rec.arts.tv Commentary:

MY REVIEW: The '04-'05 Season: My "Musings" Review:

This article was written, by me, and posted to the 
rec.arts.tv newsgroup (in two parts) on 
September 13 & September 14, 2005. 
That original article has been slightly edited by me 
before being placed on the web on September 18, 2005.

Note: Your best bet is just to pick out the shows you watch, and read those reviews - few people read my whole dang review!

A summary of the grading scheme can be found at:
  http://homepage.mac.com/ijball/grading-guide.html

[List of Graded Shows] ['04-'05 Overview] [List of Ungraded Shows] [The Show Reviews]

LIST OF GRADED SHOWS:

Rank  TV SERIES                 GRADE    OTHER COMMENTS
----  ---------                 -----    --------------
  1   24                          A-      MY #1 SHOW OF THE YEAR
  2   Desperate Housewives        A-      MY #2 SHOW OF THE YEAR
  3   Lost                        B+      MY #3 SHOW OF THE YEAR
  4   House                       B+      MY #4 SHOW OF THE YEAR
  5   Veronica Mars               B       MY #5 SHOW OF THE YEAR
      Eyes                        B       SPECIAL MENTION
      Tru Calling                 B       SPECIAL MENTION
      NCIS                        B       HONORABLE MENTION
      Numb3rs                     B       HONORABLE MENTION
      Point Pleasant              B       My "GUILTY PLEASURE" #1
      Gilmore Girls               B-      MOST IMPROVED
      Listen Up                   B-
      The O.C.                    B-      BIGGEST DECLINE
      Smallville                  B-
      Star Trek: Enterprise       B-
      Without a Trace             B-
      Charmed                     C+      
      Grey's Anatomy              C+      MOST OVERRATED
      Kevin Hill                  C+      My "GUILTY PLEASURE" #2

      Everwood                    B-      (no "long" review) 
      One Tree Hill               C       (no "long" review)

'04-'05 OVERVIEW:

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 a few paragraphs down, then I haven't seen it! That is all.
   Also note that this review does not contain "summer 2004" series:those were covered in an earlier Summer 2004 Shows Review - nor does it contain "summer 2005" series: those will be handled in a Summer 2005 Shows Review at summer's end. And it does not cover shows pulled at Mid-Season - those shows were covered in the Mid-Season Reviews for 2004-2005 (new & returning).

BOTTOM LINE: I have to say that, as these things go, this season was above average (well above average?...). In fact, I'd have to admit that it almost closed in on "exceptional"...
   Which is not to say that a number of the 'returning shows' - notably FOX's "The O.C." and The WB's "One Tree Hill" (and, many would argue, CBS's "Joan of Arcadia") - didn't go 'into the tank' in their second seasons (because they did!). But a good number of other returning shows improved substantially (e.g. FOX's "Tru Calling" & "24", The WB's "Smallville" & "Gilmore Girls", CBS's "NCIS") or ended on a high note (e.g. ABC's "NYPD Blue", NBC's "Third Watch").
   And then there was the crop of 'freshman' shows. This has been one of the stronger crop of new shows in several seasons: ABC's "Desperate Housewives" was the pick of that litter, but there were also good to great shows to be found among ABC's "Lost", FOX's "House" and UPN's "Veronica Mars", even CBS's "Numb3rs" (and I had a soft spot for FOX's "Point Pleasant" and "North Shore").
   The best show of them all ended up being FOX's "24", which came on strong in its 4th season. But "24" was no means alone in given us some good TV this year.
   Let's hope next year can keep up at least some of the momentum generated in 2004-2005.

EDITOR'S NOTE: There are a number of shows that I saw this season, but not enough to properly grade them. Here are some quick notes about those:

       Ungraded
       TV SERIES                COMMENTS
      -----------               --------
       7th Heaven               Yuck. 
       Alias                    I'm just incredibly bored with it now.  
       Blind Justice            A unfairly maligned series (primarily 
                                   due to its premise), it was actually 
                                   fairly watchable, thanks mostly to 
                                   Ron Eldard and Marisol Nichols. 
       Cold Case                It's improved slightly from season #1. 
                                   Which isn't saying much... 
       CSI                      This show gets more and more 'flashy', 
                                   and less and less realistic (and 
                                   compelling) with every passing 
                                   season. 
       CSI: Miami               Don't you people understand?! Horatio 
                                   Caine is a God! A GOD, I TELL YOU!! 
       CSI: NY                  [Apathetic shrug.] 
       Everwood                 A little too much 'soap' in season #3, 
                                   esp. with the Anne Heche nonsense. 
                                   But I hope there's genuine fallout 
                                   from the Madison revelations... 
       JAG                      Harm with Mac? Yuck. Zoe McLellan 
                                   getting her own show now? YES!!  
       Joan of Arcadia          (All Ian hears is:) Blah, blah, blah... 
       L&O:CI                   I'm not looking forward to next 
                                   season's episodes with Chris Noth 
                                   instead of D'Onofrio - D'Onofrio 
                                   *is* the show. 
       L&O:SVU                  This is still a quality show - the 
                                   episode with Hayden Panetierre was 
                                   quite good. But it's not a show 
                                   I "love" or especially seek out, 
                                   either.  
       NYPD Blue                A fitting and appropriate end to 
                                   a strong long-running series. 
       One Tree Hill            OTH is perhaps the only show I can 
                                   think of that is designed as a 
                                   series of elaborately staged 
                                   cliffhangers, strung together 
                                   by a bunch of nonsensical filler. 
       Revelations              When your subject is the Apocalypse, 
                                   you should be much more interesting 
                                   than this.  
       Still Standing           I continue to find this series to be 
                                   generally unpleasant.  
       Third Watch              This show was still pretty good! 
                                   And, yet, I continue to have little 
                                   to say about it. That said, 
                                   I'm going to miss it.  

THE SHOW REVIEWS:

Reviewed shows are listed in the following order - starting with Sunday shows, and going all the way through Friday(Saturday) shows.

OVERVIEW:

I said in my Mid-Season Review that I thought "Charmed's" 7th season was shaping up better than season #6, and I stand by that assertion.

