Reviews

This fantastic show creates such a refreshing and welcome change to Saturday morning children's television. Although it's popularity has recently started to wane, when it was first launched it was immensely popular for nearly three years.

When it was first shown, it was fronted by comedy duo Ant McPartlin and Declan Donnelly. These two talented, young men are now much in demand following their success on this show. They are naturally witty and extremely likable, and yet still hold a slightly mischievous quality within their personalities, allowing them to identify with and appeal to children. Cat Deely who completed the trio, added a spark as the girl who was sometimes bullied by the boys, and other times she was there to outsmart them.

'SM:tv Live' took a different approach to entertaining children. The main reason behind it was that Ant and Dec used to dislike kid's TV presenters for being too patronising. They felt children did not like being talked down to. Although it may please the younger children to hear reassuring voices, the slightly older children would become bored of it. Such sections of the show demonstrated this, for example 'Challenge Ant' was battle between Ant and a child to see whether he could answer the child's questions correctly, or not. If Ant won, the child went home with nothing as well as a gloating victory dance from McPartlin himself, as was the slightly cruel, yet humorous twist.

However, it was not the first time Ant and Dec had presented a children's show. Similar ideas were used before on 'The Ant and Dec Show', yet came into a great deal of controversy. A section known as 'Beat The Barber' involved children either answering the questions right and getting rewarded, but if they lost, they also lost their hair. Complaints and pressure from the BBC meant that another series of 'The Ant and Dec Show' was never made, and also marked their parting with the BBC.

'SM:tv Live', three years after 'The Ant and Dec Show', is far more accepted by everybody, which, perhaps, represents a sign of the times in the post-politically correct British media.

Loved by children and adults alike, 'SM:tv Live' completely demolished the BBC's rivals of 'Live and Kicking' and, later, 'The Saturday Show'. While ITV on a Saturday morning was regularly pulling in 3 million viewers, the BBC struggled to get 1 million. This is an incredible achievement considering that 'Swap Shop', 'The Saturday Super Store', 'Going Live' and the early days of 'Live and Kicking' were far more popular than anything shown on ITV.

Since the departure of Ant, Dec and Cat, 'SM:tv Live' has lost some of its magic. Although Tess Daly, Brian Dowling et al do a reasonable job, there are some things that only the original three could pull off. For example, the days of Ant and Dec comically shouting at children for giving ludicrous answers on 'Wonkey Donkey' are no longer there. The children particularly enjoyed this section, as the presenters became more like cheeky older brothers, making them infinitely more accessible.

Nevertheless, this show represents a stimulating transformation from the subservient, children's television, which was long overdue for a face-lift.

I think this was a truly fantastic idea for a show, and I was looking forward to this a lot. However, the outcome was a bit of a disappointment.

This may have been about Kids' TV Shows, but it was certainly not one for the kids. The big kids perhaps. Channel4 are aimed at a predominantly youth audience of the 16-24 age bracket, and the premise of the show fits in with its quirky, alternative style.

This had a lot of potential - definitely a worthy addition to Channel4's top 100 series. There were a lot of major problems here, though - with so many people expecting it to be a success like the ones before, it should really have been better quality than this.

My first criticism comes from choosing Jamie Theakston to host the show. Normally, someone with a slight connection to the subject is chosen to host such a show, yet Theakston has little connection to the Kids' TV genre, other than hosting 'Live & Kicking' (which was not mentioned, and no one really associates with him anymore). He did not do very well taking on this job, either. A better recommendation may have been to choose Adam Buxton and Joe Cornish for the role, as they already hosted a similar kids' nostalgia previously in the year.

My next criticism comes into conflict with all these shows in general, and it is how the votes are cast. When casting your vote, you are only given 100 nominations to choose from. This suggests to me that Channel4 have already picked the top 100, and just want you to re-arrange them. Although you can add other votes below, not many people would do this, meaning classic shows like 'Button Moon' only came in the top-70 region, when it should have been a lot higher. If 150 shows were given to choose from, it would be a lot more fair and interesting.

