Review of the Week: Winners & Losers

It's rare for me to get into a TV series and watch it all the way through. Television and I have a very turbulent relationship, usually because there's nothing on of interest and I just don’t have time to watch a series all the way through.

But this year, I became totally addicted on one series in particular after catching an episode in New Zealand. But surprisingly, it wasn’t made in Britain or America, and it wasn’t shown on a prime time slot (although it should have been!) In fact it was an Australian series called Winners & Losers, and it certainly won me over!

The show focuses on four women who were friends at high school, who meet up after a period of absence to catch up on their lives, each with their own story to tell. Before they depart, promising they will stay in touch, they buy a lottery ticket which, it transpires, is the winning ticket for $8 million Australian dollars.

Sounds a bit predictable you might think? Well, yes in some ways the show is predictable. It follows the story of four women leading turbulent yet glamorous lifestyles - similar to narratives of Sex and the City and Mistresses - but with subtle humour and an easier plot line to follow. All four girls have their own storylines. Jenny, played by Melissa Bergland, plays her part beautifully as the female who hasn’t quite grown up yet. Her scenes with her family in particular are highly amusing, and it’s no surprise to find out she’s won awards already for the role.

The other female protagonists offer interesting character traits too. Bek is the loved-up, newly engaged beauty that is loved by everyone but struggles with trust issues. Sophie is the sex-driven, drug-fuelled party girl of the gang and Francis is the responsible, independent businesswoman who works hard. Their backgrounds are intriguing and as the series progresses you learn more about their lives and become more engrossed in the drama.

The title basically gives the game away where narrative is concerned. Occasionally, the group find themselves ‘winning’ (where everything is going well) and then ‘losing’ (when something goes wrong.) The storylines unravel throughout, with such issues as drugs, underage drinking, bullying, attempted murder, cancer and pregnancy all cropping up throughout the 22 episode long first series.

The series was a standout success in Australia, and has already been handed a second series, which finished filming earlier this year. The show, annoyingly, is shown on ITV2 in the UK, who originally started showing it on Tuesday nights at 10pm, then moved it to an earlier lunchtime slot on a Sunday. It’s perhaps the only thing I like to watch on ITV2, and considering the appeal it has on audiences (particularly female), I would have thought ITV2 would have given it a more prime time slot instead.

So the series is a must watch! If you don’t enjoy it for the storylines, just watch it for my new favourite game, ‘Spot the former Neighbours character’, for the show features an array of former Neighbours stars (a few of which play main characters). The Gross family are particular favourites of mine, especially mum Trish, who despite an emotional storyline later on in the series, never fails to bring humour to the show.

So if you’re looking for a refreshing, easy-to-watch comedy drama series this summer to fall in love with, why not try Winners & Losers? You’d be a loser not to!

4/5 stars

Pictures courtesy of Wikipedia

Is The Voice on course to flop?

It all started so well for Britain's newest reality TV contest.

With a mass media operation exciting fans and drumming up support from the public, The Voice - the singing contest from Holland - launched to a ratings high of 10 million, the highest launch ever for a reality TV concept in the UK.

The concept is fresh, the judges are legends and the singers are VERY talented. So how come ratings have nearly halved in just a few weeks? Why can't The Voice, ironically, find it's voice with the UK audience?

It seems, to many, that the concept is just a little bit boring. OK, the Blind Auditions were fantastic. Genuinely great singers featured from the onset, and it was great to see the 'coaches' judging purely on The Voice. We saw singers from all age groups and all backgrounds performing and getting through to the Battle Rounds.

But it was the Battle Rounds where things hit a snag. You see, the unique concept of The Voice is the Blind Auditions. Now that they're over - they finished rather quickly, in my opinion - the whole idea of the spinning chairs and just focusing on The Voice is gone. It just turns into another music contest.

I personally liked the Battle Rounds, but sadly a lot of people disagreed. Ratings started to slip as some of the fan favourites, including Jessica Hammond who performed 'Price Tag' to critical acclaim, headed home. The problem was, a lot of the good acts were put against each other, meaning some great singers got through, but quite a few left too. The live shows then brought forward a mix of 'good' singers and some who, well, just don't really cut it.

And it seems the audience agrees with me. The most recent live show saw viewing figures drop to under 6 million, nearly half from the opening weekend. Many people I have spoken to have said it's boring now, the singers are dull and there's no chemistry between the judges.

And they're right. The judges/ coaches (or whatever you call them) do lack chemistry. Will.I.Am is very amusing, but his comments are too nice, the same with Danny and Tom. Tom is too old to know anything about the current music industry, and Danny is too unknown to really excite viewers. Plus, he stands up all the time (just sit down for once, please!) Jessie J on the other hand is an oddball; occasionally, she makes constructive criticism and she's usually right, but a lot of the time she comes across as a spoilt brat who is overshadowed by the three men.

The programme ideally sees itself as the 'nice guy' in the music world, but in reality, this never happens. We need a nasty record producer in there, and dare I say it, the show is missing the buzz and excitement surrounded by someone like Simon Cowell.

Although you'll never hear me admitting to liking the X Factor or Britain's Got Talent (both are terrible shows which exploit their own artists for a few laughs), you have to applaud them for being successful. Sadly, if The Voice can't pick itself up and raise viewing figures, ratings will fall flat. And no one likes a flat voice now do they?!

