Thursday, 30 March 2017

Why You should watch Boston Legal

 So I admit that my blog seems to get more and more random and I pretty much talk about anything and everything, what started as a Video Game blog and then somehow morphed into a Video Games and Horror blog started to get sprinkles of fantasy and science fiction, and then it got some polotics and oppinion pieces and now I am set to talk about a comedy law show, I could try to slide this in without making a fuss I already know the excuse I would use. I would state the case that as this show deals with all kinds of political issues with a sense of passion and humour that this fits in with my whole style, I would argue that I share the same sort of sense of morals as one of the main characters in Boston Legal Alan Shore, in that I believe an individuals morals are more important than the law, in that if it really came down to it I would rather break the law than my own morals. Yet rather than try and slip things in to this blog through the back door I freely admit that the scope and contents of this blog have ever widdend, I guess part of it is that my own intrests have widdend and widdend as time goes on. Plus well there is a deeper point to this blog which I will get to latter.

I have just finished watching the first season of Boston Legal not for the first time, I watched it when it originally came out, I have then watched odd episodes of it out of sequence but I was lucky enough to find the whole 5 seasons second hand and cheap. I had watched season 1 and 2 of Blakes 7 and then ran in to a problem, basically the third season is stuck in the post, so I decided I needed to watch something else. The thing I love about box sets is that its easy to know what to watch next. When you have the free time and decide to try and fill it by watching films you always have this big pause when going from film to film with a series you know what to do if you own the boxset, you simply throw the next episode on.

So why do I want to recomend that everyone watches Boston Legal? Well for a start because it is an absolute return to force for William Shatner. As most people will know Shatner became the icon we all know and love through Star Trek, a science fiction show which was equal parts cowboys and Indians in space bang bang fun and a way for political and world issues to be talked about which other shows couldnt manage. Star Trek could manage it because they wrapped the problems up in face paint and pointy ears, those who just wanted to see it as a silly space show saw it that way those able to read between the lines got to be faced with deep issues being handled in an entertaining way. This is William Shatner again dealing with world issues and politics but this time instead of through the shield of fantasy it is being done through the sheild of humour. I like Boston legal because it makes me do two things I very much enjoy doing one of those is to laugh and the other is to think. There is something utterly delicious about how Boston Legal can have you laughing your socks of one second and then qustioning the very things you hold to be true and believe in the next.

Now days so much of TV's sceduling is filled with reality TV, shows in which we watch real people going about there day to day lives, unfortunatly most of the real people these shows are focused on are in one way or other shallow. Sure you can say there are shows about the rich and the poor so they cover diffrent types of people with diffrent issues, but ultimatly I would say that all of there issues are shallow and that there are only 3 reasons they exist one of which is to feed people with the intelectual equivalent of a cheap TV dinner a lot of people swallow the limited ideas represented in these programmes without even thinking if they are right or wrong. One of the others is to use them to push certain agendas I think for example a portion of the point of Benefit street was to help push the idea that those that are on benefits are scum, it was feeding in to a certain belief a belief that had largly been pushed by the government at the time, but mostly the kind of people who would watch a show like that were the people who would already believe in a set idea or set of ideas and who want these ideas to be reinforced, they dont want to be faced with new concepts or ideas. The last thing I think brings so many of these TV shows to our screen is Schadenfreude. For those who dont know Schadenfreude is a german word/concept it means to take enjoyment in another persons misery, I think we like to see misery in reality TV and laugh at it.

I am not saying that I am any better than anyone else or even that I do not watch reality TV in fact I watched and enjoyed both Celebrity Big Brother and Celebrity dating, I have even watched bits of random American rich person based Celebrity TV shows with my girlfriend. Look they can be fun, it can be enjoyable to take a look into someone elses life but these shows simply do not present people with new ideas and I think that when a person is not presented with new ideas thats when they begin to stagnate to stop moving forward intelectually and to fear the new, to fear change and to become unflinching in there own oppinions which as far as I am concerned is a very bad thing.

