“O is for Ovaphobia” is an episode of the supernatural drama Evil, created by Michelle King and Robert King. The central cast includes Katja Herbers, Mike Colter, Aasif Mandvi, Michael Emerson, Christine Lahti, and Andrea Martin. It originally aired under CBS before moving to Paramount+. As of this review, it’s available through Netflix and Paramount+ and its add-ons.

The assessors investigate RSM Fertility. Kristen (Katja Herbers) worries over her daughter’s insecurities, looking for ways to build her confidence. Sheryl (Christine Lahti) becomes an influencer. Ben (Aasif Mandvi) gets confused about his relationships. David (Mike Colter) begins to unravel a troubling pattern.

What I Like about Evil: “O is for Ovaphobia”

Patrice Johnson’s Marie returns after a brief introduction in “Z is for Zombie.” While the performance earned some lasting power originally, there’s more material for Johnson to work with in “O is for Ovaphobia” as she takes part in Ben’s plotline.

RSM Fertility provides an entirely different perspective to body horror. The name might give elements of this brand of body horror away, but I feel uncomfortable revealing details in a review. An equally relevant conversation is the Kafkaesque bureaucracy of RSM Fertility, making each interaction as nonsensical and unpleasant as possible.

While the season maintained its entertainment factor, “O is for Ovaphobia” finally brings back the central plot as teased in season one. As we near the end of the second season, one might criticize the decision, but the mystery has enough unsettling twists and hooks to maintain interest.

Nicole Shalhoub’s Vanessa returns, providing a high bar for Ben’s future romantic interests. Honestly, I’m neutral toward this plotline in “O is for Ovaphobia” because of the execution. However, the standard does create tension for the future.

Maddy Crocco’s Lexis gets another episode dedicated to herself. As the RSM Fertility plotline begins to take center stage, the focus on Lexis will only increase. I won’t linger on the details, but her story effectively balances a more youth-friendly plot and the dark comedic tone of the show. It creates a greater balance than “Z is for Zombie,” which felt too simplified for the more mature show.

Tired Tropes and Triggers

Conversations on body dysmorphia and insecurity play a key role in one plot line. This plot takes on a more supernatural element, but the conversations and insecurities still root themselves in the natural. There is a positive message at the end that challenges this body image insecurities.

A character is drugged and left at the mercy of others. While there is no suggestion of violence toward this character, it’s a traumatic moment that lingers on the horror and powerlessness of such situations. In a somewhat related point, this event also establishes a supernatural drug.

Bodily autonomy and rights are practically the running theme of this episode. How this theme interconnects with almost every plot line deserves respect, but it leads to some darker conversations that might trouble some viewers.

What I Dislike about Evil: “O is for Ovaphobia”

I hold some reservations about Vanessa’s story. While this plot establishes a pattern of behavior, it feels too surreal and underexplored. This execution makes the relationship reach its conclusion abruptly. However, this pattern continues into the final seasons, so there’s likely a payoff in the future that might better address these issues.

Sheryl’s arc has vastly improved in many aspects because viewers better understand the character, but her decisions still miss some context and seem absurd. Now that there’s a more direct influence on her, there’s less reason to critique these points moving forward. Though, I’m not entirely sure that’s a good change.

“O is for Ovaphobia” suffers because it establishes what should already be the overarching plot of the season RSM Fertility. By delaying this plot, the episode must work to catch up and move forward.

Final Thoughts

Bodily autonomy and the Kafkaesque create a unique horror in “O is for Ovaphobia.” It’s one of the more ambitious episodes in concept, returning the focus to RSM Fertility. The only real problem it suffers is that of establishing the key plot in episode ten, racing through the investigation in one episode.
(4.5 / 5)

The Doctor Who Movie (1996) was the first completed attempt to return the classic Science-Fiction Series to televsion in seventeen years. In 1989, the Doctor (as played by Sylvester McCoy) and Ace (played by Sophie Aldred) walked off to the TARDIS to have further adventures, but not to be seen again. 

And that’s how it remainder on screen for the next eight years.  Off screen, many things were happening.  Doctor Who Magazine continued making comic strip adventures for the Seventh Doctor and Ace.  Virgin Publishing gained the rights to create the very successful “New natures” series of books.  Unofficially fan groups and production companies created short movies and audio series which attempted to fill the need new Doctor Who content.