Basically, I think the three things I liked about season #7 were the storyarcs of, respectively, Leo (the long-suffering Brian Krause), Det. Sheridan (Jenya Lano), and demon baddie Zankou (Oded Fehr, enjoying himself with scenery-chewing). (Notice that none of those actually involved the Halliwell sisters directly!?!) In addition to that, we got a fun couple of episodes guest-stint from Billy Zane, and the return of The Avatars in such a way that we probably won't have to see them again.

What this adds up was a passably enjoyable, if not particularly engaging, season of "Charmed".

But, admittedly, this show is pretty much running on 'fumes' now, and is nowhere near the level of quality of its heyday.

WHAT WORKED:
    The positive developments with Leo that began in season #6 carried into season #7... until they took away all of his powers towards the end of the season, effectively neutering the character, esp. on a show like this (see: what happened to the character of Cole when they temporarily made him powerless back in season #4).
    Zankou was a relatively fun villain who, unlike other villains in the past, didn't wear out his welcome. And they generally handled the return of Sheridan well, and did a slightly better job with Det. Morris (Dorian Gregory) this season.
    Also, despite what some others have I said, I really liked the way they tied things together in the season finale - frankly, I truly wish they had just ended it there: it would have been perfectly fine as a series finale.
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
    Halliwells?... What Halliwells?! I honestly can't remember much of what any of the three sisters did this season!
    As mentioned in the Mid-Season Review, the guest stints early on by Nick Lachey and Kerr Smith kind of seemed to be pointless, in retrospect.

OVERVIEW:

A broad farce which wasn't as funny as it could be, but was nonetheless still pretty funny.

For my #1 "new show" (which actually translates into "My #2 Show", as "24" had already grabbed my #1 "Best Show" slot), it came down to "Lost" vs. "Desperate Housewives", not surprisingly. In the end, "Desperate Housewives" got the nod as the better show for two main reasons:

1. I felt "Desperate Housewives" did a better job in wrapping up its first season storyarcs/mysteries, whereas "Lost" just 'pulled an "X-Files"' by adding mystery upon mystery without really ever solving anything. Whatever else you want to say about "Desperate Housewives", you can't really say that.
2. Unlike "Lost", "Desperate Housewives" excelled at humor (where, indeed, it has been submitted as a 'comedy' to the Emmys). "Lost", while a good suspense series, was admittedly pretty humorous. "Desperate Housewives", on the other hand, often excelled at humor even more than drama.

Beyond these two points, the shows were pretty comparable. Certainly both shows had great (large!) casts, and at this point I'd like to say something about "Desperate Housewives'" ensemble of actresses. All 4 actresses on this show are excellent, including the oft neglected Eva Longoria who (along with Teri Hatcher) was responsible for carrying most of the comedy elements of the show, and managed the task very ably. Along with Longoria, I tend to think Hatcher is similarly neglected for carrying the "comedy" water (and, of the 4 actresses, is probably the one most deserving of the Emmy). But that takes nothing away from Cross or Huffman, who are similarly excellent.

Beyond this, most of the points I made in my Mid-Season Review of this show still apply.

In addition, I detected no serious downward trend in the show's quality as the show's first season progressed (a real concern with many first-year shows - see, for example, "8 Simple Rules", which seemed to use up most of its good ideas towards the beginning of its first season, and quickly declined in quality). If there was any lessening in the show, it was very slight indeed.

Which is my way of saying, unlike some coming sophomore shows who I'm dreading, due to cast changes and the like, almost as much as I'm anticipating ([cough] [cough] "Lost"! "Veronica Mars"! {cough] [cough]), I'm still very much looking forward to season #2 of "Desperate Housewives".

WHAT WORKED:
    Having covered the female ensemble, let's take a second to give props to the underappreciated actors on the show, esp. Steven Culp (as Rex Van De Kamp), but also Doug Savant, Shawn Pyfrom and the appropriately creepy Cody Kasch and Mark Moses.
    Speaking of actors, there were a lot of great guest actors in this show's premiere season, as well - Harriet Sansom Harris, Lesley Ann Warren, Richard Roundtree, and Bob Newhart(!), etc.
    As stated above, nice work on the pacing and eventual resolutions of some the show's first season storyarcs. Also, nice work on the season finale - esp. the surprise killing off of Rex Van De Kamp (Steven Culp).
    Forget about Joss Whedon - is Marc Cherry the "new GOD"?!!
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
    No real complaints, save perhaps that they don't give Edie quite enough to do, nor develop her quite enough.

OVERVIEW:

The most annoyingly watchable show airing right now.

I knocked this show several times during Spring for being the most "girly" show on the air right now (and, remember, the other contender for that crown, CBS's "Judging Amy", is now gone from the broadcast airwaves), and I still stand by that critique.

There is just not that much here for a "guy" to grab on to - the female characters are all portrayed as "dominant", while the male characters serve either as accessories (Patrick Dempsey's Dr. Derek Sheppard), afterthoughts (Issiah Washington's Dr. Preston Burke), or buffoons (T.R. Knight as George O'Malley and Justin Chambers as Alex Karev). (Egads! Have I slipped into inverse Feminist Theory in this review?!)

Beyond that, there's just enough on the medical side to make the revolting 'soap' elements palatable (and I'm saying that, as a soap fan!!), and Dempsey and Knight are just about sympathetic enough for me to overcome my involuntary reflex to strangle the oh-so-precious! oh-so-beautiful! oh-so-adorable! Meredith Grey (Ellen Pompeo, struggling valiantly against an insufferable character) every time she's on screen.

Anyway, this is one of those shows I tend to watch in morbid fascination just to see "how bad things can get". About the time that Sandra Oh's Christina Yang discovered she was pregnant and Dr. Sheppard's "wife" showed up, I pretty much had my answer.

WHAT WORKED:
    Despite the "accessory-ness" of his character, Dempsey is an appealing presence, as is Knight (no matter how many times the writers try to passive-aggressively humiliate his character). In fact, most of the cast comes off as effective (Chandra Wilson as Dr. Miranda Bailey, the show's one seeming voice of reason, is a real treat). And the guest stars are usually of high caliber as well.
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
    Eeewww. Where to start?
    There are many reasons to knock "Grey's Anatomy", but I think the tendency of this show to 'deify' its female characters (esp. the precious Meredith Grey) is probably its worst inclination. It's generally impossible to get into the "soapy" elements, when I'm so pushed to despise Grey and Isobel Stevens (Katherine Heigl, seemingly engaged with a character again, after taking a mental nap after "Roswell's" first season) and even Yang, so much of the time.

