rec.arts.tv Commentary:

MY '01-'02 MID-SEASON REVIEW: New Shows:

Last updated: January 12, 2003.

Posted to rec.arts.tv on December 17, 2001. 

NOTES on the GRADING: The 'Series Grades' used in this Review are 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.

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!

For those shows which I've only seen the pilot, only the pilot is graded (not applicable this season!). For those show where I missed viewing the pilot, an "INCOMPLETE" Grade is given.

The shows are listed by day, syndicated shows first, followed by Sunday shows next thru Saturday shows last.

OVERVIEW:

I'd be lying if I said that the shows in the 2001-2002 season, either new or returning, were generating much excitement for me. In fact, the opposite is true - this season has given me a severe case of the "Blahs".

In terms of new series, note one of them rates better than a straight "B" (not even a "B+" in the bunch...).

In general, most of the new shows that I'm reviewing are at least watchable (exception: "Reba"). But I doubt any of them will be fondly remembered as "among the best shows on TV" in a few years.

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

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

       TV SERIES                   GRADE
      -----------                  -----
      24                             B
      Wolf Lake                      B
      Alias                          B-
      Pasadena                       B-
      Raising Dad                    B-
      The Amazing Race               C+
      Citizen Baines                 C+
      Enterprise                     C+
      Mutant X                       C+
      Thieves                        C+
      Reba                           D-  (and pushing 'F'...)

New Show Reviews:

OVERVIEW:

What sets "Mutant X" apart from other shows is... it's got really great clothes!

But seriously, folks, "Mutant X" is one of them syndicated sci-fi/action shows that are an endangered species these days. This show is

"X-Men" without the "X-Men" (don't ask! - Marvel signed away the rights to FOX, and... you get the idea).

What defines this particular show is its obvious reverence to "Miami Vice". In other words, this show is marked by long stretches of no dialogue (i.e. 'action' overlaid with lots of music, natch) punctuated by short bursts of idiotic (and scientifically nonsensical) dialogue.

But who cares! The real point about this show is that it looks great. Aside from the obviously attractive cast, what this show skimps on in its writing staff is obviously spent on the ultra-hip wardrobe and the really cool set design.

As Shalimar says in the pilot, "...life as a new mutant can be fabulous!" Or, at least, fabulously dressed!

Still, "Mutant X" could be better than the trifle it is, if the people behind it would just try and put some brainpower into the writing. Decent dialogue would be a start. A fleshed out storyarc would be a bonus. Personally, I'm still trying to figure out exactly what 'GenomeX' did to cause the creation of all these superpowered mutants.

Oh, and one more thing: this show keeps talking about "new Mutants" - what I want to know is, exactly what was so bad about the "old Mutants"?!! Huh?!!!

WHAT WORKS:
    The aforementioned wardrobe and set design; the ultra-attractive cast (kudos to the casting people who managed to overshadow "Cleopatra 2525" babe Victoria Pratt (Shalimar) with uber-babe Lauren Lee Smith (Emma)); it's good to see John Shea (Adam) working again!; this show is trying for a likable, gosh-golly goofiness that appeals to the 12-year old in all of us (see: not-so-slightly silly closing slow-mo shots of the "Mutant X" gang marching in unison; see: silly intra-team comradry, etc.); how can you go wrong when your arch-villain is... Andy Warhol!?!
WHAT DOESN'T:
    This show makes braindead shows like "The Lost World" look challenging in comparison; the dead pauses in the dialogue - hell! The dialogue in general, is not cutting it for me; more backstory development (and fast!) is a must for this show.

OVERVIEW:

OK, imagine "La Femme Felicity"?... Got a mental picture? OK. Now imagine Jennifer Love Hewitt in the lead role. Pretty scary, huh? OK, now imagine Jennifer Garner in the lead role! Now, if that doesn't scare the pants off ya, there's something wrong with you! Very, very wrong!!...

Despite its being hampered by the weak lead, this show has come across better than I ever would have imagined. It's a decent actioner. Now, it lacks the depth of the real "La Femme Nikita" series. But I wasn't expecting "Nikita II" out of this. This show is more like "Miss Bond", and it usually works when it's going for that. "Alias" builds suspense pretty well, and doesn't fall flat on its face nearly as often as I thought it might. It also has a number of interesting subplots going. Not bad.

