Radio Times

I always get the feeling that Heroes is watched by people - and by people I mean 13-year-olds - who think it's great drama. But of course, 13-year-olds wouldn't know great drama if it knocked on their doors and introduced itself.

Heroes (Thursdays, 9:00pm, BBC2) is tosh. Effortlessly dull tosh at that, packed with ludicrous portent and mind-bendingly dreary characters. The whole thing is so uninvolving it's impossible to care who's doing what, and why. Save the world/don't save the world. Am I bothered?

The first series was bad, but the second is even worse, grinding along week after week, spewing out interminable nonsense and even worse dialogue. For instance, no-one should underestimate the narcoleptic properties of its narrator, Mohinder, and his uncanny ability to eject rubbish from his mouth that sounds like it's really deep (and probably is viewed as profound by our 13-year-old friends) but is simply the kind of New Age gunk that wouldn't disgrace a greetings card adorned with kittens in a basket.

No wonder producer/creator Tim Kring apologised last year to impatient fans when the series aired in the States. He knew he'd got it wrong, and he pledged to put it right.

I'm always mildly surprised to learn that adults - and quite sensible ones at that - watch Heroes. Though I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and put it down to a mildly aberrant personality - we all have our weaknesses. I've been known to be struck dumb with appalled fascination by Katie & Peter: the Next Chapter (ITV2).

I know it's wrong and I shouldn't be watching, but something about this grim, joyless, lifeless mess is completely fascinating, from Katie Price's dead eyes and lustreless, monotonous voice to her husband's obsession with a certain sex act. In one episode I saw recently, Katie bought Peter a piano for his birthday. It was a nice gift and he appeared genuinely touched. Until - yes, he couldn't help himself - he grabbed his crotch and droned, oh so romantically: "A b*** j** would make it perfect." Peter, love, you do realise you are on telly, don't you? But, heigh-ho, no-one believes in privacy any more, do they?

Actually, for all of his tedious sex-centric posturing, Peter Andre seems rather sweet, a bit like a lost and motherless panda. But there's something very frightening about Katie.

It's not too much of a stretch to compare Katie Price's undoubted focus on her own climb to success with that of Margaret Thatcher. In Tony Saint's cheerful fantasy, Margaret Thatcher - the Long Walk to Finchley (Thursday 12 June, 9:00pm, BBC4), Andrea Riseborough is terrifyingly good as the young Margaret Roberts.

**

Alison Graham is TV editor of Radio Times - read her column in the latest issue of Radio Times magazine, on sale now.

Age doesn't define judges of good television. Some thirty year olds watch Lazytown - some ten years olds watch Supernatural. And as such many young people who watch a wider variety of programmes have a greater depth of knowledge and are able to compare shows. I am 15, an aspiring screen wirter and director, and the show doesn't just appeal because of it's special effects or stunts. The script is well paced, well constructed, the story lines are fantasticly thought out - the camera work is perfect and I often admire it as I watch. Characters are equally easy and difficult to like and dislike; heroes are fraught with hard desicions, villains create stomach churning hatred, and after an evening of watching I feel emotionally exhausted, not to mention physically after jumping around on the sofa for the frustratingly brief forty minutes.

Okay, the second series lagged, but it's no excuse to condemn the whole show. Try picking up again from the third series, and not knowing the plot is no excuse. Who cares if you don't know what's going on? Enjoy the suspense, the choices the characters make and the paths they take us down. You may just end up broadening your horizons.

Oh, and don't bad mouth 13-year-olds. I'm pretty sure you were one once; just because you may not have been a judge of good drama doesn't mean every other 13-yea-old is.

Once again critics try to prove that they are better than regular people.

I actually rather like heroes actually it is my favorite TV show in a long time. I have long been fed up with the cycle of plot lines on Eastenders Corrie ect and it has been a long time since we have had a program to get our teeth into.

There may have been a few points where people may feel that the plot has gone astray but i feel that is only to highten and increase the intense, before the final episode of each volume.

Volume three - that was cut short by the writers strike - The ending could have been handle slightly better but i personally feel that its because it is leading up what would have been and still is eps 25.

I shall always love watching this program because it is more intellegent than most of the rubbish we have on tv.

Sam

it may not be the best show ever but its enjoyable. critics seem to forget that it doesnt have to be great acting to be good. and im 15 and feel insulted that you think that people my age are complete idiots!

I do not care if Ms. Graham enjoys this programme or not, i like the show but agree with some of the things she says...

what i do not understand is how the show is to be compared to katie price's newest show?

