Observing The Observer

In today's Observer, Kathryn Fleet has this to say about the end of Heroes (season one, which just finished up over here ... I'm sure she'll despise what goes on in season two) ...

I'm way too cynical and battle-weary to buy into the all-you-need-is-love school of happy endings, but no matter. It's fair to say that, in its own small, sweet and uniquely American way, "Heroes" has delivered if not a great blast of consolation for TV viewers' lost illusions, then certainly a gently optimistic gust of fresh air, and there's a lot to be said for that.

Can anybody clue me into what she meant by "uniquely American"?

When push comes to shove, how different is Heroes from Dr. Who? They're both just glorified comic books, eh?

"Small and sweet" doesn't strike me as something washing through the US of A. Maybe it's the optimism and hope for a happy ending? Are there no optimistic, happy endings in the UK? Or maybe that's just her plight, having to toil away, talking about telly for The Observer.

She also says something about it being American because of the "all you need is love" theme. But wait, that was the Beatles, wasn't it?

And ... didn't Rose pretty much keep the universe going by tapping into time (what's more timeless than love, not to mention her and the Doctor's love for each other) and creating her predestination paradox?

Save the chav-leader, save the world.

I will agree with Ms Flett on one thing ... Sylar's kinda hot.