There was also a lack of research on some shows, which is understandable if you want to fit 100 shows into the programme. However, to merely skip over shows like 'The Sooty Show', which is one of the longest running kids' shows ever, it seems a little poor quality. Especially considering images of Sooty and Sweep were all over the official website where you casted the vote, not to mention in the ad break scenes as well. To only get 15 seconds of Theakston commentating over a montage of a few clips seems very un-just for a show with so much history and such a large fanbase.

And finally, my main dispute comes over the winner of the show. Although 'The Simpsons' is a very good show, it is not a kids' show. It was created for an adult audience, broadcast to an adult audience, and has never really been intended to inform, entertain or educate children. It should not have been included in the nominations as it is not strictly a kids' show. Because it is such a popular show, people were bound to vote for it if they saw they could, but the fact remains that it is not a show meant for children, and should have never made it into this show, let alone won it.

Despite its obvious problems, this was still a good show. It was a fantastic nostalgia trip, and a chance to see what happened to all the people who brought us our favourite shows as children. Unfortunately, certain aspects of the show were not done well, and it left a bit of a nasty taste in the mouth.

This was, indeed, a good idea, and most of the content was very interesting, but I have to say, I was disappointed with it after what I had come to expect.

Believe it or not, I was actually looking forward to Spider-Man. A lot. I'll admit, I'm certainly not a comic book person, but the cartoon was brilliant. Since all this hype about Spider-Man began, I had to go out and buy a huge hardback book documenting just about every major storyline that was ever featured in the comic books.

Before I went to the film, I knew it'd be good. How could it not be? Surely just having Spider-Man in it would be enough. There's something about him that makes him the coolest super hero (by far). Maybe it's because he's young, different, interesting. Look at Super Man. Boring job, boring life. And how he has the cheek to think a pair of glasses is somehow a 'brilliant' disguise, I'll never know. At least Spider-Man has the decency to cover up a bit.

Going in already expecting it to be fantastic could be a problem. I was a little concerned that I'd think it was good when it really wasn't. Although I don't think that was a problem, in the end. A lot of hype, yes - but not over-rated (unlike 'Bored' of the Rings).

So, for anyone who's been living in a cave all their life, here's a brief outline of the story. Peter Parker is in his senior year of high school, and is a bit of a science whiz. He has a deep crush on his next-door neighbour, Mary-Jane Watson, and his best friend is Harry Osborn, whose father owns Oscorp Industries. He lives with his Uncle Ben and Aunt May, who are a couple in their late sixties (although it's not mentioned in the film, Peter Parker's parents were apparently killed when he was very young). Peter is often ridiculed at school and people regard him as a bit of a nerd. One day, on a science trip, Peter is bitten by a genetically modified spider. The next day he finds the spider has given him 'Spider Powers' including the ability to scale walls, shoot webs and detect danger with his 'spider sense'. While this is going on, Norman Osborn, owner of Oscorp Industries, is conducting a test on himself to show his chemicals work successfully. However, exposing himself to these chemicals turns him into the evil Green Goblin...

The storyline itself is very different and new. Although the storyline has existed for years, what Raimi, Lee et al did with it created a pretty decent film. The camera work was fantastic, which ranged from over-head action shots to intense emotional close-ups. The special effects were flawless. Particularly when the Green Goblin gatecrashed the Oscorp Unity Fair, the scenes of Spider-Man and the Green Goblin battling were incredibly realistic. You could tell a lot of the conventions had been drawn from recent films, such as The Matrix. However, this film itself has set a lot of conventions. Sam Raimi was an excellent choice for the director of this film. He managed to take small, insignificant actions, and turn them into the most memorable scenes in the film. The blood drip from Spider-Man's fight wound is just so inventive and the camera work and special effects make that scene so suspenseful and intense. 'Spider-Man' creates a wide range of emotions - sometimes you'll be staring open-mouthed and engrossed at the action, and other times your heart will be breaking at the grief.

Before I went to see this film, I was warned about Tobey Maguire's role of Spider-Man. After seeing it, I can't understand what everyone was complaining about - I honestly can't think of anyone better to play Spider-Man. They needed someone fairly unknown to play Spider-Man, so that they could develop his character from a clean slate. He had the perfect 'nerdy' look at the start (I was a little worried it'd be a typical case of the actor who only needs to remove his glasses in order to be considered attractive...), and definitely stood out next to all the other male characters in the film. Very suited to the role. He even managed to pull off those classic Spider-Man wisecracks. Look out for the "Nice costume - did your husband buy it for you?" when he's wrestling with Bonesaw McGraw. Unfortunately, these wisecracks become a lot more sparse as the film becomes more serious.

