haudit Reviews

Snakes on a Plane (2006)

Cheesy, brainless, but very entertaining!

[9/10 · 25 August 2006]

I've read some very bad reviews of this movie on IMDb, along with some very good ones, so I thought I'd throw my tuppence worth into the ring by asking all the people who've given the movie negative reviews just what they were expecting from this film? An intellectual piece exploring the notions of airborne terror and snake behaviour in captivity?

The movie is called "Snakes on a Plane" for God sake - you should know just from reading that title that you're going into watch a cheesy, brain dead, completely over-the-top action movie, and on that score, it doesn't fail to deliver. Disengage your brain, sit back and watch as the quite frankly hilarious mayhem unfolds.

From my personal perspective, everything about this movie works, from the paper thin "plot", through the (quite possibly intentionally) woeful CG snakes, to the ham acting delivered by the entire cast. Samuel L. Jackson's performance is never more than entertaining, and the rest of the cast back him up quite admirably - particularly Rachel Blanchard and Juliana Margulies - whoever thought the dour one from ER would take so well to kick ass action movies?

I'd put this movie into the "so bad it can't help being good" category along with Anaconda, although it's much better than Anaconda because it doesn't have the monumentally talentless J. Lo mugging her way through every scene!

Treat this as the makers intend you to treat it - like a cheap, disposable thrill ride, and you won't fail to be entertained by it.

A solid 9 out of 10.

Passions (1999–2008)

Possibly THE WORST atrocity ever committed against TV audiences

[2 March 2005]

I've only ever seen a few episodes of this show while on holiday in the US, and in the knowledge that it replaced Sunset Beach on NBC's Daytime schedule, I decided to give it a try on an otherwise uneventful weekday afternoon. I'm extremely sorry I did - NOTHING happened at all during the hour it was on air, other than me having to witness some of the most truly atrocious acting and writing I've ever been forced to endure.

What is WITH this show? It's got a friggin' Orangutan in it! It's so truly, utterly dire that it makes General Hospital, and even Sunset Beach, look like works of high art in comparison.

I have to say, if its a spoof of the soap opera genré, it isn't a very good one. I came away finding it dull, boring, completely stupid and quite wilfully sh*t!

Sons and Daughters (1982–1987)

Inspired Lunacy.

[3 July 2004]

Well.....where to start with this little overview of the deliciously kitsch Australian camp classic 'Sons & Daughters'? Hmm... my interest in the show started when the UK's broadcaster 'Five' picked up the show and decided to repeat it on daytime afternoons, moving it to weekend early mornings after a few months. I'd seen the show before on ITV, but I was too young then to appreciate how it was kitsch, crap TV at it's best.

I suppose the first thing is to have a little look at some of the characters (*there may be spoilers ahead*). The show revolved around two families, one wealthy in Sydney (the Hamiltons) and one working class in Melbourne (the Palmers) and the various people they were acquainted with over the course of the show's run. The two families were initially connected by Gordon Hamilton's first(?) wife - Patricia, having an affair with David Palmer 20 years ago that resulted in the birth of twins... each took one child and raised them in their own families. After a year or so of plodding along with standard soap opera plots of the time, the show suddenly decided to turn into a copy of the American 'supersoaps' which were popular at the time. Suddenly it focused more on the power struggles with the Hamilton family and their business partners over 'The Company' (it was never actually revealed what business 'The Company' was in).

Then in 1984, the show's most popular character, Patricia Hamilton aka Pat the Rat(Rowena Wallace) decided to leave, after divorcing Gordon. Rather than allow this to damage the show, the producers decided to replace Rowena Wallace with two characters, Belinda Giblin as Alison Carr and soap sex siren Abigail as Caroline Morrell (another partner in 'The Company') - and got round this by letting the audience know that Belinda's character, Alison Carr, was in fact Pat the Rat - who'd been off to South America for some extensive cosmetic surgery. By the time she arrived back, Gordon had remarried (and not for the last time, either) to Barbara Armstrong. It was at this point the show kicked into some uber-inspired and totally unbelievable lunacy. Alison let her friend, socialite Charlie Bartlett know who she really was, and moved in with her, and proceeded to get her hands on 50% of 'The Company' and onto Gordon Hamilton again.

Despite Gordon being one of the least charismatic men you're ever likely to lay eyes on (I think he was played that way intentionally) he ended up getting married (AGAIN!) to Beryl Palmer - the then ex-wife of his first wife's lover. Again, lunacy reigned in the 'Sons and Daughters' camp, with Alison Carr's actions getting ever more bitchy and outrageous. But the show was beginning to flag under the weight of it's own preposterousness, so the producers decided again to ramp up the level of unbelievability, by bringing Rowena Wallace back as her former character's long-lost twin sister. Unfortunately the writing was on the wall for the show by 1986, and in 1987, it was cancelled.

