Cinebuff38

Bridge of lies is a game/ quiz show presented by Ross Kemp. There are no spoilers as I am not revealing whether or not anyone won their bank. If Each episode has four contestants. Each contestant takes it in turn to cross a bridge featuring a particular catagory and featuring a question from that catogary. For example a catogary might be animals and they have to step on names of reptiles. Each crossing contains ten lies. The idea is for the contestants to avoid the lies and step on the truth. The ones that make it across takes the money they have banked into the vault and play in the final crossing which consists of several rows of statements where each one contains one truth and the rest are lies. I like this show. Kemp is a good host. But some of the contestants? Where do they find them from? There are some issues I have here, and I will state two of them. Firstly, and this explains my heading, One of the statements on a final crossing stated that someone, and I can't remember who, was a member of queen. The contestant doing the crossing,( if one gets ut wrong, they are out and the next one takes over) asked the team "Does anyone know Queen"? The sad thing is no one answered. To be fair though, they may have been enquiring as to the line up rather than indicating that they have never heard of the band. But this next one takes the biscuit. On a recent episode, the catogary was animals. They were looking for insects. Kemp explained that the lies are not insects, and he clarified as clear as day what defines an insect, describing them and the the fact that they have 6 legs. The contestant at the time was doing well, banking some money. Then she came upon 'spider'. I know knowledge is subjective but can there really be that many people who don't know that a spider has 8 legs? The contestant in question knew because she pointed to it and said that spiders have 8 legs but decided to step on it anyway, halving the money she had banked. I apologise that I spent most of this review moaning about the stupidity of some of the contestants, but that was the reason for me writing it, and as I'm not on social media, which would have been a better platform for this, IMDB is the best alternative.

Nightsleeper is about the high jacking of a train from Glasgow bound for London. It doesn't have people with weapons and bombs threatening the lives of passengers if the powers that be don't give Israel back to Palestine. Instead it is highjacked remotely, the perpetrators having installed a computer which when controlled from beyond can make the train hurdle along at a very high speed without the need for a Physical driver, the demand for a ransom being the motive. I have read many of the reviews here, and agree that there were ways to stop the train, including cutting the power. But as one reviewer wrote it would have made for a very short drama.

There were a few instances of dramatic license, for example if a train is travelling from Scotland directly to the south coast which Is possible, I'm guessing there would have to be several point changes where the train would have had to slow down. I can understand there has to be dramatic license in drama otherwise it would be difficult to tell a story. But there is one example of it in nightsleeper which no one seems to have picked up on. How did a train travelling from Glasgow manage to end up at Victoria? It would have had to stop somewhere to reverse which would have given ample time for the passengers to get off. Trains from Glasgow to London terminate at Euston, so I have no idea why they decided to base the drama at Victoria.

Did I like it? It was okay. It's not the worst drama series I have seen. Probably well short of the best.

I can imagine the writers of this sittng in a meeting wondering what they can produce as an excuse to show couples engaged in sexual activity. The outcome? Men up, A one off (Thank god) drama about the discovery of the drug called viagra. This break through may have been a game changer for many long suffering men, but as a drama it was about as relavent as news that churchill lost the election after the war. Had it concentrated more about the process of the discovery and less about the patiants, even if it were to have just cut out the bonking in the bedroom scenes, it might have worked better. But the writers were only interested in something that would show as much titilation as possible thus failing to produce something that would qualify as being something intelegent.