As for Kirsten Dunst, I think she did well, but I was a little unhappy about Mary-Jane's character (see below). Her performance did seem genuine and believable, and luckily, the red hair dye didn't look too fake...

Star role was Willem Dafoe as the Green Goblin. He suited the role perfectly, and was easily flitted between the good guy and the bad guy. I also liked J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson, but it would've been nice to see a little more of him in this role.

For any die-hard comic book fans, the question might be how true did the film stay to the old comic books? Okay, so I'm not a die hard fan, and probably have no place to comment, although I did read the hard back book from cover to cover, and have familiarised myself with the storylines a little. Obviously it would be impossible to stick to the exact storylines that evolved in the comic books. This didn't create too much of a problem, except that there wasn't much room for Spider-Man to develop. In the comic books, there were a few editions of him discovering his powers, fighting a few petty criminals, etc, before he moved onto fighting the big ones. There's no way the film could digress for half of it, before finally introducing the Green Goblin. It was a little cheesy and unconvincing that both Peter Parker and Norman Osborn happened to transform at the same time, as well. However, I think it was generally handled well.

Everyone should know that Spider-Man does not actually have the ability to shoot webs, but in the film he does. I can't really say why this is, but I get the feeling that his character is slightly different to the Spider-Man in the comic books. Once Peter Parker left high school, he never seemed to mention science much anymore. I think perhaps they were trying to give him a 'cooler' image, and breakaway from this 'nerd' persona. If Peter Parker had had the knowledge to actually create this webbing fluid, it might have given him a less of a 'cool' and 'macho' image.

I also have to say that I wasn't too impressed with Mary-Jane in this film. In the cartoon and comic book, she was far more forward and confident. In the film she seemed a little more insecure and subdued, despite being popular. Kirsten Dunst did say "Tiger" on one or two occasions, but it didn't really look right coming from her character. I was more expecting her to say lines like "Let's face it Tiger, you just hit the jackpot!", giving her a cheeky, almost arguably arrogant character. She was quite different in the film.

There were a few other points too, like the way in which Spider-Man and the Green Goblin were created - these processes seemed to be changed slightly to make it more modern, and realistic. Well all know too that Uncle Ben was killed by a burglar - the film modernises this to a car-jacking. And, if I'm right, wasn't it Mary-Jane's Aunt Anna, who lived next door to Peter's Aunt May? Yet, in the film, it was Mary-Jane herself who lived next door to Peter. And it was Aunt May and Aunt Anna who set them up on a blind date, rather than Peter secretly carrying a torch for Mary-Jane.

Nevertheless, I feel that creating a film which matched the comic books exactly was quite a tall order. Some parts of the film suffered, because it was hard to cover all the important aspects of Peter's life in two hours. However, I cannot imagine this task being approached any better way. It might've been better if it was a little longer, as, at times, it felt a little rushed. I must say though - a truly fantastic film, full of surprises and excitement. Don't wait for it to come out on DVD - it was an amazing experience watching it on the big screen, and you'll be thoroughly thrilled from start to finish.

The ending was absolutely amazing. I won't give anything away, but it was left very much wide open, and was very unexpected - in more ways than you might think! It's fairly obvious they'd always planned to make a 'Spider-Man 2' as well, so I can only hope the sequel is just as good.

One thing's for sure: it was waaaaaaay better than Batman...

After American Pie, what's left in it for the sequel? As is often demonstrated by these films, they don't reckon with what happens when there's nothing left to build an actual sequel on. Still, didn't stop them with Carrie 2, Speed 2: Cruise Control, or Home Alone 3. The basis of American Pie 2 was much the same as the first. Only, this time, it was one year later, and they were 'college guys'. Did this make much of a difference? Not really. They were still trying to satisfy their sexual urges throughout the entire film. Why anyone thought this would be an interesting enough subject to make a film about in the first place is quite beyond me. Still, it's a year later - the boys and girls are coming home from college to have a reunion. Jim is still bad in bed, Kev is still lusting after Vicky, Oz is still with Heather, Stifler still believes himself to be God's gift, and Finch has taken an interest Japanese cultures in a vain attempt to impress Stifler's Mom. Nothing new here then.