If you watch just one season of Boston Legal then you will be met with a whole host of diffrent ideas, you will see court room scenes in which both sides of an idea are debated and most of the time you will find yourself instantly falling on one side or other of the argument, but you will be met with new idea, new arguments for and against and just every now and then you will find that the oppinion you walked in to the episode with has been challanged, you have began to doubt something you were once very certain about, it will make you stop in your tracks and it will make you think, and hopefully in doing so it will make you grow as a person, all while it makes you smile and laugh, it offers entertainment but it also offers from for growth now who can say no to that?

Tuesday, 28 March 2017

DPP72: Tenebrae

Tenebrae is a film by the Italian Director Dario Argento. I am obviously talking about it because it is on the DPP72 list of banned films but unlike some of the films on the list in my opinion this is not a film thrown together just for shock and awe, I actually believe that Dario Argento is a great writer and director, I could easily write a post about him even if this film wasn't on the DPP72. In fact I wrote about him a few years ago when talking about one of my favourite horror films Demoni which was part written by him. If you didn't read that post and would like to read it you can follow the link below.

Tenebrae is what I would describe as a stalk and slash thriller an interesting one at that. It stars Anthony Franciosa as a an American novelist who goes to Rome to promote his new detective novel. Once there he finds himself embroiled in a series of grizzly murders, as one of his readers starts to imitate the killings from his book. The author is then bombarded with threats as well as pictures from the murders, murders which include amongst other things stabbings, garrotings and razor slashings. I find this deeply interesting maybe its because of the fact that I am an author myself or because of my interest in the whole Video Nasties thing but it basically feels like it is dealing with the idea of whether or not the creator of a piece of fiction has any responsibility for what someone may or may not do because of what he views or what he hears or reads. I think horror works at its best when it plays on peoples very deepest fears. Now I know that not everyone is a writer but all of us are in one way or another creators we all create ideas and we push these out in to the world be they in the form of a piece of work or in the way in which we present ourselves in the things we say, our thoughts and feelings constantly seep out of us and everyone will at some time worry that these will get us in to trouble or cause someone else to say or do something that we don't agree with that something terrible will grow from the seeds we have planted. To me this film is a manifestation of that very fear and that's what I feel all great horrors are, they are films which bring a fear to life in an interesting way, and that is something I feel Argentino is a Master of.
Some people have claimed that Tenebrae is a sexist film and I do agree that the killings in the film are almost all inherently sexual. The authors book within the film is all about “human perversion and its effects on society,”. The murders in the film are largely erotocised, two women are killed in a state of undress, another being force fed as she’s throttled and while I do not wish to spoil everything lets just say that it is penetrating in more than one way.

 I would give this film a very strong 9 out of 10, I can not get across my appreciation for this director or for this film any more than I have without fear of spoiling it. I think that this film is and was a piece of art it was wrong that this was banned it was not a case of violence for violences sake or gore for the sake of gore it is a deep story which happens to contain violence , as far as I am concerned this is a piece of art in much the same way the works of Shakespeare is, if you need to see a good horror film then watch this it might be on the DPP72 but it is not one of the films which tried to use gore to cover up a none existent plot, to try and push a hastily put together piece of rubbish into profits it doesn't really deserve, it is an actual brilliant film expertly crafted which deserves every bit of attention it has and could get.

Monday, 27 March 2017

Why David Yost The Blue Ranger left Power Rangers and why he is a real Super Hero.

So a new Power Rangers film is currently either in Cinema's or making its way to the cinema depending on what part of the world you live in, will I go and see it? In all honesty I am not sure, I have seen the trailers and in all honesty my feelings on them are very mixed, parts of it look funny other bits look cringy. I guess if its shown in the right cinema at the right time when I need something to do then I wil see it otherwise I will wait till it hits DVD. So why am I brining it up? Well I wanted to talk about something, something I think is very important that not many people know about.

