rec.arts.tv Commentary:

A lackluster cast, dominated by a Final 2 made up of the show's biggest villains, and the general lack of a "hero" (a la BB3's Roddy or Lisa, or BB2's Bunky or Monica), made this the weakest installment in the series yet.

Unfortunately for me, one of my favorite off-network shows was started over from the beginning of the 4th season in early summer. Only now are we getting to the point where new, previously unseen episodes are airing on MoviePlex. So a review of this show will have to wait until season's end.

"Charmed" is so aimless and off-putting in season #6 that I am seriously starting to wonder if they should have called it quits after season #5.

The show's only "hook" this season is the mystery surrounding new "Whitelighter" Chris (Drew Fuller). And new "butt-kicking" Leo was a welcome change (while it lasted). But that isn't enough to surmount the fact that two of the show's three lead characters (Piper & Phoebe) have become totally unlikable. Nor is Leo's killer new attitude enough to get me to overlook the fact that his continued presence on the series is a massive contrivance (and contradiction). All this, combined with breaking up Piper & Leo, have proved to be a *huge* mistake for this series.

The show still scores a 'B-' because I'm willing to give it until the end of the season to turn things around. But if it doesn't turn things around soon, it may be too late for this viewer.

When watching a show, it's not always clear how critical certain characters are until they are gone. But once it happens, you realize that the show in question has lost its "heart" once that crucial character is gone. You can argue who that character was on "ER" (personally, I think I'd vote for Benton). On "Buffy", that "crucial character" ended up being Cordelia (the show never had a real, proper foil for Buffy after Cordy departed for L.A.).

On "Alias", the crucial missing character turned out to be Will Trippin.

Now it's all spy silliness, and superhero-robot spy theatrics, without a "hook".

Needless to say, this all ended up being a 'jump the shark' moment for "Alias" with me, and I quickly lost interest in the show.

Of course, there was one watchable episode this season. And you know who guest starred? Yep. That's right - it was Bradley Cooper as Will Trippin. Surprise, surprise...

Good, solid, and occasionally flashy L&O is basically "Sherlock Holmes" for the 21st Century. In other words, if you love Vincent D'Onofrio's Goren (and I do), then you probably like this show. If you hate Goren, you probably hate the show.

Season #2 picks up from season #1, with almost no loss in quality. And while we didn't get to see anymore of Greg Stilson (at least in the summer run of "season 2.5"), the subplot with Frank Whaley's Apocalypse survivor gave "season 2.5" its need structural storyarc. Aside from that, there were some plum good episodes in season #2 - while outside of this review's "timeframe", season 2.0 episodes "Precipitate", "Playing God" and especially "Scars" (the best episode of anything I saw last season) were quite good; meanwhile, "Season 2.5" episodes like "Deja Voodoo" and the finale "Visions" were also good.

First a disclaimer: I never watched any of the first "Joe Millionaire", so I am coming at this from a slightly different place than most people. Having said that, though, I am aware of some of the flaws of the first edition (e.g. specifically, the way the first edition was unwisely stretched out by FOX, a circumstance that ended up alienating a large portion of the original's viewers).

In any case, I have to say - edition #2 of "Joe Millionaire" was a significantly watchable affair. Yes, it was no "Big Brother" or "Paradise Hotel" or "Survivor" (though I prefer it to "The Bachelor" series). But there was a certain pleasure in watching a semi-dim American "cowboy" trying to muddle his way through a show whose primary purpose was to puncture the balloon of Eurotrash pretension.

And it's that last element that had this reviewer tuning in (and cheering when the likes of Olinda and Lina were sent packing!).

There was a time when "7th Heaven" was a semi-serious family drama. Well, that era is *long* since OVER.

To say that show is a joke now would imply that there was actually some humor to be derived from it. But outside of PyschoLucy, and the carefully choreographed antics of the toddler twins, there's nothing about this show that is actually amusing. Meanwhile, why go to this show for drama when there are about two dozen other dramas presently airing that all do it better (much better!) than "Heaven"?!

Fie! on this show, I say! Fie!

"Everwood" is down from the lofty levels it established in its first season.

The first season's storyarcs, built around the twin dramas of the Brown family's grief and the saga of Colin Hart's head trauma, had real emotional heft. But season #2 has pretty much dropped the grief angle (which I think is understandable) and has replaced the Colin drama with... well, nothing much. And herein lies the problem.

While season #1 mined deep drama, season #2 has essentially been reduced to mere soap-opera. Whereas before the major conflicts dealt with Andy's and Ephram's grief and their mutual father-son differences, this season the "big" dramas revolve around the Brown's love lives. On a lesser show, I wouldn't object to this, but I expect more from "Everwood".

Meanwhile, in place of the Colin saga, we have the (melo)drama surrounding Amy Abbott's struggle with depression, a storyline which looks good and sounds interesting on paper, but which actually plays out as rather undesirable television viewing. (The last thing that tends to make for watchable television is a character's single-minded self-absorption.)

Beyond that, I haven't found the show's two major additions (not including Stephanie Nizik's Nina, who has been added to the main cast, at the same time that she's been given nothing to do) - Marcia Cross' Linda Abbott and Sarah Lancaster's Madison - all that thrilling either.

So, compared to other dramas, "Everwood" is still pretty good. But, compared to itself, it's a less encouraging picture.

