is the score which gives the series most of its cult appeal today. The pop art opening titles are displayed on a billboard in a busy London Street to the accompaniment of The Nice's obscure psych-pop anthem 'Thoughts Of Emerlist Davjack'. The various episodes utilise further tracks from The Nice's debut album as well as material from Cream's 'Wheels Of Fire' and 'Disraeli Gears', The Moody Blues 'In Search Of The Lost Chord' and most memorably Pink Floyd's 'Saucerful Of Secrets" and 'Piper at the Gates of Dawn'. In some cases the vocals have been edited out leaving the instrumental passages, perhaps best displayed by Jack Bruce's haunting cello intro from 'As You Said' which crops up in several paces.

Some tracks are cleverly used to accompany the action on screen so that the Moody Blues' 'Dr Livingston I Presume' with its 'we're all looking for someone' lyric features during search sequences, Cream's 'Passing The Time' is heard during a somewhat boring trip to The British Museum and Roger Water's 'Corporal Clegg' accompanies some soldiers marching in Hyde Park. Also the closing titles utilised the dramatic, building drum and piano part from Floyd's 'A Saucerful Of Secrets', a title which could easily sum up the plot.

Some of the locations are perhaps included to pad out the episodes and there are a few continuity errors, mainly involving the brightly-coloured fashions the teenagers wear (eg when they leave Kew Gardens and get on the bus). But all-in-all this is a must-see show for anyone interested in children's drama or with a love of 1960s London and pop music.

This is a fine entry in the Columbo series with the wonderful Dick Van Dyke giving a superb understated performance as long-suffering photographer Paul Galesko plotting a scheme to murder his nagging wife (Antoinette Bower). What makes it so good is the fact that when he kills her she says he won't get away with it and he replies that he doesn't care whether he does or not he just wants rid of her. Of course Columbo sees that he is caught and there's a lot of fun along the way. I particularly like the scene with the nun in the mission hall and the part where Columbo pretends to take some bad photographs at the cemetery in order to make Galesko feel superior. Also details like Columbo's entrance into the scrap yard where the cop thinks he's trying to sell his car for scrap and the scene where Columbo can't find an ashtray and uses his pocket. It all adds up to something very special. My only problem is that Galesko seems such a nice guy that I wanted him to get away with it. And I can't believe that someone so intelligent wouldn't take trouble to make sure that all the little details were taken care of. And that last scene where Columbo forces him to pick out the right camera to incriminate himself - why didn't he just say that he guessed it was that type of camera because of the type of photograph it was. He is after all a photography expert.

This is one of the later Columbo episodes and as other reviewers have noted is better than most, particularly because of the presence of George Hamilton. However there are a few anomalies which spoil the plot.

Firstly why would Anders go to all the trouble of planting new cigarette butts in Clarke's ashtray? To what purpose? He knows Clarke is a chain-smoker so if he wanted to fill up the ashtray why not use butts from other ashtrays? Also why plant one of his own news stories on Clarke's desk? Why not delete the incriminating story from the HD and then print out another of Clarke's stories or use any old document from a filing cabinet or drawer? By using one of his own stories it could easily be traced back to him.

And then there's the faked alibi surveillance tape. This seemed to consist only of shots of Anders walking in and out of his office, surely it would mainly consist of shots of the empty outer office thus indicating the long time period he was supposed to have spent there. I realize they are simplifying things for the viewers but it's not properly explained. Plus it's not really a very secure alibi anyway because Anders could just as easily have left by an emergency exit or window, travelled to Clark's house, committed the crime and returned, so there was no need to fake the tape.

It's almost as though Anders wanted to plant clues for Columbo to find, which I could forgive if these clues (particularly the cigarette butts) didn't directly lead to Columbo tracing the nicotine poisoning, thus indicating murder.

For someone who fronts a TV crime show surely Anders would have known better and made the crime as simple as possible.

Also a final word about the clue of the dogs claws. It was kind of lucky for Columbo that the 'friendly' dog had a claw missing because without that Anders (or his lawyers) could easily have claimed that the claw marks were made by another dog.

As an avid viewer of Shameless since series one I have noticed a gradual deterioration of the quality over the last two series (my rating is for series 6 and 7). I have now reached the point where I can no longer bear to watch wondering what horror show they will put on display next.