I am sure that most people who remember the original Power Rangers will remember the first 5 Rangers, they will remember the ridiculous choice when it comes to colors with the oriental girl being the yellow ranger, the other girl being pink, the black guy being the black ranger, they will remember the zords and martial arts. While some of the colours were a little bit questionable the thing that was good was that there was a character that every youngster could relate to.

For the intelgent kids there was Billy, Billy the Blue Ranger, he was a bit of a glasses wearing nerd but he was also very clearly the brains of the operation, the one most able to understand the technolodgy and able to help in a way that didnt involve fighting. Billy was played by an actor called David Yost.

Billy wasnt my favourate ranger if I think about the first 5 rangers it would proberbly be Jason (It would be Tommy if I count the Green ranger without a shadow of a doubt) but I liked him, he always felt like an important part of the team and like he had more of offer than some of its other members as a character. He was brave even if he wasnt as cocky and willing to run in to trouble as some of the others but most of all he was an ultimatly likeable character, one who felt like a solid member of the team, someone who they would be lost without. For those who dont remember what eventually happend to Billy he was written off the show by being sent to live on another planet. I was very sad to see him go, he wasnt the first ranger but by the time he left he was my second favourate ranger and he felt like a key part of the show, I was worried that with him leaving a part of the shows heart would go with him. What I didnt find out until much latter was that he had left because he was being bullied.

Years after leaving David Yost opened up about his stint on the show and during an interview he revealed what it was like for him working on Power Rangers. The reason the original Blue Ranger left wasnt because he had been written out of the show it was because the actor actually walked off set one day after being teased about being gay. Now before anyone says he should have grown a harder skin or just taken it in his stride it needs to be pointed out that this was not the first time it had happend in fact it sounds like this was the straw that had broken the camels back. This can be seen from the following quote “The reason that I walked off is that I was called ‘faggot‘ one too many times, I had just heard that several times while working on the show from creators, producers, writers, directors… Basically I just felt like i was continually being told I was not worthy of being where I am because I’m a gay person. And I’m not supposed to be an actor. And I’m not a superhero.”.

 After leaving the show, Yost had a nervous breakdown, he left because he had been pushed so hard that he felt that if he didnt walk away he might end up trying to take his own life. I have to say that I am very glad that he left the show, so many people sit and take crap that they shouldnt risking there own mental health and well-being and I applaud him for having the guts to get himself out of a toxic situation even if it resulted in a loss of earnings. I hope that he knows how much everyone loved him as the blue ranger and how much they missed his character after he left. David Yost went on to try and fight being gay by praying it away before coming to terms with who he is. He stood up and talked about all of this in an interview finally as he wanted others who were experiancing confusion about who or what they were or intolerance from others to know that there is light on the other side, to know that you can push through it all and take control of your life.

I salute you Mr Yost the Blue Ranger as far as I am concerned you are and always will be a Super-Hero as far as I am concerned.

Sunday, 26 March 2017

A bit about the Media and certain stories in it, how I feel about them, the media and freedom.

I had sat after hearing a report on the radio thinking that I would write a piece about the news issue that had been raised, but then when I did some research into it I found out that the story being talked about wasnt a current issue it was in fact something that happend around 4 years ago. Then I was again listening to the radio latter when they annoucned a news story which I really did not think was news worthy at all, apparently the child of the singer Adele calls her a bum head. This made me stop and think about how the actual media itself is crazy. It makes news out of things that are not news at all and are in fact just bits of random celebrity dribble while also dragging up events that happend ages ago again and again when there is very little happening. Then when something dreadful actually does happen they drip feed you all of the details piece by piece sometimes with acompanying photos and videos which are sometimes far more terrfying than the horror films or video games that the same media has screamed will ruin are children by showing them gore and mayhem that they shouldnt really be subjected to. The media seems to want a free pass to titilate its viewers/readers/listeners with ghoulish delight by giving your fear center a little tickle while also trying to take the moral high ground.