There were other background characters, occasionally thrust into limelight every now and then... the most notable of those being Fiona Thompson, a former madame connected to both the Hamilton's and the Palmers, and always crusading for some good cause or other.

The best things about the show were the totally preposterous story lines, the occasionally appalling acting, and the wonky production values (brown and grey seemed to be very popular interior colour choices in Australia in the early 80's) - for example, the Hamilton's lived in what appeared to be a large mansion, but all we ever saw of it was the fairly small hallway and living room.... again decorated in lovely shades of grey and brown.

We've become used to production values in Australian and American soaps lagging badly behind their UK counterparts - but 'Sons and Daughters' really did take the cake.. they had one apartment set, and any character who lived in an apartment, lived in that set, suitably repainted. I dare say the production values were below even ITV's 'Crossroads'.. and that was a show that took some beating for sheer shoddiness of production.

Crossroads (2001–2003)

Not exactly going out in style....

[31 May 2003]

Dallas's shower scene showed us that we dream in colour, Crossroads' finale told us that Jane Asher dreams at lightspeed: she got through the whole 5 months of the Hotel saga down in a blink.

Using the tried and tested Dallas dream trick, Crossroads bowed out with Angela (Jane Asher) realising her life as vampish hotel owner Angel Samson was a dream. The reality was that she crimped her hair, spoke with a Brummie accent and worked on a supermarket checkout, with former nemesis and sometimes friend Kate Russell as her co-worker.

As gag endings go, St. Elsewhere's was classier and Sledge Hammer's much funnier, but neither could touch this for the number of accents attempted. I actually lost count of how many accents were represented in the supermarket.

Most of the regular characters made appearances in the supermarket. Battleaxe Hotel receptionist Virginia became a battleaxe checkout supervisor married to Security Guard Rocky Wesson. Betty Waddell became a (geographically non-specific) customer in love with Rocky (I ask you!?!?). Thrusting American Businessman Max Samson was transformed into a lager and crisp buying American scruff, while the Samson twins, Ryan and Jimmy, had their roles reversed, with 'sex god' Ryan turned into a total geek, and former geek Jimmy becoming a Cockney sex toy for the Wise sisters (Phil, Lola and Belle). Even camp gay chef Vince underwent a total transformation to a Brummie layabout married to a shell suit wearing Helen Raven.

Perhaps the clumsiest joke was Tracy Boothe, going from booze hound Bar Manager to the alcoholic star of a TV show called, yes, you guessed it..... 'Crossroads'

Crossroads (2001–2003)

Ends this Friday..

[27 May 2003]

Auf wiedersein Crossroads....

After returning on January 13th this year (bad luck mefinks), and being officially cancelled less than 2 months later, Crossroads will finally close its doors this Friday after around 90 episodes of the new run. Bye bye Samsons, bye bye Kate Russell, Virginia, Rocky, Beenah etc.... you might have been a tad ropey, but at least you were entertaining.

Crossroads (2001–2003)

Cancelled Again....

[10 March 2003]

That didn't take long did it?? Crossroads returned in something considerably less than a blaze of publicity to ITV1 on 13th January 2003. I was initially quite optimistic about it's chances, hoping that the daily dose of high camp farce, glamour and terrible acting might appeal to the great unwashed that is the British public.

Unfortunately, despite moving at a pace which would blow most other soap scriptwriters out of the water, covering dozens of storylines in a matter of weeks, it seems the show has failed to strike a chord with the considerable UK daytime audience, it's viewing figures sliding to a paltry 1.3 million per day (the 1st revival's lowest point was 2.5 million), barely enough to sustain a show Carlton and ITV spent almost £15 million on bringing back. So, this morning, on March 10th, 2003 it was announced that Crossroads will disappear from the schedules when it's current batch of episodes ends in the summer.... as if that wasn't bad enough, to add insult to injury - the show is being moved out of the 5pm slot in a few weeks to a more 'suitable' early afternoon slot.

To be fair to ITV, the show hasn't been dogged with any rumours of an axing, but also, it barely has had enough time to even register in the public consciousness - so I feel that an axing might well be premature. I know one thing, I'll miss Jane Asher and Jane Gurnett's deliciously awful bitching and catfights (as Angel Samson and Kate Russell respectively). No disrespect to ITV, but they seem to be developing an almost American mentality towards show, if it doesn't perform brilliantly from the start, then they're not interested. If the BBC behaved in a similar fashion, Eastenders would have been cancelled less than 3 months after first airing, instead of running for 18 years....

Crossroads (2001–2003)

Back again for a third time......

[14 January 2003]

'Crossroads' disappeared from ITV1 in mid 2002, and we were assured that the show hadn't been axed..... sure enough on the 13th of January, 2003 it returned, sporting a mostly new cast and a new look.