For me, the opening sequence says a lot about a film's content, and this one certainly said a lot. We have Jim in bed with some random blonde, coaxing him into some "friendly goodbye sex". It also happens to be the day that college is over for the summer. So commences the crosscutting between Jim's room and his parents. Already you can guess what's going to happen. Seeing as though it's so blatantly obvious, we may as well litter it with strikingly transparent clues as to what is going to happen in the rest of the film. Here we have Eugene Levy commenting on how he's prepared to give his 'son' the big "you're a man" speech. Oh, does this mean he's gonna do various things to embarrass his son throughout the entire movie? Probably. Does this also mean that he's going to catch him in further more compromising positions? Just like the last? I expect so. Anyway, let's cut to the chase. In steps Levy with a crate of beer, ready to give that "big man" speech he'd been talking about. Oh yeah, did I mention this is supposed to be a surprise too? No? Well, it is. But - oh no - disaster! "Can't bring alcohol in the dorms." That's okay - he's no match for Levy, "I'm just here to surprise my son Jim. Maybe you could help me out?" Wink. So, remarkably, Levy finds his way to Jim's room, and bursts in yelling, "Where's my big guy?" Groan. You'd have thought these media types would've realised that surprising people just never works. Probably why real people don't do it, then. Still, he dropped the beer for effect upon the site of his son naked, in bed with that aforementioned random blonde. Of course Jim's instant reaction is to jump out of bed and scream at his father to get out. Right. So in steps Mom shouting "I made your favourite!" She too then drops the pie she'd been cradling on the floor in horror. The pie. The apple pie. Nudge. Could it get much worse? Oh yes. In step the parents of the random blonde ready to surprise (this technique must be catching) their darling daughter. Although how they gathered she'd be in some random bloke's room is quite perplexing. Then Blondie sums it up for us all: "Thanks Jim. What, do you not believe in locks?" Yes Jim, don't you believe in locks? Is it not customary to lock the door where you come from? Or is it just not customary in cheap, tacky comedies where the old gags are, obviously, the best?

As for the rest of the film, it didn't get much better. The opening sequence had already been littered with references to the previous. That didn't change throughout, either. In the next scene, in Jim's bedroom, the second shot was focussed on that infamous webcam from the first film. Then it changes to focus on a picture of Nadia. "Who's Nadia?" I hear you cry. That's okay, I wouldn't have known who she was either if I hadn't seen the first. Actually, I do think that was a major weakness of this film - it relied too much on people having seen the first. Although I think you could've guessed what went on, a great deal of it probably wouldn't have made a lot of sense. At least, if you hadn't seen the first film, you wouldn't have noticed all the boring recycled jokes.

Although the film was largely based around Jim and his sexual problems, one thing baffled me about this film: why was Mena Suvari even in it? For the duration of the film I was waiting for her to do something; a twist in the tale - nothing happened. We saw a few brief scenes of her missing her beau, but that was about it. She deserved about as much credit for this film as Drew Barrymore did for Scream. Her appearance in the film couldn't have totalled more than about 10 minutes. A shame really, as her character, Heather, was one of the more bearable ones.

I found a majority of the scenes in this film ridiculous, predictable, and wholly unfunny. The more memorable of these being mistaking urine for champagne, mistaking glue for a lubricant, and mistaking two heterosexual women for lesbians. Although you can hardly blame them for the latter - as it goes in all these films, women always undress together and do it in front of a window.

I'll admit, one or two things did make me laugh in this film. But one or two just isn't enough.

In short, I thought it was marginally better than the first (only marginally, mind). As with the first, I couldn't even begin to understand how anyone liked it. The storyline was awful, the characters were rubbish, and the jokes just weren't funny. I suppose the acting couldn't be faulted. However, none of the characters seemed all that intriguing or challenging roles for the actors.

To conclude, I'll give it a four out of ten.