Still in this post I want to both my feelings on the media as well as my feelings on some of the stories that have recently been in the news, I dont promise all of these stories will have recently happend, I just want to talk about things that have been in the news in the last few days (although unlike the mainstream media if something is old I will point this out).

So to start Home Secretary Aber Rudd has demanded that Whatsapp must allow security services to access users’ messages in the wake of the Westminster terror attack. Ms Rudd said it was “unacceptable” that the security services were unable to see messages sent by terrorists. The problem here is though that it is basically a polotician saying that they should be able to spy on the people they represent. Yes right now she just wants to look at what proven terrorists have communicated through online services but its a slippery slope, the next step would be to look at the communications of suspected terrorists. Then after this they could widden the definition of terrorist up to the point where anyone who disagrees with anything the goverment says can have there deepest most secret messages looked at just incase they have said anything they can possibly be punished for. I think the simple truth is that the government needs to be denied some powers in order for its citizens to have freedom, if you strip away basic freedoms like the freedom to have private conversations then your trying to take away peoples right to disagree with the status quo and in the words of Yoda ''that path leads to darkness''.

I suppose I should go back to the old news story. I said at the start of all of this that sometimes something that happend a long time ago is reported as if it just happend. Well in this case it was a 4 year old story in which a man who had murderd someone had got a sex change on the NHS and gone into a Women's prison as he was now a Woman. My instant response to the story was that the man commited this criminal act as a man, was tried and found guilty as a man and therefore should serve his sentance as a man. I thought that he should loose his rights as a person for killing a person, for breaking the rules of society, after all he had killed someone and had taken there rights away from them alone with there life.

If you look at my oppinions on the two above stories then you will see that on the one hand I am wanting the goverment to let people be free to have there own oppinions yet I am also wanting criminals to loose there rights, it could be argued that I am controdicting myself. This is not the case though, what I am really saying is that I think people deserve to have there own freedom and oppinion up until the point they prove they dont deserve it, but the thing I fear is that those in power will use criminals and extremists as an excuse to take away everyones rights, they will use our fear of these things to take away our freedoms under the illusion of protecting us.

Sunday, 19 March 2017

How I got the horror bug, and how to handle it when your kids want to watch Horror.

 I adore horror but this was not always the case, in fact when I look back to a certain part of my life when I was very young  the limited exposure I had to mildly frightening things scared me silly. I remember 5 things scaring me stupid all of which I adore now but at the time seemed terrifying, I will let the cat out of the bag a little now and tell you what they were. One was the War of the Worlds musical, the martians screaming Ulaaaaaaaa used to send me diving under my pillows terrified and one of my brothers would insist on playing it when I had gone to bed loudly enough for me to hear.  Two of the others were the little bits of Little Shop of Horrors and Critters that I accidentaly saw while walking in on adults watching them, and sods law I walked in at the very worst points in the films I could have, neither film when watched from start to end are that scary but seeing the wrong little snippet and beng left to try and find some form of meaning in these brief moments absolutly terrified me, I had an active imagination which spun far worse nightmares out of these pieces than it should have. The end of the film Gremlins terrified me, I was happy to watch the film to see the creatures, but the suggestion at the end that if the lights go out there could be a gremlin in your house coupled with the power cut we had about a week latter sprinkled with one of my brothers deciding that this was the prime time to make gremlin noises was enough to turn my blood to ice and scare me to the bone. Last but by no means least the thing that terrified me arguably the most was Michael Jacksons Thriller or to be precise it was Vincent Prices voice over speach/rap. There was something about how he deliverd the words the terms he used but also how he said them, when he talked about grizzly ghouls leaving there tombs in search of blood it painted a real picture in my mind one which terrified me to the core. It scared me but I couldnt seem to leave it alone there was something so special about his delivery.

