rec.arts.tv Commentary:
MY '02-'03 MID-SEASON REVIEW: New Shows:
Last updated: January 12, 2003.
Posted to rec.arts.tv on January 5, 2003.
GRADING scheme - see:
http://homepage.mac.com/ijball/grading-guide.html
[List of Graded Shows]
[Overview]
[The Show Reviews]
Here is a list of the New Show grades (reviews follow that):
TV SERIES GRADE
----------- -----
Everwood B+ (and pushing 'A-'...)
The Dead Zone B+
8 Simple Rules... B
Boomtown B
Robbery Homicide Division B
Without a Trace B
Family Affair B-
Firefly B-
girls club B-
Hack B-
Monk B-
Fastlane C+ (but kind of borderline)
John Doe C-
Adventure Inc. D
CSI: Miami D
Birds of Prey D-
What I Like About You D-
DISCLAIMER: I can only review those shows I've actually *seen*. I don't go
out of my way to view shows I'm not interested in, so if a show isn't reviewed,
or listed three paragraphs down, then I haven't seen it! That is all.
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.
--
Compared to last season, I'd have to say I'm cautiously upbeat about this
season's crop of new shows. Granted, 2 that I liked have already been cancelled
("Robbery
Homicide" and "girls club"; 4 if I throw in "Family
Affair" and "Firefly"),
and 2 others look to be disappointing ("Hack" & "Fastlane").
But there's some good stuff in here, especially if you count USA network's
2 summer series.
EDITOR'S NOTE: There are several other new shows that I have watched this
season, but not enough to grade them. That list includes "Life With
Bonnie", "The
Twilight Zone", "Do Over" and "Push Nevada". The only
one of these that I'm really negative on is "Life With Bonnie".
Reviewed shows are listed in airing order, starting with Sunday shows, going
all the way through Saturday shows. The (one) syndicated show (Adventure
Inc.) is listed last.
OVERVIEW:
I haven't seen much of this show, but what I've seen I've liked. Its non-linear
storytelling structure manages not to be gimmicky, overused or confusing (as
it often is in 'indie cinema'), and its cast of characters appear to be fairly
interesting.
WHAT WORKS:
See above. I also very much enjoyed the episode with Joe
Penny as a washed up actor reduced to being a supervisor at a Wal Mart-like
store. And, in that vein, the guest casting (e.g. Joe Penny, Jennifer Sky,
Kelly Rowan, Megan Ward, etc.) is excellent.
WHAT DOESN'T:
The personal lives of the various characters often seem
just a wee bit over-the-top (see: Joel's suicidal wife, the ADA, etc.).
OVERVIEW:
It's been a few months now, but this summer series is my pick for the best
Skiffy series of the past year, sporting an intriguing premise, a good adaptation
of established fiction, some smart writing, and a breakout performance from
former "Brat Pack'er" Anthony Michael Hall.
This show starts up again in January, and while I won't be watching the Sunday,
10pm airings on USA, I *will* be watching the Friday, 7pm airings on Sci-Fi.
IJB says "Check this one out!"
WHAT WORKS:
Like early "Charmed", the writers of this show
take their own premise seriously, and have obviously put some thought into
the real-world implications of their premise. Several of the episodes were
quite good, with "Dinner With Dana" being my pick for the best of
the bunch (though the Native American-themed "Shaman" episode was
surprisingly good, as well). Anthony Michael Hall does very good, and amazingly
subtle, work in this series. Of the supporting cast, John L. Adams, Kristen
Dalton (as the aforementioned Dana) and old-standby David Ogden Stiers are
all very good.
WHAT DOESN'T:
Nicole de Boer seems almost extraneous to this series, despite
her character's supposed importance to lead John Smith, and Chris Bruno seems
like a totally unnecessary afterthought (and, indeed, his sheriff character
nearly disappears from later DZ episodes).
OVERVIEW:
This is probably the best family drama that has aired in the past several
years.
Which is funny because, when this show started this season, I was actually
underwhelmed. But, in the vein of "never judge a series by its pilot",
this show really began to build and build on itself, after its somewhat shaky
start. Indeed,
by episode #10 or so, I was convinced that this was the best new show of the
Fall season.
