rec.arts.tv Commentary:

See you in January (review to follow in May).

Ditto. As above.

Heinously mothballed indefinitely by FOX, it's anyone's guess as to whether the six season #2 episodes already filmed will ever air.
(Guess I'll just have to settle for "Point Pleasant"...)

Despite the fact that I never did give season #4 a full final review, let's pick this review up with what we've seen of season #5 so far (which, by my count, covers about 15 episodes of the 52 episodes).

So far, I have to say that I think "The Tribe" has gotten back on track in season #5. The problems with the previous season, season #4, were two-fold:

• I never bought the really overtly Skiffy aspects and elements of season #4 (e.g. the Technos ability to pull things off that are impossible today). And while some of that has continued into season #5, it's not the driving force of events that it was in season #4, and that's to the good.
• Large tracts of season #4 progressed without most of the series' older regulars, which necessitated bringing on a bunch of new characters - some good (e.g. Jay, Java, Ram) and some bad (many of the other new characters), while bringing some of the weaker old timers to the forefront (e.g. Salene & Pride, characters I like, but who can't carry a show on their own).

Luckily, in season #5, old-timers such as Amber, Trudy, May, Jack and Ellie are back, and that's already raised the show up a notch.

And this time, I'm liking (most of) the new characters such as Slade and Ruby.

So "Thumbs Up!" (so far) on season #5.

The good news? - In its 7th season, "Charmed" has rebounded somewhat from it's really, really lackluster 6th season. There are some potentially hopeful signs here.

The bad news? - The 7th season is still nowhere up to the level of the superior Shannen Doherty-years, nor even at the level of the 4th and 5th seasons (I guess we'd call those the "latter Cole years"...).

But at least this show has a workable season-long storyarc, is taking Leo in some interesting directions, and seems to have Holly Marie Combs back full-time again. That's got to count for something.

But... oh, yeah - remember when this show used to be about saving *innocents* (i.e. mortals)?! Yeah, I barely do either - clearly the show has forgotten all about it...

I find this show incredibly off-putting (it goes without saying that I also generally find it unfunny).

Indeed, were it not for, 1) the lack of timeslot competition, and 2) the show's one saving grace (Renee Olstead), I wouldn't be watching it at all.

"Everwood" continues its slide into sort of standard-fare soap opera in season #3.

As I've said before, for most any other show this wouldn't be a problem. But "Everwood" established itself in as such an exceptional show in its first season that later seasons can't help but disappoint in comparison to that.

As soapy drama, they do have some interesting storylines here, mostly in regards to Amy Abbott (Emily VanCamp) and new Everwood-transplant Hannah (Sarah Drew). But most of the rest of the stories leave me cold - and, just like last season, the people who are supposed to be the show's anchors (Andy & Ephram Brown) are actually the show's least compelling characters this year.

All in all, "Everwood" is still watchable. But that's a big step down from the urgently compelling show it was 2 years ago.

'Upgraded' from my "Almost Guilty Pleasure" last summer to my "Full-On Guilty Pleasure" this year, "NCIS" is the rare police procedural that, 1) doesn't take either itself, or its characters, too seriously, and 2) is downright fun (and occasionally funny!).

When you compare "NCIS" to shows as smugly and portentously super-serious as "CSI: Miami", L&O or "Cold Case", you can understand what a relief "NCIS" is in comparison.

The difference between a 'first year series' and a 'second year series' is that most viewers will allow you to "throw everything against the wall to see what sticks" in the former case. But if you're still doing that by the time season #2 rolls around, it's no longer a sign of a show "trying to find itself" - it's a sign that the people involved in the show have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what they are doing or what their show is "about"!

And so it is with "One Tree Hill", a show which, despite its obvious deficiencies in season #1, still ended up as my 2nd favorite show of 2003-2004, but which has now degenerated to the point where it's a show I no longer watch.

It just became clear over the first half-a-dozen or so episodes of season #2 that this show *still* had no clear grasp of its characters, its storyarcs, or even its *genre*. What began as a family drama that had evolved into a "teen soap" had now degenerated into a "wish fulfillment show" for spoiled suburban teenagers.

Without a single, solitary interesting (let alone believable) storyline.

That's a problem.

1. The addition of new characters Felix (Michael Copon) and Anna (Daniella Alonso), neither of whom is likeable, neither of whom is interesting, and neither of whom add anything to the show, was a serious, *serious* mistake - when you still don't have a handle on the characters you have, the *last* thing you want to do is add more (extraneous, and totally unlikable!) new characters. (And I'm leaving out the parts about new (adult) characters Andy and Jules, as well.)
2. I think the producers misinterpreted what they had with Sophia Bush: they read the popularity of the Brooke character (and Bush's superior rendition of her) as a license to make this show into "The Brooke Davis Show". (I think if you do a comparison of Brooke's vs. Peyton's screentime in season #2 vs. season #1, you'll see what I'm talking about.) Big, BIG mistake. Brooke is character best served by *limited* deployment - because on more constant examination, she's exposed to be an empty, unlikable (and selfish) shrew, not the kind of character you want to base a show around. (Peyton's no "heroine" either, mind you, but replacing "one Devil with another" doesn't solve the problem).

While not seeing as much of it as I might like, I'm still enjoying what I see of "Blue's" final season.

Having abandoned even the pretense of taking "Smallville" remotely seriously, I can now sit back and enjoy the addled silliness that is Clark Kent's life. (Ah, the pleasure of putting the brain on "Duuuhhhhhhhhh..." mode!)

Beyond that, I like "Lois Lane" (Erica Durance) more than I though I would (and I still resent Chloe Sullivan - except when she's making an ass out of herself! (see: "Devoted") - as much as I though I might). Oh, and Lana is still an annoying pill. Surprise, surprise.

While this show's second season is getting a lot of knocks around here, outside of a disappointing (and lackadaisical) season premiere, I've got no big complaints on my end.

I mean, yeah, "The O.C." probably isn't as funny this season - Seth Cohen will only be really funny for so long, until you figure out (and get tired of) his "gimmick", and I think we're 'there' now. But that was to be expected (by me, anyway).

Aside from that, of the new characters - I love one of them (Lindsay), don't mind a second newbie (Zach), basically ignore the third (D.J.), leaving only one new character I really, really dislike (Olivia Wilde's irritating Alex).

It's still early yet, but all in all I'm not displeased with "The O.C.'s" season #2.

While I think they've "kicked Eads & Fox down" somewhat this season as punishment (and brought on recurring Louise Lombard (as Sofia Curtis) as a more explicit threat to all the potentially wayward actors on the show), "CSI" is still humming along, 'doing its thing'.

That pretty much works for me (and about 30 million other Americans, apparently).

I ended up being a little down on last season (season #2), but so far I think season #3 has been pretty solid, with not even one real 'clunker' episode in the bunch.