Top 10 TV Game Shows

If there's one thing that has also been a key part of television it's the game show. The British haven't really got our heads round the perfect formula yet, but that's not the case over the pond. Here is a countdown of my top ten favorites that might just brighten up a boring evening.

#10 Let's Make a Deal (ABC) (1963-Present)

We begin this list with a show that has unfortunately not made it across the pond yet, despite being the most British feeling game show of all time. Its low quality and quirky appearance would have made an ideal match with the UK networks, but that has unfortunately never happened. I would still like to see some classic transmissions from the 1970's with the legendary Monty Hall and his unique charisma. Creating a newer version would just loose the original charm this show had, and that is very much the case with the US counterpart that has started to loose its way with endless repackages under various disguises. Current host Wayne Brady has never fit the tone of the show, and it's now lost its quirky edge that separated it from standard game shows.

The actual premise is quite simple. The idea is that a member of the audience is given a choice whether they want to be given a certain amount of cash or one of three items hidden behind three curtains. Usually two of those prizes are better than their original offer, but one is also a joke prize, so there is some basic risk involved. I've seen episodes where guests have won a live ostrich or a pet llama. That isn't even the strangest thing about the show; the costumes some of the audience wear to get noticed are unbelievable. That feature has almost made the show what it is today, and helps with that low brow charm that I love about the game. It might not be so popular now, but in its heyday the show was sold out for three years, and it regularly featured as the most watched syndicated show of the week. Really at its peak this was an absolute classic.

#9 Pointless (BBC) (2009-Present)

The UK's less glamorous answer to daytime game shows, but in the usual British way it's very good considering there isn't much to work with. The point of this 'pointless' game is to find obscure answers to common questions. The more obscure the answer, the lower the points scored, which in this case is a good thing. The ultimate aim is to find an answer so obscure that no person surveyed even mentioned it, and one of these bad boys in the final round will land the couple a designated jackpot. That may sound like a stupid idea, but trust me, it's a great and original concept that works really well on a laid back game show like one in this style. Hosts Alexander Armstrong and Richard Osman have fantastic chemistry together, and have to be a large part to the show's continued success. They are both entertaining but professional at the same time, keeping proceedings on track, but not hesitating to expel some of their witty banter. It's not a show with huge explosions and complex gimmicks, but classic and subtle British entertainment. I'm sure anyone can see that after watching just a few episodes.
 
#8 Family Feud (ABC) (1976-Present)

What's more charming than watching average families going head to head in a game show? Nothing, not even on the cheap British rip off in which host Vernon Kay takes all the fun out of the much better American original. The British version is known as 'Family Fortunes', which sounds a million times worse, and that's because it is. The game is still the same in both versions, with families having to give the most popular answer to many broad and ambiguous questions. Let's just say that some of the categories are made for some pretty interesting answers. What seperates the two versions is the much better hosts in the more slick and flirty American show. Richard Dawson in particular wouldn't hold back in practically raping some of the female contestants, which I'm pretty sure wouldn't fly with modern audiences.

Now on host duties is black comedian Steve Harvey, who if I'm honest doesn't really add anything to the table. The many revivals have never seen the show hit its previous heights in the 80's, although Harvey has given it a little resurgence, so I can't hate on him too much. Having said that it's a show that has seen some serious decline and so can't be any higher on this hotly contested list. At one point this was the most watched daytime show in all of America, but now it feels like a wounded dog that's close to being put down. It still has that classic appeal and is still great fun to play along with, but now that the cutting edge has gone it's easily trumped by the more modern game shows. My survey says it's still a classic.

#7 The Price is Right (CBS) (1972-Present)

The most American game show of all time. It was no surprise that the British version didn't do nearly as well thanks to being hosted by Joe Pasquale instead of the living legend Bob Barker. If you haven't heard of Pasquale, then quite frankly you're lucky, but he's a bit like a yappy dog that has taken a fuck load of helium. That dog thinks it can now tell jokes, and so you can see that it was never going to get the success that being hosted by Bob Barker gets you. Barker has now left the US version after decades at the helm and Drew Carey has taken over hosting duties, and he's actually pretty decent considering the huge boots he had to fill. But as with anything with Carey, he will never top his Royal Rumble performance in 2001.

The actual object of the game starts out quite simple. The basic idea is to guess how much stuff is worth to win prizes. It sort of goes against what capitalism stands for in that everything is worth what the purchaser will pay for, but the idea works very well as a game show. It's worked so well that this is now the longest running network TV show in US history, and there's a good reason for that. With this show you didn't need to be Albert Einstein or even remotely intelligent to win big. You just had to be a member of the audience on the day, and that's what made this such a revolutionary idea. They keep on changing the various games each episode to ensure the formula is fresh, but it's the initial concept that has kept this on the air for so long. That and the help of one Bob Barker.

#6 Takeshi's Castle (TBS) (1986-1990)

Japanese game shows are notorious for being a bit different, and so far this is the only one that's both ridiculous yet still relatable enough to be shipped over to western audiences. Compared to anything else on this list, this show is unbelievably brutal; but that's what makes it so good. Contestants are either humiliated or mutilated by various mud or water based obstacles that are not only painful to watch but fucking hilarious as well. Games like 'Knock, Knock' and 'Stepping Stones' are designed to be both entertaining to watch and very challenging for the competitors. This is in huge contrast to some of the other games that include laser battles and karaoke of all things. Each episode has its own crazy style, and that's what makes it so enjoyable.

It's also the only show on this list to not have a reward. The only prize the winner, if there is one, receives is the pride of completing the course. There are over 100 contestants at the beginning of each broadcast, and the fact that I've only seen a handful of people actually win the whole thing just shows you how difficult this game show really is. All these proceedings are narrated by Craig Charles, who does his best Thomas the Tank Engine impression when watching somebody inevitably failing at certain obstacles. This show really is a perfect hangover remedy in the morning that will instantly cheer you up as you watch episode after episode without getting bored.