Any attempt at realism has been thrown out the window, as the show's new Producer Yvon Grace has decided to go for glamour over realism. I have to say, it's so awful that it's actually unmissable - it's almost American in it's sheer awfulness. The new cast are uniformly hopeless, and it's only the old hands from the 2001 revival that seem to know what they're supposed to be doing. Jane Asher is simply terrible as Angel Samson, Emma Noble (the daughter in law of the former British PM John Major) is even worse. She had one line in the first episode of the new run, and couldn't even make 'Good morning' sound convincing.. Anne Charleson (Madge from 'Neighbours') has been thrown in for good measure, and she's actually quite good.

The story picks up a year after where we last left the show, so I assume that Phil Berry is in the slammer. Anyway, the hotel has changed hands yet again, and been given a horrendous new look more in keeping with Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas than any British hotel I've ever seen. The first episode had all the soap necessities - murder, an astonishing amount of adultery, some of which was mingled with the murder, a party and a twin shagging his twins wife in a train toilet (obviously he found out who she was at the end of the episode). All in all, I'd say that 'Crossroads' now has everything it needs to be a moderate teatime success for ITV1 - sex, glamour, pretty men, pretty women (and no Doris Luke!!!) and it's been moved from 5.30pm to 5.00pm and is no longer going to get hammered in the ratings by 'Neighbours' on BBC1.

I think I'll keep watching as it's simply so awful that it's completely unmissable.... it has the same 'train wreck' effect as American soaps like 'Sunset Beach', 'Days of Our Lives' and 'The Bold and The Beautiful', and is infinitely more interesting than the bland post millenial attempt that was foisted upon us in 2001.

*** out of *****

Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)

Mildly entertaining, but disappointing at the same time....

[5/10 · 4 January 2003]

I went to see this film yesterday, on the first day of it's UK release. I went in with my eyes wide open, and my expectations low..... I have to say I was nowhere near as disappointed as I expected to be. I actually expected (based on the evidence of US reviews and fan opinion) to hate this film, but to my surprise I was actually quite entertained and found a fair amount to like about it.

I will admit that there were some aspects that irked me, such as the frequently commented on lack of pace. It seemed to take an age to get going, with seemingly endless scenes of the TNG crew faffing about doing next to bugger all. The B4 subplot just didn't work, and I feel it would have been a tighter film if it had focused purely on the confrontation between Picard and Shinzon. Ah yes, Shinzon, he wasn't quite the 'Nemesis' i was expecting, he seemed more like a petulant child taking a tantrum.

Now what I liked..... I liked the interactions between the crew (except when they were faffing about), I liked the action sequences (once the damn thing got going), I liked the effects, which were very good when you think this film had just over the half the budget of Star Wars Episode II.

All in all, definitely the second best of the TNG movies, way ahead of Insurrection, slightly ahead of Generations, but a fair bit behind First Contact, and therefore mildly disappointing.

*** out of *****

RoboCop 2 (1990)

What happens when your director has a 3 week lead time?

[29 December 2002]

Answer, this does..... Robocop 2 could have been a much better film if the production had been stalled to allow Irvin Kershner to become more familiar with the material. As it stands, this is at best a ham-fisted, repugnant sequel to the original 'RoboCop', and at worst, a reprehensible piece of work that glorifies violence and sadism without the satirical saving graces of the original.

Some people have said that this film is a lot more violent than the first. It's true that it may have more scenes of violence, but it's nowhere near as graphic as the original. That's another of this films problems, and possibly the one that makes it most unpalatable - it's toned down the violent aspects to the point where it becomes almost comic book like, which numbs the viewer to the horror going on before them. The violence in the original was so graphic to make the audience understand what was actually going on, and to sympathise with Murphy's character. Alas there's none of that here, the violence is just there for the sake of being there, without actually serving to advance the plot. The film makes a few attempts at satire, but these all invariably fall flat, all but the continued corruption of OCP, and the overall failure of corporate America as a whole - these two relatively high notes are possibly all that prevents the film being an utterly dire piece of work with no saving graces.

The cast try to do their best with the limited material they're given, and Dan o'Herlihy, Nancy Allen and Peter Weller all turn in respectable perfomances. That and the aforementioned attempts at satire aside, this film is an insult to the original, with little of its wit or humour, and none of its understanding of human nature.

If only Mr Kershner had been given more time to hone his vision, we wouldn't have been treated to what seems like a 'by-committee' remake of the original, with all the good points taken out.

* out of *****

Lord of Illusions (1995)

Not As Bad As I Was Expecting.......

[28 December 2002]

OK, so this film wasn't exactly Shakespearean in it's quality, but neither was it as bad as some reviews on here had me believing.. I only watched it as I found it languishing at the bottom of my brother's DVD collection, and as I'm a Star Trek fan, I thought I'd check out some of Scott Bakula's post 'Quantum Leap' and pre 'Enterprise' work.

This wasn't really that horrible to watch, in fact, the production values looked quite high. I agree that the plotting was painfully routine, but it didn't really hold it back too much.