OVERVIEW:

Pretty much the only sitcom I watched this season (well, I sometimes watched "Still Standing", but I'd rather try and forget about that!), "Listen Up" was one of the shows that took a lot of 'cheap shots' from the "entertainment press", despite the fact that it was actually pretty funny.

Which isn't to say that it was "brilliant". But, for what is was, it was a reasonably amusing entry in the family/workplace sitcom arena (it was certainly superior to "Still Standing", and was probably stronger than more recent "King of Queens", from what I've seen). It didn't merit cancellation based on its ratings (which were about on par with lead-in "Still Standing"), and certainly not based on "quality" (where it beat "Still Standing" by a mile).

Ultimately, I won't miss this show much. But I will miss it.

WHAT WORKED:
    Duh! Jason Alexander *was* the show, and he was funny. Also funny, though perhaps used a little too much in the second half of the season, was Daniella Monet as bratty daughter Lauren. Even Will Rothhaar, who played son Mickey, was good, wisely underplaying his scenes.
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
    What I said in the Mid-Season Review still applies: " It's still a family "sitcom", and I'm not sure how watchable it would be without Alexander. As always, there's room for improvement - the show can definitely get funnier."

OVERVIEW:

My pick for the best season of "24" since season #1, season #4 largely licked the problem of previous seasons - i.e. "24's" tendency to be "uneven halves", intra-season (e.g. season #1: first half better than second half; season #2: first two thirds better than last third); season #3: second half much, much better than lowly first half).

Season #4, by contrast, ratcheted up the suspense, and managed to keep it pumping all the way through the 24 episodes (perhaps only losing a little momentum at the very end).

All of which marks season #4 as probably "24's" strongest season since its first season. (And I think I revere season #1 more for being "first", and demonstrating that "24's" series concept could work, than for it being truly "brilliant".)

Not everything in the current season worked. Jack's detour into a convenience store robbery was just too much (and sort of deadened the action for two episodes). And the whole "Chinese" angle seemed like an unnecessary add-on (though they'll pick up points for doing it, if they keep with it into season #5). Also, I wasn't all that thrilled with having Audrey around, and having William Devane (Secr. of Defense Heller) and Logan Marshall-Green (Richard Heller) distractingly disappear for good chunks of the season didn't help.

But I was just plumb pleased with season #4. Maybe airing the show straight through from Jan. to May increases the appreciation of this show.

No matter - when it comes season #4, I really have few complaints. It cranked up the suspense, and never let up.

And that's why "24" is My #1 Show of the Year.

WHAT WORKED:
    Season #4 kept suspense levels high, and nearly steady, throughout the year.
    Great to see a lot of the old regulars back: Reiko Aylesworth (Michelle), Carlos Bernard (Tony Almeyda), and especially! the lovely and talented Mary Lynn Rajskub (as the even more lovely and even more talented Chloe O'Brian!!!).
    Beyond that, there were some other good recurring additions - James Morrison as the appropriately stoic Bill Buchanan, Roger R. Cross as Curtis Manning, and Louis Lombardi as Chloe soulmate Edgar Stiles.
    Great guest work from, variously, Shohreh Aghdashloo (Dina Araz), Jonathan Ahdout (Behrooz Araz), Gregory Itzin (as twitchy Pres. Logan), and Arnold Vosloo (as terrorist supervillain, and Jack-Bauer nemesis-extraordinaire, Habib Marwan), and the always reliable Dennis Haysbert (ex-Pres. Palmer) and Jude Ciccolella (as Chief-of-Staff Mike Novick). I even thought Angela Goethals did a great job as crazy Maya Driscoll (and Alberta Watson got better toward the end of her stint as Erin Driscoll).
    Plus: Mandy (Mia Kirshner) is back, and still alive!! YAY!!!
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
    I wasn't all that enamored with the season finale (though the last couple of minutes almost made up for it).
    The aforementioned 'deadspots' in the season - the convenience story robbery (esp.), but also the Chinese Consulate detour.
    I didn't really buy Erin Driscoll as the CTU head - her incompetence was pretty much too contrived.
    The 'stopwatch' aspect of "24" has pretty much be thrown out the door now - this was pretty much the case in season #3, and season #4 made no attempt to make the 'real time' aspects any more realistic.
    YOU KILLED 'HOTTIE' DEBBIE (Leighton Meester)! YOU BASTARDS!!

OVERVIEW:

In 2004-2005, this was unquestionably the most "enjoyable" of the various 'procedurals'. In fact, it is "NCIS's" unique focus on humor and intra-office group dynamics that lifts it above the other 'procedurals' (contrast it with drab and super-serious "Cold Case", for example, and see the difference!), and which is why "NCIS" rates an 'Honorable Mention' from me.

And it's the group dynamics that are the key to this show - after being a "Gibbs skeptic" (see my Mid-Season Review), I've come around on the Mark Harmon character, and now concede he is key to the show's success. Abby (Pauley Perette)? It goes without saying what a unique and somewhat refreshing character she is, especially on a 'procedural'. And I know he's controversial, but DiNozzo (Michael Weatherly), and his banter with, variously, Kate, "Probie" and Abby, were often the funniest bits in the show. Also the show went to great lengths in season #2 in attempting to dispel the 'talking point' among DiNozzo-detractors that "not only is he an immature jerk, but he's also an incompetent agent" - season #2 of "NCIS" definitely showed that DiNozzo was a good and diligent agent.

Overall, season #2 seemed to me to be a significant improvement over season #1 - it seems like the show fully found its footing this year (adding things like the B&W 'flashforward' scene teasers after every commercial break), and was watchable in every episode.

It's with sadness, then, that I report that I am very disappointed that Sasha Alexander's Kate Todd is now gone from the show, replaced by, among others, Lauren Holly, an actress I don't care for (in the extreme!). Too bad. I'm going to miss this show, or at least miss what it was in season #2.

And with FOX's "Bones" seemingly moving into the same 'funny procedural' genre-space (and the same time period!), this show had better watch its back.

