I've finally kicked my Eastenders habit, and boy does it feel good. No longer do I spend two hours a week in the company of such miserable, pathetic and unlikeable people, and I don't miss them in the slightest. Eastie's was always the most barable soap, with the odd good performance / plot line from time to time, but in the last twelve months it's become unbearably tiresome, and it got to the point where if I saw any of the cast's miserable faces one more time I couldn't promise that I wouldn't head down to Elstree and assassinate every last one of them. And rather than do that, and then face the rest of my life in prison cells, I just stopped watching. And you know you should too.
Liquid News (8pm, weeknights, BBC Choice)
Christopher Price's sudden and unexpected death last month was a real shock, and a sad loss to the tv world. Pithy, intelligent, and always funny, he was one of the few presenters who made live tv seem effortless, and I'll certainly miss his presence on our tv screens. And seeing Dale Winton present the first episode made post Christopher's passing just left a bad taste in my mouth. Sure, Chris might of wanted the show to go on, but surely not with that smarmy, idiotic man who seemed to know nothing about the subjects he was talking about. Unless a presenter is found who can match Chris's charm and wit, I cant say I'll ever bother to watch it again.
Survivor (9.45pm, Wednesday nights, ITV)
Is anyone watching this? The complete lack of coverage in the tabloids would suggest not, and it's easy to see why. Unlike Big Brother's collection of fame obsessed monkeys, these guys n girls are just so fucking dull. Lacking the interactivity of BB, Survivor has nothing to grab it's viewers by other than prettier scenery, and whilst there's much going on, none of it is interesting in the slightest. Please, ITV, please, no more.
Ally McBeal (9pm, Tuesday nights, E4)
And so it's been cancelled. Good thing or bad? Hell, I don't know. It had it's moments, the first series was fun, but then again, it's responsible for all of those series which use fantasy sequences to liven up flacid scripts and unimaginative plotting. And the lack of future series is hardly anything near a tragedy is it?
That's not been the only question which has surely been on all obsessive fans lips for the last month or so though - Will it live up to previous years series or suffer in comparison? Can people take another ten weeks of bickering, insanity and unintentional hilarity? Or is it finally going to finally get unbearably boring? Most admit that the second series wasn't as good as the first, the contestants all too aware of the brief shots at fame awaiting them upon leaving
The success of reality tv game shows has always depended on how well the producer's have picked the contestants - as Survivor has consistently proved by featuring a selection of the dullest people ever born. Big Brother's been lucky twice, but what about this time? Well, to be cruel, there's no obvious Brian's or Anna's, but it was easy to spot the Helen, a couple of Paul's, a Darren, an Andy and one Tamzin Outhwaitte wannabe almost instantly. Though thankfully the rest didn't led to such easy comparisons, and at least there are no Josh's, Sada's, or Anthea Turner's. More importantly, they do seem a diverse, intriguing and amiable enough group, and much drama and comedy should be produced to make the omnibus editions of the show worth watching at least. And yeah, whilst I already know the first five people I want out of the house, that only makes the interactive elements of the show the more involving.
Watching the housemates meet each other last night, it all too quickly became apparent that few had learnt lessons from previous series', which will probably work in the show's favour, as few of them seemed to realise that being quiet and un-troublesome is the way to survive being nominated during those rocky first few weeks (as Craig proved as he pretty much slept through the first month of Series 1, before pulling out all the stops post Nick-gate). Attempting to be the centre of attention all of the time rarely appeals to the viewers or contestants (Brian being the obvious exception), though whether or not it make's for better tv is open to question of course. Sadly, it'll probably be Alison who's first out, as her attitude became all too apparent within 10 minutes of entering the house as she declared "I'm pulling ranks. I'm having that bed there. I don't care what anyone says right, I ain't having no arguments," whilst kicking the boys out of the luxury bedroom. A move which isn't going to win her too many friends. But you need people like her to spice things up a little, and it'd be a real shame for the show if she was the first to leave. Predicting the final three is no doubt a tad stupid, as so much will change as group dynamics vary with each eviction, but what the hell. To me it seems the most likely to survive to the end has to be Sandy, Katie and P.J. But I'd still struggle to pick who I want to win out of any of the current twelve housemates. But as mentioned, these are early days, and anything could happen. Or nothing. But let's just hope that it's the former.
And so to those pesky questions. Well, we're only one episode in, and so much can change, but, you know, I think it's going to work. I think that the clashes are already apparent, that Big Brother is at it's finest when the contestants at odds with each other. Nick v. the whole house being the obvious example. The programme's success relies on us a hell of a lot though. If, as in the first two series, the crazy, annoying or just plain odd contestants are voted out first, and all we're left with are the sane and the bland, who get along with each other and just love to play happy families, then it'll once again become all too dull in the final weeks.