My younger brother enjoys big brother type programmes, so i would not ask his opinion on law and order or monk, so why should we listen to Ms. Graham?

Having just watched the end of Volume Three - more out of duty than any remaining enjoyment, I can only conclude that the writer's strike can't have been called off. It's a noisy mess with no coherent plot structure. You don't care if anybody dies because - hey - it'll be a different timeline or they'll get some of Claire's magic blood or something. Somebody put it out of its misery now. It makes one long for the subtleties of classics like Buffy.

I feel that in this review Alison is trying to exaggerate to make a point, whilst plainly insulting 13 year olds and those of us who watch heroes.

Heroes is something I look forward to watching, even though I often end up disappointed. The potential of the plot is what keeps me watching it: I am just fascinated by the concept of real people having special powers and the prospects of it.

I enjoyed the first season. I felt the characters were strong and the plot was consistent whilst still providing revelations each week.

The second series disappointed me. It moved slowly each week, and at times the plot was totally ludicrous. Hiro's trip to Feudal Japan was utterly stupid and instead of an explosion threatening the world, a disease. How original!

So far, I feel the third series has shown glimpses of the successes of series one but also of the failures of series two. With the sub-title "Villains", we now see a different side to some of the heroes. Instead of the black and white morality presented in the previous two series', there are harder moral questions to answer. Some of the characters we see in a much darker state, such as Mohinder Suresh and Claire Bennett. But the transformation to Suresh from nerd to spiderman and to Bennett from barbie to catwoman doesn't really work. The introduction of Arthur Petrelli adds a good twist, but he gets killed off after a few episodes. Shame.

I will carry on watching, because you just don't know if it could come good.

Heroes is a big steaming pile of turd now. Inconsistencies in characterisation, plot... ah, reminded me of how 4400 came to be later in the series.

Heroes is not great. The first season I thought was wonderfull. Just watching the first few esd of season 3 All I can think is What a Mess. Everyone is related and all these silly new people and it wasnt evolution like were led to belive it was done in a lab when they were babies. Your Scared man, Make you move man, Pretend Nicki, Scream real loud man, Offari Agboka-Mendez ( it will come out later that the precog is really Issac's father), Create Vortex man, Take your Power away man , Mohender Goldblum man....

Thank you Alison, for having the guts to say this, because it sorely needed to be said.

People, Alison Graham is a critic. It is her job to comment on the quality of TV shows. Get over it, and stop victimising the poor woman for not liking the same telly as you. Yes, Heroes is light entertainment, and that would be fine if it didn't pretend to be intelligent drama and 'like, y'know, deep'. There are far worse things on TV (Big Brother, Katy and Peter etc) but few things that annoy me so much. At least everyone accepts reality TV is tosh

The new season of Heroes is a mess. It feels like half the people who died last season have been brought back and are now alive. Whenever writers do this it always stinks of them trying fix previous bad decisions in the writing. Also, Mohinder and his stupid, melodramatic, obnoxious drivel of a voiceover - please for the sake of us all shut up!

It feels a lot like the X-Files at the moment where the plot got so ridiculous and twisted that I couldn't take it seriously anymore. I'm almost entirely watching the show now just to see what further holes the writers are going to dig themselves into.

Idiot!

heroes is great you idiot

heroes is brilliant. why do you always critisise tv shows. alison, you have no taste in television.

alison graham you have fallen. i so enjoy your comments every week as you often share my vues but you have now stooped so low as to disscrimminate against children teenage children i am a teenager but i also love friends - which you like - rebbecca - which is a classic - pride and predididuce - another classic - poiriot and miss marple and can't wait for lost in austen.and i loath the xfactor which is often said to be for teenagers. so alison graham i am soon to be 13 are my tastes to imature?

I deepely admire Alison Graham as an editor and usually look forward to her comments on the weeks televison. I do find myslef disppointed when all I seem to come across is snappy immature vague comments to the downhill slope of Hereos, adn her insulting comments on the veiwing reactions of teenagers. I am a teenager, but I see no need to commetn on the many faults of adults, and their TV choices. I could mention Eastenders, Big Brother or the many mother second rate programmmes that the majority of adults seem to watch. Why not comment on that for a change?

"Please do the public a favour and go off and review toilets for a living instead."

Truly the spirit of Oscar Wilde lives on in the comments section of this Blog.

Except of course that Oscar was witty, literate and could spell.....

Come on Alison that was a pathetic review on Heroes, which you end up spending half of it writing on Katie and Peter - going off topic is the exact thing editors are supposed to watch out from their hacks, so do you do it as editor! May be your a 13 year old hack!