This film only has some curiosity value for me, because (I don't know if anyone else noticed this) a lot of the locations in the shooting of this film were also used during 'V' (1983), 'V:The Final Battle' (1984), and 'V:The Series' (1984-85). The Swann house was used as the Visitor Embassy in the second mini-series and as the Visitor Legation in the follow on weekly series, and the location where D'Amour (Bakula) chases the supposedly dead Swann after his funeral was used as the outside location for the resistance headquarters in the first 'V' mini-series and for part of 'V:The Final Battle'

Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)

Best Odd Numbered Trek Movie

[6/10 · 4 November 2001]

Star Trek: Insurrection may not be a work of high art, but is an exceptionally well-crafted and superbly paced film. From start to finish it works well.

I really enjoy the start of the movie, seeing Data go wild and expose the Federation Observation Station spying on the agrarian and peaceful Ba'Ku. From there we go off to the Enterprise where a ceremony to welcome a new race to the Federation is taking place, and Crusher is berating Picard for having a fatter neck than he used to. I really enjoy the sense of camaraderie that seems to have built up among these characters over the years, and this is really the first time we've seen it played out on screen. I also like the references to the Federation's losses to the Borg and the Dominion, making it feel as though these really are dangerous times for the Federation and it's Starfleet.

As the movie progresses, the storytelling becomes more whimsical, with the peaceful Ba'Ku being juxtaposed with the aggressive and warlike Son'a. The scenes that take place on the planet have just the right feel to them, and you can see where the money went, the Ba'Ku village sets look fantastic, although I must say that the Son'a ship sets are diabolical.

I'd say that Insurrection is definitely the best of the odd-numbered Trek films, and that the supposed 'curse' may even have been broken. It compares well with First Contact and is far superior to Generations, even though it is drastically different in tone to both of those films.

*** out of *****

Halloween II (1981)

A good (if not brilliant) follow up to the original

[5/10 · 2 November 2001]

'Halloween II' should be viewed as a direct continuation of the original film, and as such, it works well, if not brilliantly.

There are many effective scares throughout the film, none more so than the heart-pounding chase of Laurie by Michael Myers through the hospital towards the end of the film. Everything in that almost 6 minute scene is perfect - the direction, the acting, and the music!! Where do I start with the music? Alan Howarth took John Carpenter's original score and beefed it up with some then state of the art synthesiser sounds, making it sound more frightening than it did in 'Halloween'.

Dean Cundey's cinematography should also be commended, as should director Rick Rosenthal for sticking so closely to John Carpenter's directorial style in 'Halloween'.

There are a few problems I have with the film, however. The first is the lack of continuity with the original. Laurie's hair looked the same, but everything else seemed slightly different to me. I may be wrong, but when we saw Myers' eyes in the original, weren't they brown, but in 'Halloween II', when we saw them (when he stabs the girl in the throat), they looked distinctly blue to me. But the rest of the film is, if not stunning, then at least arresting visually. The Hospital seemed fairly realistic to me, a lot of people seem to have a problem with it having so few staff, but having spent a night in a very large hospital which covers a whole region and not just a small town like Haddonfield Memorial did, I can testify that at night in hospitals, staff are indeed very few and far between.

I also liked the deaths (rumour has it John Carpenter found the style of the film too old fashioned in comparison with Friday the 13th, and so shot gory inserts for the death scenes behind Rick Rosenthal's back). The deaths involve a hammer to the head, a girl being drowned in a very very hot hydrotherapy pool, a nurse having her blood drained and an assistant getting an anaesthetic injected directly into her brain.

Aside from a few slight problems with continuity, I found 'Halloween II' an interesting and worthy successor to the original 'Halloween' and definitely better than any of the other sequels or 'Halloween' imitators, with the possible exception of 'Halloween H20: Twenty Years Later'.

***1/2 out of *****

Star Trek: Voyager (1995–2001)

Do It!!!

[28 October 2001]

I have to admit that Voyager really did get off to a great start with 'Caretaker', which is possibly the best of all the Trek pilot episodes, but by god, it's quality fell dramatically throughout it's first few years. The first three seasons were made up of stories that seemed like they had originally been pitched for TNG but never made it past the first hurdle.