#5 Total Wipeout (BBC) (2009-2012)

Ah sorry. I know this isn't the most popular show in the world, but I can't help but love it. That's not necessarily because it's the only time I can think of when Britain and Argentina have accomplished something together, but because I enjoy watching fat British people falling into the water time and time again. The British, and best version, is not the original, and there have been various different versions made for each country. But as per usual the BBC have not failed at making this show feel low budget and amateur, which is exactly how it should be. Narrating this show is the ever lovable Richard Hammond, who with the obstacles humiliates the various competitors as they attempt to complete the course in the shortest time possible. The idea is that this continues until all but one of the competitors have been eliminated, and the final survivor is rewarded with a sizable jackpot.

It may just be people falling in the water over and over again, but it's done in such a way that watching it is really quite enjoyable. Obstacles that are ingeniously designed litter the course, and watching people fly off 'The Big Red Balls' or 'The Sucker Punch' never gets old. The red balls in particular took a few series to actually be cleared. The rest, well it's the usual British eccentric charm that sees overweight and slightly unusual people battling for some cash. As a programme it has the technical quality of some coal, and it's certainly not high quality entertainment. But for me something just works with it, and it's always really good fun to watch.

#4 Jeopardy! (NBC) (1984-Present)

It's got an exclamation mark on the end, so you know it's going to be good. It might not be exciting enough to warrant that exclamation mark, but in terms of a quality quiz show this is in a league of its own. That's amazing considering that the formula is a very simple one. The show is basically a reverse quiz, but instead of giving the correct answer, you have to express your response in question form, which sounds a lot more complicated than it actually is. In truth it's a very good formula that has made this show completely unique in the game show world. All it needed was an iconic host, and it got one with the long standing Alex Trebek, who's been asking the questions since 1984. He's not an eccentric character, but he fits the tone of the show perfectly. He can be a bit of a dick sometimes, especially considering the quiz isn't that easy, but he's become the face of the show for a good reason. I just love shows that take genuine skill to win, and this is a brilliant game show to watch if you don't like entertainment spoon fed to you by the producers.

#3 Blind Date (ITV) (1985-2003)

I had to put at least one trashy entertainment show on this list, and what can be more fun than watching awkward British bachelors trying to find a date with their personality? That's why this dating show stands out from the many other crappy lovemaking shows around, as this is both entertaining and a solid formula. It doesn't necessarily work as it's intended to, as I believe in the shows history there have only been a total of three marriages forged from meeting here, but as entertainment it ticks all the boxes. The original programme was the US show 'The Dating Game', which is a more professional and full on approach to the game show genre. In this more laid back version we have the natural charm of Cilla Black to carry us through proceedings instead of 'generic American game show host 101'. At its height the show was watched by 18 million people, and those figures continued all through the early nineties. Back then it was great Saturday night viewing, and although it gradually lost its charm, it's still a brilliant game show in my opinion. 

#2 Wheel of Fortune (NBC) (1975-Present)

In terms of format this would almost certainly take the number one spot. It's such a great and original idea that it's become the blueprint for the ultimate game show. The concept is essentially hangman with an integrated wheel that determines how much the player wins. That might not sound too exciting, but how can you not enjoy playing hangman with an added roulette feature? The show is helped along by longstanding hosts Pat Sajak and Vanna White, who've been hosting before time itself. The duration of their stint has led to their unique chemistry, and has made them become a little more than your traditional presenters. I still never get the point of Vanna as the letter turner; she now just touches the screen to reveal letters, which is about the only thing that's changed on the show since its inception. She used to be more eye candy than anything else, but it doesn't look like she's retiring anytime soon.

It does say a lot for the format when nothing apart from the letters have changed. Every few years they try and put a new coat of paint on it, but that same winning concept is always the reason why this show is so popular. Up until 'Two and A Half Men' came along this was the highest rated syndicated show in America, which is a little unfortunate as the other is absolute shite, and why anybody would watch that over a revolutionary game show is beyond me. The key here is an accessible format that is fun to watch and play along with. No new gimmicks every season; it's just the same old game show with the same old solid premise.
 
#1 Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (ITV) (1998-2014)

Not only is this the greatest game show of all time, it's the first time us Brits managed to nail the game show format. It may look like your standard quiz, but my god is this brilliant. It never relies on any fancy gimmicks, and the premise is a traditional quiz with some seriously big prizes, but the effect of it all coming together is so much better than anything else. The concept might not sound revolutionary, but this game is responsible for any modern game show you see on TV today. That's not to say everything about the show is generic, there are various lifelines a competitor can use to help them on their way to a million pounds, and what other programme offers you the chance to win a million pounds or screw something up completely? None, this is a completely unique programme.

Chris Tarrant is the host on the British version that ended this time last year with his departure. He's alright; not the eccentric character you find on other versions that have been exported around the globe, but he gets the job done like he should. He does contrast the sleek studio and overproduction of everything, but his raw personality fits the idea that this is a serious quiz, with some serious prizes on the line. I like this game show so much that I included it on my top ten TV programmes of all time list, as this is the only show that is anywhere near the level to compete with high quality dramas and hilarious comedies. It is without a doubt the best game show on TV, and also one of the best programmes. And that is my final answer.

Morons of the Internet: Alex Jones (18/02/15)

This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words from some of my favorite human beings.

In this edition we have loudmouthed political commentator Alex Jones, who's got his YouTube channel to produce a ridiculous video that goes against both logic and statistics.
_________________________________________________________________
http://www.infowars.com/measles-vaccine-kills-more-people-than-the-disease/
_________________________________________________________________

I'll just begin with some facts since there isn't many contained in Jones' video. The measles vaccination has been widely distributed to children in the USA since the mid 1960's. In that time the disease has been almost eradicated throughout not just the USA, but many other first world countries who have similar vaccination programmes. The injection itself has an 85-95% chance of working effectively, which doesn't make it a perfect solution to eradicating measles, but it's a lot better than the 0% if we had the same attitude as Alex Jones. The graph below will show you what a radical change the vaccination has had on the US population, and so it would take a cataclysmic moron to argue against that. Luckily for us we have one right here.

