epiphany-5

When I first heard about Netflix's Polo, even I was sceptical and unlike many of the reviewers here, who are nasty, bitter and hateful trolls who loathe The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and are review-bombing Polo, I actually like the two executive producers. But I was still sceptical.

How would they make a show about polo, a sport viewed as elitist, interesting? I found out when I watched it. The format somewhat follows their previous release Heart of Invictus in that it focused closely on some very competitive polo players, weaving in their personal lives with their love of the sport they play which added a lot of human interest. One common theme I noticed is there's a great deal of father-issues going on here, whether the fathers in question are alive or not.

The audience gets to know youngsters Timmy Dutta and Keko Magrini alongside scene-stealer and silver fox Louis Devaleix, who is over 40, has a potty mouth and an almost unhealthy obsession with winning.

We're also introduced to father and son pair Adolfo and Poroto Cambiaso, with the former described as "the Michael Jordan of polo", while the latter is well on his way to becoming just as much of a legend.

All are focused on the upcoming US Open and across the five episodes, we see how much their dedication rules their lives. Along the way, helpful commentary is provided by the likes of Nacho Figueras, Prince Harry's friend and the two executive producers make a brief appearance too.

This is a world that is so foreign to mine and yet Polo totally held my interest across the five episodes; I thought it was extremely well done. Expect the usual vitriol from the usual haters but Harry and Meghan have definitely delivered if you like your reality TV with testosterone, suspense and a bit of glitz, glamour and horses. Grab your popcorn and then Netflix and chill to Polo.

'Friends' was superlative ensemble comedy (the early years were easily the best) but within that framework, its pièce de résistance was the hilarious, yet often touching, relationship between Joey and Chandler. I didn't give 2 hoots about Ross and Rachel by the end (neither did the writers if you ask me) but the show stayed true to Joey and Chandler; it was their goodbye in the final episode which really hit the emotional jackpot.

Joey and Chandler easily join the likes of Norm and Cliff from Cheers, Frasier and Niles from Frasier, Fletcher and Godber from Porridge, Steptoe and Son etc. as a memorable sitcom double act.

And therein lies the rub.

One of the problems with Joey (the series) is that it's yet to find another Chandler; it's crying out for a strong enough substitute foil for its star.

Although undoubtedly brought in to partly fulfil that role, I'm not convinced that Drea de Matteo (as Joey's trashy hairdresser sister Gina) can do it in the long run. As currently written, Gina is too abrasive; she's a turn-off, not a turn-on. If the writers are looking to tweak the show (and they should), the obvious candidate for elevation is Joey's nephew Michael.

In Cheers, in Frasier, in most ensemble comedies, there are episodes in which the main characters(s) take a back seat and the focus is on a supporting character. And that's another problem with this show - some of the supporting characters are not quite ringing true yet; Joey's agent - yes. Joey's sister - no.

Another weakness is the most important key to any show's success - the writing. Joey is not character-led and driven comedy (yet?). Instead, it's plot-driven, often with punchlines that even Stevie Wonder can see coming. The humour isn't consistently generating from quirks of behaviour. In a good character-driven show, the characters gradually evolve and develop more depth and when that happens, the series as a whole grows more mature, and often, grows funnier. The sooner that happens, the better for Joey.

When 'Cheers' ended, I was devastated. But spin off 'Frasier' quickly developed into must-see viewing thanks to clever writing.

All the necessary elements for televisual success were quickly established; a wonderful infectious theme tune (I'll give you a £1,000,000 if you can hum or whistle that...noise...unfortunately attached to Joey), solid, quirky characters, fab story lines, convincing central relationships, intelligent/witty/bawdy/farcical/wonderfully silly humour and interesting supporting characters.

Of that list - only the occasional 'Joey moment' is keeping me tuned to this new spin off and last week, I turned over during the commercial break...and forgot to turn back. The reason? Joey simply isn't delivering enough of the components outlined above; as it currently stands, it's a very uneven show providing a laugh out loud moment one week and an inability to raise so much as a smile, the next.

It will take a while for Joey to find its feet but take it from a Cheers fan, unfavourable comparisons to the originating show will ONLY stop if the spin off establishes itself in its own right.

In reality, Joey is A.N.Other sitcom which just happens to have Matt LeBlanc from Friends as its star. In addition to all that I've highlighted, this show desperately needs an identity.

And the first thing the powers that be should do to help give it one is change the God-awful theme tune.

weight: 8st, 10 lbs (message to film-makers: why imbue Bridget Jones's Diary with Brit terms such as, "having a slash" and "bugger" et al if only to score massive own-goal via BJ's weighing routine? UK women weigh in stones and pounds. Bridget is not "138 lbs" - Bridget is 9 stone, 12 lbs. Minor irritant - no doubt concession to Yank audience. S'pose it's too much to ask Yank audience to adapt for 135 mins).

cigarettes: 0 alcohol units: 0 boyfriend: 0.

