rec.arts.tv Commentary:

MY '00-'01 MID-SEASON REVIEW: Returning Shows:

Last updated: January 28, 2001.

Posted to rec.arts.tv on January 7, 2001. 

NOTES on the GRADING: Unlike my "Buffy" reviews, the 'Series Grades' shown here are *not* the average grade of each episode. The 'Series Grade' in these reviews are more a way for me to make a 'sense of the show' grade, both in how I feel the show is doing versus its own expectations and against the other shows I watch. If I were to do the 'Series Grades' based on the average of the episode grades, the average grade in many cases would likely be lower...

Essentially, the grades break down roughly this way:

• A: A very, very good show, probably among the very best on the air. An "A+" would mean among the very best TV shows of *all time*.
• B: A solid and entertaining show. It may not (or may) be very "deep", but it's good entertainment just the same.
• C: Passably watchable, but nothing more.
• D: An unwatchable mess; almost nothing about this show works, and probably gets by on the goodwill generated by one or two of its stars.
• F: A terrible show, the kind of show you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy!

The shows are listed by day, Sunday shows first and Saturday shows last, with the exception of syndicated shows which are listed first.

OVERVIEW:

With returning shows, the question is always the same: is the returning show better, worse, or the same as it was last season? Based on this criterea, "Angel", "Buffy", "Nash Bridges", "The X-Files" and "V.I.P." have improved, so far this season. "Once & Again" (keeping its formerly high level of quality), "Charmed", "Dawson's Creek" and "Beastmaster" have held steady. "Roswell", "ER" and (especially) "Felicity" have declined, at least somewhat. ("Nikita" is a special case because its season doesn't follow the pattern of the other shows.)

Here is a list of the Returning Show grades (reviews follow that):

The List of Graded New Shows (in order of Grades)

       TV SERIES                   GRADE
      -----------                  -----
      Angel                          A-
      Once & Again                   A-
      La Femme Nikita                B+
      Buffy The Vampire Slayer       B
      Charmed                        B
      Dawson's Creek                 B
      Nash Bridges                   B
      Roswell                        B
      The X-Files                    B
      V.I.P.                         B-
      ER                             B-
      Beastmaster                    C+
      Walker Texas Ranger            C+
      Felicity                       D+
      Jack & Jill                    INCOMPLETE

Returning Show Reviews:

It may be my imagination but I actually think this show has partially rebounded from a weak second season. Last season, I had two major complaints about "V.I.P.": 1) too much Val, and 2) too much 'stunt casting'. Well, so far, season #2 has dialed way back on the 'stunt casting', if not Pamela Anderson's screentime. But, as important, season #3 has actually managed to come up with a number of amusing episodes, among them 'Val as a mistaken samurai warrior' and 'Val gets trapped on a train with a mass murder', along with the Val-Tasha 'buddy' episode. So, I'd say "V.I.P." is back on track to being the amusing silly show it was back in season #1. And that ain't a bad thing.

Season #2 of "Beastmaster" brings a lot of changes to the show, though main characters Dar (Daniel Goddard) and Tao (Jackson Raine) remain unchanged. Some of these changes were of necessity. For example, the recurring character of the Demon Curupita had to be written out after three season #2 appearances, as Curupira's portrayer, Emilie de Ravin, had moved on to a permanent role on "Roswell". Thus, a new demon, by the name of Iara (Sam Healy), has taken Curupira's place. Curupira was a hard act to follow, so it isn't surprising that Iara isn't up to the task (so far). Meanwhile, for reasons that escape me, the show appears to have written out, at least for now, the juicy role of villain King Zad (played with gusto by Aussie actor Steven Grives). His replacement as villain is the intriguingly ambiguous King Voden (David Paterson). Voden's henchmen, Arina (Marjeah Holden), also figures into this as Dar's sparring partner (and potential love interest?!). While I hope Zad returns, Voden, if not Arina, is a welcome addition to the show. Finally, as the half-season drew to a close, the ambivalent Sorceress (the very tall Monkika Schnarre) has been (apparently) frozen by the vengeful Ancient One (Grahame Bond, still pleasingly chewing the scenery). Now, these are a lot of changes to absorb (and, in the case of the Sorceress, I hope not a permanent change), and, by and large, "Beastmaster" has managed to absorb them, without straying from the tone of the show set out in season #1. In other words, I'm still finding "Beastmaster" as much of a "Guilty Pleasure" in season #2 as I did in season #1.