Do I need to continue? I can't believe I'm having to defend a vaccination that has quite clearly saved the lives of thousands, if not millions of Americans over the past few decades. The fact that a human being could become infected after taking the vaccination is almost nothing. The attenuated dose means that a live virus is injected into your body, although that virus has had it's antigens modified to make it harmless to your immune system, but still giving the body information to stimulate the specific lymphocytes. Of course they didn't tell you this in the video because the thought of a live virus in your body isn't a pleasant one, making this video a very dirty piece of propaganda. This is further supported by the fact that none of their quoted sources had a control to compare data. The video claims that the fatalities were caused by the vaccination in a population that has been widely immunised, yet they didn't compare that with a population that hadn't been vaccinated, so how can we tell it's the vaccination? If we are to trust the World Health Organisation, who let's face it aren't known for blatantly lying and misleading their audience, then the statistics prove the reverse. They state that 15 million lives have been saved by the vaccination. That's a hell of a lot more than the 100 lives the video claims have been taken by the programme. So just remind me, is it the vaccination that's the threat to the population, or just the ignorance of people like Mr. Jones?

I just don't understand how you can claim that vaccination kills more people than the actual disease when the official statistics show that's complete bullshit. Maybe you should tell the 145,000 people killed each year that you wouldn't be killed by the vaccination you never had. Logic dictates that if the number of infected has been drastically reduced after not just one, but two immunisation programmes, then the vaccination cannot possibly be killing more people than it's saving, and that actually it's a very effective programme. This argument is a bit like turning down the various drugs for cancer because people have still died and been effected by cancer after taking them. It's just unbelievable. The only other possibility is that the virus somehow managed to evolve at the same time as the vaccinations, but as a devout christian Mr. Jones doesn't believe in that either. Where is your argument? Do you not here every piece of logic screaming in your head that you can't possibly be right. Am I really supposed to believe that one day the virus randomly stopped effecting people at the same time as vaccinations were given out? You're argument makes no sense, and neither do your sources. My favorite is the one on how the disease spread from The Philippines, a country that declared the disease eradicated, and so it must have been the vaccination that spread the virus. We'll just forget about the 85-95% success rates and the fact that some people can't be vaccinated for medical reasons, because it was obviously immunisation that caused these cases. You just can't make a claim like that without backing it up with reliable data. So far they haven't done that with a single source.

Just by looking at recent history you can see that a similar issue occurred in 2005. There was a minor endemic in the USA due to a person not vaccinated returning from a trip to Romania, a country that doesn't have a measles programme. Measles is of course a highly contagious virus, and so the only reason an epidemic wasn't created was due to the local ring vaccination programme working effectively. If Mr. Jones claims that not being vaccinated is the right way to go then people will get killed because of his insolence and inability to use logic or statistics. His way would see the eradication of efficient ring vaccination programmes, and in time that would see the American total of fatalities equal that of third world countries. This is not about shaming people who don't follow the crowd, it's a matter of national security. If the government has solid evidence to suggest that this incident is potentially dangerous then I think it should be acceptable for them to dictate our lives. That's the price you pay for democracy. If their lying about it then that still doesn't explain the global studies or similarity with other viral infections. The above graph is all the evidence needed to suggest that the majority of the population shouldn't be penalised with the irresponsibility of the minority.

Overall Measles is a highly contagious disease, and so I implore people to not listen to morons like Alex Jones, but science instead. By dismissing the idea of vaccinations from a political commentator you're dismissing decades of peer reviewed studies and centuries of experimentation from people who know what they're talking about. Why should my child and country have to suffer because of your ignorance? Tell me, would you rather be complaining about the deaths of 100 Americans or the thousands of potential victims that we see in many countries worldwide today? Please people, it may be a matter of life or death. Don't trust the morons, trust the statistics.

Music Review: Maroon 5 - Sugar

As I'm sure many of you who read my blog know, I'm not the biggest fans of 'Maroon 5'. I get the sense that they've given up, and that ever since their debut album it's all been going downhill. That was summed up by 2014, which was another poor showing from the band; although their single 'Animals' was at least acceptable, if a little strange. The fact that this band have the ability to produce utter shit is what worries me so much about their latest single, 'Sugar', which I do hope is an effort to get them back on track to where they were about ten years ago. That was a time when they suddenly started to produce rubbish without any warning, and I just get the feeling that isn't going to change with this song.

The problems start when you find out that this song has SIX writers. Any chance that this was going to be a personal and meaningful song have just gone straight out the window, especially when the names of the writers include things such as 'Ammo' and 'Cirkut'. My skin crawls when I hear pseudonyms like that. What disgusting person decides that would be a good name when you could choose anything else? Even prolapse would be an improvement. It gets worse, their history has to be seen to be believed. 'Ammo', or ammunition to give him his full name, is a frequent producer of Ke$ha's music, which tells you all you need to know about him. And then there's 'Cirkut', who sounds like a character from 'Tekken'. He's an experienced producer that's most notable for being a contributor to Katy Perry's 'Prism' album, which is dreadful when you consider that's the pick of the bunch. Lead singer Adam Levine is only one of the writers, which is also bad, as that never turns out too well either. So what did they decide to do? Well they thought "fuck the song, we'll just make a music video".

Now I don't often comment on music videos in my reviews, and this one will still have no effect on the final score, but I thought I should mention it as 'Maroon 5' have really gone to town on this one. The idea is that the band gatecrash 'random' people's weddings with the hope of surprising them, which isn't a dick move at all. You get the feeling that the couple didn't invite them as they didn't want them there. If 'Maroon 5' showed up unannounced at my wedding I would punch them in the face and tell all of them to fuck off, especially if they decide this would be an appropriate time to sing a song about looking for love. The only song being sung at my wedding will be 'Nothing Else Matters', and that's final. I certainly don't want some pompous prick turning up with his pathetic band. The video is quite obviously staged, and the fact that people instantly recognise them is another talking point. But people are stupid enough to believe that it was genuine, and at least it isn't a ridiculous music video. A twatish one maybe, but I think we all know it's there to be a distraction. 