WHAT WORKS:
Finally, a show is doing what I've been advocating for years – taking
the recent Skiffy fad of 'storyarcing' in advance, and applying to the genre
it should have been applied to all along: the nighttime soap opera/family drama
(thank Ghu creator Greg Berlanti finally figured this out!). Treat Williams
completely dominates this show (in a good way!) – if he didn't center
this show the way he does, I doubt it'd be half as good as it is. While somewhat
overrated in the popular press, Gregory Smith (hey! That's my brother-in-law's
name!) is also very good in this show, as is Tom Amandes (playing an almost
thankless role). The guest casting has been very good. The budding "teen
romance" between Smith's Ephram and Emily VanCamp's Amy has been shockingly
well handled (particularly on the end of VanCamp's character), and is the show's
best continuing storyline – I'm impressed! Several of the show's episodes
("The Great Doctor Brown", "We Hold These Truths", "Turf
Wars") have been outstanding.
WHAT DOESN'T:
Like "Gilmore Girls", this show can get overly
cutesy and precious with the quirky townsfolk. The voiceover narration is really
unnecessary. Strangely, Emily VanCamp has been better in previous roles – she
seems a little "off" on this show, like she's still 'finding' the
character (time's a-wasting, hon!), though she does seem to come through when
it counts. Amandes is playing an overly drawn, and almost thankless character
(yet, every time I think they've taken him over the brink, the writers manage
to redeem themselves). I know they are going somewhere with Amy's brother,
Bright, but he seems to be an extraneous character right now. The early dialogue
between Ephram and Amy was over-baked "Dawson's Creek's" stuff, but
that has been mercifully toned down as the series has progressed. They could
be doing a lot more with Vivien Cardone's Deliah, character (though I understand
the writers' reluctance to go into really depressing territory, especially
with the character of a small child). I could live without this show's fairly
occasional lapses into Liberal advocacy.
OVERVIEW:
OK, so I'm only grading this one off two episodes, so I guess the "Overall
Season Grade" for "girls club" is really for episode #2.
But... whatever.
Anyway, a harmless piece of fluff powered more by the attractiveness of its
three lead actresses than any skillful writing, this show was rejected out
of the gate by the viewing public, and will never be given a chance to find
its "voice".
Which I think is kind of a shame, because this show was, well, harmless fluff.
And I'd rather have watched this than, say. "Everybody Loves Raymond".
Oh, bugger!
WHAT WORKS:
Episode #2 showed that, while still generally over-the-top
David E. Kelley nonsense, this show seemed to be settling into something resembling
watchable. Kathleen Robertson and Chyler Leigh were good in their respective
roles, as was Giancarlo Espisito.
WHAT DOESN'T:
The biggest mistake this show made was to make film actress
Gretchen Mol the "primary" lead" – she was by *far* the
poorest actress of the three. The pilot was the kind of ridiculous, over-the-top
schlock that detractors have come to expect from David E. Kelley. This show
was neither profound nor deep, nor even possible to take remotely seriously.
OVERVIEW:
A shockingly incompetent spin-off of a show that is itself overrated, this
show only got more disgusting and off-putting as it went along. And if the
producers think that getting rid of the extraneous Kim Delaney solves their
problems, they have another thing coming...
WHAT WORKS:
David Caruso is the best (probably the only!) semi-decent
thing about this show, and this is his worst role to date! (If only Caruso's
promising "Michael Hayes" had made it over this turkey of a show!)
This cinematography on this show is first-rate, if over-done (see below).
WHAT DOESN'T:
Everything else.
Let's start with the cast: Kim Delaney walked zombie-like
through her shoe-horned and extraneous role – no mystery why she was fired.
But the rest of the cast is just as bad. Emily Proctor, whom I presume has been
decent in other things, is just bad here – every time she opens her mouth,
she takes me right out of the scene! "Credible", she is not! The two
male castmembers (Rory Cochrane and Adam Rodriguez) simply fail to register, for
which I suppose they should be thankful. Meanwhile, the talented Khandi Alexander
is stuck playing a character who's just embarrassing.
We next get to the writing. In an attempt to "differentiate"
itself from its mother "CSI" series, the writers have struck
on what they no doubt thought was guaranteed winner – "Say, we'll just
turn up the amp to 11 with depravity and torture of our 'victims'!"
Unfortunately for them, all this does is combine with "CSI: Miami's"
other problems to make the show too unpleasant to watch.
Then we get to the overly filtered, overly colorized,
washed-out cinematography that infects every 'exterior' shot on the show
(which probably make up more than half of the shots), making some scenes
almost unviewable. Meanwhile, the 'CSI' lab in this show is lighted too darkly
to make much of anything out.
Yuck. What a mess.
OVERVIEW:
I don't care what anyone says – this show is a hoot!