Not that everything works. Jennifer Garner (as Sydney Bristow) is hard to get around. An actress who only seems only happy wallowing in either, 1) self-pity, 2) perpetual whining, 3) voluminous tears, or 4) some combination of all of the above, (don't believe me?! Check out her previous work in "Significant Others" and "Time of Your Life"...), she clearly is miscast for this (not to mention physically wrong for the part), at least in this author's opinion.

Also, while many of the subplots are interesting (e.g. the mystery surrounding Sydney's father and mother, what SD-6 is up to, the reporter friend's digging for the truth), other subplots aren't nearly as compelling. Specifically, the pretty boy CIA agent who plays footsies with Sydney, and the various romantic tribulations of Syndey's clueless roomie (Merrin Dugney, formerly seen as Kelley on CBS's "King of Queens"), are both 'network' time killers. And the whole pseudo-fantasy subplot worries me some.

But, then again, with Jennifer Garner as lead, and "Felicity" scribe Abrahms at the helm, it's amazing this show is as interesting as it is. Go figure...

WHAT WORKS:
    Copying straight out of the "La Femme Nikita" paranoia handbook - it almost always works!; spy suspense set pieces that are actually compelling and suspenseful (and sometimes are even technical marvels); a darn good supporting cast (Ron Rifkin, Victor Garber, Carl Lumbly); trying to figure out what SD6 is really up to; the subplot with Sydney's father & mother; the subplot with Sydney's reporter friend quest for the truth about the murder of Sydney's fiance
WHAT DOESN'T:
    Jennifer Garner: no matter what anyone says, I doubt I will ever warm up to this actress - this show succeeds in spite of her, not because of her; a couple of subplots are lame; this show is coming dangerously close to crossing the line into fantasy/sci-fi (TV Show Rule #7: Don't mix genres that don't match well...)

OVERVIEW:

The hallmark of this show is its daring and clever structure: each of the show's 24 episodes takes place as 1 hour in (semi)real time. That's the kind of format that only the most bold writer/producers would try and tackle.

And this show's EP's, Robert Cochran and Joel Surnow (both late of "La Femme Nikita", the latter also formerly of "Nowhere Man"), are nothing, if not that.

The trick to a show like this will be ratcheting up both the storyarc, and the suspense, with every succeeding episode.

The good news? In the show's pilot, second and fifth episodes, the show was absolutely successful in putting out a highly charged and suspenseful action.

The problem is, this slackened a bit in the third episode, and almost completely collapsed in the fourth.

Hopefully, this show can find its footing again. Because, when it 'hits', it shows a lot of promise.

WHAT WORKS:
    The 'real-time, 24-episodes-is-24-hours' structure, the kinds of daring sorely missing from most shows these days; Kiefer Sutherland is surprisingly effect as the lead, Jack Bauer; the subplot with the kidnapping of Bauer's daughter Kimberly (Elisa Cuthbert) may be the most suspenseful subplot, so far, surprisingly...
WHAT DOESN'T:
    The scenes with the individual terrorists, so far, have strained credibility (to the breaking point); the subplot with Jack Bauer's affair with coworker Nina Myers (Sarah Clarke) is cliched and trite, as was the portrayal of Jack's FBI rival/bad guy; the strong 'arcing' and continuity of this show will surely scare off casual viewers

OVERVIEW:

A tricky little show, I wasn't sure where "Wolf Lake" was going, but I wanted to find out.

But it's clear why this show didn't take off - mass audiences askew sci-fi/fantasy to begin with, and inscrutable sci-fi/fantasy is beyond the pale for them. So, no one should be surprised that this show failed.

Still, I would have liked to have seen what the deal was with this town of werewolves. And now we'll never know...

WHAT WORKS:
    This show obviously had an idea of what its backstory was, which helped in the slow revelation of the storyarc; personally, I liked Lou Diamond Phillips and his character; the supporting cast was nearly uniformly excellent (I especially liked Tim Matheson and Mary Elizabeth Winstead); several of the guest stars (e.g. Kiersten Warren) were excellent as well
WHAT DOESN'T:
    The show probably took too long to yield the pay-off on the werewolf backstory; it was awfully obscure for most viewers, which is probably why few viewers got into it

OVERVIEW:

I'm cheating a little on this show, as I've really only seen the pilot, and parts of two other episodes.

But, from what I've seen so far, I'm cautiously upbeat. While "Enterprise" is in no danger of dethroning "Angel" from the top of SFTV heap (heck! it's even inferior to its lead-out "Special Unit 2"!), it's still probably the best "Star Trek" series since "The Next Generation". In fact, based on its early episodes, it's off to a better start than perhaps any "Star Trek" series before it.