After the video charade it becomes quite clear that the elaborate  music video is there to hide the plain truth that this song is very dull. I can't actually remember the song doing anything. There's no pacing, and it just plods along in a disjointed fashion, feeling quite ordinary throughout the whole thing. I didn't expect anything revolutionary, but I was hoping to not listen to a song that feels about as genuine as a Chinese Rolex. The pop-rock core is tried to be rejuvenated by chucking in some funk and disco, but those are just three genres you should never try and combine, or you might end up sounding like a cheap Bruno Mars; the only difference being you're a cock who likes to gatecrash random weddings. Levine doesn't make this song, and the charisma that a front man should have is lost during the rambling and pointless verses that only showcase his annoyingly high pitch voice. That's apparently meant to feel nostalgic, although maybe that's the feeling you get learning about one of the various points in history where nothing happens; as tedious boredom is a similar experience to listening to this song.

I don't want to be entirely negative, since there are some redeemable qualities to the song. The most apparent of these would be the lyrics, which although generic, are actually not too bad. They don't do anything special, but they're far from a terrible mess, and the overall tone is that of a generic love song. The whole purpose is that 'sugar' is a metaphor for love, and although that isn't an original theme, it makes the track feel less vomit inducing than the majority of 'Maroon 5' songs. Apart from that it's pretty much standard lyrics you expect from a pop song, apart from a pointless 'shit' reference, that doesn't fit into the song and is completely unnecessary. It doesn't make the song sound any more hardcore, and if anything it makes the song less accessible to a young fan base. Maybe the five year old fan base wouldn't care if there were shitty lines like this one:

'Cause girl you're hotter than a southern California day

But I do care that you throw in shitty lines like that, and I also care about your bad grammar. You see the main, and anticlimactic, hook of the song is as follows:

Your sugar. Yes, please

Now for that to make sense the first sentence would have to end with a question mark, otherwise it should be 'You're sugar'. Even then it puzzles me why he has to answer the question if it doesn't exist. I have to say this is strange for a big song to not know how to use a question mark correctly, and is a little disappointing considering this was a big release. It doesn't say much for the rest of the song.

Overall this song is trying to be overly flashy. All these genres and a huge music video coming together to form what is essentially a generic and quite dull pop-rock track. The video might get them views on 'YouTube', but it doesn't escape the fact that this is a pointless song that feels artificial at every stage. I think music should be about the passion to create great art, and that doesn't mean pandering for views over the internet with a large scale video that ends up feeling like the actual song, totally worthless. It may be a step towards salvation for 'Maroon 5', but we've got a long way to go before the band hits their original form again.

Final Score: 4/10   **

Top 10 Worst Film Remakes

An annoying feature in modern film is the obsession with rehashing everything. Some films work really nicely with a new coat of paint, but there are also those that just spit on their predecessors. These are those films that only exist to make a quick buck out of a respected name.

#10 Conan the Barbarian (2011) (3/10) Original: 7/10

Is this allowed to be on here? It's not a remake as such, but it did relaunch the franchise of the same name, then subsequently ruin it. For that reason it qualifies for this list, and that's good, because I will enjoy moaning about this terrible, terrible film. I don't know what happened to the original 'Conan' film, but I would of like to have seen some aspects of the original in this version. I don't think director Marcus Nispel ever once saw the original as he completely missed the mark when it came to the titular role that was once occupied by Arnold Schwarzenegger. The once feared barbarian has now been reduced to a poor man's Khal Drogo, and that's not okay with me, especially when it's concerned over a huge role in cinema.

The acting isn't the worst part, that achievement has to go to the directing which takes many pages out of the Michael Bay book of cliches; a book that's about seven million pages long. Instead of a more traditional and intelligent swords and sandals flick, we get a rather nice looking film that lacks any solid content. The acting may be poor, but the lad can hardly help it when the script makes him look like an average thug rather than a fierce warlord. The composition is just hopeless, with the whole plot hinging on a few poorly produced action sequences that the director hopes will distract the viewer from the irrelevant plot and pathetic storytelling. It's a stupid film that I'm glad bombed upon release. It's a lesson that not all terrible films can becomes successful because they're attached to big names, especially when those films feel like a tedious documentary. 

#9 Red Dawn (2012) (2/10) Original: 4/10

Don't get me wrong, this is an awful film, but then the original wasn't very good either. However, what the original was is determined by when it was released. The only reason it was effective was because it was a product of its time, and the reworked version fails at getting across that sense of 1980's Cold War paranoia. It almost tries the same tactics as the original, but sticking them on a North Korean invasion just doesn't work, not only because it's poorly explained in the film, but also because in reality it seems like an unlikely event. America has over ten times the population of North Korea, and that's the only thing that sets up this pathetic invasion storyline. If I had watched this before I made my list of worst war films then this should have been included.

Once you get past the terrible premise then you have to criticise the shoddy acting. The stars in this film made their names in Australian soap operas, which becomes apparent very quickly. That was always a pretty dumb move; it would be like replacing Sylvester Stallone with Kylie Minogue in 'Rambo', it just doesn't work. And neither does the rest of the film. A crappy script and a stupid plot mean the attention to detail is unbelievable. There's one scene where the protagonist's cell phone still works after being hit with an EMP. It's points like this that make it seem that not much art and passion went into making this, just the love of money. Overall it's a bucket of political shit that the director tips over the audience. A pointless slaughterhouse to condemn a nation for not being like America. Thank god for some CCR playing in the background, that saved me from madness during the worst moments 

#8 Total Recall (2012) (5/10) Original: 8/10

I can't comprehend how you can possibly take a film as good as the original and still manage to screw up the reboot. What was the director thinking? Taking an already polished film and sucking all the life out of it. The original is a classic of the genre and an iconic Schwarzenegger performance; just reading the plot background is enough to make me go weak at the knees. So it was a great disappointment to me when this came out and decided to screw all over that amazing ending and pacing from the original. I hate to say it, but this is just boring. It takes a brilliant idea and mashes it up to the point where it becomes a paste of dullness. It tries to be intellectual and sophisticated, but the audience ends up with a film that's trying to be a lot more intelligent than it actually is.