However, in Season 4, the show did another TNG inspired thing and finally found its niche in the market. The introduction of Seven of Nine, was a bit overhyped, she did bring something new and exciting to the show, but she didn't 'save' it. The show was never in danger of cancellation, it was UPN's flagship show. After Season 4, the quality remained quite high, and didn't fall as badly as TNG did during it's later seasons. Unfortunately, the one thing Voyager could never get the hang of was hanging on to an audience. Ratings fell quite dramatically during the first few seasons, and only began to stabilise in seasons six and seven, albeit at fairly low levels. I think Voyager's main problem was its similarity to TNG in many aspects, but its greatest strength was in no doubt - the visual effects. These were always good, but when Foundation Imaging got the contract in Season 3, Voyager's effects became some of the finest on TV (I personally think they were far more convincing than the sub-standard effects in Star Trek: Insurrection, and more realistic than the cartoony effects used on DS9). Voyager's greatest moment was without doubt the Season Five episode 'Timeless', a great story combined with fine performances and stunning effects. When Voyager crashes into the planet, you really believe you are seeing something the size of an oil-tanker ramming into the snow at 2,000kph. I would vote 'Timeless' as the best episode of Voyager and possibly one of the best ever episodes of any Star Trek show, easily beating anything produced by TNG or TOS, and easily equalling DS9's finest.

I've heard bad things about the series finale 'Endgame', with some people nicknaming it 'Endshame'. Having not seen it yet, I couldn't possibly comment, but I know that Alice Krige returns as the Borg Queen, and that time travel is heavily involved in the story, so all I can say is, it seems like business as usual for the Intrepid Class USS Voyager NCC-74656 and her galant crew.

Jeepers Creepers (2001)

Where'd ya get those peepers?

[8/10 · 27 October 2001]

I was exceeding bored one Friday night, so I decided that a trip to the cinema might be in order. When my friends and I tried to decide what to go see, we all thought that Jeepers Creepers might be a fairly good choice. So we went to see it - and we were not disappointed.

From the opening, the tension of this film never lets up. The demon is quite scary, but what is scarier is his truck, and the noise that horn makes, it's the sort of noise that can make your blood run cold. Justin Long (Galaxy Quest) and Gina Phillips (Ally McBeal, Boston Public) do a good job of conveying the terror of the two college sibling driving home for spring break being hunted by a psycho for no apparent reason, although the reason becomes clear later on in the movie.

While the film started off very well, I thought that the second half quickly became ludicrous, although the explanation of the demon's motivations does actually make sense, i quote 'once every 23 years, for 23 days it can feed'.

Definitely go and see this if you are tired of run of the mill slasher flicks, and (sometimes) want the crap scared out of you, and trust me, it'll be the truck that scares you most.

I Still Know What You Did Last Summer (1998)

I Still Know The Original Was Crap

[5/10 · 27 October 2001]

Why does everyone have a downer on this film? Is it because Buffy has gone back to TV where she belongs? Or is it because this film is that rare thing - a sequel which surpasses the original.

We might as well be honest, the original 'I Know What You Did Last Summer' was an uninspired, tedious piece of crud masquerading as a Slasher Movie under the guise of 'teen psychological thriller' (most teenagers wouldn't know a psychological thriller if it jumped up and bit them on the backside - I should know, I only stopped being a teenager 3 years ago). 'I Still Know What You Did Last Summer' may also be uninspired, but at least it doesn't try to be anything it's not - this one is an out-and-out Slasher Fest, radically different in tone to it's predecessor. And there's no 'Scream' style in joke irony to wade through.

The plot is simple, Ben Willis may have lost his hand in the last movie, but he didn't lose his life, and he's back!! And this time he really is the psycho with a fishing hook for a hand. All he wants to do is kill Julie James and her somewhat anonymous boyfriend (the awful Freddie Prinze Jr - do you think his daddy is proud?), who thankfully gets next to no screentime.

The biggest surprise of the film is the top-notch performance we get from Brandy. Instead of coming across as a typical scream queen, she comes across as a very ballsy, hot headed chick. Low points include the oh-so-obvious twist in the tail (not since Halloween and until Scream 3 have I seen such an obvious plot device), but obvious twists in the tail are a Slasher Movie staple, so I'm glad to see it included here. By far the best aspect of this movie is the setting, on an almost abandoned Island resort in the middle of storm season - which means there is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.

I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997)

What was Sarah Michelle Gellar Thinking?

[3/10 · 27 October 2001]

I have only seen this movie a few times, once upon it's original release here in the UK, and again last night, as I bought it on video (I got it in a sale for £4.99). All I have to say is - is that it? Nothing even remotely interesting happens for the entire 97 minute duration of this film. The deaths seem routine and aren't even remotely gory. How come we didn't actually see Sarah Michelle Gellar or Ryan Phillipe getting gutted (now him getting gutted I would pay good money to see), when we saw SMG being sliced and diced in Scream 2?

Another problem I have with this film is that SMG now suffers from Shatner Syndrome. She's now so famous for being Buffy, I just couldn't take her seriously as a victim. What was she thinking appearing in this mindless drivel. Most people seem to think she filmed this crap before she got the role of Buffy, but it was actually made during her hiatus between Buffy season's 1 and 2 (check the hair out and you'll see I'm right). If I had been a casting director for Buffy and seen her in this, I would never, ever have given her the role.

