johnbirch-2
Joined Jul 2008
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews73
johnbirch-2's rating
Given everything else Jeremy Clarkson has done, his three series stint as a chat show host is oddly forgotten. Which is a shame because it - and he - was brilliantly entertaining.
Essentially he reused what he had learnt here in with his "star in a reasonably priced car" interviews on Top Gear. The only difference was that in this show he had more time and greater freedom to venture into non-car things.
It was needless to say a bit controversial - I seem to recall that him microwaving Wales in one segment resulted in some fuss - but this is Clarkson, so what do you expect.
It did show what a talented - and perhaps rather wasted - TV talent Clarkson was, and is. Which may be an odd thing to say for someone who was on TV so much, but he is clearly a very clever guy who knows exactly what works and could do a variety of styles of TV ... but tended to go for the easy laugh perhaps too easily.
Which he often did here.
Nonetheless brilliantly entertaining if anyone ever has a chance to see it again.
Essentially he reused what he had learnt here in with his "star in a reasonably priced car" interviews on Top Gear. The only difference was that in this show he had more time and greater freedom to venture into non-car things.
It was needless to say a bit controversial - I seem to recall that him microwaving Wales in one segment resulted in some fuss - but this is Clarkson, so what do you expect.
It did show what a talented - and perhaps rather wasted - TV talent Clarkson was, and is. Which may be an odd thing to say for someone who was on TV so much, but he is clearly a very clever guy who knows exactly what works and could do a variety of styles of TV ... but tended to go for the easy laugh perhaps too easily.
Which he often did here.
Nonetheless brilliantly entertaining if anyone ever has a chance to see it again.
It seems incredible now that a multi-part series with this quality of acting talent and this quality of writing and production could be made by a small, regional TV channel (HTV) - and for children. But that is what was possible (almost routinely so) in the 1970s.
The only thing that makes what is clearly a sci-fi horror series clearly a "family show" is the lack of blood and overt violence, though the amount of alcohol consumed would have modern lobbyists writing to their MPs!
Why horror? Well, we have possession and something akin to body snatching after the arrival of a father and son take the villages population to the crucial number allowing for... what? What is going to happen? Why do those "converted" greet each other with "Happy Day!" (reminiscent of "The Prisoner" and "Be seeing you" - indeed there is much here than is Prisoner-like)? Why do the stones give a static electric shock? Why can't anyone leave?
Answers to these questions and more over six complex and powerful episodes.
The only thing that makes what is clearly a sci-fi horror series clearly a "family show" is the lack of blood and overt violence, though the amount of alcohol consumed would have modern lobbyists writing to their MPs!
Why horror? Well, we have possession and something akin to body snatching after the arrival of a father and son take the villages population to the crucial number allowing for... what? What is going to happen? Why do those "converted" greet each other with "Happy Day!" (reminiscent of "The Prisoner" and "Be seeing you" - indeed there is much here than is Prisoner-like)? Why do the stones give a static electric shock? Why can't anyone leave?
Answers to these questions and more over six complex and powerful episodes.
An 8-part TV series that includes a supernatural theme based on folklore, murder, (hinted, off-screen) sex, and demonic possession.
So perfect Sunday teatime viewing for all the family in 1970, with the first episodes being shown just before Christmas 1969.
No need to go into the story too much. It is retelling/updating/"inspired by" story based on a tale from the Mabinogion by acclaimed children's author Alan Garner, who was heavily involved in this TV version of his novel (and as a result it is a very faithful version). It features three young people (probably meant to be aged around 15-16) in an emotional triangle (to call it a love triangle would be misleading), living in a Welsh manor house in a valley cut off from the outside world (no electricity, phone, etc. - which was entirely plausible for the late 60s/early 70s).
The discovery of a strange dinner service results takes over the young girl - Alison - (played very well by an actress some 10 years older than the part she is playing) who is compelled to trace the pattern on the plates and make paper owls. And so the story begins.
After this it gets quite complex - to the extent that the summary of the previous episode that starts episodes 2-8 is absolutely required viewing, even if you are binging the entire series (its available on YouTube) because you will have missed something!
The three young actors (though they are significantly older than the parts they play) do a great job holding together a tale that basically only has six parts in it (the others being the father of two of the children, a live-in housekeeper and mother of the third, and a strange and apparently a little mad handyman/gardener.
Spread over 8 25-minute episodes the story will seem a little slow to modern viewers, with not a great deal of action (you can literally count the number of spots of blood that are shown), but what is hinted at and what probably happens off camera is another matter entirely.
Perhaps this is where the family viewing comes in because adult viewers will likely get the hints that children will miss, such as - to take one fairly mild example - why is Alison "ill" and in bed at the start, in her red nightdress, despite actually appearing quite perky? Not that hard for an adult to guess.
Each episode pushes the story forward with the last one being quite strong stuff, with what is essentially a form of demonic possession centre screen. A suspect a few viewers choked on the Sunday tea when this was shown.
But it is not just the story that would raise eyebrows - and actually make this unfilmable today (for children anyway) - it is also the style of filming. There may be little blood, but the camera loves Alison's legs in their 1960s short skirts to an extent that would be very worrying if you did not know that the actress was 25.
Overall this is a dark, complex, difficult but brilliant drama that uses folklore and the supernatural in a way that would be utterly impossible for the target audience today.
So perfect Sunday teatime viewing for all the family in 1970, with the first episodes being shown just before Christmas 1969.
No need to go into the story too much. It is retelling/updating/"inspired by" story based on a tale from the Mabinogion by acclaimed children's author Alan Garner, who was heavily involved in this TV version of his novel (and as a result it is a very faithful version). It features three young people (probably meant to be aged around 15-16) in an emotional triangle (to call it a love triangle would be misleading), living in a Welsh manor house in a valley cut off from the outside world (no electricity, phone, etc. - which was entirely plausible for the late 60s/early 70s).
The discovery of a strange dinner service results takes over the young girl - Alison - (played very well by an actress some 10 years older than the part she is playing) who is compelled to trace the pattern on the plates and make paper owls. And so the story begins.
After this it gets quite complex - to the extent that the summary of the previous episode that starts episodes 2-8 is absolutely required viewing, even if you are binging the entire series (its available on YouTube) because you will have missed something!
The three young actors (though they are significantly older than the parts they play) do a great job holding together a tale that basically only has six parts in it (the others being the father of two of the children, a live-in housekeeper and mother of the third, and a strange and apparently a little mad handyman/gardener.
Spread over 8 25-minute episodes the story will seem a little slow to modern viewers, with not a great deal of action (you can literally count the number of spots of blood that are shown), but what is hinted at and what probably happens off camera is another matter entirely.
Perhaps this is where the family viewing comes in because adult viewers will likely get the hints that children will miss, such as - to take one fairly mild example - why is Alison "ill" and in bed at the start, in her red nightdress, despite actually appearing quite perky? Not that hard for an adult to guess.
Each episode pushes the story forward with the last one being quite strong stuff, with what is essentially a form of demonic possession centre screen. A suspect a few viewers choked on the Sunday tea when this was shown.
But it is not just the story that would raise eyebrows - and actually make this unfilmable today (for children anyway) - it is also the style of filming. There may be little blood, but the camera loves Alison's legs in their 1960s short skirts to an extent that would be very worrying if you did not know that the actress was 25.
Overall this is a dark, complex, difficult but brilliant drama that uses folklore and the supernatural in a way that would be utterly impossible for the target audience today.