It's a shame because the foundations were there. The plot centered around lost memories and personalities still has the potential to produce another great script with its futuristic setting, and so I still don't understand how it went this badly wrong. I'd like to put a large fault on to the cast, as the very average Colin Farrell is nothing compared to Schwarzenegger with a totally nonchalant performance. Couple that with the atrocious Jessica Biel and you have actors that end up looking completely lost. Nobody looks like they give a shit, and the feeling of emotion and passion in the original has been replaced by a pointless commercial whore of a film that's both unnecessary and boring.

#7 Charlie & The Chocolate Factory (2005) (5/10) Original: 8/10

At least with this one there was a call to remake it. The original bombed upon release and so it was only fitting for veteran director Tim Burton to give it a new lease of life. Surely with him at the helm and a star-studded cast that included the likes of Johnny Depp it couldn't go wrong, unless of course it inevitably did. I understand why Burton made the creative decisions he did, but some are just inexcusable. Depp's portrayal of chocolatier and professional weirdo Willy Wonka was chief among those problems. A truly bizarre performance that manages to capture none of Wonka's original charm and wonder. Gene Wilder's original performance is a masterpiece compared to Depp's, who at some points feels like more of a asshole than an inspirational person. This new script blackmails the poor, helpless Charlie Bucket into choosing between his family and the factory, which is just a dick move in what should be an inspirational story. Some of the scenes are so creepy that it makes me wonder whether Depp was actually prosecuted for grooming the cast.

As an avid fan of the book I would under no circumstances recommend this film to anyone. For that you have to watch the fun, yet almost dark re-imagining of the original. That version keeps to the story a lot more faithfully than this one, and by watching that you won't risk destroying your childhood over the poorly imagined characters. I don't even want to talk about what happened to the ever lovable Oompa-Loompas, but they sum up the new version in a nutshell. Their appearance is both annoying and unnecessary.

#6 Alice In Wonderland (2010) (4/10) Original: 6/10

Oh look who it is; Tim Burton and Johnny Depp are teaming up to ruin yet another classic. This time I'm not going to shovel the blame onto Depp, as his mad hatter role is at least respectable, if a little questionable. Here the blame has to go to director Tim Burton, who again takes unnecessary risks with simple things like the visuals and the script. Everyone seemed to like the visuals except for me, but you can't deny that the sheer amount of CGI is just not necessary, and it takes away the feeling of the story being an enchanted tale. You certainly can't excuse those petty visuals as a substitute for a decent plot. The film just never gets the balance right between good storytelling and quirky scenes, and that leaves it looking quite bizarre on more than one occasion, with no obvious reason as to why. Things just happen for no reason, and that can be summed up during the final scenes when Alice travels to China, which has nothing to do with anything the film has ever explained to you.

The original book may have been bonkers, but it made perfect sense. This ambles along like some drunk bard, never knowing where to go next and spurting out a load of nonsense in the process. Instead of getting a lovely tale about a confused girl, we get an empowering tribute to overproduction from the perspective of a protagonist that's actually quite annoying, and a horrible contrast to the rest of the polished cast. The idea of 'Wonderland' never once crosses my mind as I watched this, and it ends up feeling like a generic fairytale. The original had an excuse for being rather limited. Technology restraints at the time held that film back. But this film should of been the special film that Lewis Carrol's novel deserves, but it just fell flat.

#5 The Wicker Man (2006) (2/10) Original: 7/10

Probably not the best idea in the world to remake a much loved horror classic into a comedy film. I know it wasn't intended to be a comedy film, but unfortunately it was so badly made that its terrible quality is its only merit. That's something quite offensive when you consider that the original was considered one of the greatest British films of all time, and although I think that's an exaggeration, there is simply no excuse for remaking a film this poorly. The only thing the newer version will be remembered for is the hilariously bad acting of Nicholas Cage, who at least put in some effort, unlike the director or anyone else. Cage's acting really does have to be seen to be believed, and some of his scenes are just incredible. The bees sequence is a personal favorite of mine, but you can also look at the random bear costume or punching an old woman in the face for no reason. Overall Cage's acting is worthy of a face-palm; I know he's a bad actor, but this is just taking the piss.

I just don't know what director Neil LaBute was thinking. Did he seriously ever think this was a good film? How anyone can consider this a horror film is just crazy, especially considering it's a film that can't even get the basics right, yet alone conform to a genre. There's so little suspense in the film you can hardly blame people for watching it for comical value. When things happen for no reason in a seemingly random plot it makes the awful acting and dialogue the best thing about the film; not that there was much competition for that distinction. Just an awful, awful film that sums up everything wrong with remakes.

#4 The Invasion (2007) (2/10) Original: 7/10

I included another remake of the original on my best horror films list, but this is the other end of the spectrum. The original plot for this film has been remade four times, with 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' being the best of the lot. That film builds on a fantastic script to produce a genuinely thrilling film with aliens unsuspectingly taking over human bodies, leading to an epic climax that will haunt me for the rest of my life. The only haunting experience I got watching this was the realisation that I will never get that time back. For some reason director Oliver Hirschbiegel decided to replace suspense with holding the audience's hands, which is just suicide in a horror or a thriller. The aliens are so easy to spot in this one that the whole thing becomes a mission to not fall asleep, which is ironically how the aliens reveal themselves to the audience. As for the ending, well I don't even want to talk about that. It seems nobody cared whilst filming, and so I couldn't care less about the whole thing. It's just a budget 'War of the Worlds' with a dull and dreary plot; and that's something that should never happen when remaking such a classic prequel.