WHAT WORKS:
John Ritter has always been a solid, reliable performer
in both comedy and drama, and he doesn't disappoint in this show. Both daughters,
played by Kaley Cuoco and Amy Davidson, are very good, and make certain this
show is more than just "The John Ritter Show" – Cuoco, especially,
at the tender age of just 16, shows real promise as a budding comedienne. Katey
Segal and Martin Spanjers round out the cast with good supporting work (if
anything, Spanjers is actually *under*utilized!).
WHAT DOESN'T:
People are going to tell you that this show is stupid,
and clichéd, and that we've seen all this before – and I don't
care!!!
Meanwhile, in this author's opinion, sitcoms have especially
short shelf-lives, and whether this show will remain watchable into season #2
(let alone, say, season #5!) is an open question.
OVERVIEW:
Whoo, boy! What a mess!
WHAT WORKS:
Frankly, I'm having a hard time coming up with one thing.
I guess Dina Meyer was vaguely competent in her role. Rachel Skarsten is cute.
This show did have some decent guest stars (e.g. Mitch Peleggi, Shawn Christian,
etc.). It's nice to see Mia Sara working again.
WHAT DOESN'T:
I'm not even objective on the "talents" of
Ashley Scott as an "actress", so I'll skip the prerequisite bashing
of her. Meanwhile, Mia Sara was pretty over-the-top, even in a role that was
over-the-top. And Shemar Moore should have stuck with Y&R.
The dialogue on this show was beyond "campy"
– it was just idiotic.
The set design on this show was overdone.
Could this show be *any* more derivative of early
"Buffy"?! I swear they wrote every episode with some sort
of "Buffy"/"Girl Power" manual on the desk next to them!
This show seemed to have no long-term "vision"
– not surprising when you don't even have a friggin' *showrunner* to run
the series!
Anyway, bottom line: I'm shocked that anyone is bothering
to try and organize an "S.O.S." campaign for this turkey. It was
an incompetent mess. It won't be missed...
| FASTLANE (FOX): |
| Grade for Pilot: |
B- |
| Overall Grade for Season: |
C+ (but borderline 'C'...) |
OVERVIEW:
This show should be more fun to watch than it is.
WHAT WORKS:
Well... it *is* "different", which I suppose counts
for something. The episodes that revolve around Tiffani Thiessen's Billie tend
to be the most entertaining ones. The pilot for this show sported a good performance
from guest-star Jennifer Sky. This show obviously puts a lot of thought into
its "look", and it shows up on screen.
WHAT DOESN'T:
The forced banter between Peter Facinelli's Van and Bill
Bellamy's Deaq is rarely amusing, and is more often annoying. This show doesn't
have nearly enough "action" for an "action" show. In short – it's
often kind of boring. The show also needs better/sharper villains. And better
writing, period.
Overall, rather a disappointment from the show that
I was hoping might be different enough to 'break out of the pack'.
OVERVIEW:
While overly relying on "potty" humor from the twins, this was a
generally likeable family-friendly sitcom with a genuinely likeable cast.
More impressively (to me, anyway) is that, in several episodes, this show
didn't go for the 'obvious' "moral" resolutions that one would expect from
a lesser sitcom. (See, for example: the episode where Sissy and Uncle Bill go
to the 'snotty' society dinner, and Sissy didn't 'spaz out' on her dinner companions
as she probably would have on some show like "Blossom"...)
In fact, I'll actually miss this show when it's gone – I sure liked it
more than "Survivor: Thailand"!
WHAT WORKS:
This was one of the only two or three genuinely "family
friendly" sitcoms around, and it'll be missed for that alone. With a cast
of Gary Cole, Caitlin Wachs, and especially Tim Curry (clearly the highlight
of this show, he pretty much 'carried' entire episodes), how can you go wrong?!
While not especially funny, this show was entertaining. As stated above, this
show often went in unexpected directions, and gave you unexpected denouements.
WHAT DOESN'T:
Don't expect depth from this show. The potty humor from
Jody, especially, was *not* a positive for this show.
OVERVIEW:
A show that is solid, but not spectacular, it succeeds on strong casting,
and tight direction.
WHAT WORKS:
Factor #1 – Jonathan LaPaglia. While I thought LaPaglia
was better in "Murder One", he's still good here. Good supporting
work comes from the rest of the cast, especially Eric Close and Marianne Jean-Baptiste
(sporting the most convincing New York accent I've ever heard from a Brit!).
The guest casting tends to be top notch (e.g. Bruce Davison, Zach Grenier,
Stacy Edwards, Brett Cullen, Phillip Baker Hall, etc.). This show has some
good camerawork and some very tight directing. It also has good attention to
detail.