WHAT WORKED:
    The penultimate episode, "Swak", was maybe the best episode they've ever done, and the shocking end to the season finale, "Twilight", was a good shocker.
    Snappy dialogue writing. Good cast chemistry.
    Again, the DiNozzo-Kate banter was often the funniest part of the show...
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
    ...Until it crossed the line in the episode "Conspiracy Theory", when said banter went from "cute/harmless" into "creepy/disciplinary review board" territory.
    The episodic "cases" were often secondary to the show's intra-office interaction, but in this show's case that's pretty much not a weakness.

OVERVIEW:

"Gilmore Girls" shares a pattern with "Smallville", though it's "Smallville's" inverse - whereas "Smallville's" superior seasons tend to be the even-numbered ones (seasons #2 & #4), the best seasons of the "Gilmore Girls" are the odd-numbered ones (seasons #1, #3 & #5).

And 2004-2005 being season #5 of the "Gilmore Girls", that can only mean one thing - this past year of the "Gilmore Girls" was actually one of the good ones.

After the extremely disappointing and tedious season #4, the show really had nowhere to go but up, I suppose. Season #4 was a series of missed opportunities - esp. in regards to not exploring Rory's new life at Yale (nor doing much in the way of separating Rory and Lorelai at all, but this is ground I covered in last season's GG review). And season #4 was further hampered by a number of 'distracters' as well (notably Chris Eigeman's Jason and Milo Ventimiglia's Jess).

In fact, season #5 initially picked up that worrisome trend by bringing back perpetual 'hanger-on' Dean (Jared Padalecki) for a good chunk of the beginning of season #5. (This is why season #5 doesn't quite get to the 'B' level, even though the show picked up soon after; it also explains why I knocked the show at the time of my Mid-Season Review.)

But pick up it did. Once Dean was gone, the show finally delved more into Rory's experience at Yale, etc. (Lorelai, having finally gotten her inn off the ground was mercifully relegated this season to mostly interacting with Luke (Scott Patterson), one of the few relationships where she doesn't come off as insufferable.)

The show made further smart adjustments as well - the characters of Logan (Matt Czuchry) was a welcome addition to the show, Kirk was used more sparingly this year (a little of him goes a long way), and the whole Stars Hollow portion of the show in general was used to better effect. (Even Lane has a somewhat interesting character arc in season #5.)

All in all, the show seemed to have found its footing again, and I very much liked the season finale, which promised to set Lorelai and Rory at each other's throats for a while, and as a drama-fiction "conflict" junkie, I couldn't be more pleased. (Of course, whether ASP & co. will actually follow through on that is an open question.)

Come to think of it, considering how incredibly uneven this show has been throughout its run, maybe I shouldn't get my hopes up too much on season #6...

WHAT WORKED:
    Alexis Bledel, as Rory, was really fabulous this season: Rory was up! Rory was down! Rory was all around! I really think Bledel was a large part of why this season was as good as it was. Also, good to great (as always) were Kelly Bishop, Edward Herrmann and Scott Patterson. (Also, special kudos to Melissa McCarthy (as Sookie) who really 'brought it' this year.)
    Indeed - even Lauren Graham, Keiko Agena and Sean Gunn didn't bug me (as much) this season.
    Matt Czuchry's Logan was a good and needed addition to "Gilmore Girls", recapturing the 'magic' they had lost when Chad Michael Murray's Tristan left the show.
    Loved the 'Rory arc' - can't wait to see where they go with it.
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
    Was it my imagination, or was Liza Weil not around as much this year? As a "Paris fanboy", I'd like to see more of her.
    This show wasted some dramatic momentum at the start of the season with the Dean stuff.

OVERVIEW:

"House" was knocked for being overly 'formulaic' earlier in the show's first season - i.e. every episode went like clockwork: House doesn't care about patient's apparently commonplace illness, changes his mind, then he and his team make 2 incorrect diagnoses/treatments, before getting it right and saving the day on the third try.

As the season went on, the show began to move away from this rigid episode structure (most radically, in the show's penultimate episode, "Three Stories", which instead of being built around a patient was built around a teaching class), even going so far as to add Chi McBride as a new hospital owner for 5 episodes (a move most people came to view as at least somewhat of a mistake).

In any case, this show seemed to get better and better as it went along. We learned more about not only House, but also his three students, and even Cuddy (Lisa Edelstein) and Wilson (Robert Sean Leonard) to an extent.

Bottom line: This is a great looking show (sets are cool, lighting is bright, etc.), built around a highly fascinating character, staffed with solid supporting players, all ensconced in a series of highly interesting (and highly esoteric) medical 'mysteries'.

It's no wonder, then, that this show has become a "hit".

WHAT WORKED:
    Hugh Laurie! Duh!! - There's a reason he got my vote for the "Best Drama Actor" RATTY (which he went on to win!). The supporting cast, especially Jennifer Morrison and Jesse Spencer, are also quite good. As is the impressive guest cast list (all the people I mentioned in the Mid-Season Review, plus Sarah Clarke, Joe Morton, Marin Hinkle, John Cho (in a rare dramatic performance), Currie Graham, and of course Sela Ward).
   In short, the character of House himself is never boring...
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
    ...even if the occasional case may be.
    Also, with Ward coming on recurring for season #2, "House" will have to watch out for the trap of becoming too 'soapy', with House, Stacy Warner, and the ever-eager Dr. Allison Cameron forming a potentially distracting 'triangle'.

OVERVIEW:

Originally I was going to rate "The Tribe" as My #5 Show of the Year - but through a series of events (namely, a weak season ending, and my bumping of "The Tribe's" season #5 review until later), and a late surge by "Veronica Mars" (its penultimate episode "A Trip to the Dentist" probably sealed the deal), and VM moved on up to #5.

Which is my way of saying that, after being a late adapter to VM (I only picked it up around episode #6, and finally saw the pilot episode some weeks later), I ultimately was impressed by this show. Now, maybe not as impressed by this show as some - but impressed, nonetheless.

What set "Veronica Mars" apart, in my estimation, was its attention to its storyarc - events and revelations were well 'paced out' over the course of the season, pretty much every question was answered, and the penultimate episode and the season finale tied everything together. (Contrast VM's story seasonal story-development with the haphazard way either "The O.C." or "One Tree Hill" developed (or, rather, didn't) over the course of their seasons).

Elevating all of this further is the outstanding effort Kristin Bell has put into her work as Veronica Mars (again, Kristin Bell got my "Best Drama Actress" RATTY vote, and went on to win the thing); it's a total joke that Bell wasn't nominated for an Emmy - she was clearly the best actress of the season. And, assisting Bell ably was Enrico Colantoni (another RATTY winner!) as Veronica's dad, Keith Mars.