#3 The Karate Kid (2010) (3/10) Original: 8/10

Oh come on, it's got Jaden Smith in it. That surely must be enough to appear on this list, as does any film that insufferable prick is in. Here you may have a point that he's young and unknowing of just how much of a twat he is, but there's just no excuse for being this terrible all of the time. I especially hate him when he ruins a film that was once a very pleasant viewing. The original was a heartwarming story that was a great example of how a simple film can become something special if you get the basics right. This is anything but that, full of annoying pests, and has a plot that makes me sick to my stomach. Add in a little romantic sub plot with primary school children and you get a film that's both pretentious and stupid. It's almost like it's trying too hard with things like character development and the fight scenes, and so in the end the focus is just all wrong, and the so called hero ends up looking like an arrogant dick.

The only impression I get is that it's just trying to be something it can never be, and that can be summed up with the fight sequences which just don't work in a film like this, or any for that matter. They're so overly done that they actually become quite tiresome, and they miss that sense of realism that the original always had. The previous film had charm, but this feels like a commercial anti bullying advert, trying to hammer home a message that was never really there. Even ripping off previous content isn't going to impress me in the slightest, and if anything the 'jacket on, jacket off' schtick was the nail in the already buried coffin. It shits on its predecessor and it shits on the audience. Just a horrible, horrible film.

#2 Psycho (1998) (2/10) Original: 9/10

Oh god, this is everything I hate about remakes rolled into one massive pile of steaming shit. Why anyone felt the need to do a shot for shot reboot of an almost untouchable classic is just ludicrous, especially when it's done as poorly as this. The original was a product of its time, and so the new version hadn't got a hope of producing even a similar reaction to that of the original. It's just disgusting that a director can be so lazy by just strangling a legendary film license for a quick buck. This is not just a terrible film, but a disgusting piece of art that shits on everything good about cinema. I would be pissed off if some media studies students decided to do that, yet alone a commissioned and experienced production crew under the helm of an award winning director. In fact director Gus Van Sant can shove his previous awards straight up his ass for this travesty.

Nothing can touch the iconic performances of Anthony Perkins and Janet Leigh. Their on screen chemistry was a great part in the success of the original, and so to now see the legendary role of Norman Bates being taken over by the very average Vince Vaughan is laughable at best. He just lumbers around the set with absolutely zero presence in any scenes, which is a plain insult to what was originally a masterfully portrayed character. Replacing Leigh's role is the somehow even worse Anne Heche, who produces one of the worst performances I've ever seen by a lead character. I've seen primary school drama students come up with better expressions than she manages, and that's not including the shower sequence, which thanks to her is now completely ruined. I just don't understand why as a human being you would do this. There was no way they were going to top the original by adding a bit of colour and revamping the cast to a terrible standard. Quite frankly it's just pathetic, a forgery that should always be valued a million times below the Hitchcock classic.

#1 Planet of The Apes (2001) (2/10) Original: 9/10

It was very close between this and 'Psycho'. I think this is actually worse as they've actually bothered to make a film that's completely different, and so it amazes me how it managed to end up so badly wrong. It also marks our third appearance of Tim-fucking-Burton, who's decided to ruin yet another classic film. There's a clear message here to Hollywood executives: Don't hire Tim Burton to do remakes, they're always complete shite. Just please make an original film, stop ruining things I love and turning what was once a powerful political statement into a pile of artificial bullshit. One of the greatest scripts I have ever come across has been shat on by Burton, and instead of Charlton Heston we get Mark Wahlberg as the lead role. Just why? He can't even act in a crappy music video, yet alone lead an iconic film role. This change might work if the purpose was to blow some things up for no reason, but that was never the point of the original. That film was slowly paced and subtle for a reason, but Mark Wahlberg can't act for five minutes without pissing me off, and all this for twenty times the original budget.

I don't even want to mention the action sequences. Of all the films that needs them this wasn't the one. I know Burton wants to showcase the linear talent, and I use that term lightly, of Wahlberg, but you can't just force things into a film that requires a deft touch and precision. Even these fast paced sequences can't save the already sinking ship, and so we're left to the emotionless apes to carry the film. Admittedly the apes do look quite nice, but they just can't carry the whole film when they have to work with paper thin characters. I end up not giving a single shit about any of it, and that pains me to say it as at least Burton tried to make changes, but as per usual they ended up ruining it. This can all be summed up with the climax, which I'm sure everyone knows from the original. In this version it doesn't even make sense. There's no deeper meaning to any of it, and just like the rest of the film it's ambiguous and overproduced crap that tries to distract the audience from the terrible composition. Please Tim Burton, leave classic films alone. Make anything else you want, as long as it's original I don't care. Then at least we won't get any more disasters like this one.

Top 10 Worst UK TV Shows

#10 Hollyoaks (1995-) (4010 Episodes)

The show that has become synonymous with bad acting, and rightly so. I don't think I've ever enjoyed watching any soap opera, but I like to think this as more of a travesty, somehow managing to be even worse than any of the others. It's a bit like watching what would happen if society broke down and we ended up with neighborhoods made up almost solely of 16-30 year olds, which I can tell you as a person of that age is not a good thing. You might also think that because I'm old enough I can easily relate to the 'realistic' situations that plague the serious premise of this soap, but when the script and acting is so laughably bad it makes it quite difficult to give a single shit. That isn't helped by the cast of over fifty, which is just a ridiculous number even when compared to large budget dramas. It's not as if they're different either, it's just fifty different versions of the same generic teen.