But, back to the film itself, as I said, nothing even remotely interesting happens for the whole film, and besides Gellar, the acting uniformly sucks!!! Whoever told Jennifer Love Hewitt and Freddie Prize Jr they could act were obviously delusional. If I ever have to sit through another 'ooooh!! I'm a serious actor' performance from Prinze, I think I might spew. God help the forthcoming 'Scooby Doo', thats all I can say - a bad CGI dog, Buffy in a red wig and Freddie Prinze Jr - a guaranteed box office disaster.

Black Christmas (1974)

Creeped me right out!!!!!

[8/10 · 2 September 2001]

A very simple tale, with the slaughter of a bunch of sorority girls during the Christmas period. This film is reminiscent of 'Halloween', so now we know where John Carpenter got most of his ideas (heavy breathing, POV shots) from.

The main difference between this and 'Halloween' is the fact that the killer is never actually seen in full - the most we ever see of him is his eye peeping through a crack in the door. The death scenes are also far more inventive - the first girl to die is killed using the plastic surrounding the dry-cleaning in her wardrobe (Michael Myers isn't intelligent enough to do that), and her dead body is glimpsed throughout the rest of the film sitting in a rocking chair in the attic. The most disturbing aspect of this film, however, is the way the killer rants down the phone (from inside the house!!!! - top that Scream!)- they make no sense at all and serve to make him all the more creepy.

The ending of this film is a total shocker, almost totally unexpected! I won't spoil it for those of you who haven't seen it, but let's just say it'll have you checking all those dark corners in your house for things that go bump in the night!!!

I saw 'Black Christmas' over the Christmas period in 2000, when UK TV station Channel 4 decided, in their infinite wisdom, that what the schedules really need at Christmas is a slasher movie. I'm glad they did show it, as I had never even heard of it before..... which is a bit surprising considering the cast of Olivia Hussey, Keir Dullea (post-2001) and Margot Kidder (pre-Superman).

If you can find this film in your local video store (probably under the title 'Silent Night, Evil Night'),go ahead and rent it - I guarantee you will not be disappointed. You'll be creeped right out, but you definitely won't be disappointed.

Doctor Who (1963–1989)

Went downhill fast, picked up, and was dumped!!

[1 September 2001]

This show started off a a high-concept kids show on BBC TV in 1963, and ran for 26 seasons until 1989, when the BBC rather unceremoniously axed it. No satisfactory reason for its cancellation was ever given, and it seems all the more infuriating to discover that Doctor Who was the last BBC show to go up against ITV's Coronation Street on a Wednesday night and get decent viewing figures (Coronation Street is the UK's most watched programme).

Back to the show itself, which declined steadily throughout most of the 1980's, especially after Tom Baker (the fourth and longest serving Doctor) decided to leave the show in 1981. His subsequent replacements, Peter Davison (1982-84) and Colin Baker (1984-85) were vastly inferior and were far less popular with viewers. Indeed, so unpopular was Colin Baker's portrayal of the Doctor, that he was the only actor ever fired from the show. Another major problem during the brief Colin Baker era was the casting of Bonnie Langford as Mel, the Doctor's companion. Langford was famous for her (somewhat limited) musical skills, and her largest TV role prior to Who was as the annoying little brat in 'Just William' in the 1970's.

The show started to improve in 1987, when Scottish actor Sylvester McCoy was cast as the Doctor. He was much more akin to the fourth doctor than his two predecessors. He gave the Doctor a dark, almost belligerent sense of humour. In his first few adventures, the 7th Doctor was still lumbered with Mel, but things improved greatly yet again in the fourth story of his first season when Sophie Aldred arrived as 'Ace', a character who makes Buffy the Vampire Slayer look shy and retiring. The fact that she could beat up Daleks and Cybermen with her baseball bat was merely a bonus.

Another major change after 1987 was the production values of the show. These improvements became obvious in the story 'Paradise Towers', where an enormous set was built (a set which looked realistic). The special effects also took a major step up, as did the writing. Some of the all time Doctor Who classics come from the Sylvester McCoy era - "Dragonfire", "Remembrance of the Daleks", "The Happiness Patrol", "Battlefield", "Ghost Light" and possibly the most disturbing Doctor Who story of them all "The Greatest Show in The Galaxy". After almost 10 years of decline in the quality of the writing, the 7th Doctor's era was a breath of fresh air - in fact, the show was almost on a par with it's peak from 1974-1979 when Tom Baker was the Doctor.

Then came the bombshell decision from the BBC that Doctor Who would not be returning for a 27th Season. There have been rumours of a revival for the past 10 years, but nothing has so far come of them. The BBC state that it would be far too expensive to bring Doctor Who back as a weekly serial, despite the fact it used to churn it out for around £50,000 per episode (less than half the cost of an average EastEnders episode), and can spend £1.8 million on one episode of a DIRE drama series called 'Harbour Lights', which has NEVER EVEN BEEN SHOWN. The simple fact is that the BBC can afford to bring the show back, its just TPTB don't want it back, as it would undermine the goal mine they have in selling old Who stories and videos around the world.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997–2003)

Why are all the 'British' characters English?