Once again, I'm cheating by including "Nikita" in this review as "Nikita's" season finished in August, and the next season (season #5, "Nikita's" last) doesn't start until January (7, today, actually). So, unlike the other shows in this review, I'm actually reviewing the full season of "Nikita". (I guess this is only fair as I don't get to do this in my Season-End Review.)

Unfortunately, it'd be hard to deny that "Nikita" was starting to show its age in this fourth season. There were mindgames and plot twists a plenty, but they were starting to lack the 'freshness' they had back in the show's early days. That is not to say there weren't some good episodes in season #4, because there were. Among them, "Line in the Sand" (ep. 4.14), "Sleeping with the Enemy" (ep. 4.17), and the season finale three-parter (especially the last one, ep. 4.22, "Four Light Years Further") were probably the best of the bunch, while "Catch a Falling Star" and "Toys in the Basement" (ep's 4.16 and 4.18) were appropriately creepy, and "Abort, Fail, Retry, Terminate" (ep. 4.15) certainly had a shocking, surprising ending. Meanwhile, I have a certain fondness for "Sympathy for the Devil" (ep. 4.7), "Time to Be Heroes" (ep. 4.11) and "Time Out of Mind" (ep. 4.19).

But, there were a number of rather unremarkable episodes in season #4 (including some of the ones I mentioned above: even "Catch a Falling Star" and "Toys in the Basement" are pretty lackluster when compared to "Nikita" of previous years), which tended to reduce the effectiveness of season #4. And, as I stated in my 1999-2000 Season-End Review, there was a certain repetitiveness in some of these season #4 episodes, namely "Time to be Heroes" (which isn't all that different than the 2nd season's "First Mission") and "Hell Hath No Fury" (which bares a certain thematic similarity to first season's "Gambit").

So, overall, season #4 was probably "Nikita's" weakest season yet, but was buoyed by a great 4-part season premiere, and good 3-part season (almost series) finale, and a couple of pleasing episodes in between.

And it'll be interesting to see how this series gets wrapped up in the short, 8-episode fifth season, starting January 7 at 10pm.

As I've stated before, I'm not really a 'die hard' "X-Files" fanatic. And, as such, I was probably one of the few people who was slightly relieved that season #7 XF was going to move beyond Mulder & Scully because of star David Duchovny's fatigue with the show. The trick here was snagging the right replacement for David Duchovny to reinvigorate the show. Of the rumored finalists, my personal fave was Robert Patrick (best known for "Terminator 2" and "Copland"). So you can imagine that I was rather pleased when he actually got the job.

In fact, Patrick's Special Agent John Doggett has brought a freshness to the previously musty "X-Files" (as well as a needed no-nonsense attitude, and a welcome move away from "funny" XF episodes). Patrick's introduction has had two immediate effects: 1) reinvigorating Gillian Anderson's performance as Dana Scully (which was starting to get as musty as Duchovny's take on Mulder in season #6), and 2) de-emphasizing the show's inane and increasingly incomprehensible (and irrelevant) 'mytharc'. This later circumstance has allowed TXF to return to its original strength: creepy, atmospheric, scary 'stand-alone' Monster of the Week (MotW) episodes. Anyone who has a fond recollection of season #1 XF probably already realizes that the most memorable episodes from that first season, the ones that excelled, were in fact the MotW episodes, *not* the 'mytharc' episodes which didn't start cropping up with any regularity until Gillian Anderson's unplanned pregnancy forced the 'mytharc' on to the show to explain her absence in season #2.

Now, has TXF produced any 'barn burners' so far in season? No, I can't say that it has. But, call me a radical, the episode with the 'bat man' brought back found memories of the old 'Fluke Man' episode for me, and the episode with the Utah cult that worshipped the parasitic slug was probably the single grossest episode TXF has ever produced! (which is meant a compliment, as well as stomach-churning warning to those with weak guts and low tolerance for gore). And the episode with the boy ghost was creepily atmospheric, if nearly incomprehensible. Sure, some of this is a little derivative of seasons past. But I'd rather get good retreads of previous storylines than really bad "original" 'mytharc' crap.