Also behind the scenes were discussions around a Doctor Who movie.  Discussions around a possible American co-production for Doctor who commenced in the 1970’s. In the 1980’s Walt Disney Corporation attempted to purchase the entire franchise in the early 1980’s. In 1992-1994 the BBC and Steven Spielberg’s production company had intense negotiations about a new co-production.  This developed into a rebooted series, disregarding the previous series. Instead, the story line featured the Doctor searching for his long lost parents while eluding his half-brother, the Master. This original plan changed again into becoming was eventually changed again to be a single ninety minute film made for television, continuing directly from the 1989 tv series.

The movie was completed and broadcasted in 1996. This movie remained the last official piece of Doctor Who being broadcast from 1989 until Christopher Eccleston appeared as the Doctor in 2005.  However, it was never meant to be that way. Instead the movie was hoped to lead to further movies, and potentially a series co-produced across England and America. 

So…why didn’t it?  Why did this attempted relaunch of the series in 1996 fail to lead to anything further? Why did the relaunch in 2004 result very quickly in a successful series which has continued until the present day?

These were the sort of questions I asked myself after a recent re-watch of the movie. By the end I could see a fairly good idea of why the movie failed to completely relaunch Doctor Who for the modern era. 

Plot Summary

Respose – Visuals

The sets are so detailed, and the picture so clear. It looks more cinematic in its detail than anything the series had provided thus far. I love the classic series, but visually they cannot compare to the opening shots of this movie. And that hits you as you start watching it. But that’s an American co-production for you-even their worst television series look better than anyone else’s television.

Initial Fan Reaction

Not this is not the worst television series.  It’s not even the worst doctor who story, and it’s surprises me how much hate it gets. I have watched all existing Doctor Who stories, and only ever hated one story. I have found some stories boring. Others I find had plots that didn’t make sense. However, I never hated them and often could find something to enjoy.

However, for a long time, the fan community hated the Doctor Who TV movie.  The TV series “Queer as Folk” joked that Paul McGann’s incarnation of the Doctor didn’t count. There was substantial criticism of the romantic references between the Doctor and Grace.  When a series failed to materialise, a later planned relaunch suggested forgetting the movie ever happened. 

So I re-watched the TV movie aware of the stigma but also not easily hating anything. And, to me, it’s not a horrible story, but it’s not a great story either. If this story had been in the middle of a series, it would be a completely acceptable standard story. The movie in this context would be an acceptable filler story, not a masterpiece.

But this story needed to be impressive, not just average. New audiences needed to be won over by the story on first viewing to for a series to proceed.

This shows partially why “Rose”was successful in comparison. The TV Movie needed to get everything perfect first time. “Rose” in comparison just needed to get people to gladly watch one more episode. “Rose” could build an audience, the movie needed to win an audience. The movie needed to get everyone demanding more episodes. It needed to attract not just fans, but newcomers to the series as well. And the film is not strong enough to achieve that.

Cons – No Central Character to Follow

I wondered while I was watching this – who are we meant to be following in this story? The first voice we hear is the eighth doctor giving an opening narration, but he doesn’t physically appear yet. The Film focuses instead on a largely silent Seventh doctor, until he is shot by a gang. Shortly afterwards, he changes into a new person without explanation. Fans may know this is the same character. New views to Doctor Who would be entirely lost.  

Of course, the other human characters are easier to identify with.  But Grace is introduced long after the seventh Doctor is shot.  Change Lee, who witnesses the Doctor be shot, is a better choice for audience surrogate. He first meets the Doctor when he arrives on Earthis involved in the story from as soon as the TARDIS lands until the end of the story.  However he spends most of the story allied with the Master.  Potentially this alliance to the Master the story could have worked if he was the central character.

Change Lee’s story would be of being a gang member meeting an alien and helping him restore his bodies. Over time Chang could slowly start having doubts, before realising he is supporting the wrong Time Lord.  This would allow better audience engagement for people unfamiliar with Doctor Who. However, the film instead focuses on Grace and the Eighth Doctor. By doing this, most of the first fifth of the film does not feature the focus characters. 

Monsters vs the Master – a bad choice

While the Master is a long term villain in Doctor Who, he rarely works alone. In most Master stories, he mostly he works with alien allies, monsters, or robot companions.