[25 August 2001]

I do like Buffy, my last post about Season 5 was just my opinion of the Season's general direction - which I didn't like very much.

One thing I forgot to mention was this - why are all the so-called 'British' characters in Buffy English? Do Americans not realise that Britain is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I'd really like to see some British characters who come from Scotland and Wales (two countries which have much more mythological pasts than England will ever have). While we're on the subject of British characters - why does Giles speak and dress as though he comes from the 1920's? And why does he always drink tea? Why are Spike and Wesley's accents so completely unconvincing?

Besides those minor complaints, and the misguided Season 5, I still think that Buffy is one of the best US TV shows we get to see over here in the UK, even if it does represent us as a bunch of cold-hearted, tea-drinking, tweed-wearing control freaks.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997–2003)

Season 5 - did I miss something?

[24 August 2001]

OK, Buffy Season 5 started off really well - I'm surprised it took them 5 years to make Buffy run into Dracula. But as for the second half of the season? What was all that about? If Glory is supposed to be a god, why is she so mind-numbingly stupid? All those so-called 'revelations' coming thick and fast was a bit over the top. But when they weren't trying desperately to advance the Glory plot (why did it take her so long to work out what and who the key was - ah I've already answered that - she has the intelligence of a flea!!), which rapidly turned into an idiot of the week type story (every week), they actually turned out some decent stuff. The best episode of the entire Season was 'The Body', an episode which had absolutely nothing to do with the imbecile in the red dress.

Some other things about the second half of Season 5 also bug me. Buffy running away from Glory? I think not. I have to say that Glory never looked particularly impressive in fight scenes (or in any scenes for that matter) - so I can't believe that Buffy would up-sticks and run. Also, who the hell cast Clare Kramer as Glory? - she absolutely ruined what could have been a fairly decent role (if she hadn't played Glory as an annoying and strictly one-dimensional teenage hell bitch, then maybe the character might have had some menace), and was acted off the screen by most of the special effects around her.

And then we come to the big doozie, the Season Finale. While it was well written and actually quite exciting, I couldn't help but think 'so what?'. We all know there's going to be another two seasons, and if that wasn't enough to diminish the power of the finale, then its similarity to Season One's 'Prophecy Girl' certainly did. Glory's defeat seemed far too easy - after a Season of being told that she was near invincible, Buffy wiped the floor with her in five minutes flat (using a hammer!!!-obviously my mother could have defeated Glory using a power-drill)!! And why hadn't anyone thought of using the Dagon sphere against Glory before? (Anya is probably the only REALLY intelligently written character in the show). Then Giles kills Ben (don't even ask!!!), and Buffy leaps to....... the conclusion of the fifth Season.

Not quite as bad as Season Four, but Buffy certainly hasn't regained the dramatic heights of Seasons Two and Three.... but it does seem to be trying hard.. perhaps a little too hard. Season 5 was, I think, the kitchen-sink approach to Buffy.

**1/2 out of *****

Angel (1999–2004)

Not quite up to it's parent show...

[8 October 2000]

British terrestrial TV is a minefield for US Sc-Fi/Fantasy. Let me illustrate my point. "Buffy" is shown on BBC2 on Friday nights between 6.45-7.30pm. "Angel" is shown on Channel 4 on Friday nights between 6.00-6.55pm. You see the problem? To top it all Channel 4 started showing "Angel" when "Buffy" still had 2 episodes of Season 3 left to show... So the crossovers will never work. And even worse, both are tucked away on minority channels in poor timeslots where they will never hope to get more than 2.5 million viewers.

To "Angel" itself. It works, not as well as its parent show but a lot better than most other shows in their first season. The introduction of two (and then three) characters who all have some common backstory is a clever move. Despite that, I can't help feeling something is lacking. The show is never as humourous as "Buffy", and when it tries to be, the humour just falls flat on its face - mainly due to David Boreanaz's inability to handle comedic acting. In fact, Charisma Carpenter is the only member of the cast with any real comic flair. Glenn Quinn is OK as Doyle, but his 'Oirish' accent is appalling, while Alexis Denisof plays Wesley as an annoying upper class English twit (being Scottish myself, I have no empathy for that character - as Buffy once said "still got your ticket back to the mother country."). There are other aspects of the show which are a lot stronger, the action for one. The fight scenes are more realistic and believable than they are on "Buffy" while Cordelia gets a lot more to do than sit about whining in the background.

Some say that Joss Whedon's involvement in this show somehow contributed to the slight fall in "Buffy" quality. I'd have to say I agree. "Angel" looks like a show that has had a lot of time and money lavished on it, and a lot of attention from its 2 creators.