I remember going through a process as a child where my mother would decide what I could and could not watch, a lot of the time she would do this by watching things first and deciding if she felt I could deal with the content. Then there were general rules she decided on like there came a day when she decided that despite me being younger than 15 I was mature enough to watch anything that was a 15 certificate and that I would just have to get permision when it came to 18's. The honest truth is I was watching quiet a few 18's from a young age, my mum essentially worked as a mini certifications board putting her own thoughts and feelings into both how mature and mentally devloped I was and into what she felt about a films contents and I think she was far better at it than the actual BBFC (British Board of Film Classification). I watched Bruce Lee films at a young age because my mum didnt think a bit of martial arts fighting really warranted an 18, and I am quick to agree after all a few years latter most kids would be watching the Power Rangers which was just about as violent (yes there was no blood and you didnt really see death but I would argue that just makes it less realistic not less violent). This is a process I have led my own daughter through, I watch what she wants to watch, I read about it and I make an informed decision on wether I think she should or should not watch something yet. I think the BBFC might be qualified to give films an average rating (although I would argue they get this wrong a lot of the time) but I think no one is more qualified to know what a young person should and should not watch and have access to than there own parent(s).

I started by watching a lot of older horror films and 80's 15 certificate stuff we had a rental shop near us that used to charge 50pence a night per rental and on weekends I would go and rent 4 typically B movie 80's horror films, this was combined with recording a lot of hammer horror films of the TV and other older films. The more I watched the more I learned what I enjoyed, I found that for example I had a thing for zombies and vampires. I think the Zombies came from a lot of 80's films and then the Vampires was very much the influence of the universal and hammer films (although The Lost Boys helped too). I would find names of actors that I liked, I had enjoyed them in one film so I would look for other films with them in, for example Vincent Price, Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee. Latter I would progress into looking up the names of writers and Directors. So I would say if you are new to horror then try a small sampling of diffrent types of film with diffrent levels of budget from diffrent decades and try to find the things that appeal to you. the same applies for if you are trying to get someone else into horror or allowing your children to get into horror, try lots of diffrent things start soft with the tame ones and work from there.

I would recomend if your letting a youngster your responsible for watch horror then to start with let them watch some with you, watch some tame stuff that you have deemed appropriate try to enjoy it with them but pay attention to the reactions they display. Make sure that your always available to discuss anything in any form of media that has botherd them and dont pressure them in any way, always remember what bores one person will terrify another we all have our own thresholds for certain things horror/fear being one of them. I would say dont feel pressured to let your kids watch anything because of what there friends are allowed to watch. The simple truth is there is always going to be kids who are allowed to watch more, this could be because they are more mature or simply because there parents dont care about there children enough to say no. It is also important to remember that a lot of the time a lot of kids absolutly talk crap. I remember my daughter telling me that a whole bunch of kids at school were claiming to have watched NightMare on Elm street at a pretty young age, now this turned out to be untrue. They were all talking about the rhym in the film and they were all getting it tottally wrong, along with the plot of the film, they were also trying to claim that anyone who hadnt seen it was a pussy ecetera. So what did I do, well I gave my daughter a verbal account of the film that was in no way as intense as the real film but told her enough of what happend that she could tell them they were wrong and it didnt happen like that, this is what happend. Ultimatly I think the moral is that as a parent you should be the gate keeper to what your children do and do not watch, the BBFC and other such guides are there to help you but overall you need to take control and responsability yourself but you need to do it in a respectful way in which you work in partnership with your children in order to help them watch the things they want to watch when they are mature enough and adequatly prepared for them.


Saturday, 18 March 2017

DPP:72. 3 More Cannibal Films

So I figured I would need one more post in order to finish up discussing the Cannibal movies which are a part of the video nasties controversy of the 1980’s.