In this latest series we have already seen hard-man drug dealer Paddy doing ballroom dancing, Mimi joining the WI, Joe giving up his job to run a corner shop, Karen having mental problems and getting over them two minutes later and Ian rejecting his gay lifestyle to suddenly declare his love for his brother's ex-girlfriend. I could go on.

Now the latest episode saw poor unloved Liam find solace with an 84 year old WWII veteran only for his friendship to be confused with something more sinister. I could run with the that but the scene of Liam wearing his sister's dress under his clothes (because he was 'missing her') was probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen in a TV drama. Did Debbie ever wear such a dress? It looked more like something a bad Margaret Thatcher impersonator would have worn in the 1980s.

This ludicrous scenario was only created so that Libby could witness what she thought was a perverted act. I can only assume that the writers either think that all potential child molesters get children to dress up in such bizarre clothes or they were too lazy to do any proper research.? Or maybe they were worried in case we thought they knew too much. Either way they seem to be confusing transvestitism with child abuse.

Once this scenario was revealed to the rest of Liam's family Carl immediately wanted to go round their with a baseball bat to bash the pensioner's brains out. This was Carl who last week was in hiding after being accused of beating someone to death with a baseball bat, which makes sense.

It's almost as though the writers take the first pitiful ideas they think of and then get 14-year olds to write the scripts which are then used unedited. I seriously don't know how the actors can bear to appear in such badly written trash. You'd think they would be embarrassed. I bet a lot of them will be deleting Shameless from their CV's in the future. I know I am deleting it from my list of must see dramas.

Despite the obvious budget constraints this extended episode showed great promise at the start with some interesting characters and some meaty puzzles for Jonathan to get his teeth into. But about halfway through it suddenly started to unravel and every supposed answer to a mystery led to more questions which remained unanswered. Like a Swiss cheese, it tastes good but is full of holes.

To start with if Dore and his wife had planned the whole thing as an elaborate act of revenge wouldn't they be a bit perturbed when world-famous mystery-solver Jonathan Creek turned up? Isn't he likely to spot what's going on? So when Jonathan and Joey get trapped in the coal cellar wouldn't it be more likely that Dore or his wife trapped them in there on purpose to keep them out of the way instead of it being the accident that it was.

This means that the Dores didn't know that Jonathan and Joey are conveniently out of the way they should have been worried that they might show up in the middle of the 'murder' and spoil the whole thing. Added to this weren't they worried that Emily might also show up in the garden in the middle of the 'murder' when she was supposedly in the upstairs room pushing Mrs Dore out of the window. Their plan depended on split second timing and they seem to have left everything to chance for it to work which is unlikely for two intelligent people.

Also we learn that in order to plan their revenge the Dores managed to trace both Emily and her friend. Then Mrs Dore had the wherewithal to kidnap Emily's friend, keep her (drugged?) in the coal cellar and then kill her at precisely the right time in order to use her for the elaborate fake murder scene. And she also had to remove her from the cellar so she wasn't there when Jonathan and Joey started searching the place. And the business of ensuring the body would land on the railing spikes. How on earth would they rehearse such a thing? All that demands a huge stretch of the imagination, more than I think even the most gullible viewer has.

Also after the murder how did the Dores know that the two witnesses would both go inside enabling them to switch the bodies back? If one of them had stayed their plan would have been scuppered.

Plus are we supposed to believe that for the sake of executing revenge on her husband's brother's killers Mrs Dore was prepared to live the rest of her life as a recluse with no contact with her family sand friends? Or were they in on it as well?

Also I was confused by the the role of the priest. I thought at first that he was C of E but the fact that he took confession means he must have been Catholic. Do they normally have such Catholic churches in rural England? And at the end were we supposed to think that Dore killed the priest to stop him from reporting what he thought he had heard to the Police?

If the place where the Judas tree is planted is where Emily and her friend killed Dore's brother wouldn't Emily have recognised it from the map she finds in their office?.

Emily does not look anywhere near old enough to be twenty years older than she was in 1988 and it didn't help that the younger Emily was played by an actress that looked nothing like her. That only served to confuse matters further.

In the Victorian legend they never explained how Selima had the ability to fill the Doctor's watch with HCN gas. Was she both a scientist and an engineer? And how did she find an exact replica of his watch to make the device?