WHAT DOESN'T:
It's all about the "cases": 1) too many of the
victims are unlikable (something that's already been pointed out repeatedly
in rec.arts.tv), and 2) too many of the "missing" are found alive.
That latter factor is especially hard to swallow.
OVERVIEW:
Quite simply, a disappointment and a waste of time.
WHAT WORKS:
You know you're in trouble when Simon Rex is the best thing
about your show.
WHAT DOESN'T:
Jennie Garth is surprisingly listless in this show (but,
then again, she's never been known as a "comedic actress", has she?!).
Amanda Bynes mugs for the camera, and generally overacts, without the mitigating
likeableness exuded by fellow post-NICK'ster Melissa Joan Hart. This show is
essentially an unfunny mess, relying far too much on Bynes doing physical comedy
and not enough on, you know, *writing*.
| FIREFLY (FOX): |
| Grade for Pilot: |
D- (This is for "The Train
Job", not "Serenity") |
| Overall Grade for Season: |
B- |
OVERVIEW:
Reactions to this show have predictably come in two-types:
The Whedonites' expected "OMG! This is the best show on TV, like, EVER!
I love it! It's even better than "Buffy"!!!1!1!"
And everyone else's response of, "Uh... I'm not sure I get it..."
Not surprisingly, I fall more into the second category.
Having said that, this show wasn't totally without merit. The best thing about
this show, in this author's opinion, was long-time child actress Jewel Staite
who acted rings around everyone else in the cast (except veteran Ron Glass, who
is the only one bringing any class to this outfit), despite the fact that Staite
was hampered by playing one of Joss Whedon's annoying, distasteful post-Willow
'Willow' characters.
And, after a disastrous start of first and second episodes that were, charitably,
completely uncompelling and unwatchable, the show steadily improved. Which was
mostly thanks to character development rather than plot or genre.
Which brings us to "Firefly's" major problem, in this author's opinion:
it was haphazard mismatch of various genre elements, nearly all of which were
in conflict with one another, and none of which really worked.
If you chose to view "Firefly" as an 'experiment', than I guess
you'd have to say it was interesting. But viewed as television series devoted
to first to *entertainment*, it was less so.
Still, this show did seem to have some idea where it was going, and it would
have been interesting to see where that was. Count this up as YA (yet another)
'one season wonder' with a cult following.
WHAT WORKS:
Good acting by Jewel Staite and Ron Glass (and, I guess,
Sean Maher). Monica Baccarin was the "breakout" new star of this
show, and was surprisingly decent. The characters of River and her brother
were interesting, and seemed to power the show's best episodes. The camaraderie
among this show's cast of characters was probably its best feature. Jayne may
be Whedon's most original character to date.
WHAT DOESN'T:
Nathan Fillion and Gina Torres were surprising unimpressive
in their respective roles, neither inspiring any sort of strong passion on
the part of this viewer, at least. Baccarin may be the "breakout" star,
but she was playing a completely idiotic (and, frankly, unnecessary) character,
who ended up doing nothing more than point up Joss Whedon's radical libertarian
beliefs and his almost fetishist obsession with lesbianism. The obscure, interminable "conspiracy" based
around River was taking a page right out of Chris Carter's playbook, a playbook
that this show, "John Doe", and *all* other shows! should avoid like
The Plague! Much of this show was too cute by half (Whedon overdoes it as a
director, once again), and too in love with its own cleverness, a problem that
has affected all Whedon shows since at least 1999. "Firefly" was
a train wreck of genres, most of which clashed. Most of all, the "Western" underpinnings
of this show detracted from it more than they added to it – this show
would have played better as straighter Sci-Fi, a la "Babylon 5" (and
you don't need aliens to do that right!). Lastly, this show did take too long
to get off the ground (and that is even counting the original pilot episode, "Serenity").
| HACK (CBS): |
| Grade for Pilot: |
B |
| Overall Grade for Season: |
B- |
OVERVIEW:
I want to like this show more than I do, but there's something about it that
doesn't quite pull me in. Maybe it's the fact that it seems to be struggling
for its "vision", and hasn't found it yet. Or maybe it's the fact
that Robert Singer has taken over as EP, and I know what a show-killer he can
be for me. But, whatever it is, I'm just not totally sold on "Hack".
WHAT WORKS:
David Morse is, as always, excellent in this show, as is
George Dzundza. Some of the episodes have been quite good. I like the "vigilante" element
of the pilot, but this seems to have been deemphasized in later episodes (bad
choice, IMO). The plots don't always go where you expect them to, and this
show (pleasingly) tends to stay in the 'gray areas'.