Now, with season #1's mystery solved, and a whole new slew of characters being added to season #2, I'm not as sanguine that "Veronica Mars" will be as successful this Fall. But what a satisfying ride season #1 was!

WHAT WORKED:
    As above - Bell & Colantoni were both excellent in their role. Also, Jason Dohring (as Logan Echolls) grew on me as the season progressed. And several of the guest stars (obviously, Amanda Seyfried as Lilly Kane and Corinne Bohrer as Lianne Mars were great, and Alona Tal as Meg was pretty good too, but there were others) were good to excellent, as well.
    Also, as above, I generally laud the careful development of year #1's storyarc/mystery over the course of season #1.
    Additionally, some individual episodes were quite good in their own right (I particularly liked "Mars vs. Mars", "Betty and Veronica" and "M.A.D.").
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
    Some of the acting was good, some was not so good - Percy Daggs III as Wallace Fennel only ever struck me as just "OK", while Teddy Dunn as Duncan Kane never even struck me as that (and, of course, Francis Capra is clearly too old to play "Weevil"). And while Harry Hamlin (as Aaron Echolls) was generally good/chilling, I think he went way 'over the top' in the season finale, which marred (pun intended!) that episode somewhat. Similarly, I think they went for "marketing gimmicks" with some of the guest casting (e.g. Alyson Hannigan as Trina Echolls seemed designed to generate publicity, and was never really necessary to the show's proceedings...).
    Also, some individual episodes were just OK to disappointing (I remember being particularly disappointed by the ending of "Clash of the Tritons") - some of the episodic cases just weren't that interesting.
    As I said in my Mid-Season Review, VM tended to look cheap (e.g. lighting, camera filter, DV stock) - it was the least expensive show this past season, and it showed. One result of this (along with, perhaps, some questionably casting) was that it was often difficult to recognize or tell apart some of the recurring guest cast, which sometimes made following things confusing.

OVERVIEW:

If I never have to see Kathryn Morris gaze soulfully into the camera again, it'll be too soon!

I've already outlined why "Desperate Housewives" got the 'nod' as "My #2" over "Lost", so I'll just again note that the main difference between the two shows is that "Desperate Housewives" actually gave us answers, while "Lost" just piled on more and more questions without really answering any of the questions already posed.

So that is effectively why "Lost" is My #3 Show of the Year, instead on My #2 (behind "24", at #1).

Because, aside from the 'dangling questions' issue, and "Lost's' distinct lack of humor as compared to the comedic "Desperate Housewives", there really is very little separating the shows, in terms of quality.

"Lost's" cast is every bit as good as "Desperate Housewives'." And both shows are willing to take chances - e.g. killing of main characters (Lost: Boone, DH: Rex Van De Kamp).

Unlike some, I generally like "Lost's" bifurcated episode structure of present crisis/character-centered-flashback (though I wonder how long they can keep that up without it getting tiresome - in season #2, I would advise trying a couple of episodes completely devoid of flashbacks). Of course, the problem with this is - if you don't really care about the character featured in an episode, the developments in the "present" probably won't be enough to overcome the "boring" character flashbacks. As a result, while I loved all of the "Kate", "Sawyer" and "Locke" episodes, I was significantly less enamored with the "Charlie", "Jack", "Boone/Shannon", "Claire" and even "Hurley" episodes.

All in all, in some respect "Lost" has exceeded my expectations (by being better than I probably expected it to be), while at the same time being disappointing (for having obvious plot holes, and continually 'kicking the can down the road' on definitive answers to the questions it has raised).

There is no question that season #2 is a "make or break" season for this show - either it will succumb to 'cast bloat' and 'X-Files-itis', or it will finally fulfill the promise that season #1 has set up.

Stay tuned...

WHAT WORKED:
    I have to start out by giving kudos to, in my estimation, the show's four best actors: Josh Holloway (as Sawyer), Naveen Andrews (as Sayid), Yoon-jin Kim (as Sun), and especially Terry O'Quinn (as Locke) - in Quinn's case, I doubt the show would half as good without him; the same is also nearly true of Holloway.
    I still love the Kate character most of all, even if I seem to be nearly alone on that - but, for my money, the "best" episodes of "Lost's" first season revolved around either Kate or Sawyer (or Locke). I was also surprised by how affecting the Michael/Walt episode ("Special") was, and the Sun/Jin episodes were also quite good.
    Great cast. Nice setting. Great set-up. Promising start.
    Let's see where they can go from here.
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
    Pulling "The X-Files": I know these guys have said that they have studied "The X-Files" with the intention of avoiding that show's mistakes - but this show really didn't answer nearly any questions it raised in season #1, and that kind of thing always makes me suspicious. (They better start answering them soon, or the audiences' indulgence will surely begin to expire...)
    Some of the "character" episodes tended to be much less interesting to me - I never really got into Jack's story, and Charlie's episode have probably been the least compelling of the bunch.
    I really wonder how many good seasons this show has in it. (The numerous coming casting changes further add to the concern...)
    Ultimately, this comes down to - Can they deliver?...

OVERVIEW:

A show I'm more 'fond' of than one I 'take seriously', I view "Smallville" as a relaxing 'lark' after a long day of work.

Taken in that spirit, the 4th season of "Smallville" has generally delivered, putting out some entertaining episodes like "Devoted", "Spell", "Scare", "Onyx", "Sacred", "Spirit", and, my favorites, the 'Alicia' two-parter, "Unsafe" and "Pariah".

"Smallville" has also continued its pattern that I noted previously - even-numbered seasons have been better than odd-numbered seasons. It'll be interesting to see where they take this show, post-High School, and whether that pattern will continue in season #5.

WHAT WORKED:
    Letting "evil" Chloe (still well played by Allison Mack) in on Clark's secret (without him knowing it) was a smart move to rehabilitate the character (though it surely dooms her by the series finale!). In the same vein, letting Lionel (John Glover) go "good" for a while was another good move (though turning him back "evil" again towards the end of the season was a disappointment).
    As said above, there were some good, entertaining episodes this year. There also seemed to be more storyarc-planning on the season level, and I always think that's a smart move.
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
    This show still seems to not know what to do with Lana (even if Kristin Kreuk apparently had a ball going in different directions this year in episodes like "Spell", Sacred" and "Spirit"). I still don't think having Jensen Ackles and Jane Seymour around added much, or helped the show any. I also don't think they used Lex very well this year.
    Along with some good episodes, there were also some pointless ones (see: "Crypto" and "Ageless").