Of course fanciful explanations and occasional inconsistencies are all part of the fun of Jonathan Creek and normally I would ignore them but usually the chemistry and comedy between Creek and his collaborator make up for it. Sadly the comedy elements in this episode were rather forced and frankly unfunny. For example the scene in the cellar where Jonathan relieves himself in the cat litter. If all he was doing was having a pee why didn't he do it straight into the bag? Also the scene where Mr Dore comes to the neighbours house to hide the pipe and Jonathan and Joey are forced to hide. This is only done so Joey can get stuck in the vase. Considering they had just learned how Mrs Dore had hidden from Emily in the bathroom why didn't they just do the same thing? (and regarding hiding the bamboo pipe, wouldn't it have been more fun if Dore had placed it in one of the numerous pot plants there as a cane, that would be a more JC-style solution than hiding it in a drawer).

Also the scenes where Jonathan picks Emily up at a bus stop and takes her back to a hotel room were not only unfunny and highly unlikely (Creek is too uptight to be so spontaneous) but were also unnecessary as they did nothing to serve the plot.

When David Renwick is on form he is excellent but when he is not it is somewhat embarrassing to watch. There were a few One Foot In The Grave episodes which suffered in a similar way but this perhaps is the worst yet. Of course it may not be entirely his fault but whoever is responsible I hope they consider more credible plots and funnier sub plots in any future episodes.

The most interesting thing about this low budget British B-picture is that the screenplay was by Avengers creator Brian Clemens. The plot is the all-too-familiar tale of a man wrongly accused of murder who has to rely on his own efforts to clear his name. The twist here is that he is sent to jail and faces execution and so is forced to escape to reveal the truth. The cast do an adequate job but the best actor by far, Sandra Dorne, is underused with only two brief scenes. Keiron Moore is totally unconvincing as a bandleader turned crime fighter and it's hard to gain any sympathy for his character who is given too little room to develop.

Mainly studio bound with some clunky sets there are some location shots used during the escape scemes but as these are mostly dome at night with minimal lighting so it's hard to see why they bothered.

All-in-all it's not a bad film but it's badly executed (if you'll pardon the pun). So I wouldn't go out of your way to see it but if it ever turns up on TV it'll pass 70 mins if you've nothing better to do.

This isn't a bad entry in the Columbo cannon but it isn't very good either. Neither the story or the acting held my attention and as some other posters have said Columbo isn't his usual chipper self so we don't even get to enjoy Peter Falk's performance.

Also the plot has a few holes in it. Firstly the scene where Colubo tries to reveal the identity of the married woman Frank Brailie is having an affair with. He takes the toothbrush from the bathroom cabinet as evidence and confronts the woman, but as he obtained the item without using a search warrant and with other officers present this evidence is inadmissible.

Also the ending doesn't really work. Columbo makes a lot of the box not being big enough to hold the books which is how he breaks Brailie's alibi, but up to this point nothing has been said about the two boxes and labels, so no explanation is made as to how Columbo can prove which box was delivered when and was used to house what. As with the toothbrush it relies on the accused falling for Columbo's version of events. All-in-all not very convincing.

This British film noir is not bad it's just not particularly good. The story offers a good premise with a supposed dead man returning home to seek revenge and there are some interesting characters but overall the script let's the story down and it's hard to hold viewers attention all the way through. So much that viewers might find themselves noticing goofs, in particular the kitchen, the layout of which changes half way through. In an early scene when Vickers first arrives home he makes himself some breakfast and the stove is by the window. In a later scene he is making coffee and now the stove is now on an interior wall. I want a kitchen like that! I was particularly disappointed with Paulette Goddard's character who isn't given enough to do and when she is on screen comes across badly. The scene where she stops Vickers and Saul fighting is laughable. She is supposedly rushing across the room to stop them but she teeters on her heels, hands aloft, like Barbara Windsor in a Carry On film purring 'stop that!' like she couldn't give a damn who gets hurt. Paul Carpenter gives good value as always and is perhaps the most convincing character on board. Worth watching if you've nothing better to do but not one of Hammer's best Brit noirs.

This series is not drivel or awful as another poster has claimed (which are frankly lazy and rather predictable comments). Minder 2009 is a credible update of the original with some nice touches and some truly funny moments. Admittedly not all of the plots held my attention and some details didn't add up but it was better than most remakes of past classics (remember Ralph Fiennes in The Avengers, Reeves and Mortimer in Randall and Hopkirk, etc).