The Master is an odd choice for a launch story. I understand the character is affordable as a villain, just requiring an actor, no monster design required. But the Master works better when he has a bit of force behind him.  The Master is more of a threat when they have a power behind them, compared to the Doctor operating alone. Having the film just be about two duelling time lords, also leads to one further problem.

How is the Doctor a Hero?

The Doctor is usually our hero, in the movie as he was in the TV series. His name is the title of the movie after all. Once he regenerates, the new Doctor provides massive information dumps to Grace to introduce his character to all of us. But once we learn who the Doctor is, what does this movie say he does?

He saves the Earth! And what does he save the Earth from? His own TARDIS! Which is threatening the entire Earth because the Master left it open. And the Master is only on Earth because the Doctor accidentally brought him there.

Other stories have the issue of the Doctor only solving a problem he created, like this Movie does. However, the movie, in wanting to launch a series, needed to not have problems.

For a familiar fan, you know this is another episode in the ongoing fight between the Doctor and the Master. For a new viewer, though, Earth is just a casualty in a feud between two aliens. Instead of being a hero we need, Earth would have been better off without either the Doctor or the Master arriving. Therefore the Doctor’s actions come off as careless, resulting in deaths and the near destruction of Earth.

What happens next?

At the end of the movie, I wondered “Would I enjoy a series continued from this movie?”

I’ve asked this before, with varied answers. Sometimes I think a new series based on the TV movie would be exciting. Or sometimes I feel a series would esemble other nineties Sci-Fi like the X-Files, and I think I would not enjoy. But this time I realised, I have no idea. Because I have no idea what the series based on this would be like.

The main villain is (apparently) dead. Grace is choosing not to travel with Doctor for a reason I still don’t understand.  Perhaps the writers did not want to bring in a new companion if they weren’t certain if there would be an ongoing series. However, other companions had left without explanation, such as Ace in the seventh Doctor era.  We’ve got the Doctor traveling without a reason. All the movie has said about his motivations so far is that he transports dead Gallifreyans to Gallifrey.

Potentially the next episode could be nothing to do with this story, using new characters and settings. However, this would mean the next episode would need to completely reintroduce the series again. Alternatively, if it wishes to keep Grace and other concepts of the series, any such episode would need to copy a lot of the TV movie. The doctor is would be drawn back to San Francisco to fight an alien menace and see Grace. While this could end with Grace joining the Doctor, it would otherwise be the same general story outline of the first movie.

Not knowing what will happen next can be exciting. Literally having no idea of what the purpose of the characters you are watching is, is not .

The immediate follow up to the TV movie in other media, the Doctor Who Magazine Comic Book and the BBC Book series, both chose to avoid this problem by immediately sending their version of the Eighth Doctor to places the classic fans would be familiar with: Stockbridge fighting the Celestial Toymaker in the comics, and visiting each of his previous incarnations in the book series

What would have been better if the story ended with the Doctor showing Grace and Chang Lee his home planet Gallifrey on the scanner, and saying “Let’s go!” The next episode would still need to be entirely different from what we had seen before, but this way would build on what has happened before, and give viewers an idea what to expect for the next one, what the Doctor does, and have something to get excited about. And excitement means we want to see the next movie, rather than would merely accept it if it arrived.

What Rose Does Right

So with that in mind, what did “Rose” do right?  Why was Rose an instant hit, and the movie was not?

As mentioned before, Rose had the benefit of not having a lot riding on it compared to the movie. No one needs to completely decide whether or not they like Doctor Who by the end of “Rose”, because there are another twelve episodes coming either way.  However, “Rose” succeeded regardless.  

Partly that was because they did choose to focus on the character of Rose, a fairly easy to understand earth woman. This focus only really shifted towards the Doctor towards the end of the first series, and then once the Ninth Doctor regenerated the focus returned to her.  While this lead to complaints of “Rose Show featuring the Doctor” this method was successful in appealing to new fans. If someone had never watched an episode of Doctor Who before, they would learn everything you need to know through Rose, gradually and naturally, without need for info dumps of the kind the TV Movie had in abundance.

This method of introducing the series was used successfully twice before. First we learned of the Doctor through regular schoolteachers Ian and Barbara in 1963, and to a lesser degree we learn of the Doctor through regular earth people the Brigadier and Liz Shaw in 1971.