So, let's raise a toast to Special Agent John Doggett, and a return to the 'roots' of "The X-Files" in season #7. It couldn't have come soon enough...

What a difference a season (and a couple of directives from the net goons at The WB) makes.

Let's cut to the chase, and get to the two points at the heart of the matter here (explication on these points to follow):

1. Is second season "Roswell" as good first season "Roswell"?
   ANSWER: No.
2. Is second season "Roswell" still any good?!
   ANSWER: Yep. Well, sometimes. Usually. Most of the time. I guess...

And this, in a nutshell, is where "Roswell" has gone terribly, terribly wrong in season #2. In the rush to embrace the "Sci-Fi" half of the show, the writers have exposed that 1) they know nothing about science, and 2) they know nothing about how to write *Science Fiction*. (And, surprisingly, new season #2 EP and "Star Trek" alum Ronald Moore doesn't seem to be helping on this score.) These "Sci-Fi" episodes of "Roswell" are whirling dervishes of fast and furious movement and 'plot development', but as the old quote goes, they usually end up being "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" (or, at least, very little). Indeed, in looking at the Sci-Fi heavy episodes of this season (Skin & Bones, Surprise, Harvest, Wipe Out!, Meet the Dupes and, to a lesser extent, Max in the City), what exactly did we learn about our *characters*, or even about the Sci-Fi arc itself?! Well, in the last one ("Max in the City") we learned that Max and Tess (and Max and Liz) are incredibly loyal to each other, and that Tess may indeed be in love with Max, after all. In "Harvest", we learned that Michael and Maria can still get along. And in "Wipe Out!", we learned that you don't want to get on Tess' bad side. Meanwhile, on the 'arc' side, we learned in "Surprise" that the so-called "Skin" aliens are a dissent group that took over The Pod Squad's homeworld, and that Isabel maybe, possibly, could be, like, this traitorous chick in her previous incarnation, but that this almost certainly has nothing to do with who she is now. (So, in other words, it doesn't matter at all!) Oh, and in "Meet the Dupes", we learn that there is a second, exact duplicate "Pod Squad" made up of three (four, if Dupe!Max faked his own death)... well, basically, they're losers, and they may be kind of evil. Oh, and finally, in "Max in the City", we learn that there are five alien "homeworlds", including The Pod Squad's original homeworld, and that they fight and bicker more than your family at Thanksgiving dinner. OK, so this is a slightly flippant distillation of the events. But am I wrong in saying that this all didn't add up to much, if anything? We waited through season #1 "Roswell", for *this*? Color me underwhelmed. (Of these, my favorites are probably "Max in the City" and (and I know it's not a popular choice) "Wipe Out!". But even these aren't all that great...)

But, then we get to the second question: "Is second season "Roswell" still any good?!" Luckily the answer is "Yes", though it has much less to do with the episodes I mentioned above than it does with the episodes I haven't mentioned yet, namely: "Ask Not", "Summer of '47", "The End of the World", "A Roswell Christmas Carol" (and, to a lesser extent, "Max in the City"). Now, with the probable exception of "Summer of '47" (which was less a 'Sci-Fi' exercise than an intriguing way of using the actors in different roles to dole out an expository 'lump'), all of these could be considered to be "character" episodes (though "The End of the World" is probably the only episode that successfully uses a Sci-Fi "device" to drive the characters). In other words, these episodes get back to the very things that made season #1 so good, namely attention to *character* detail and interaction. In *these* episodes, events flow from characters, not some arbitrary devotion to a nebulous 'mytharc' or the conception of what "Roswell's" writers think 'Sci-Fi' is supposed to be. In these episodes, people talk, individuals bond, characters learn. Call me crazy, but this is so vastly preferable to the 'Sci-Fi' episodes that I have to shake my head in disbelief that everyone doesn't prefer it this way.

Unfortunately, you can't argue with ratings. And with "Roswell" ratings up this season, the 'Sci-Fi' junk that's been put out is likely to get the credit. What does this mean? Well, it means the writers can still do good character work when they put their minds to it (and "Roswell's" next new episode, "To Serve and Protect", fortunately looks like another one of these). But what it really means that, when it comes to 'Sci-Fi', the writers still have a lot of work to do. Which means that I'll probably be back to cringing while watching "Roswell" when February Sweeps roll around, and we're back to a bunch of frenetic, nonsensical 'Sci-Fi'/mytharc episodes...