I agree though about mohinder's rubbish at the end - but that is gone now or you can switch the channel at that point.

I think much of what you say really applies to Lost, which I gave up watching halfway through the first series but you never panned that.

In fact I have come so used to your pants reviews that when I think a review misses the mark I say to my self it must be written by Alison Graham - and usually I'm right.

its allways incredibly frustrating when adults are so rude about the intelligence of teenagers, especially when said adults are aparently mindless TV hacks. all the young poeple i know enjoy this program for what it is, and not because they believe it deep. how did a writer who is so biased become telivision editor? is it not true that every week you write about how much you hate heroes because it is not proper drama, and then go on to write about how much you love Grey's anatomy? surely this is slighty inconsistent.

I find it amusing and somewhat bizarre that children start this petty and vindictive whining just because Ms Graham dares to criticise their favourite telly programme.

I've watched both series of Heroes. I started because of all the hype. I continued out of mild curiosity. It's not the worst thing on TV by any means. But its v far from the best, and not a patch on superior US dramas like ER, The Shield, The Unit, etc, etc.

And personally I find Alison one of the better TV critics around. I don't always agree with her, but I'm always interested in what she has to say, and enjoy the way she says it.

And by the way, she has to watch things she doesn't like. That's her job.

So of course, the people who've commented are entitled to their opinions on Heroes and Alison Graham.

And I of course am entitled to my opinions on Heroes and Alison Graham. And on them...

Fine, Heroes does have its flaws, but its better then the endless soaps and reality shows that go on, week in, week out.

In the writeup for tonights episode young Alison mentions that it is moderately interesting. Let us wish that one day she might strive to reach such great heights. However, on current evidence I fear she may well struggle. But of course that might just be a feeling that I have.

If you so loathe Heroes why is it consistently the "TV highlight" on the RT website's front page? Why in episode reviwes do you slate it and then it's starred in the listings as a must watch?

Consistently judge an episode/series and write reviews and editorials with logical, thought-out arguments. Insulting your readers probably dosen't help, might want to make a change there as well.

I like Heroes AND I like Alison Graham. I generally agree with what she writes and this time I don't - although I have to admit that the second series hasn't been as good as the first and that the scenes set in Cork have been insultingly bad (I'm Irish). But can't we agree to differ? People seem to be arguing that if you don't like something, you shouldn't write about it. Well, right back at you babes! If you don't like what Alison writes, why bother reading and commenting on it!

Just because you're well past thirteen does not mean you have to bash a group of people who, at least, are far less biased than you are. My cousin is 14 and he enjoys this show not because it's "deep" but because it's escapist TV and is not supposed to be taken seriously. The fact that you are taking it seriously proves you are not in the right position to watch it so go do something else. It would probably be for the best for all of us.

PS. I am an adult, I watch this show and I am proud of it. When I find a show I don't like, I change the channel.

PS. I am an adult, I watch this show and I am proud of it. When I find a show I don't like, I change the channel.

Oh, do shut up. I have had it up to here with your stupid pathetic excuses for reviews. I watch this show. I like it. I AM OLDER THAN THIRTEEN.

I used to like you. Now I wonder why I bother. You are nothing more than a pathetic excuse for a critic who claims to be a writer. That's a real laugh. I could write a better review with my left toe. In fact, my guinea pig could write a better review than you and he can't even spell. At least he doesn't descriminate; heck, half of those thirteen year olds could probably write better than you.

No one is tying you to a chair and forcing you to watch this show. You are not the only reviewer in this magazine and you are far from the best. If you really find it so silly, dull etc. THEN WHY WATCH IT? Why not review something you actually like; your own ego, for instance? I am dreadfully sorry that I enjoy watching a programme that you don't, but at least I have the decency to not insult everyone who likes a programme I don't. I don't give a damn if this is rude. You are being downright rude to the fans of this show (YES, THAT'S RIGHT. There are FANS out there who actually LIKE this show and don't like being verbally insulted) and I was perfectly willing to right a civilised email until I read this.

I really, really don't care if you find this offensive. If you're going to insult people, prepare to get a retaliation. You have ruined my goddamn day. I hope you're proud of yourself.

While it's true that the second series of Heroes was a meandering, ill-paced mess, and I found myself almost completely un-engaged, the first series was a Heroic Soap Opera of grandiose proportions. That you, a TV editor of one of the countries 'foremost' TV periodicals, considered even that initial series to be dull gives me considerable cause for concern, but explains a lot about why I don't read Radio Times anymore!

Well done for alienating a vast proportion of your readership by snobbily comparing them to 13 year olds, though. Excellent work.