OVERVIEW:

There's no question in my mind that this show lost some momentum as it went along. Not that I thought the pilot was any great shake either. But they seemed to somewhat 'lose the thread' around the time that Dame (John Seda) and Veronica (Kate Levering) were playing romantic/sexual roundelay, and Kevin got hooked up with recurring 'shark lawyer' Monroe McManus (Leila Arcieri). And I had some real doubts that this show would have been sustainable into a second season and beyond.

But, that said, the show ended with a solid two-parter, and a whallop of an ending and final scene, and, in the end, I think I'll miss it a little. I'm also not sure that the objective ratings case justified cancellation (though, perhaps, the creative issues did).

WHAT WORKED:
    I said in the Mid-Season Review that Kevin "Man Crush" Diggs is a charismatic lead, and that was true throughout the show's one season run.
    Janaya Stephens (who could also be seen in this summer's Lifetime series, "Beach Girls") did a good job in the latter half of the season as Dane's jealous (and potentially crazy?) assistant/paramour, Allison.
    Strong finale (which, mercifully, worked equally well as a "series" finale).
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
    Diggs may have been charismatic, but as I also said in my Mid-Season Review of "Kevin Hill", he was also overused - I think the character of Kevin Hill came to dominate the show too much, so that any time what Kevin was doing wasn't interesting then the whole episode would become uninteresting. Also, despite their best efforts, the "Kevin as a dad/Kevin as a 'player'" dichotomy never really generated any interest.
    Part and parcel with that was the underutilization (or improper use - see the Dane/Veronica nonsense) of the show's three female leads - Christina Hendricks (someone get Hendricks her own show, STAT!), Kate Levering, and, yes, even Michael Michelle.
    Some of the legal cases would tend to devolve off in boilerplate Liberal Hollywood/NYC orthodoxy.

OVERVIEW:

[First, my RANT: The broadcast networks were down by double-digit in viewers this Summer, mostly because they're running too many reruns (and too many 'third rate' reality shows). ABC, one of these said "networks", dumped a Mid-Season show named "Eyes" after airing only 5 of its episodes. So, what does ABC do during this same Summer? Not air the remaining 4 episodes of "Eyes" (when they might, you know, actually make money) and go with low performing reruns of continuing series instead. How dumb can you get?!... (RANT over.)]

The problem with "Eyes" was the pilot - the pilot showed a much more downbeat show than the one that we ended up getting after episode #1 (good!), and ended with a cliffhanger that was immediately negated at the start of episode #2 (bad. very bad.).

Which is a shame, because "Eyes" really did pick up after that pilot, and became the kind of "fun" P.I. show that many of the reviews had promised.

Current TV could use more shows like this.

WHAT WORKED:
    Tim Daly, playing significantly against the 'type' of his "Wings" role - in "Wings", Daly was the 'straight arrow' and Steven Weber was the charismatic smart-ass; while in "Eyes", Daly got to play the charismatic smart-ass - really excelled in the role of CEO and P.I. extraordinaire, Harlan Judd. He tended to carry the show (he was in most scenes), and did a great job with this. I especially like it when he was paired with straight-laced rookie Meg Bardo (A.J. Langer).
    And speaking of the supporting players, many of them were also good, esp. A.J. Langer - also playing against 'type' for her!; Laura Leighton (but I love her, so I'm biased!); and Rick Worthy.
    Unlike some of the 'procedurals', the cases on "Eyes" actually tended to be interesting. I also liked the 'high tech' sheen given to the P.I. genre by this show.
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
    Problem #1: The aborted cliffhanger from the end of the pilot. Had the demise of Jeff McCann (Eric Mabius) not been 'reversed', that pilot would have ended with a heck of a 'kicker'. As it is, having that development overthrown in the first minutes of episode #2 probably turned a number of the viewers who stayed with the show into the second episode right off. (Don't showrunners realize in this TV day & age that you can't pull 'bait and switches' like this anymore and expect to get away with it?! TV audiences expect too much now.)
    In fact, in general, I never 'got' the character of Jeff McCann. Similarly, of the 5 episodes we saw, I'm not sure Garcelle Beauvais and Natalie Zea (both of whom I've liked in other things) added much to this show either.

OVERVIEW:

Yeesh...

It's a truism: Shows built around a "gimmick" may get through a first season unscathed; but the wheels will surely come off in season #2.

And so it was in season #2 of "The O.C."

I was actually fairly positive on this show at Mid-Season. But, as the season progressed (especially after the half-way point), the underlying 'rot' in this show became more and more apparent.

(Indeed, it's only the fact that the first-half of the year was relatively good that let "The O.C.'s" season #2 squeak by with the 'B-' - that first-half lifted the show's overall average for the season...)

Part of what saved the first half of season #2 was Shannon Lucio, and her character of Lindsay Gardner (others will say that about Olivia Wilde's Alex Kelly, but I disagree with them). Lindsay, at least, and to a lesser extent Zach (Michael Cassidy) at that point, were sort of refreshing characters for this show - they were well-meaning, uncynical innocents (a needed contrast to the always decadent (and annoying) Marissa).

But once Lindsay (and Alex) were gone, that which was apparent could no longer be ignored - "The O.C." has (and perhaps never had), any idea where it was going. A series of short-term guest stars (after Lucio and Wilde, it was Kim Delaney, then Billy Campbell, then Johnny Messner, then Marguerite Moreau, then Logan Marshall-Green, then Nikki Griffin, etc., etc., etc.) paraded through, failing to stick around long enough to bring much to the show nor interact meaningfully with any its regular characters.

Instead, we got the umpteenth variation of 'heart-sick Seth' or 'Seth vs. Zach' or 'Seth/Summer: Endless Love' or 'Will Sandy & Kirsten Break Up for Real, This Time?' or 'Ryan/Marissa: Part XXIV'.

Basically, I'm getting the feeling that, at this show's heart, it's just a deeply cynical exercise in self-aggrandizement. It's all 'dialogue-driven' nonsense, but "there's no there there". (I also see that the roundabout of rotating short-term guest stars will continue into season #3. Big mistake.)