Which is not to say that this show is 'setting the SFTV world on fire'. Because it's not. "Enterprise" is solid. But it's not particularly fresh, or exciting. It's watchable. But it's not inspiring.

Which still makes it about 1,000 times better than "Voyager" ever was.

Of course, the real question is: Can this show keep it up? Or is it destined to degenerate to "Voyager"-level quality before too long.

For the sake of all of us, I hope the answer to the latter question is "Hell no!"

WHAT WORKS:
    Dumping Gene Roddenberry's stilted vision of a "perfect" future humanity (a show without some character conflict is doomed to fail (see: Voyager)); Scott Bakula gives us the most interesting captain since Picard; the rest of the cast actually register! as characters! which is more than almost anyone on "Voyager" ever did; writers' attention to the situation (i.e. early exploratory, naive, innocent humanity's first forays into space) is paying off
WHAT DOESN'T:
    Using silicone babe Jolene Blalock as the lead female on the show is derogatory and unnecessary (though she's a better actress than I might have expected); I am extremely uneasy with this 'temporal Cold War' nonsense, which is an unnecessary wrinkle in the show's plot, and is fraught with disaster waiting to happen, from a writing standpoint

OVERVIEW:

A 'reality' show that wears its 'game show' roots a little more proudly on its sleeve than "Survivor" does, this show tries to generate suspense more from its real word 'horse race' than from its contestants.

Of course, though, reality shows rise or fall on the strength of the casting of its constants, and especially on the casting of the "hero(s)" and "villain(s)".

On this score, "The Amazing Race" did pretty well, with the 'Frat Boy" and Mother-Daughter teams filling in as the "heros" and the dastardly duo of "Team Guido" filling the villain roles.

The problem is that, no matter what, the basic structure of "The Amazing Race" tends to be somewhat distancing (i.e. the audience tends to be emotionally distanced from the contestants) more than might be expected. Also, "The Amazing Race" was hampered by a pilot episode that I found to be rather ineffective.

Still, this show was generally entertaining, which is why I'm not complaining that a second season is in the works.

WHAT WORKS:
    The idea of a "race around the world" is novel; some of the casting (especially, The Frat Guys, Nancy & Emily, and Team Guido) was quite good
WHAT DOESN'T:
    Intra-team (see: Lenny & Karen, Paul & Amie) bickering tends to be more annoying than suspenseful or engaging; format tends to distance audience from contestants, especially early on in the show's run

OVERVIEW:

The first major attempt at a 'serious' nighttime soap/drama hybrid since probably "The Monroes" (remember that show?!), "Pasadena" has to be admired for at least going where others fear to tread.

And after a pilot that I found a little too precious, and a little too obscure, "Pasadena" settled into a fairly good groove.

While several of the characters are a little over-the-top (see: Mark Valley's brother, and Lily's tarty best schoolfriend), the show is grounded by particularly good performances by leads Dana Delaney, Martin Donovan and Alison Lohman.

The problem with this show was two-fold, 1) most TV viewers seem highly resistant to the kind of slow development-and-revelation storytelling of shows like "Pasadena" (and "Wolf Lake" and "24"), and 2) Friday night is exactly the wrong place to put a primetime soap. Those two factors combined to give "Pasadena" extremely low ratings, which is now why the show is currently on indefinite hiatus.

WHAT WORKS:
    Very good acting by the three leads, especially Dana Delaney who single-handedly sells a character who might come off as a one-dimensional loon in lesser hands; an intriguing mystery storyarc is the main driver underlying this show's action; this show has found a good balance between its characters' debauchery and 'public faces', and has so far avoided crossing the line into tawdry and demeaning
WHAT DOESN'T:
    Several of the characters are a little over-the-top (e.g. Mark Valley's); a couple of the other characters (e.g. Natasha Wagner's) seem rather superfluous; these days, writers can't wait too long before yielding dramatic payoffs to keep the audience's interest, and "Pasadena" may have waited too long to do that...

OVERVIEW:

A romantic/action trifle, this show was elevated by decent (if unspectacular) snappy reparte, and fairly decent performances from its leads.

That said, I preferred what I thought this show was going to be when I first heard about it - namely, a straight actioner about a thief played by John Stamos. Frankly, the "sexual tension"-based action show is so "Remington Steele" 80's. Besides, are network Execs now afraid to put shows on the air with predominantly male or female casts? What happened to the days of "Magnum PI" and "Designing Women"?!