Continuing the shocking turn of events of last season, the unthinkable has happened: I, Ian J. Ball, am continuing to evangelize for a Herskovitz & Zwick show (the people who previously brought you the whiny, over-the-top "My So-Called Life"). More on this on your late Local News...

Seriously, though, for the second season in a row, "Once & Again" is in serious contention as the Best of Show of the Season.

However, there are some differences between this season, and the first season of O&A, and that may put some people off. First among them is that the producers seemed to have de-emphasized the B&W "interview segments" (I don't see them as often this season as last). But the biggest change has been the change in the show's primary focus. While last season, the show was definitely driven by the characters around Sela Ward's Lily Manning, a request by Ward for a less punishing work schedule (to allow Ward more time with her real-life family) has necessitated the shift of the show's focus more toward Billy Campbell's Rick Samler and the Samler family. Now I personally have no problem with this as I felt that, after season #1, we actually knew the *least* about Rick Samler! This circumstance has been happily rectified in season #2. Further, the shift to Rick has allowed more screentime for Evan Rachel Wood's Jesse (probably the most fascinating of the four "children" characters), Susanna Thomspon's Karen (the ex-Mrs. Samler, fastidiously neurotic), Rick's deliciously manipulative client Miles Drentell (David Clennon, playing the season's most fascinating character, along with "Grosse Pointe's" Hunter Fallow), and even Rick's partner David Casilli (Todd Field, appropriately nebbishy and guarded, at the same time).

Not that the Mannings have been totally ignored. Season #2 has followed up with another "Judy" (Marin Hinkle, good at playing heartbreaking lonely) episode, "Booklovers", though it wasn't as good as season #1's "Judy" episode, "The Mystery Dance" (where Judy has an affair with a married man, played by Steven Weber, and which was probably the most depressing thing (in a good way!) I saw all last season). And, most recently, we got a Jake (Jeffrey Nordling)-Grace (Julia Whelen)-Tiffany (Ever Carradine) episode.

But, so far, the best season #2 episodes have unquestionably been "Samler-centric", especially the Thanksgiving episode "Feast or Famine", the 'Miles' episode "Ozymandias 2.0", and the 'Jesse goes to the shrink' episode "Food for Thought".

Just like last season, O&A is getting hammered in the ratings, and is once again being moved, this time to Wednesdays at 10pm (starting January 10). And, once again, O&A is still probably the best (or one of the best) shows on TV right now. Excellent character work, good writing, interesting issues - what more could you want?!

The good news: there's not one real dog in the first 10 episodes of season #5 "Buffy", and the show seems to be rebuilding nicely from the disaster that was the second half of season #4. The bad news: I said exactly the same thing about the first 10 episodes of season #4 (that they were good, and that season #4 was looking promising).

Having said that, though, I am confident that the writers and producers of "Buffy" have at least learned some lessons from the season #4 debacle, lessons I don't think they'll soon forget.

Indeed, while "Buffy" is still being outclassed by spin-off "Angel" (more on this in the following review), it is rebounding nicely. Of the 10 episodes so far, the best were "Fool for Love" (the "Spike" episode, which, while quite good, was neither as good as the "Angel" follow-up "Darla", nor as good as the "best" episodes of "Buffy" previously), "The Real Me" and "Listening to Fear". Other good episodes were "The Replacement", "No Place Like Home", "Shadow", and "Into the Woods". And there are a couple of good themes and storyarcs that the writers seem to be bringing along nicely.

This season of "Buffy" is succeeding for several character-based reasons: 1) Buffy is now much less whiny and much more focused, dark and interesting, 2) Xander is no longer "butt monkey" for cheap laughs, 3) Spike has been given a purpose, 4) Giles has been given a job, 5) Anya has been given new outlets, 6) Joyce has been made a part of the action again, 7) Riley has been deepened (and has now been moved off-stage, which is a good thing), and 8) Willow (and Tara) have been de-emphasized. All of these things have made "Buffy" more pleasurable to watch again, and have restored some of the affection some of us have for some of the characters.