It's hard to know if season-long story-planning in advance is enough to save this show. But, at this point, it's the least they need...

WHAT WORKED:
    I sometimes get the feeling that Melinda Clarke's Julie is single-handledly keeping this show afloat, as she is "The O.C.'s" one consistently watchable element. (But, of course, Clarke doesn't appear in every episode, leaving a gaping hole when she's not in the frame...)
    Also, I still like Benjamin McKenzie (and Peter Gallagher), and Rachel Bilson is very good at what they (limitedly) ask her to do.
    P.S. Someone please get Shannon Lucio her own show, preferably as far away from Josh Schwartz and Mischa Barton as possible!
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
    Problem #1: Lack of advance long-term or even season-long story planning. It is very clear that they are just making this show up as they go along, and it's not working. Not even close.
    Problem #2: Don't even get me started on what a mistake it was to kill off Caleb Nichol (Alan Dale). This is a hole that can't be filled, I'm afraid.
    Problem #3: In the latter half of the season, they took Zach, one of my aforementioned "innocents", and turned him into yet another cynical "villain". It was a mistake to do this. (It's even a bigger mistake when you consider that I'm still routing for him over Seth.)
    I'll leave the perennial Mischa Barton-bashing (more from others than from me) aside for a minute, and just ask (once again!) - What is the POINT of the Marissa character?! Is she supposed to be sympathetic? Are we supposed to be rooting for her?! Because, if the answer to either question is "Yes", they are failing miserably. (Frankly, this show would have been much better off if they had just written Marissa out (and, preferably, kept Lindsay instead!).)
    And, honestly, I'm tired of Seth. And all the triangles. And Kirsten's "issues". And the rotating roster of short-term guest stars.
    Oh, who am I kidding? - I'm just tired of this show, period.
    As Summer might say, "This show is so OVER!"

OVERVIEW:

Rather than just naming it "My (#1) Guilty Pleasure", I almost went ahead and rated "Point Pleasant" a "Special Mention", as well. "Why did 'Point Pleasant' merit a 'Special Mention'?" you ask? (Come on - I *know* you're wondering!)

Because "Point Pleasant" improved more in a 6-episode period than any show that I can name this season. (Perhaps only "24" came close.)

Which, of course, ultimately was a missed opportunity - in the present TV environment, if you don't 'hit it out of the park' in the pilot episode, you'll immediately lose audience that you'll never get back. Which is exactly what happened to "Point Pleasant" - 11 million viewers tuned into the pilot, but only about 4 million were left by the time the show hit its stride by episode #6.

Ultimately, Skiffy is hard to do on a "Big Four" network. "Skiffy Soap Opera" may be 'a bridge too far'; anywhere.

Nonetheless, I'm glad someone gave it a shot (even Marti Noxon!), and I will be picking this one up on DVD in October (10/25) to see the 5 remaining unaired episodes.

WHAT WORKED:
    This show seemed to build up a good "creepiness" factor as it went along (I really wasn't "feeling" that early on).
    Like any soap, some in the cast weren't very good, but some others in the cast were quite good - of special note were Susan Walters (as the 'seer mom' (or was she just plain crazy?!)), Dina Meyer (as the 'conflicted vamp'), and esp. Aubrey Dollar (as the 'ingenue best friend'; I hope to God she gets jobs from this!). The best of the lot was, surprisingly to me, Grant Show - back during his "Melrose Place" days, I never had Show pegged as someone with much in the way of range; after "Point Pleasant", I'm pleased to concede I was dead wrong about him.
    Meanwhile, Elisabeth Harnois looked great for the part, and seemed to get better as the show progressed...
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
    ...Even though it's a legitimate question to ask whether Harnois was miscast for the part.
    And speaking of the cast, the male stars were uniformly weak, outside of the previously mentioned Grant Show, and possibly Richard Burgi - the other men on "Point Pleasant" barely merited notice.
    Speaking of Marti Noxon, PP also shared Noxon's preoccupation for kinky sexuality. My reaction? "Eww."
    Ultimately, the show took too long to develop, and that killed it with the audience. It's rare for the audience to give a show a break on this - "Lost" is clearly one of the exceptions (ditto, "The X-Files", back at its start).

OVERVIEW:

[Author's Note: Thanks to a helpful internet gremlin, I've seen episode #2.6, the finale episode left unaired by FOX.]

"Tru Calling" merits a "Special Mention" because it was a show that had improved so much from its (somewhat shaky beginnings). It didn't make all the way up to a Top 5 tanking because it's hard to compare a show that ran only 6 episodes to a show (e.g. "Veronica Mars") that ran a full season.

As a result of its second season only running 6 episodes, we will never know now exactly where"Tru Calling" was going in season #2. Instead, we got only 'hints' of what was possibly to come.

But, in toto, I liked what we got in season #2. The development/rivalry with Jack (a belated element that up'ed the suspense aspect in the latter-half of season #1 of TC) continued into season #2, yielding probably the series' best episode in "Last Good Day". In general, just having Jason Priestley's Jack around up'ed the 'watchability factor' of the show.

This is a show that I'm going to really, really miss, and wish it had lasted longer. :( (Luckily, the season #2 DVD is slated for 11/15/05.)

WHAT WORKED:
    Jason Priestley (Jack) continued to be very good in season #2, especially in the previously mentioned episode, "Last Good Day". Also, Cotter Smith (used more in season #2) was another good 'heavy'.
    Zach Galifianakis (Davis) continued to be a crucial element in TC in season #2, and adding Liz Vassey (Dr. Carrie Allen) as a 'femme fatale' preying on Davis was a fairly masterful stroke. Also Shawn Reaves (Harrison) seemed to be much better integrated into the action in season #2.
    And while I missed A.J. Cook (even though her Lindsay character was a superfluous afterthought back in season #1), the additions of Eric Christian Olsen (as Jensen), Lizzy Caplan (as Avery), and Parry Shen (as Tyler) gave Tru some much needed friends to work with (of these, Caplan was probably the best addition (by a fair bit), and Olsen the weakest (he seemed kind of 'flat' as Jensen, which is odd as he's been good in most everything else I've seen him in)).
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
    Whatever the show's problems with Jessica Collins, pretending her character Meredith (Tru's sister!) didn't exist (AFAICT, she was never even mentioned in season #2) was a big, big mistake, and hurt the show's credibility in my book.
    F' YOU, FOX! F' YOU FOR CANCELLING THIS SHOW BEFORE EVEN AIRING SEASON #2!!