To be fair the second incarnation of Minder in the 1990s (with George Cole and Gary Webster) was not that good but it was liked because it had most of the elements of the original. Roll forward 15 years and it would be wrong to expect more of the same, especially without Cole and Waterman or indeed Webster. But Richie doing his Alfie Moon act and the likable Shrapnel have given life to new characters who are nod back to the past but with their feet planted firmly in the twenty-first century. With better plots and sharper dialog there is no reason why this shouldn't become a classic.

This is a delightful whimsical comedy with an excellent cast led by Richard Hearne. Best known for his portrayal as the bumbling Mr Pastry here he efficiently plays Mr Wrigley, writer of the 'Miss Robin Hood' stories in the children's comic The Teenager. He meets aged fan Miss Honey (Margaret Rutherford) and aids her in her quest to recover her family's recipe for Honey-Cup ale which was stolen long ago by a rival brewery. They recover some cash as well which helps Miss Honey run her orphanage and gives Mr Wrigley a new lease of life.

Various comic scenes follow in particular a chase though London's streets at night and a marvelous scene where Mr Wrigley, fueled by Honey-Cup, resigns from his job at The Teenager. The story perhaps slightly looses its way but has a charming ending borrowed from Ealing's Hue and Cry, where children converge on the head office of The Teenager to demand that the writer of 'Miss Robin Hood' be reinstated.

The most unexpected element of the film is the unusual use of avant garde photography. The director was clearly an Orson Welles fan as the numerous upward angular shots and starkly-lit scenes have more in common with Citizen Kane or The Third Man than any Ealing effort. Of particular note is a beautiful set up where fellow employees at the publishers search for Mr Wrigley on the premises and we see a superb shot of a circular stairwell looking up where various heads pop out of the banister rail calling for our hero.

This is now available on DVD at a budget price and can once again be enjoyed by fans of British comedy.

This is a neat little crime drama which packs a lot into its 65 minute running time. It has all the right ingredients - a mystery corpse, a weary middle-aged cop Corrigan (Walter Kinsella) and his rookie sidekick Tobin (John Miles), a shadowy killer on the loose and even love interest for the Tobin in the shape of a female botanist Mary (Patricia Wright) who helps solve the crime. There's also a terrific shoot-out finale which takes place in a stone cutters yard.

Watch out for a terrific goof near the start of this movie where Lt. Corrigan refers to the dead woman as 'Tatooed Tilly' BEFORE the coroner reveals that she had a tattoo (confusing huh?). Also later when Tobin is chasing the killer across the back yards he is suddenly shown going in the wrong direction at one point - no wonder he didn't catch him!

Like others in this drama series believability is often stretched to the limit. At face value this tries to be a sensitive portrayal of a married man who discovers he is gay but unfortunately it is let down by following every gay-drama cliché in the book.

There is no indication at all that Charlie is gay until he is propositioned by work mate Tom and this leaves the unfortunate impression that he wasn't interested in men until he was 'seduced'. A tired old banality. The gay club Tom later takes him to is ludicrously portrayed as a place where men in drag, erotic male dancers and violent queer-bashers all share the same space. Any sense of reality is lost when Charlie gets mugged by an abusive homophobe in the toilet of the gay club. Simply unbelievable! This unrealistic scene only happens so the crime gets reported to the police and Charlie's gay encounter will be exposed.

Charlie rings a gay help line that is ridiculously portrayed as some kind of sex line that charges premium rates. The ensuing massive phone bill is important for the plot but is a gross misrepresentation of any real gay advice service. When the police become involved in investigating the earlier mugging the writer seems to be unaware of changes in police attitudes in the last 10 years. In this drama the police betray Charlie's 'gay secret', ultimately to his son, resulting in one of those awful scenes from gay dramas of the 1980's involving lots of shouting, punching, blood and violence where gay characters loudly confess all to an assembled group of startled heterosexuals. All a bit naff really.

Throughout the whole piece there is a nasty feeling that if only he hadn't had his brief encounter with Tom everything would be fine. Nowhere is this more evident than the scene where Charlie is confronted by his son.

The acting throughout was excellent but the plot lacked realism. A wasted opportunity.