That said, there are still some problems. As net-colleague and fellow reviewer David Hines will endless (and correctly) point out, there are still some major episode and storyarc plotting problems with "Buffy". For a show that really 'crackled' and 'moved' in its first three seasons, developments on "Buffy" are now more and more lackadaisical and much less urgent. Further, the show still suffers from cast bloat. Even leaving Riley aside, let's list all the characters that are regulars or regularly occurring: Buffy, Xander, Willow, Giles, Anya, Spike, Dawn, Joyce, Tara, Glory and Ben. Excepting the first four (who are originals) and the last two (who are this season's 'bad guys', and thus temporary), we have five more characters who must be catered to. And, with the exception of probably Joyce, *none* of the others has any real necessity for being part of the show. Now, to be fair, the writers have done a good job of using Dawn sparingly and not shoving her down the audience's throat (and, besides, she's likely a temporary character too). And Spike (and sometimes Anya) serve at least some purpose as necessary 'comedy relief'. But, now that we've gotten rid of Riley, shouldn't we probably get rid of Tara, and probably Anya, and maybe even Spike too?! I mean, how can we fit Xander and Willow and Giles in anywhere if we have to fit Anya and Spike and (sometimes) Tara too?!

Anyway, at least things are looking mostly up on "Buffy". Now, if we can just avoid that collapse in the second half that we had in season #4...

There always comes a time when a pupil will outshine a mentor, when a child will surpass the parent. For "Angel", it happened in about a season. Not bad!

And this is all the more amazing when you consider that, exactly one year ago, a cast change on the show had prompted me to virtually declare "Angel" as "D.O.A." Luckily, after a shaky aftermath, "Angel" recovered from this unfortunate turn of events and, by the end of season #1, was getting back on track. Which brings us to the matter at hand: season #2.

Whereas "Buffy" has had to use its fifth season (so far) mostly in an effort to rebuild, second season "Angel" has been all about forward progress. "Angel" began its first (spin-off) season primarily exploring two themes: 1) Angel's mission of "saving souls", and 2) Angel's struggle for redemption. Now, obviously, these two themes are closely related (after all, what is "personal redemption" if not "saving" your own soul!), but "Angel" spent the vast bulk of season #1 focused on the first of these two themes. This allowed "Angel" to put together a good portfolio of mostly stand-alone, "monster of the week" (MotW) episodes in its first season. The result was a good solid cross of a supernatural fantasy show with a hard-boiled "P.I." show. Watchable, occasionally good, nearly always solid, but certainly not spectacular, stuff.

In what has turned out to be a fortuitous move, second season "Angel" has shifted the focus of the show to that second theme, Angel's struggle for personal redemption. This has led to fewer MotW episodes in season #2, and more emphasis on "Angel's" proto-arc which deals with Angel's struggle to remain good, and his part in the "coming battle between good and evil". All the while, the show has also been integrating new cast member Gunn (J. August Richards, playing Angel' closest human equivalent: a well-meaning vigilante with "rage" issues) into the show.

One potential drawback to this shift in focus is the requirement that the viewer care about two things: 1) the character of Angel (David Boreanaz, gaining sure-footedness in his role) himself, and 2) the character of Angel's erstwhile, resurrected vampire sire Darla (Julie Benz, who has grown as an actress by leaps and bounds in this part, and who's not a bad singer either!). For some, this second obstacle, in particular, has been hard to overcome. For others, the backbenching of regulars Cordelia (Charisma Carpenter, great as always) and Wesley (Alexis Denisof, doing a job of furthering his character's evolution from doofus to do-gooder) has also been hard to swallow. But, if you like Angel, like Darla, and like the season's theme, season #2 "Angel" has been nothing short of stellar. Arc episodes such as "Dear Boy" and "Darla" have been excellent, and two others, namely "The Trial" and "Reunion", have had jaw-droppingly shocking endings. Meanwhile, apparent stand-alone episode "Are You Now or Have You Ever Been" very subtly set one small but significant plotarc forward, while simultaneously acting as a cunning foreshadowing of what's to come. Clearly, season #2 "Angel" has picked up where season #2 "Buffy" left off.