There was also a clear focus on monsters from the start. Some of them weren’t that amazing, but they had a look which got people excited. The Doctor has a purpose and motivation – to defeat the Autons and save the day. In “Rose”, the Doctor saves the Earth. What he does is save people, not just fixing up his own mistakes. And knowing this is the Doctor’s purpose, we have an idea of what he will do next, creating excitement for the next installment.

Final Thoughts

So, the movie was never terrible, but a good looking production with many problems. It’s big success is showing the later relaunch what not to do which later production teams learnt from. And by bringing us a new Doctor, there was a spark in fandom which may have kept it going for as long as it did, leading to creations such as Big Finish audio series featuring the Eighth Doctor still continuing to this day.

Doctor Who has had a larger amount of output post hiatus than most other stories. Usually there’s a bit of excitement for a few years, then people move onto different things.  I noticed in the lead up to the new series in 2004, there was a significant winding down in fan interest, with the BBC Book series slowing production, and Big Finish trying to permanently free itself from regular continuity with the assumption that there would be no regular continuity to ever return to. 

Could Doctor Who have survived from 1989 to 2004 relying on only novels, and comics to sustain their fandom? Thankfully, we’ll never ever find out. (3 / 5)

Violett (2023) is a psychological horror film written and directed by Steven J. Mihaljevich. This unrated film stars Georgia Eyers, Sam Dudley, Valentina Blagojevic, and Simon Lockwood. As of this review, the film is available on Amazon Prime and TubiTV.

Sonya (Georgia Eyers) struggles with her deteriorating mental state, latching onto her daughter, Violett (Valentina Blagojevic). Her husband (Sam Dudley as Stan) struggles to help her through her emotional and mental spiral. The ghosts of past trauma threaten to torment Sonya until reality clashes with fantasy.

What I like about Violett

Several beautiful shots, often of nature, truly captured this dreamy experience. Following through with this quality of cinematography are some of the horrifying visuals. From what I gather, this is far from a high-budget film. Yet, the visuals evoke a haunting that outclasses its budget and cost. However, the majority of the film does show this strain.

Georgia Eyers’ Sonya holds a lot back. Viewers feel that emotional weight from her eyes alone. As the lead of Violett, she had the most to work with, but the character requires a restrained approach. The performance has limited moments of truly raw emotion, settling for that emotionally vacant or exhausted performance that seems harder to pull off effectively. However, Georgia Eyers lives up to the trust placed on her and delivers that performance.

While I hesitate to call this an Arthouse film or elevated horror, it puts stock in such comparisons with many interpretable scenes and flashbacks. Certain scenes—the best scenes, even—linger more on the elevated horror aspects. However, the plot remains easy to follow, making it more accessible than most under such titles.

Violett provides a slow burn and won’t capture every horror fan’s interest, but it maintains investment through those mentioned scenes. For those with similar patterns of abuse, I imagine Violett might hit close to home. It’s not inherently haunting, but it’s memorable and delivers a dark twist that earns the film a rewatchable quality.

Tired Tropes and Triggers

Child abuse remains an essential component in Violett. While there’s clear physical and emotional abuse, some scenes suggest sexual abuse. However, these scenes leave room for interpretation, lacking direct confirmation.

Gaslighting deserves a discussion in this section with some clarification for accuracy. These moments are not the usual examples of gaslighting with an intentionally malicious purpose. There’s a complex reason beyond the usual intent of emotional abuse.

Violett depicts a suicide along with clear suggestions of depression. While the suicide isn’t glamorized, the entire suicide appears to the viewer. This decision certainly earns a trigger warning to those sensitive to such material. 

What I Dislike about Violett

As mentioned earlier in the review, not all scenes are shot equally, with the majority of the film lacking that haunting element. It’s possible that these shots intentionally favor a dreamier aesthetic to make the viewers unsure about what is real. However, it doesn’t work as well as intended.

The initial twist is pretty obvious after the first twenty minutes of the film. However, I won’t linger on this point because it still holds a narrative purpose beyond the reveal. It perhaps overstays its welcome when the truth seems obvious, but there’s enough restraint not to beat the viewer with the reveal.

Final Thoughts

Violett establishes a slow and psychological horror with moments of greatness. While it’s ultimately underwhelming in most areas, the film still holds engagement and even earns a rewatch for those who want to understand Violett. If you crave a psychological horror that steps into the arthouse realm of interpretation without losing the plot, Violett certainly fits that niche. But don’t expect a high budget or clear answers.
(3 / 5)