Application to nunnery in post.

_________________________________________________________

Appears self is in unique club; able to enjoy novel upon which movie is based and captivated by celluloid version too. Key to this is recognising each as separate entities; both work in their own way. Vive la difference! No point expecting exact conversion of book to film with all scenes intact. How often Hollywood achieve this? At least this adaptation not as egregiously criminal as 1940 Pride & Prejudice movie starring Laurence Olivier, Greer Garson and incorrect century (impossible to review BJD and not mention P&P!).

Rom coms one of self's favourite movie genres - especially 30s/40s screwball variety (Cary Grant - ding dong!). Modern interpretations largely forgettable. Few jewels in the crown; "Annie Hall", "When Harry Met Sally" and "There's Something About Mary" instantly spring to mind. Not much else. However, self will add "BJD" to list of fave rom coms despite fact that it's not as clever as "Annie Hall" nor as witty as "Harry/Sally" nor as inventive as "Mary". Reason BJD joins list is because it's a delightful, perfectly cast little movie. Leaves one warm and snugly inside unlike "How To Lose Guy In 10 Days" which made self empty contents of stomach into nearest toilet bowl at way-too-corny denouement.

BJD movie not without flaws. Firstly, bit short. Needed 15 more minutes of biting observation of desperate singletons playing and failing at dating game. Could've achieved this via extension of scenes with BJ's wacky, neurotic circle of friends (Shazza, Tom and Jude).

Secondly, uncomfortable with some of the physical comedy. Example: Bridget arriving at hotel with Daniel and hair resembling candy floss. Struck wrong note. Infinitely prefer subtlety of comedy of manners scenes. Example: Una and Pam's hilariously obvious matchmaking attempts via pretence of lumpy gravy. Hahahaha! Mark and Bridget send up said gravy scene as they prepare food in her kitchen. They're all too aware what Una and Pam were up to - very sweet and funny moment. Melts your heart.

Have read reviews where some moaned couldn't see chemistry between Bridget and Mark. Get eyes tested! 'Blue Soup' dinner party segment is clincher! Positively crackled with electricity and sexual tension! Mark's warmth and obvious attraction makes B. coy. Marked comparison to the effect Cleaver has on B.

Cleaver makes B. horny - Mark makes her blush. BIG difference.

Finally, film needed more of Colin Firth. Even if he'd filled every single frame, self would still insist on more Colin Firth (!)

On the plus side: performances are wonderful! Ms Zellweger very commendable as BJ. Made her far more likeable than book version. UK accent is fine but what is really nailed is demeanour of insecure, neurotic, anxious, single woman in early 30s.

Hugh Grant a revelation as emotional f**kwit Daniel Cleaver. So good to see him expand his range and dump the fumbling fop schtick that he's lived on since '4 Weddings'. Brings a dangerous charm to his role - easy to see why Bridget falls for him. Heck, self wouldn't say no to tumble in sack with Cleaver! And who else in world but Hugh Grant can emit stupid, emasculating phrase, "Oh mummy!" during shag scene and make it sound so kinkily sexy?

Colin Firth is one aspect of celluloid adaptation that is vastly superior to book version. Picture perfect as Darcy in any century; Firth could play Darcy as cave-dwelling, Neanderthal and still produce same swooning effect on women. Defy P&P fans not to smile when Bridget addresses Mark as "Mr Darcy" during interview for 'Sit Up Britain'. Too funny! So glad Firth exhibiting sense of humour about the Darcy phenomenon. Out on his own when it comes to thawing reserved, repressed characters and giving them sex appeal, warmth and a dimension we never suspected existed.

But way, way, way out on his own in smouldering stakes: heart-fluttering ability to look at a woman with a mixture of both desire and tenderness, lust and fondness. It's all in his eyes. Eyes like a magnet - they draw you in. Phwoar! Watch his poignant expression during boating on lake scene as Cleaver and Bridget cavort around. Says a thousand words with one yearning look.

Considering that Firth's part is comparatively small, makes huge impression. Perfect foil for both Cleaver and Bridget.

Script not as hysterically funny as first BJ book but lines like, "You'll never get a boyfriend if you look like you've wandered out of Auschwitz" had self rolling in aisles.

Overall, film has freshness that is very endearing and appealing. Perfect date-movie and fab film to instil cheer on wet, rainy, grey Sundays. Gives rest of us singletons hope that we'll find our own Mark Darcy to love us just as we are. What more does one want or expect from a rom com?