Maybe I'm being too harsh, maybe it does reflect the grim reality of life. Admittedly it does that very poorly, but at least it pushes forward some serious topics unlike other teen shows such as 'Skins'. But given the choice I would prefer the later show. They are both terrible depictions of modern life but 'Skins' actually puts me in a good mood and is sometimes worth watching, even if it is a little cringeworthy. If I wanted to see the grim reality of life for myself I would watch a polished production such as the news, and not some low budget actors who can't go on dates with each other as somebody's on their period; and yes that genuinely is a plot point taken from the show. It does become quite hard to talk about serious issues when you on at a pre-watershed time slot, but at least give it a good attempt and not just water down the dialogue to an almost mind numbing level. A popular joke is that the cameraman they hire is anthrophobic and refuses to be in the same room as the cast. That sort of sums up the jumbled mess that this programme is, and although it begs you to take it seriously you just can't, at least not when it's as badly produced as this.

#9 Naked Jungle (2000) (1 Series)

I'm sorry if you were eating. But spare a thought for those that were during the original transmission; the nudity wasn't even censored out. It seems that the Y2K bug did have an effect on the Channel 5 studios as surely no human could ever come up with something this ludicrous. The idea was that to celebrate 50 years of British naturism, and yes that does apparently need celebrating, Channel 5 decided to play 'Jungle Run' with nudists and Keith Chegwin. Now Cheggers is a pretty awesome guy, but not a nice sight when he's in the nude. Naturally the attractive contestants were eliminated first, and that left viewers with a great shot of Chegwin's pathetic specimen.

I couldn't put it any lower because it actually worked. In the words of Eric Bischoff "controversy equals cash", and that certainly worked here. 20% of the total share sat through this programme; that's four times higher than anything else Channel 5 had broadcast at that time. That wasn't helped by the fact that many households couldn't get a clear reception, but the result was that this sham actually worked. Of course the Daily Mail wouldn't stop banging on about it, but then the sight of an ankle gets their reader all wound up about the terrible state of the country allowing that indecency when in fact just a quick look at their website will show you the very definition of indecency. As a broadcaster Channel 5 kept to the law and so in my eyes the format was fine, it was just the content that was shockingly bad.

#8 Big Brother (2000-) (15 Series)

How can something so bad come out of such a brilliant George Orwell novel? He must be turning in his grave watching as one of his most serious and striking points is turned into a horrific reality show. I just want to understand why people actually enjoy watching other people live in a confined space. To me that is in no way amusing, and no matter how they repackage it to me it will always be a completely pointless and trashy programme that gives otherwise idiots the chance at becoming famous. It's got to stage where it's almost an ambition to become a waste of blood and organs with the brain capacity of a mushroom, like so many of the contestants are. There's a good chance that if a celebrity is completely pointless, like Jade Goodie, then they've probably originated from this hell hole.

Anyone who says this show is meritable in any way can fuck off. I honestly don't care that it's a revolutionary concept, as let's face it the holocaust was a revolutionary concept in the history of genocide, but under no circumstances is that a good thing, especially when 'Big Brother' decides to be revolutionary for fifteen series and doesn't change a fucking thing. Why would you watch other people living in real life situations when you can do that yourself? I must be missing something but I don't understand why you can't just watch no name celebrities and idiots interacting at the pub on a Saturday night. For one there would be more entertainment there, you end up getting to drink beer socially, and you won't have to put up with Davina McCall. Seriously people, why does this show get so many viewers?

#7 Splash! (2013-2014) (2 Series)

Proof that adding an exclamation mark to something doesn't make it any more exciting, especially when that excitement comes from z-list celebrities diving quite badly into a pool of water. I get the point of it, and I can understand why ITV would want to capitalise on the success of the Olympics, but there must have been better ways to do it than clog up your entertainment schedule with one massively long winded bore. It's just so fucking boring. The whole show is centered around a single dive which ends up taking two seconds. The rest is just endless filler and the occasional shot of Tom Daley prancing around like he's forgotten his PE kit. I might also be able to take it seriously if it was judged by professionals, but when one of the judges is rather large comedian Jo Brand, who knows fuck all about diving, then you start to think that this isn't really about the diving. If that isn't the purpose then god knows what it is. Torture would be my guess. All I do know is that thankfully the show has now been axed, and at least for the time being there isn't any other shitty talent shows for me to moan about, and let's face it, I doubt they can get much worse than this.

#6 Britannia High (2008) (1 Series)

What happens when ITV decide to make a cheap knock off version of 'High School Musical'. It was never going to be any good, but my god it was so much worse than I even I could imagine. Somehow it manages to be even crapper than 'High School Musical', which to be fair is a pretty impressive feat. It was no surprise that it ended up being beaten in the ratings by the 'Antiques Roadshow' thanks to the terrible standard of acting and songs written by five year olds. I think Charlie Brooker would be the man to sum up the faults in his own way:

#5 Sweat The Small Stuff (2013-) (4 Series)

The show that takes the word 'comedy' out of a comedy panel show. This really is the comedy equivalent of AIDS, and I'm amazed that people not only tolerate the thing but watch it as well. I just don't understand how they can put up with irritating little weasel Nick Grimshaw, who for some reason is the host. I'm perfectly happy for him to stay in the twat hive that is Radio 1, but I will not tolerate him infecting the television as well; he has the charisma of a rotting corpse and just talks and acts like a complete wanker. He isn't helped by his panelists either who consist of comedian Melvin O'Doom, who I haven't heard of either, and Rochelle Humes, who's famous for being in 'The Saturdays'. Hooray! What a band they were, for their two second lifespan anyway. I suppose you can at least laugh at the captains for being comically bad celebrities but unfortunately not their completely average personalities.

I don't really give a fuck about anything else. This show could eradicate poverty for all I care and I still wouldn't take any interest in it. The only sweat I'm interested in is the team of the year Ronaldo on FIFA, and so to find that the term has been hijacked by some terrible excuse of a panel show is something that angers me greatly. The BBC already has a show that allows actual celebrities to highlight their annoyances, and that is 'Room 101', so I really don't get the purpose of this show. It doesn't have a personality like Frank Skinner or Paul Merton to naturally allow the comedy to flow, and so it only ends up looking like a poorly produced fake. Its hip and trendy style just infuriate me, and it ends up as a proving ground for stupid guests and their huge, shitty egos.   