Cannibal Terror
Cannibal Terror was one of the films to end up on the list of video nasties which was not prosecuted. In fact compared to some of the films on the list this films stay there was rather brief as it was removed from the list in 1985. It was suggested that this film ended up on the list purely because of the word 'cannibal' in its title. A lot of people question how in depth the research in to these films was as Cannibal terror was treated as if it contained the same violence and questionable content as Cannibal Holocaust, and Cannibal Ferox, but it is in fact not even close to the level of violence depicted in those films. 

The plot in brief is that two criminals kidnap a girl and hide out in the house of a friend who lives by trading with the natives in a nearby jungle. The friend's wife is raped by one of them; in return for this she ties him to a tree and leaves him to be eaten by a local cannibal tribe.

The film shares some footage with another film called 'Mondo Cannibale (also known as White Cannibal Queen). While there are many sources which try to suggest that the footage from 'Mondo Cannibale' was borrowed for Cannibal Terror to save money and pad the film out there are more connections than this between the two films. Both films share a number of locations, cast, and even dubbing actors. In this way I view this as similar to the situation with the Spanish version of Dracula, which was filmed on the same sets as the British version, its sort of a way of trying to make the most out of your resources, one would imagine in the case of Cannibal Terror if any of this was done without permission there would have been legal action by now.

The film is full of nudity and has some blood but in comparison to Cannibal Holocaust, and Cannibal Ferox it is more comical than disturbing. In my opinion it is just one of those ‘’me to’’ films which was trying to cash in on what was at the time a popular genre, if it wasn’t banned it would have faded away so quickly that it would barely have made its way on to anybody’s radar. In this way the whole Video Nasties thing proberbly did this film a favour. I have always said that the easiest way to make sure someone watches something is to try to tell them that they cant, after all most people dislike being told what to do in there own personal life.

I would score this film an utterly forgetable 5 out of 5 , only watch this if your a completionist that feels they need to see all of these films.

Deep River Savages
Deep River Savages also known as Man from Deep River is an Italian exploitation movie from Umberto Lenzi the maker of Cannibal Ferox (Which I mentioned last time). It is considered by some to be the start of the whole cannibal movie phenomenon in fact and inspired many of films which followed it.

The plot can briefly be explained as the story of a photographer who is ambushed by a tribe while on a photo assignment in the rain forest. The tribe initially treats him viciously and uses him as a slave. The chief's daughter takes a liking to him, and her mother, who can speak English, helps him to attempt to escape. During his attempt encounters the fiancĂ© of the chief’s daughter and kills him. Soon he is recaptured but the chief’s daughter decides that he will be her next fiancĂ©. He then decides to live with the tribe; helping them to fight against a cannibal tribe that they're at war with

Just like Lenzi’s other film Cannibal Ferox this film largely found its way on to the video nasty list because of its scenes of animal cruelty. Unlike Cannibal Ferox there is not actually that much attention paid to the act of cannibalism. It is not so much a cannibal film as a film which happens to contain a bit of cannibalism in it.

I seemed to enjoy this film more than his latter film Cannibal Ferox, maybe it was the fact that it seemed like a more complete story, the things that happened in it even when they might have been a little gory seemed to exist to further the story as opposed to being there just to appeal to gore hounds. I still hate the whole animal crulty for the sake of a film thing and it seriously makes me want to punch the director in the face, I dont think the film should have been banned or prosecuted but if the director had been done for animal crulty then I would be quiet happy, heck I would love to see some kind of fine slapped in place where any old film that had real animal death or crulty loses a percentage of its profits to charities to help animals but I guess If I carry on talking about this anymore then ill be going really off on a tangent. Id give the film 7.5 , ignoring the above of course.

Cannibal Apocalypse
I want to explain this film but avoid giving to much away so I will start by saying it is not exactly your typical cannibal film in fact the title is in my opinion misleading the Spanish title Virus fits the nature of the film a little better. 