Encouragingly, even the so-called MotW episodes have been good to excellent. "First Impressions" and "The Shroud of Ramhon" were solid work, and the episode "Untouched" in particular was outstanding, perhaps surpassing even the best of the season #2 arc episodes.

In short, I'm of the opinion that "Angel" is on fire this season. So much so that, if pressed, and acknowledging that it's still too early to be making definitely calls like this, I might even pick "Angel" as my favorite show this year.

What a difference a season makes, indeed!

In the past, my main complaint with "Dawson's Creek" has been its unevenness. The first season sucked. The second season started well, but ended badly. The third season started badly, but ended well.

Well, the fourth season of "Dawson" seems to be providing two things the show has never had before: 1) stability, and 2) slow but steady progress in its storylines. In other words, the writing of "Dawson's Creek" has matured right along with the characters.

Now, part of the reason I'm happy with "Dawson" right now is that I'm a Pacey/Joey 'shipper. Frankly, the most boring aspect of this show in seasons #2 and #3 was that the Dawson/Joey relationship saga was terminally *boring*! Dawson and Joey never had *any* chemistry on screen, where as Pacey and Joey do. Further, Pacey and Joey's relationship balances out the characters in pleasing ways: Joey makes Pacey strive to be more than a useless twit, and Pacey reigns in Joey's tendency to be a condescending know-it-all. In other words, unlike Dawson/Joey, Pacey/Joey works to the benefit of both characters.

Other storylines have worked nearly as well. IMO, Dawson's fitful acquaintance with town koot A.I. Brooks (Harve Presnell, a veteran character actor, most recently seen on "The Pretender") has developed nicely into a surprisingly engaging storyarc. And I'm also liking Dawson's budding romance with Pacey's older sister Gretchen (Sasha Alexander; hey! anything to keep him away from Joey!). Even Jen's (Micelle Williams) and Jack's (Kerr Smith) background stories have been mostly pleasing. And, to top it all off, the show's producers finally unloaded the Andie McPhee character (played by cutie Meredith Monroe), whom I felt was deadweight to the show ever since the end of the second season.

Bottom line: it's 'all good' on "Dawson's Creek" right now, and I personally can wait to see where the Pacey/Joey and Dawson/Gretchen 'ships end up going.

The thing I love about TV critics is how often they are *totally* wrong. I mean here we are, two years into "Buffy's" general decline, and critics are still singing "Buffy's" praises as if the show was still as good as the day "Becoming (Part 2)" aired. But my "favorite" TV critic of all right now may be "Entertainment Weekly's" Ken Tucker. I mean, here's a guy who's *still* singing the praises of "Felicity", claiming it's one of the best shows on the air right now. Has Tucker even *watched* 3rd season "Felicity"?!

I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone is still watching this show. Whatever few charms this show had in its first two seasons (and I'm in the camp that argues that only the 2nd season was really any good), they're all gone now. Julie's gone, Noel is now a tool and a doormat, Meghan has been domesticated and basically defanged, Ben is Felicity lap-dog, and now they have some new British girl we are supposed to care about. And does anyone *still* like the Felicity character, probably the most hypocritical character on the air right now?! (Well, it's either Felicity, or GH's Liz Webber, but that's another story...)

Both pretentious *and* boring, "Felicity" is pretty much a write-off now. "Reader's Digest" version: Reverse Tucker's advice in his most recent EW review of "Felicity": *watch* the superior "Jack & Jill", and then turn-off your TV when "Felicity" returns. It's really not worth the effort to find out who was shot in the cliffhanger. (If we're lucky, the answer is that *all* of the characters were shot in the cliffhanger!)

Duh! It's too early yet, silly! Just remember to watch it: "Jack & Jill" premieres with its second season this Wednesday, January 10 at 9:00 pm on The WB. Be there!

(OK, my work here is done! :> )

This season, "Charmed" has finally taken me up on one of my repeated suggestions: they finally added a recurring villain to the show (well, sort of). Of course, when I brought it up, I suggested that the show add a recurring *female* villain. But keeping with this show's estrogen-centric viewpoint, the recurring villain ended up being male, a half-human/half-demon guy by that name of Cole/Balthozar (well played by "Profiler"-alum Julian McMahon). The twist in this little storyline is that Cole wasn't all bad. In fact, he ended up falling for the littlest Halliwell, Phoebe (sex-symbol de jour, Alyssa Milano). This development has mollified one of my other complaints: the fact that in the previous two seasons, Phoebe had gotten the short-end of the stick in terms of character focus. (I.E. Season #1 was, overall, a "Prue" season, while season #2 was effectively the "Piper" season. So season #3 has, so far, been a "Phoebe" season.) So the Cole developments worked to "Charmed's" benefit.