WHAT DOESN'T:
Why have Andre Braugher in the cast if you aren't going to
use him?! While some episodes have been quite good, some have been rather bad
(e.g. the recent "funny" episode, which wasn't so...). This show
seems to lack a clear direction. It also tends to lack "Ompf".
OVERVIEW:
After an incredibly promising pilot, this show promptly went into the 'tank' – we've
seen most of what this show is doing done better in other shows (see, for example: "Monk"),
and a lot of what we've seen we don't need to see again.
WHAT WORKS:
Lead Dominic Purcell is a real discovery, and is probably
the only really good thing about this show. It's also nice to see that Jayne
Brook is still working. The aforementioned pilot was probably the best pilot
of the 2002 Fall Season. The underlying premise to this show is interesting,
if they'd just do something decent with it...
WHAT DOESN'T:
Where to start?! The premise of Doe helping the cops is,
in a word: BORING! The conspiracy stuff around Doe is now passé (cripes!
give me a Skiffy show without this damn conspiracy stuff! Please!?!). This
show is also chock full o' plot holes. *Why* are we being subjected to Sprague
Grayden's annoying Karen character?! (For that matter, why were Asura Skye
and Meatloaf Aday recast for Sprague and William Forsythe at all?...) Ultimately,
I just find this show dull – I'm not going to stick around for the 'payoff'
of Doe's identity if the individual episodes are so dull. (And they are...)
OVERVIEW:
A show that started strong (earlier in the season, I couldn't decide whether
this show, or "Everwood", was the best new show of the season), it
faded somewhat before cancellation as reused genre elements undermined its
stronger aspects.
And those "stronger aspects" were no doubt the cast, led by the smoldering
intensity of Tom Siezmore, and the cinematography (perhaps no other movie or
TV series has so accurately captured the 'look & feel' of nighttime Los
Angeles).
But that was somewhat undermined by series creator Michael Mann's propensity
to haul out his old "Miami Vice" scripts and, with only a slight bit
of tinkering, rework them for "Robbery Homicide", thus significantly
undermining the show's more unique elements.
Still, it's a shame this show was cancelled – with a season or two more
of development, it could have turned into a real winner.
WHAT WORKS:
Leads Siezmore completely commandeered and dominated every
scene his was in (which was pretty much *every* scene). Siezmore was ably backed
up by his supporting cast, particularly Barry Shabaka Henley. The cinematography
on this show as outstanding, especially the nighttime scenes – if this
was digitally shot, it's the best use of the technique on TV that I've seen
yet.
WHAT DOESN'T:
The cinematography may have been great, but the sound wasn't – the
often muddled dialogue on this show, particularly in early episodes, made it
nearly impossible to follow. The one weak link in the cast was Clea Scott,
who's starting to develop a 'show killer' reputation to rival that of Paget
Brewster and Paula Marshall. Reusing scripts, and script elements, from "Miami
Vice" seriously undermined this show.
OVERVIEW:
This show is just "Murder She Wrote" with a lead character who's
actually halfway interesting.
So: Monk, the character? Thumbs up. "Monk", the premise? Eh...
WHAT WORKS:
Tony Shalhoub as Adrian Monk. (Duh!) Bitty Schram is also very good as Monk's
long-suffering nurse Sharona, as is Ted Levine in his underwritten role as
Monk's long-suffering former boss. While the "mysteries" tend to
take me to "Dullsville", this show can be darn funny in some of
its individual scenes. Again, the guest casting in this show is great. It's
smart to keep this show to a 13-week summer series, rather than trying to
pad it out to a 'regular' 20-22 episode per season TV series.
WHAT DOESN'T:
The "Murder She Wrote" genre never really appealed to me.
OVERVIEW:
In a word? Boring.
Despite having a lead like Michael Biehn, and having a hottie like Karen Cliche
in the cast, this show is a total dud.
Of the episodes I've seen, only the one where Biehn's character hallucinates
that he's living in Colonial America was even half-way interesting.
WHAT WORKS:
Karen Cliche is like a much hotter looking, much more kick-ass
incarnation of "Gilmore Girls'" Lauren Graham – that's a *good*
thing, by the way. Michael Biehn is likeable.
WHAT DOESN'T:
This show is even more boring than "Relic Hunter"
– how is that even possible?!
[List of Graded Shows]
[Overview]
[The Show Reviews]
Go to:
[Mid-Season Review: Returning Shows]
[FAQ Intro]
[TV Blog]
[TV Page]
ijball@mac.com