This is an interesting, well made film, with a great cast, but spoiled by an ending which just doesn't add up: When Miss Marple reveals that it is Kirsten Lindstrom behind the murder of Rachel she says that Kirsten was in love with Jacko and under his instruction killed Rachel at 8pm (to give him an alibi) and stole the money. He told her to bring the money to him and we see her in the rowing boat coming back from taking the money to him.

This doesn't make sense for two reasons. If Kirsten killed Rachel at just after 8pm but was back by 8.40 (we see the clock just before she finds the body) this doesn't really allow enough time for her to creep out of the house unseen, row over to the other side of the river, give the money to Jacko somehow, row back to the island and get back in the house. And what was to stop someone else walking in to the study to find the body before she got back and thus finding that she (Kirsten) was absent. She was also rather lucky that although Tina did see her in the boat she didn't talk to her but rode off thinking she was Micky.

But even if you concede that all this was possible, if Jacko is one the other side of the river waiting for the money at approx 8.15pm then he can't be in the car with Dr. Calgary at 8pm, miles away, to establish his alibi (we see Jackso asking Calgary the time, he answers '8pm'). He should be miles away from the house, travelling away from it, not near by. In other words there was no point in asking Kirsten to kill his mother he might as well have done it himself.

Added to this Miss Marple's assumption that Jacko didn't reveal who killed Rachel because if he had then he would have been set free but would have been killed anyway (presumably by those he owed money to) also doesn't make sense. The whole point of killing Rachel was to get the money. He got the money and so presumably paid off his creditors so he wouldn't have been killed by them. She seems to be crediting his character with a higher moral value than that of Kirsten but for what reason? It just doesn't make sense.

This has all the hallmarks of Christie thinking up a complex plot with the character you least suspect turning out to be responsible, and for a reason you would never think of, but in order to make such a thing possible all logic goes awry. But I suspect that it is not Christie to blame but the producers. Is the original Christie story the same as this?

Watching this entry in the Edgar Wallace Mysteries series it's hard to believe that John Thaw was just 21 years old at the time. He plays a hard bitten, world-weary villain who's trying to steal the takings from a betting shop. He acts like someone a good ten years older than his years and gives a very impressive performance. An excellent supporting cast, believable dialogue and good use of locations make this a top notch minor crime thriller. All-in-all a very entertaining 55 minutes.

Alan Roper (Thaw) tells Turf Accountant Larry Hart (Lee Montague) that he is planning to steal £60,000 and Hart offers to launder the money for him at his usual rate ('Five to one', ie £12,000). What Hart doesn't know is that it is actually his money Roper intends to steal, ie the £12,000 Hart will gather to pay him.

Hart tells his clerk not to bank his takings that week because he will need at least £12,000 of ready cash for a business deal, in fact it is to cover his arrangement with Roper. Meanwhile Roper has set up his girlfriend Pat (Ingrid Hafner) to have a sexual liaison with married insurance broker Deighton (Ewan Roberts) at a flat where Pat is babysitting. Roper and his associate Len (Brian McDermott) pose as Pat's husband and a private detective threatening to site Deighton as a co-respondent in their divorce. Roper blackmails Deighton into revealing details of Hart's insurance policy at the shop which include security information and the safe combination.

When they receive the policy details from Deighton they discover that his company have only overseen the insurance for his house, not his shop. So Roper and his gang engineer a complex plan. They break into Hart's home after drugging him and make copies of his house and shop keys. They then stage a dummy break-in at the betting shop but get away before they are caught. This forces Hart to put the £12,000 into his safe at home where Roper's gang plan to steal it. This all goes according to plan except Hart had his suspicions and had the combination of his safe changed after transferring the cash. However determined not to be outdone Roper and Len mess up the house and wait until Hart arrives home. When he opens the safe to check it they knock him out and steal the cash.

However the plan fails because the house they chose to use for the babysitting/blackmail scam turned out to be the home of the detective investigating the case, Inspector Davis (Jack Watson). Deighton got cold feet and went back to the flat to confront Pat and upon learning the truth told the Inspector everything.

So there's a neat twist in the tale which is one of the more intelligent and believable entries in the Edgar Wallace series. If you get a chance to see it, do so.

I have just seen this for the first time in years and still love the unusual setting, the cheeky reference to 'boy genius' Stephen Spelberg and of course Robby The Robot.