Pictures Courtesy of Wikipedia

Eastenders: where did it all go wrong?

I have always been given quite a bit of stick for watching Eastenders. I mean, I watch it religiously. When I am away on holiday, I usually find someway of watching it - legally or illegally - and am forever checking the entertainment news to find out what is going on on Albert Square.

It is sad really, but like a teddy you have kept with you since birth, I see it as a soother. Something that I have to take with me everywhere, something that if misplaced, I would very much miss.

All so I once thought. You see, any avid viewer of Eastenders would notice that, as of recent, the show has really let itself go. A few years ago, it was the king of the Soaps, with plenty of awards to its name, yet recently, it's lost ratings, cast members and even its executive producer. So where did it all go wrong?

The blame, I feel, should personally be given to Brian Kirkwood, who recently quit his role as executive producer, to the joy of many fans. The former Hollyoaks producer had certain knowledge, yet was given the gigantic, often impossible task of taking on the reigns at the BBC, filling the boots of Deidrick Santer, who had done such a fantastic job as executive.

Even before he had started the role, he was already faced with a cast mutiny. With two popular characters leaving - Peggy and Stacey - it was paramount that he brought back famous faces. And to some extent, he did. Popular couple Kat and Alfie soon made a return, yet this was overshadowed by other cuts, including most of the Slater family (he even admitted his mistake at cutting Jean, who was later re-written into the show) and the character of Minty, who had been in the show for more than 10 years.

He was immediately criticised for 'sexing' up the show by commentators, introducing characters such as Vanessa and Jodie Gold, Lola Pearce and Kim Fox to sex up the show, the latter being the only one who has shown real character potential. Other characters were introduced or returned, including Sonia and Lisa Fowler, only to disappear after one episode. Sam Mitchell, left soon after she returned, and Nicole Stapleteon, arriving only a year ago, is soon to depart, soon after the swift exit of Amira Masood. Interesting to note that the majority of these characters are blonde (just putting that out there.) Coincidence perhaps?

Understandably, all Soaps lose characters now and then. But the problem with Eastenders is that too many have gone, and not enough have been brought in to replace them. Kirkwood has, without a shadow of a doubt, tried to appeal to a new generation of young fans, with focus very much on the teens and kids of the soap, leading to the loss of older generations. Maybe this led to the departure of soap matriarch Pat Butcher, and fan favourites Heather Trott and Jane Beale?!

 But besides from the cast, what about the storylines? Perhaps his biggest mistake was the awful baby-kidnap plot involving Ronnie and Kat. I have no sympathy for him here, it was an awful storyline which was so far-fetched you would never have believed it if it wasn't for Kirkwood. For me, this was the turning point. It led to huge criticisms from all members of the public and society (over 10,000 complaints were made), and led to the departure of Ronnie Mitchell, played by the wonderful Samantha Womack. Ratings have declined ever since, with stories getting more and more far-fetched. Jodie and Darren, Lauren and her alcohol problem, Fatboy and Dot and so on, just a neverending line of bad decision making.

So what are his worst decisions so far? Here are my top five:

1. Cast losses - ultimately, this has been his number one flaw. If cast members leave, it suggests that something isn't working. The loss of Pat, Heather and Ronnie, to name a few, along with the temporary departures of Bianca, Ricky, Janine and Carol all suggest that the cast are not happy with the current producers.
2. Extending the Branning/ Moon families - both families are popular, but their new arrivals are absolutely awful. With the only exemption in the fantastic Cora, played by Ann Mitchell, the three Moon brothers, along with the terrible Derek Branning and the even worse Eddie Moon (played by crooner David Essex, who barely lasted 6 months in the role), have added little to the show. He would have been wise to stick with the characters he axed 2 years ago!
    
3. Storylines - the Ronnie baby plot was ridiculous, although this has been overshadowed by the recent Ben Mitchell storyline, which is so unbelievable I'm considering staging my own murder to show the producers how it's done. Please, once they introduce a new  producer, can they get rid of Ben!
    
4. Recasts - something strange which is usually criticised by audience members is when producers decide to re-cast actors. The problem with Kirkwood is that he brought in good actors, but changed the whole persona of the character, making it seem unrealistic. Ben went from camp and sweet to an evil thug, Lauren went from quiet to alcoholic and Lucy went from bitchy to, well, pretty dull. There's a lesson here, don't re-cast actors!
5. Youth - it was a given that, coming from Hollyoaks, Kirkwood would opt for a more youth feel to the show. But seriously? It's not Hollyoaks, it never will be so don't even bother. Get rid of Lola, Ben and the two Moon brothers, and please shut Fatboy up. Thanks.

 So, rant over! I am not going to hold my hands up and say I am never going to watch Eastenders again, partly because I am watching it now and partly because I look forward to the future. I am hoping that, once a new producer is sought, Eastenders will get its mojo back. It has been in a rut before (remember the 2004 years, with the dreadful Fererra family!?) and it can get itself out. But one things for sure, it needs change. Get rid of the characters that add little to the programme - i've mentioned a few already, but other might include Billy, Roxy, Derek and Michael. The show needs fresh characters, but not extended families - no, it needs completely new families. Introduce a few former characters, i.e. Sharon, which is the only god thing that Kirkwood has managed to get right in the last two years.

So alas, my weekday nights are still dedicated to Eastenders, but for how much longer? Time will tell.