I've regretted writing a fair few glowing reviews this year, after series have failed to live up to promise shown, but if the tabloids aren't going crazy by the end of the series (bar another major tragedy/disaster/the end of the world), and viewing figures arent as high as the previous two series, well, I'd be more surprised than Angus Deayton must have been when he read the papers on Sunday. Try as you might to resist, you just know it's gonna take over your lives again.
Indeed it's not impossible to imagine that the Beeb had some sort of deal with the News of the World, giving them heavy product placement in exchange for
And did it live up to the hype? Well do these things ever? Both Merton and Hislop had a ball making innuendo and comment about the incident, but neither really stuck the daggers in, neither went for the fatal jugular, bar perhaps one moment where Paul challenged Angus on what parts of the story were a lie. Which he squirmed his way out of by moving quickly on, as he did with nearly every over comment. But it wasn't enough. He never really looked too uncomfortable.
So yes, it was funny, and yes, it was strangely satisfying to see Deayton at Merton and Hislop's mercy. But, as with so much other tv shows at the moment, I walked away feeling that it just wasn't as good as it should have been.
Alex Finch.
We've seen some great tv series appear over the past few months. Whilst I agree with Joanna's choices (See Communication Breakdown), I would also have recommended watching Mark Thomas, The Stand-up Show, and catch Jools Holland and the Book Group while you can. Law and Order is always a good, under-rated bet on a Saturday night, after CSI. Mark Thomas again sheds light into things only the most astute of news followers would know, and produced a very productive, albeit brief series highlighting key issues within government that go unnoticed.
The Stand-up show featured acts from the Edinburgh Festival (presumably last year), and the stand-out acts were Boothby Graffoe, Will Smith, Brendan Burns, Andy Parsons, Colin Murphy, and Sean Cullen. If you haven't seen any of those live in stand-up; see them, for goodness sake! Better still, get tickets for this years Edinburgh festival.
Jools Holland has been, since the demise of the White Room, the best programme for showcasing a comprehensive spectrum of music, and the last few weeks have been no exception. From Salif Keito, India Arie to Elvis Costello, Doves, Electric Soft Parade, Soundtrack to Our lives, Cornershop, Del Amitri, The Vines, Pet Shop Boys and other great acts have graced Friday nights over the past few weeks. Jools puts TOTP and CD:UK to shame.
The Book Group has been also been a welcome addition to Firday night viewing. What seemingly started as a straight replacement for Black Books, has evolved into a Comedy Drama, then a farce, then an elaborate intermingling bed of love-triangles. Incidentally, Clare is pretty given she is supposed to be ordinary compared to 'Dirka' and 'Fist', but I hope Clare and Kenny get it together.
Craig Aston.
Dawson's Creek (9pm, Monday Nights, E4)
Why do I watch Dawson's Creek? And how long have I been asking myself that question? It's not something I catch every week, but I still find myself dipping in to it from time to time. But why? Why do I waste an hour of my increasingly diminishing free time, to watch such trivial nonsense?
Thankfully the series is slightly less self-obsessive since we last reviewed it (cf Tv Comment Jan to May 2001) but now that the gang have gone off to University, in place of countless scenes of the teens sitting around dissecting the intricacies of modern life, it's just become much more soapier, and thus bland. Dawson's Dad has been thoughtlessly killed off, Pacey's trying to date a married woman, Jack's thrown himself in to freshman life, oh, and Dawson's finally lost his virginity. But all these plot developments hasn't made the series any better.
Most show's survive by creating characters you become involved with, care for, but if in Dawson's world nuclear war was to break out, would you really mind? And maybe that's it in a nutshell - bar perhaps Jen, none of the characters are that interesting anymore. Or even likeable for that matter. The end really needs to take place soon if anyone's going to look back on this programme even vaguely fondly.
Buffy (8pm, Thursday nights, Sky One)
Ah how I'm starting to regret that glowing review of Buffy a few months back (see Tv Comment February 2002). Not that that particular episode has diminished in my eyes, it's just that the series hasn't developed on the promise shown, and it's all become too formulaic once again. That's not to say that they're aren't good episodes, fine moments and all that, but it just isnt the series that it could be. Should be.
Watching old episodes on BBC2 it's become apparent just how miserable Buffy has been since the series began, and perhaps that's the real problem. Sure, she's had some upbeat times, but the majority of the last six years have seen her in miserable mode. And fair enough, she's had a lot to deal with - the whole slaying shebang, falling in love with Angel, and then having to kill him, the death of her Mother and the introduction of Dawn, and so much more - it's not been an easy ride, but enough is enough, and it really is time for Buff to enjoy life a little.
Bring back Giles, have a season without a big bad, and give the girl some happy times. She not only deserves it, but the viewers do too.
Alex Finch.
Agree/Disagree with these reviews? Then tell us on our Discussion Forums.
Want more tv comment? Then click below for reviews from:
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
June to July 2001
January to May 2001
July to December 2000
January to June 2000
July to December 1999
 |
| Let Spyonit.com notify you when this page changes! |