But I cannot for the life of me fathom out why on earth someone as intelligent as the murderer Cahill (Jose Ferer) would give himself away by smoking a cigar just after killing the victim. An obvious giveaway and seemingly only included as a clue for Columbo to find.

And what was the point of the brandy glasses? Presumably Cahill was hoping to frame someone else but this point is never properly addressed. Anyone else have any theories?

Despite the occasional flaw the original Columbo series is one of television's all-time classic crime shows. So successful in fact that when Peter Falk originally bowled out in 1978 NBC came up with a brilliant idea, why not make his never-seen wife 'Mrs Columbo' a part-time crime solver, using the same methods employed by her husband?

This premise would be stretching things somewhat if Mrs Columbo appeared as surely how most people must see her, a forty-something, fiery Italian matriarch, perhaps in the mould of English actress Miriam Margolyes. But to employ the services of glamorous 24-year old actress (of Irish extraction) Kate Mulgrew is totally ludicrous.

I have only seen one episode Murder Is A Parlour Game, and despite a superb cast including Donald Pleasence and Don Baker, it was enough to convince me that Mrs Columbo was a bad idea. The plot was wafer-thin and offered very little to hold viewers' interest. The police are made to look like stupid meat heads leaving glamorous Kate to use her feminine charm to solve the mystery. Only she doesn't have any charm. Unlike her hubby who wins the murderers round with wily cunning, Kate is just an annoying, know-all. Fans of the original Columbo series should avoid this like the plague.

NBC knew they were onto a looser when the ratings dropped after the first few episodes were aired. Viewers just couldn't believe that Kate Mulgrew was Columbo's wife so the producers changed the name of the series, twice, eventually giving Kate a different surname, Callahan, to completely disassociate the series with Columbo. If they had done this in the first place it might just have been a success.

The quickly edited opening titles and Bach-style theme music reminded me of the later, vastly superior crime series Murder She Wrote. Both shows were created by Richard Levinson and William Link so in a way Mrs Columbo was a blueprint for that show. Curiously Kate Mulgrew guested in a few episodes of Murder She Wrote and I wonder if she thought to herself 'this should've been me'.

When you hear the name Gerry Anderson most people will think of classic animated fantasy serials such as Thunderbirds and Captain Scarlet but in the 1970s he also directed live action dramas including Space 1999 and The Protectors. However this neat crime drama proves that he was already doing so as early as 1960 although it appears to be his only foray into this field at the time.

The film stars Anthony Oliver as Police officer Don Ross who discovers a ruthless group of hijackers are using a transport café and petrol station as a base. He ends up investigating alone, taking bribes from gang leader Diamond (George Murcell) to make them think he is on their side and eventually works with them on a robbery to steal a load of nickel. It all ends with a shoot out at the gangs HQ with gang member Johnny turning out to be another undercover policeman who helps Ross put a stop to the gang's activities.

The film boasts an impressive cast with Ferdy Mayne as gang boss Miles (one of a long line of creepy screen villains), George Murcell as gang leader Diamond, David Graham (and Gerry Anderson stalwart) as Johnny and ever-reliable Harry Towb and Victor Maddern as lorry drivers. Less impressive are Miriam Karlin as chain-smoking cafe owner Connie who can't seem to recall from scene-to-scene whose side her character is supposed to be on, and Arthur Rigby as the Police Sergeant whose eye-rolling antics and mugging to camera do not pass as acting in my book.

There are one or two unintentionally comical moments, most notably the early scene where Ross witnesses Diamond and his henchmen roughing up Connie before bundling her into a car. Ross quickly runs up to help her, ending up clinging on to the side of the car while it accelerates along the road. This goes on for some time and, while dramatic, is rather badly done in long shot with the uniformed figure rather obviously being a cheap dummy adhered to the car door. Also the score by Barry Gray, whilst very nicely done, falls some way short of being apt for a serious crime drama and is perhaps more suitable for a kids animation show.

The opening titles reveal this to be part of the long running Merton Park Edgar Wallace Mystery Theatre series. However while produced by Anglo-Amalgamated it was not made at Merton Park but at Anderson's APF studios in Maidenhead. It was not based on a book by Edgar Wallace but from an original story. It was seemingly later added to the Edgar Wallace roster. Interestingly Barry Gray has written a nice, gentler arrangement of Michael Carr's classic Edgar Wallace opening title theme, with woodwind, strings and accordion replacing the usual guitar. Curiously the bust of Edgar Wallace looks a bit like Mr Anderson!

