Many people hail the bravery of this over-coiffed, over-exposed egomaniacal multi-millionaire of inviting some dumb guy on her over-wrought television show in order to tear him apart, but hardly anyone seems to make note that it takes a lot of balls to go be torn apart by an over-coiffed, over-exposed egomaniacal multi-millionaire on her over-wrought television show.

All memoirs are written though the filters of memory and perspective, both of which can be incredibly flawed and usually are. So someone lied in his memoir? So what? The important question is: Did you like the book?

Arrested Development only got two and a half years? So what? Tell that to Judd Apatow, whose best work is now behind him and didn't get those two and a half years. Tell that to any given good British show that only ran for six episodes a season, so even if they ran for five, they have less actual screen time than Arrested Development.

The problem with American TV is that it is all about excess, even in run lenghths, so that they all stick around 10 years long after they've started to suck. Now Arrested Development - unlike, say, The Simpsons or Malcom in the Middle or Frasier - will not be allowed to wear out its welcome and transform into a horrible shadow of its former self. Thank goodness, I say - the only thing worse than a TV show that leaves you wanting more is one where you wish it would just go away already.

It's a bit dismaying to read Heather's review of Doctor Who. As a reviewer myself, I think it's important to not make criticism your first action and give space to actual analysis and review of a show or film, especially when it is something you don't quite like. It is always good to explore how other people view it, what might be the appeal, and see if that affects your review at all - it leads to a more well-rounded and helpful piece, I think.

That said, Heather's review column is half-personality and, as such, I understand that glibness is part of the appeal - as a columnist, I am guilty of that myself. However, as a film reviewer, I try to practice what I outlined in the first paragraph and if I can bring nothing interesting to the piece - that is, if all I can do is slam something without providing facile or personal reasons for my dislike - I'll pass it by. No point in reading me whining.

And so that Heather does her schtick is fine, but in doing so, she passes up some things that are worth talking about, though these are thankfully addressed in other comments. I'm speaking of the family-friendly quality of the show and the fact that it is partially aimed to kids. Heather seems to miss this very important point about the show and, though some may shrug it off, I would say that if you don't actually understand or acknowledge where a show is coming from, what its intent is, how can you effectively review it since part of the analysis involves studying whether it is successful at its intent?

As near as I can tell, Heather critiques the show and dismisses it because it did not engage her, personally - but, of course, that was never the intention of Russell T. Davies, was it? What good is her review then, other than amusing catty columnist ramblings?

As many have pointed out, Doctor Who is one of the few shows that a family can sit down and watch together and not be sickened by - the conservative and delicate values that so often infect family friendly shows are nowhere to be seen. In fact, in the realm of kids, this show asks tough questions about the way you live your life, about doing what needs to be done, and about accepting people who are different from you - all without being heavy handed in the slightest. Rather than teach messages, it just presents the actions of characters as being about more than what you see on the screen.

The characters that Heather views as unlikable are viewed differently by most the people who enjoy the show. The Doctor is a character who understands the virtue of sacrifice for the larger good and safety, that sometimes to get what you want you really do have to lay things on the line that are difficult to barter with. Rose is, I think, a great character for kids - this is a person who is stepping beyond her world and struggling with rectifying her own identity with the reality of what lurks beyond - she does not wish to remain cloistered and cut-off and wants to understand things as they are.

As the show moves along, its stories address such concerns as action vs. complacency, the need for tolerance in surviving unknown territories, the need to find your place in the universe and the dangers of thinking you are the center of it, the benefits of taking risks, the pitfalls of religious thought, nationalism, and mass hysteria, the complex nature of evil, and more - all in a format for kids who are usually given little of great concern to think about in their entertainment beyond their own experience, and with characters that it seems children get - especially quirky children that don't fit in, to whom the character of the Doctor really speaks.

All of this may seem obvious to a professional grown up, but when I see it through the eyes of my 10 year old sons - and see that the storylines spur real discussions about real philosophical and social concerns wrapped up in a show about space monsters and time travel.

I'm truly sorry Heather can't see the power of this and it's a shame she boiled it down to blue make-up without trying to understand why some people are so enthused by this show.

My own review can be read here

http://www.thetranscript.com/entertainment/ci_3613258