WHAT WORKS:
    Leads Stamos and Melissa George were fine; the show was a pleasant diversion, and was definitely watchable
WHAT DOESN'T:
    This "sexual tension" genre is dated

OVERVIEW:

If there is a more awful, more appalling sitcom on the air right now, I will be shocked.

"Reba" is an unmitigated disaster of a show. About the only thing positive I can say about this show is that Joanne Garcia, who plays daughter Cheyenne, is a cutie.

And that's it. There are no other positive qualities to this show.

How this show can generate anything in the way of ratings should be a signal to anyone that TV is DEAD. Dead, dead, dead!

The first thing one notices about "Reba" is that it is populated with literally EVERY SITCOM CLICHE in the book. To wit: all male characters are portrayed as stupid, incompetent boobs; all characters who are not the star (read: Reba) are also portrayed basically negatively; every single one of the kids is a brat; etc.

And it just gets worse from there. Stuffed with lines, not a single of which is remotely funny (and many of which are patently offensive, inappropriate for a "family" audience, or usually both), the show is made even worse by the distinctly American sitcom tendency to equate screaming lines at the top of ones lungs while waving one's arms about frantically as guaranteed slapstick funny.

Unfortunately, it's not.

I could go on and on over the hackneyed, cliched situations the show is riddled with. Or the lame, leaden, offensive dialogue. Or the generally low caliber of the acting in the show, but why bother?!

"Reba" is a stinker. Whatever Scally might say about "Ellen" or "Becker" or "Friends" goes about a million times for this loser.

In short, "Ugh."

WHAT WORKS:
    Joanne Garcia is a cutie... no, wait a minute... there must be one other positive thing I can say about this show... just give me a minute... it's coming to me... I know it is...
    No, it isn't.
WHAT DOESN'T:
    Everything: the writing (or lack thereof), the direction (or lack thereof); the acting (or lack thereof); the premise; the banal, offensive, innuendo-laden dialogue (some "family" sitcom!); the fact that it's riddled with cliche after cliche; the basing of the show around a non-actor (see: "Emeril"). And on, and on, and on...

OVERVIEW:

Surprisingly, I actually think this (and not the more critically-hyped "Maybe It's Me", or the more popular "Reba") is actually the 'find' of WB's new Friday night comedy lineup.

Four things make this show work: 1) Bob Saget, who's doing a pretty good job reinventing himself from his "Full House" typecasting, 2) Kat Dennings, the show's true lead, who is this show's fresh and pleasant discovery, 3) old hand Jerry Adler, playing Saget's dad, who provides a professional and steadying element to the show, and 4) the overall format, which is a throwback to the more pleasant, less sullying family sitcom genre of yore.

And, frankly, considering what it follows (i.e. the horrid, appalling "Reba"), I can't think of anything better.

In any case, this is the watchable "family" sitcom of the night. Go figure it's also the one scheduled at 9:30 pm!!

WHAT WORKS:
    Saget, Adler and especially Dennings, in the key role; a return to reassuring family sitcom territory, free of the sewage common to the genre these days (see: "Reba"); also important is its laid-back style of delivery (sitcoms with people screeching inanities at the top of their lungs is so 90's! heck, it's so 50's!!)
WHAT DOESN'T:
    Don't expect depth from this show

OVERVIEW:

Though it started off being about a politician (a detail about the show that no doubt turned a lot of viewers off), this show was actually primarily a family drama, about a distant father forced by fate to interact with his three now-grown daughters, and their families.

And, as that, I liked this show. When it delved into ex-Sen. Baines' clicheed liberal pet peeves (though, to the show's credit, it didn't portray this as "Baines is always right!"), it wasn't nearly as interesting.

Unfortunately, the price tag it took to bring James Cromwell and Embeth Davitz on board was apparently too rich for the relatively meager ratings this show pulled in, and it's already been canned.

WHAT WORKS:
Color me surprised, by model-turned-actress Jacinda Barrett was actually the most effective of the three daughters, though the entire cast was good; not shoving Baines' politics down the viewers' throats was also appreciated
WHAT DOESN'T:
Most of the characters were actually kind of unlikeable, starting with Baines, and extending to the daughters played by Barrett and Jane Adams, and Adams' husband and kids; it took too long for this show to move beyond the political angle to get to the heart of the series - the family stuff; while solid, this show wasn't exactly an exceptional example of its genre

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