The film was made on location in Slough and Maidenhead (and partly at the Halliford Studios in Shepperton). Connie's cafe is actually The Barton Cafe which was located opposite Anderson's APF Studios in Maidenhead.

This low-key Btritish film presents an interesting twist on the usual crime drama. An army deserter Rod Fenner (superbly played by Lee Patterson) blackmails a young lady Ann Coltby (Ann Sears) into revealing the whereabouts of some jewels stolen by her father 20 years earlier. The drama doesn't quite live up to the title (it's all cat and no mouse) but there is some good dialogue and Lee Patterson plays his role just this side of psychotic. You're never quite sure what he's going to do next.

However there are a few overplayed hard-to-swallow scenes, most notably the point where Ann first realises she is being held prisoner and is about to smash the window and cry out for help. Rod catches her and stops her by throwing a cushion at her. I have never seen anyone fall to the ground and pass out after being hit by a cushion. also later when Rod ties Ann to a chair he does so in such a way that it would be very easy to escape (all she has to do is raise her legs because he hasn't tied those to the chair). But thankfully these moments don't spoil the drama too much.

A welcome bonus is a superb jazz-like score by Edwin Astley, watch out for the moment in the final scene where a group of street musicians play a specially arranged version of the title theme.

Incidentally the other poster who suggests that there is a scene missing at the end where the policeman (Victor Maddern) fights Rod and gets the broken arm we see him with at the end of the film is wrong. I think this scene is purposely not shown, the director has left it up to us to imagine what happened.

This film starts off like an episode of The Avengers with the gang leader (the wonderfully-named Cheta) and her boys posing as a titled lady, her chauffeur and two city gents in order to steal gems from a smart London jewellry store. The way the two city gents karate chop the sales assistants and later meet up in a gents washroom to change their appearance and act in unison is pure camp. However the story soon looses momentum, turning into a more restrained, run-of-the-mill crime drama, albeit with some unusual touches.

One or two scenes are unintentionally funny. I like the inane chat between the two policemen at the start where the American (who smokes very furiously) is told by the other cop that an 'international' gang could just be an ordinary gang who move around a lot! You almost get the sense that this piece was improvised on the spot to fill five minutes. I also like the scene about half way through where Peter, John and Claude are waiting in the park for Cheta and it stops raining instantaneously as though someone had just turned the garden sprinkler off (which they probably had).

The cool Latin-flavoured jazz score is by Edmondo Ross and watch out for Edmondo making a cameo appearance in the first night club scene introducing 'The Primatives' stage show (watch out for the guys' frilly puff-sleeve shirts).

There are so many funny moments to enjoy in this series. Despite being written by a gay man it's not just about being gay but about being a certain type of man of a certain age. There are so many '70s and early '80s kitsch cultural references here it's frightening: Eurovision, ABBA, That's Life, Olive from On The Buses, Pam Ayres, Su Pollard in Hi-De_Hi, Dolly from Widows, Wincey Willis - Johnatahan Harvey and I obviously share so much more than just a sexual interest in men.

Then there's the witty dialogue. My favourite parts are where Tom tries out his terrible acting skills which seems to waver between spoofing Audrey Hepburn in My Fair Lady ('I'm a good girl, I am'!) to something akin to gangsters in fifties British B-movies and villains wives in The Bill. I recently saw a 1951 British film called The Scarlet Thread. It's worth watching because near the end Laurence Harvey - an East End gangster posing as an American - suddenly drops his phony Yankee accent and goes into something straight out of the Tom Farrell School of Acting. It's not just the terrible Cockney accent but the ham acting as well.