OVERVIEW:

"Without a Trace" is another one of those shows that seems to be declining with every passing season.

I was more upbeat about it at Mid-Season, but season #3 managed to deliver only one "gangbusters" episode, like season #1's "There Goes the Bride" or season #2's "Wannabe" - in season #3's case, it was the episode "4.0" (guest starring Anthony LaPaglia's real life wife Gia Caredes). But, outside of "4.0", pretty much every other episode was pretty unremarkable.

Making matters worse, showrunner Hank Steinberg insists upon piling on with the "personal lives" of the show's agents and, let's be honest - it's gotten boring! I honestly don't care about Sam Spade's (Poppy Montgomery) or Vivian's (Marianne Jean-Baptiste) issues (and I barely care about Jack's), and the episode this season about Danny Taylor's (Enrique Murciano) brother was a complete dud. These are all distractions from the cases, which haven't been as well-written recently anyway.

This show needs to refocus on the cases (and basically *drop* the personal stuff), before it's too late.

WHAT WORKED:
    Cast acting is solid. The show is well-filmed. "4.0" was the standout episode.
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
    They didn't use my show favorite, Enrique Murciano, virtually *at all* this season (and, as stated above, the one episode they did give him was pretty bad).
    Some of the episodes were downright weird ("John Michaels") or just plain awful ("Party Girl", which, in addition to the writer's throwing in a bunch of extraneous partisan political commentary, was also probably the single worst episode of WAT, based just on its own merits).

OVERVIEW:

Unlike many, "Star Trek: Enterprise" was never a show I had an axe to grind with, even back in the show's first two seasons. While clearly light in the acting department (only John Billingsley, and possibly Linda Park and Jolene Blalock, rate plaudits), it was clear to me from early on that "Enterprise" was significantly superior to its predecessor, "Star Trek: Voyager". (And, yeah, that probably is 'damning with faint praise'...)

That said, the show improved in its 3rd season (2003-2004), when it was given a season-long storyarc.

Well, things improved yet again in season #4, when "Enterprise" tried something a little unique - rather than pursuing a season-long storyarc, season #4 instead utilized SHORT storyarcs (i.e. stories spread over 2-4 episodes). This structure allowed the writers to pursue a series of better-planned and integrated stories, and favorably opened "Enterprise" up in a way that it hadn't before.

This "short storyarc" structure concept is an intriguing idea - I hope more shows try it.

Unfortunately, it was instituted too late to save "Enterprise", and now the ST franchise is being given a much needed rest from the airwaves.

WHAT WORKED:
    The short storyarcs - not all of them succeeded (the "Terra Prime" one at the end of the season was a significant bomb, in my book), but enough of them did work to mark season #4 "Enterprise's" best.
    Meanwhile, the best episode of the lot? "In a Mirror, Darkly (Part I)" (it's unfortunate that "Part II" was such a disappointment in comparison).
    Another admirable aspect of season #4? Manny Coto's clever attempts to link "Enterprise" stories this season with earlier (actually "later") events in "Star Trek: The Original Series".
    John Billingsley always delivered, while Linda Park (when she was given something to do, as in the "In a Mirror, Darkly" two-parter) and Jolene Blalock were quite good too. Dominic Keating was mostly decent as well.
    Meanwhile, Jeffrey Combs' recurring Shran character was the unofficial "star" of this show.
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
    Scott Bakula, who I've liked in other things, never really did deliver as Capt. Jeffrey Archer on "Enterprise"; frankly, neither did Anthony "A.T." Montgomery nor Connor Trinneer.
    While the 'storyarc' episodes were generally good ("Terra Prime" excepted), the 'stand-alone' episodes (e.g. "Daedalus", though I don't think it was as bad as many do) weren't so good.
    The worst of the lot was the ill-conceived series finale, "These Are the Voyages ..." (though even that was partially redeemed by the last 30 seconds), which was rightly denounced (by Jolene Blalock, among others!) as a 'warmed-over episode of ST:TNG". (But even that didn't approach the 'suckage' that was the "Voyager" finale!) In any case, it was a truly mistaken idea for an "Enterprise" series finale.

OVERVIEW:

"Numb3rs" (hereafter "Numbers") rates an 'Honorable Mention' by virtue of this show's attempt to do something a little different with the 'procedural drama'. Well, that and the fact that I generally give 'props' to any show that takes on the job of attempting to popularize math and/or science! :)

But I very much the way that this show at least attempts to bring some of the more esoteric aspects of math in to the show, and to explain them in such as way that the (layman) audience of "Numbers" 'learns' something in the process. This is probably "Numbers" main selling point AFAIAC.

Beyond that, I generally like the cast, esp. David Krumholtz as math whiz, Prof. Charlie Eppes. And the episode cases are usually interesting enough.

But, bottom line: It seems to me like "NCIS" (and soon, "Bones") and "Numbers" are the only shows that are really trying "something different" with the 'procedural' genre. For that alone, they deserve kudos.

WHAT WORKED:
    I really, really like David Krumholtz in his role as Charlie, and I doubt I'd be as favorably inclined to this show if he weren't so good. Helping matters out is Judd Hirsch and Peter MacNicol in the supporting cast. (And Navi Rawat too! And it appears she'll be back in season #2! Yay!!)
    As I said, this show's yeomen-like work to popularize/attempt to explain how math is used in real-world situations is very laudable, and is the other main reason I like it so much.
    In general, the episodic cases are fairly interesting.
WHAT DIDN'T WORK:
    While she didn't add much, and they didn't really use her, I'm still going to miss Sabrina Lloyd (though they're brining in Diane Farr to replace her, and I like Farr as well).
    Is it me, or is Rob Morrow a little 'flat' in this show? (Maybe he's supposed to be?) Ditto Alimi Ballard.
    This show is still a procedural - How much longer can they keep it interesting? How much longer can they keep bringing in the math, before it becomes distracting/unhelpful/unrealistic?

[List of Graded Shows] ['04-'05 Overview] [List of Ungraded Shows] [The Show Reviews]

Go to:
[FAQ Intro]
[TV Blog] [TV Page]

ijball@mac.com