It rests almost between a cannibal movie and a zombie movie. The film starts in Vietnam where prisoners of war have developed a craving for human flesh. The film then goes forwards a decade or two and catches up with the Veterans who are now developing a real taste for flesh. As they bite people a rabies like infection spreads which gives the infected the same desire to eat human flesh. The film is not set in the jungle like the other Cannibal films it has a city setting more akin to the usual zombie fare. There is something I love about this film though maybe it is the fact that it features the acting talent of John Saxon which seems to push it beyond the other films I have been talking about with their largely unknown casts and low production values, every minute he is on screen is a bit of gold. Although this is the film I have talked about the least this is no bearing on my opinion on it. If you can only watch one of these films then make this the one. I would go so far as to give the film a nice solid 8, it is an under discussed film but its really a case of I think the less I say about it the more your likly to enjoy it.

Friday, 17 March 2017

Why You should Watch Blakes 7

So I have been knocking around online now writing blogs and occasionally doing other things such as making youtube videos for quite a number of years now and the entire time I have been doing it I have been using the name Kerr9000, from time to time I get asked where this name came from well to put it simply it comes from an old BBC Science Fiction show called Blakes 7. This is why I want to talk about Blakes 7 today, its not simply the fact I got my name from it, its the fact that I valued this show enough for it to come to mind when I needed a name, this is because the show has never really left my mind. Blakes 7 was originally broadcast between 1978 and 1981. I was born in 1981 so I didnt see Blakes 7 when it was first transmitted, I saw it when my Dad began to buy it on VHS.  In this post I am going to explain to you why you should watch Blakes 7

Blake's 7 was created by Terry Nation, yes that Terry Natuion the guy who created the Daleks for the television series Doctor Who. If you stop and think about Doctor Who as sort of being the BBC's light and happy Sci Fi show then Blakes 7 would be its polar opposite. What do I mean by this? Well in Doctor Who there might be the odd monster or two but the show is about the Doctor a wild eyed super intellgent alien who most of the time manages to save the day, the show by and large tends to have a certain life affirming quality to it. Blakes 7 is by contrast very dark. Apparently the series was inspired by a great many sources some historical some other science fiction shows and
real-world political conflicts. If you want to know what it is like I could best describe it as Robin hood meets Star Trek with a budget, props and effects simmilar to the episodes of Doctor Who made during the same sort of time frame.

Blake's 7 was popular from its first broadcast, it was watched by approximately 10 million  in the UK and shown in 25 other countries. The show does feature many typical science fiction tropes such as spaceships, robots, galactic empires and aliens, some would argue that its budget was inadequate to do its self justice but I would strongly argue against this. I think the show features some great acting a very intresting dystopian theme, a wide selection of varaible characters with strong characterisation. Yes you could argue that StarWars had already done the whole evil government thing but Blakes 7 is not quiet that basic, you see the resistance characters are not exactly your regular heroes, one of them is a theif another is a computer expert who tried to use his knowledge to commit fraud, then there is a smugglar, a man who commited murder and then there is a political idealist who was wrongly convicted of crimes he didnt commit. What makes the show intresting though is the fact that not all of these characters agree all of the time, sure they all want to be free but thats about the only thing they can all agree on. I think this makes the show fascinating, most people I know who have watched the show have found a character who they can closly relate to, someone who they see as either a representation of themself or someone they can get behind because they admire there individual qualities or agree with there outlook of the situation, this is part of what I think makes it a brilliant show.

 Blakes 7 only had 4 series with 13 episodes a piece, it did have a few books and audio plays as well, it has also almost found its way back to TV a few times with various diffrent networks and outlets seeking out the rights to make either a TV movie , a new series or even an animated series and although none of these has actually happend yet I think it clearly shows that there is still a lot of love out there for the show. It might not have made it back but I think a lot of its sort of DNA has actually made it into more modern Science fiction projects, for example I can see a lot of Blakes 7 in FireFly.

You should give Blakes 7 a chance if you want to see intresting characters in intresting situations and your not one of those people who cant suspend there disbelief enough to look past the late 70's early 80's effects and props and if this stops you from watching it then I really pitty you cause your missing out on an absolute treat.