I did not watch the first 3 "John Ritter" episodes of this season (sorry, but I just couldn't make myself do it). But, having grown annoyed with "Gilmore Girls", I have watched the post-Ritter episodes.

My verdict? It's what I feared: What we have in the wake of John Ritter's absence is a basically standard issue family sitcom (effectively, it's "Reba", without "Reba's" level of banality, or the ex-husband - IOW, it's "Reba" headed by a widow rather than a divorcee), that "juices" its marketability by the morbid (and I'd say deeply cynical) milking of the tragedy surrounding John Ritter's passing.

As disturbing as that is (and I do find it disturbing), the real problem is that Ritter's absence has destroyed the delicate equilibrium among the show's cast. Where Bridget was once sassy, she's now just vain and annoying without Ritter's Paul there to puncture her pretensions. Similar effects are seen with Kerry (once poignant, now mopey) and Rory (once amusing, now pathetic).

What a mess.

Certain shows simply cannot (creatively) survive the transition from high school to college ("90210" & "Buffy" being perhaps the two most famous examples), and it turns out "Gilmore Girls" is one of them.

You see, what once looked like an idyllic, enviable mother-daughter relationship in seasons #1-3, now comes off as a freakish, twisted, (co)dependent, unhealthy relationship in season #4. I mean, I may be a Momma's Boy, but I can assure you my mother never slept overnight in my dorm. Or threw a dorm party for me. Nor did I go running back home to see Mom every frickin' chance I could. But every one of those things has happened this season on "Gilmore Girls" (some of them repeatedly). And every time something like this happens, every time Rory goes running home to hold Mommy's hand (or vice versa), I cringe, and I'm taken right out of the fantasy world that GG is supposed to create. What was once cute, is now freakish and off-putting.

The problem here seems to be that series creator Amy Sherman-Palladino and co. have taken their own show's title too literally. They seem unable to comprehend the idea that just because the show is called "Gilmore Girls" does NOT mean that both Gilmore girls need to be in EVERY SCENE together! What they don't seem to realize is that they could set up two, essentially parallel shows, each part following the life of each Gilmore girl *independently*, and still call it "Gilmore Girls"! In fact, I dare say that this would be significantly more interesting than what they're doing in season #4. But I fear it's too late to fix things now.

Clearly, this is 'jump the shark' time for "Gilmore Girls".

The show has taken a lot of knocks over its preceding two seasons for plot developments that many have described as flat-out preposterous and contrived. And, previously, the preposterousness of those developments never really bothered me.

Until this season, that is.

I can't put my finger on exactly what it is, but I just am not grooving on "24" this season like I did in the previous two. I don't know if it's that the subject matter doesn't interest me (and I do think that's a lot of it), or that I've found the "twists" just too obvious and contrived this season. (The "writing" behind the twists does seem a lot more obvious to me this year than before.)

But, overall, I've got to say that I am disappointed in "24" this year. The good news is, now that "24" has seemed to dump/move beyond this season's 'first arc' (i.e. Kyle Singer & co.), things seems to be getting a little more interesting (even if I don't buy the "twist" that got us here).

But, as with "Charmed", "24's" grade for the first half of this season of 'B-' is more 'on credit' than anything, in the hopes that things will get better from here on in.

Still a good solid show, now in its 11th season. And while Sipowitz/Franz are still the show's driver, there's been good supporting work from Ross, Gosselaar, et al.

I *knew* it at the time that I was watching last season's finale, "Exodus", I just KNEW it. I was sitting there thinking, "Wow! This finale is great!! It's almost too great - they'll never be able to have a season premiere that lives up to this! It'll be just like ST:TNG's "Best of Both Worlds, Part II", where they'll have a sucky conclusion/season premiere to a great finale/"Part I", and where they'll hit all kinds of 'Reset Buttons(R)' in the new season..."

When you're right, you're right.

Season #2 was "Smallville's" best season by far - storylines advanced, characters deepened, interesting things happened. So what has happened in season #3 can only be described as a major disappointment, as 'Reset Button' after 'Reset Button' has been hit: Clark/Lana is now back to square one; the "Chloe turns evil" twist from "Exodus" has been ignored; we're back to the season #1 circumstance of 'oft-absent Pete'; Clark's Metropolis spree had no consequences; Lex's budding friendship with Clark has blown up; etc.

Which is too bad - season #2 showed that this show had real promise. It's a shame to see it slink back into season #1-level mediocrity in its third season.

I actually think "CSI" has 'firmed up' a little bit in season #4. The personal lives of the five principals have again been (mercifully) deemphasized, and the cases don't seem to be the outrageous 'red balls' that we were getting last season. In addition, it seems to me that the gore level has been cut down a little this season.

In short, I think "CSI" has gotten back to being more of a straight-forward 'procedural', and that's a good thing.

If anything, this show may be even better in season #2 than it was in season #1.

Most crime 'procedurals' like "Without a Trace" usually make a mistake when they try to introduce the personal lives of their agents into the crime part of series (see, for example: "CSI"). But, in WAT's case, it actually seems to work (at least, as long as they avoid intra-office romance). By contrasting the agent's various personal histories with those of the 'missing persons' cases they are trying to solve, the result is a deepening of the action and the drama.

The cast is great, and the stories are often (though not always) interesting. For my money, "Without a Trace" is probably the best 'crime procedural' out there right now.