Laurence Harvey plays a young down-and-out hoodlum, Freddie, who Sydney Taffler (Marcon) employs to help him on a smash and grab raid. But this isn't just any robbery but the theft of a piece of rare ceremonial jewellry in Cambridge associated with a University college. All goes well until a man stands in the way of them and their getaway car and Freddie shoots the man who falls into the getaway car. Freddie and Marcon flee pursued by a gang of college students and take refuge in a college garden. Meanwhile the getaway driver Sam (Harry Fowler) dumps the car ensuring that the body, and the man's identity, isn't discovered until much later in the day. Marcon and Freddie pose as two college visitors and befriend Josephine (Kathleen Byron), the daughter of a professor, while they plan their escape. Eventually they are caught when it is revealed that their victim's identity is the college professor and the missing jewellry is discovered. There is much to enjoy in this long-forgotten British thriller, although it turns into something of a melodrama half way through. Directed by Lewis Gilbert (best known for Alfie and The Spy Who Loved Me) it has some interesting features, including some superb location filming in Cambridge and some good performances, most notably by Tafler and Kathleen Byron. Harry Fowler however is wasted in a few brief scenes as the getaway driver Sam.

The main problem is that it is based on a stage play and it shows. While the first half is exciting and daring, the second half is plodding and unconvincing. Too much time is wasted with Freddie posing as an American falling for Jospephine simply because she is the type of sophisticated woman he could never normally have. The idea that two desperate thieves would carry out such a ridiculous charade just doesn't make sense. It is also never fully explained how and why Marcon really was at Cambridge but has now been reduced to carrying out smash and grab raids to make a living. The only interesting aspect in the second half is the underlying suggestion that Marcon is gay and despises Freddie's interest in women which eventually leads to their downfall.

There is also one unintentionally funny moment near the end which puts the tin lid on the film being anywhere near a classic. When Josephine realises that Freddie is the killer she confronts him. Caught off guard he suddenly drops his assumed American accent, but reverts to an equally fake RADA-style comic book Cockney accent of the type spoofed by James Dreyfus as Tom Farrell in the sitcom Gimme Gimme Gimme. I'd be very surprised if writer Johnathan Harvey wasn't inspired by his namesake's performance in this scene because it's not just the accent that's questionable but there's some terrible overacting as well. Harvey doesn't look at his accuser but shifts about nervously with his eyes darting back and forth like a spectator at a tennis match. It's in the same league as Anita Dobson hamming it up as Angie Watts in EastEnders and Audrey 'Im a good girl I am' Hepburn In My Fair Lady. Fascinating to watch but terrible at the same time.

Another odd aspect is the ending which just fizzles out without a proper denouement. We don't know if the police arrest the thieves and we don't know if Marcon lives or dies. I suspect that the print I saw is missing a few scenes at the end because I can't believe that the director would leave things up in the air in this way.

In a film full of future film and TV icons (James Bond, Dr Who, The Prisoner, The Pink Panther, Carry On, etc) it is also an odd coincidence that the literal cliff-hanger ending with Stanley Baker dangling off the edge of the quarry edge in his truck is similar to the coach on the cliff top in The Italian Job. Even more so when you realise that it was Stanley Baker's production company who made The Italian Job. It's not so drawn out and unlike The Italian job has a definite ending with the truck crashing into the quarry but it makes you wonder if Sir Stanley remembered the ending and borrowed it for the later film.

This starts off slowly but gradually builds into a neat, satisfactory thriller. A notorious gang are cracking safes across London and an insurance company has put up a £2,000 reward for any information. One of the investigators, Baxter (Wayne Morris), tries to gain information from an underworld contact Mr Popoulus (or as Baxter insists on calling him 'Mr 'Populace') which proves to be a red herring. Meanwhile Baxter's girlfriend and secretary, Sally Morton (the excellent Sandra Dorne, proving that there was more to her than gangster's molls and good-time girls) uncovers some clues to the gang's identity when she spots a street band playing outside the jeweller's workshop that's just been robbed. This eventually leads to a back street pawnbroker who appears to be operating the gelignite gang but the identity of the real 'Mr G' isn't revealed until a gripping climax in a warehouse at the docks. A sub plot involving a young jeweller's assistant borrowing items from his employers to pawn for cash distracts from the central story but it all develops quite realistically. There are some dodgy moments however such as the scene where Baxter asks his secretary on a date by dictating it to her as a letter, and there is the obligatory night club sequence with the song 'Soho Mambo' (which is as bad as it sounds) sung by now-forgotten model/actress Simone Silva who died tragically a few years later from a stroke at the age of 29. Also it's unrealistic that the street-wise jewelery clerk Chapman (James Kenney) is willing to tell all he knows about the robbery to Baxter for a mere fiver when the reward was £2,000. The credits reveal the film was made in 1954 at The Brighton Film Studios (not in Southall) and so presumably on location in Brighton.