All in all, another fine show from Fox proving that they know what direction in which to take their network. If only the UK scheduling could be sorted out, then everything would be perfect.........

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997–2003)

Way, way better than the movie!!!!!!!

[8 October 2000]

This show started on Sky in the UK in 1997, but I didn't get to see it until it started on BBC2 in the middle of 1998. What a great show!! It has everything - sexy gals, fighting, humour, the apocalyspe - that guys love, and a few things that girls love too. Each episode is shown twice on a Friday night, once at 6.45pm with some cuts, and again at after midnight with all the gore and violence intact.

Sarah Michelle Gellar does a great job as Buffy, as do the rest of the cast in their respective roles. The only weak character ever to appear in the show was Drusilla, but thankfully they got rid of her.

Season 4 has just started on UK terrestrial TV, and I've heard that it isn't as good as the earlier three seasons - probably because of the loss of Cordelia, one of the most brutally frank characters ever seen on TV (American or otherwise) - but I've seen the first few episodes and found them up to the usual Buffy standard (even better now the BBC finally shows in it widescreen format).

The best thing about Buffy is that it shows that America can produce innovative and edgy TV shows when it tries. Compared to some of the dire nonsense aimed at teens on US television, Buffy is positively Shakespearean.

Big Brother (III) (2000– )

Enthralling UK Reality TV

[9 September 2000]

10 people - well actually 11 on the UK version of Big Brother - , a very expensive house, 32 cameras and a kickin' theme tune (which made it to Number 4 in the UK singles chart). I haven't seen any of the other countries versions of Big Brother, although I've seen bits of the original Dutch one. I understand the US version isn't doing well in the ratings.. Well, things couldn't be more different in the UK. It's shown at 10pm on a minority channel (Channel 4) and still manages to grab an average 25% of the available audience (if it had been shown on the UK's main channels - BBC1 or ITV it could have got 15-20million viewers a night). The story so far.. July.. 10 people meet for the first time in the house, they are Anna (Nun) Andrew (weirdo) Caroline (cackler) Craig (scouser) Darren (wuss) Mel (Bitch) Nichola (artiste) Nicholas (scheming git) Thomas (Irish) Sada (Scottish hippy).

In the first eviction Sada went, then Andrew, then Caroline, then "Nasty" Nick (as the UK press called him) was thrown out for breaking the rules concerning nominations. The show in which he was chucked out was shown at 11.25 pm and got 7 million viewers (60% of the available audience). Claire was drafted in to replace him. In her first week she couldn't be evicted, so Nicola went then Thomas, in her second week Claire was evicted by 79% of voters. Then Mel went in the last eviction week and the largest phone vote in UK history. Contenders in the final are Anna, Craig (who has been nominated for eviction four times in a row - but is still the bookie's 4/3 favourite) and Darren. The eviction show was an essential part of the UK Big Brother experience, as the presenter, Davina McCall (funny gal) tried to squeeze every last bit of dirt out of them.

It has been absolutely fascinating watching all the conniving and backstabbing and seeing how the evicted contestants have become stars. Nasty Nick was at the UK premiere of the movie Snatch with Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston. Sada is writing a book, Andrew is now a TV presenter, Caroline is in negotiations for a record deal and Claire has been in every major UK newspaper talking about her romance with Craig. Rumour has it that Channel 4 want another series next year, and that this year's contestants will all be reunited on a Christmas Special.

Maybe the US producers should have made sure they got themselves a conniving, scheming git. Then they wouldn't have had to bribe the contestants with $50,000 to get one of them to leave so they could be replaced by a busty 22 year old Blonde, or maybe the Blonde should have been in at the start. The US version of Big Brother may have flopped (I understand Star Trek: Voyager gets higher ratings), but the UK and most other European versions have been an undoubted success. Maybe the American people just aren't nosy enough..... but us Brits certainly are!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Up the Down Staircase (1967)

Quite Good Little Movie

[8/10 · 9 September 2000]

I only saw about 3/4 of this on a boring Saturday afternoon on Channel 5 (not famed for the quality of the films it shows - more usually soft porn). As it was the only thing on telly worth watching (out of 144 channels - that figures) I decided to stick with it. I'm glad I did. It turned out to be quite entertaining. "Dangerous Minds" with Michelle Pfeiffer was on ITV the night before, and I don't mind telling you that I thought UtDS was the superior movie. The acting was good all round, and though some of the lines were a little bit cliched and very 60's, I thought it was OK.

Halloween II (1981)

Not quite as good as the first

[5/10 · 18 March 2000]

Halloween II has some really effective scares, and a lot of imaginative sequences.

The music is really effective. The acting isn't all that good but Halloween II turns out to be a fairly good horror movie with effective scares, and still the minimum of explicit gore. However, you can tell it was made on a very tight budget, and it does look rather miserable when compared to the later sequels.

Relatively good, and deserves 6 out of 10.