#4 Love Island (2005-2006) (2 Series)

My favorite fact about this show is that the producers had to drop the word 'celebrity' from the title after the first series as the contestants were so unrecognisable. I think that's a bit harsh considering there were some pretty huge celebrities headlining the first series. I mean there was an owner of a random nightclub, and even the legendary name of David Beckham's former PA. It's not really surprising to think that watching these ordinary people try to find love in Fiji wasn't going to work. Not that that was the worst thing about it, no the worst thing was that you had to face the concept of Patrick Kielty and Fearne Cotton as the presenters. That's just being cruel, only ITV could devise an evil scheme where two of the worst human beings in the world get to host a show together. If the insufferable and pathetic excuse for an organism Patrick Kielty doesn't get on your nerves then I'm sure Fearne will, who just has to plaster her face onto everything.

All it had to accomplish was to beat 'Big Brother', and it still failed at that. Amazingly even less happens in this than on its incredibly dull rival, and ITV actually managed to make real life seem dull and boring from a fucking desert island. If this was on a council estate in Birmingham it would have been exactly the same, and I still can't find a reason to give one single shit about any of it. The show would have seriously been better with random people off the street, and so it was no surprise that this pointless series was a complete disaster.  

#3 Downton Abbey (2010-) (5 Series)

Oh come on, the critics may love it, but when you peel away a few layers you can easily see that this is a terrible drama series. It doesn't matter if you're in the UK or the USA, everyone can't get enough of it, which is a shame as it means British television has to conform to stereotypes to get views. What happened to classic British shows like 'Dr. No' and 'A Clockwork Orange'? Why can't we make great art like that instead of pandering to the lowest common denominator. That technique becomes especially annoying when you have a drama that's trying to be all sophisticated and flashy, but ends up feeling empty and pretentious. If it does that on purpose then that's a terrible move from the producers and they should be ashamed of themselves. I don't know if the draw is something to do with people seeing this upper class lifestyle as a novelty or an ambition, but it's still inexcusable to love a programme that's written as badly as this one.

All it needed was some care and some intelligent plot points, but no, it's just endless dramatic irony and 'relatable' happenings. Somehow this one family gets hit by every single fucking event in the 20th century, whether that be the sinking of the Titanic, the First World War, or even the Spanish Flu epidemic. Is that meant to be believable? My family isn't effected by the Ebola virus, the invasion of Iraq and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, so why the hell is this cliche tortured to the extreme? Of course the Americans just love it and have showered the show with fifteen million Golden Globes because they think culture is a novelty thing to have. I just wish they would watch quality British shows and not just rip them off and dilute them for morons to watch. I guess they would like this though as it's quite similar to the Superbowl in the fact that it goes on for fucking hours, everyone seems to love it, and it's really fucking dull. 

#2 Geordie Shore (2011-) (9 Series)

I just had to include one of these bullshit stereotype reality shows on this list, and this is by far the worst. Not that the others are much better, and whether it's 'TOWIE' or 'Made in Chelsea' they still contain some of the biggest pricks you're ever likely to see on television. This group of wankers are the worst however, with their stupid personalities and irritating voices that just make you doubt the sanity of MTV. I don't know what happened to MTV, but in my funny little world I though they were a channel dedicated to music. Not only do they want to kill off quality music, but they now want to kill off quality television as well with the help of these bumholes that you just want to punch in the face. The fact that I'm supposed to care about their shitty lives in a shitty corner of Britain is insulting, and I hope that Charles Darwin is turning over in his grave as he sees his theory of natural selection ruined by these deformed humanoids actually being successful, and trying to reproduce in some of the most disgusting ways possible.

I hope that I never have the displeasure of meeting them, although I could probably simulate the experience pretty accurately by talking to a bag of potatoes. The difference being that I don't want to stab the potatoes in the face, and the potatoes don't support the Chinese solution of aborting girls at birth. Why? What I have done to deserve this crap? Why does my television have to be full of moronic bellends who have to call their home my country as well? I guess this is now what fame is all about. It really is a shame that people have to aspire to be egotistical wankers in order to appear on a show like this, and the fact that it's celebrated as a legitimate art form is downright insulting to normal human beings. Thanks a bunch MTV! Instead of using the medium of television to portray some poignant material you have to shit over all our brains by broadcasting material that brings down the very existence of learning.
 
#1 Celebrity Juice (2008-) (12 Series)

There have been many good comedy characters over the years, namely Alan Partridge. But the worst of them all by an absolute mile is Keith Lemon. He may be the most annoying, unnecessary and stupid thing of all time, and that is shown by the quality of his shows. As a human being he probably falls just under Hitler due to the later having some good qualities. Lemon doesn't have any good qualities despite only having the single task of being a comedian, and so it seems amazing that he fails so miserably at it. Obviously if a show were to be commissioned around him then it would be horrific, but ITV in their infinite wisdom decided to anyway. Seriously though, Harold Shipman would have made a funnier host. You could have the greatest team captains of all time and it would still be terrible. As it turns out the captains aren't comedians either. There's the nice, but plain personality of Holly Willoughby, and surprisingly yet another appearance from Fearne Cotton, which comedian Simon Amstell would comment "Fearne Cotton was there, like she always fucking is."

What a surprise then that the guests are also complete shite. Other panel shows would get relevant and interesting guests, but not this one, this one draws massive bellends who just use the appearance to feed their massive and annoying egos. Can't say I blame them too much when the show doesn't even have a purpose. The older episodes seemed to be themed around current events from the perspective of a four year old, but now they even manage to fuck that up. Admittedly that format is like trying to discuss particle physics with the aid of a Katie Price book, but that doesn't excuse the show being incredibly irritating. Everyone just pisses me off, and I would rather see Lemon strangling a puppy on stage than spurt out another syllable of his utter shit. His stupid noises and endless shouting pass as comedy routines on a show with ridiculously low standards, and I don't think TV can possible get any worse. As an entertainment programme I would first recommend watching the execution of Saddam Hussein to get a gist of just how hilarious this show is.