However, not everything about season #3 has worked so well. It seems to me that "Piper/Leo angst" has been milked for all it's worth by now, and a lot less 'mopey Piper' would be welcome for the rest of season #3. Beyond that, I can't say that too many season #3 episodes have really jumped out and grabbed my attention (only "Power Outage", where Cole uses magic to set the sisters against each other comes close).

Still, "Charmed" is what it is, and that's generally mindless entertainment. And that's good enough for me.

Is "ER" as good this season as last season? No. Is "ER" as bad this season as it was in its terrible fifth season? Again, no. But "ER" is starting to get dangerously close of crossing the line from "medical drama" to "soap opera set in a hospital". (And, really, isn't that what ABC's "General Hospital" is for?!)

It's not that I object to *some* melodrama in shows like "ER". But "ER" has been laying it on really *thick* this season. Look at the checklist: Unplanned pregnancies? Times two, actually. Check. Death of a main character's family member? Check. (This makes Benton two for two in this category now.) Main character fights an addiction? Again, times two, actually. Check. Potentially terminal disease of a major character? Check. (I guess we can officially rename "ER" the "Pick on Mark Green Show"!) Secret affair between two cast members? Check. Main character murders somebody? Check. Main character has crazy family member? Check. Main character inexplicably changes her sexual orientation? Check.

You get the idea. The problem is, "ER" is best when it has been about the *patients*, NOT about the main character's personal lives. (Which would be seasons #1, 3, 4 and 6, by my reckoning...) But there's been little of that in this season of "ER".

Yet, despite all this 'soapiness' and 'melodrama', I'm still finding this season of "ER" vastly superior to the Gawd-awful season #5. Still, this isn't the best "ER" has to offer, by any stretch of the imagination, based on the show's past performance. And I hope the writers get out of this morass of melodrama before it's too late...

What a turnaround! Last season, I was fairly dissatisfied with this show. But the two main reasons for that, e.g. Evan's decent into Hell, and Yasmine Bleeth's increasing distracting Caitlin Cross, have been totally *eliminated* in the new season. And, hallelujah!

With the new season, "Nash" has returned to its roots: more humor, more focus on the cases, less story-arcing. And after last season's interminable downers, this is just what the doctor ordered.

Further changes come in the casting, and these are all pleasing too. To finally give her something to substantive do (and to give a real reason to keep her around), Nash's daughter Cassidy (the stunning Jodi Lyn O'Keefe) has been promoted to S.I.U. detective. (OK, so in TRW, such a move would have taken *years* to accomplish, but we'll grant the writers the necessary dramatic license in this case.) Meanwhile, the two new cast editions, Antwon Babcock (Cress Williams) and Rachel McCabe (Wendy Moniz, encouraging trading up from her "Guiding Light" days), have fit in nicely, and have actually added to the show.

So, as of the half-way point, I'm pretty upbeat about this sixth season of "Nash Bridges".

Here's this for two shocking admissions: 1) I've actually been watching "Walker, Texas Ranger" some this season, and 2) I'm actually kind of enjoying it!

For a show that has made a virtue out of its own dumbness, "Walker" appears to be trying to rise above that this season. Indeed, I'm amazed to report that "Walker" has actually put together some multiple-episode storyarcs this season! And they haven't been half-bad! Weird!

Still, "Walker's" 'charm' is still what it's always been: the vicarious thrill out of seeing Walker and co. pummel the crap out of the scum of the Earth (or, at least, the scum of Texas). This ain't brain surgery here! It's a very simple 'action' show for the "Heartland" of America. Believe me, there are worse things!

"Once & Again" this ain't. But on a boring Saturday evening, "Walker", and it's lead-in "That's Life", may be the only thing on the air worth watching, especially with the demise of NBC's "Thrillogy". Freaky, huh?...

Go to: [Mid-Season Review: New Shows] [FAQ Intro] [TV Page]