Last updated: March 5, 2000. Posted to rec.arts.tv on December 31, 1999.
NOTES on the GRADING: Unlike my "Buffy" reviews, the 'Series Grades' shown here are *not* the average grade of each episode. The 'Series Grade' in these reviews are more a way for me to make a 'sense of the show' grade, both in how I feel the show is doing versus its own expectations and against the other shows I watch. If I were to do the 'Series Grades' based on the average of the episode grades, the average grade in many cases would likely be lower...
Essentially, the grades break down roughly this way:
For those shows which I've only seen the pilot, only the pilot is graded. For those show where I missed viewing the pilot, an "INCOMPLETE" Grade is given.
The shows are listed by day, Sunday shows first and Saturday shows last.
| Grade for Pilot: | C+ | |
| Overall Grade for Season: | B- |
I guess USA network's "GvsE" isn't all that great, as I barely remember the plot of the show's pilot. Still, "GvsE" is an amusingly diverting homage/satire of the various cop TV shows and movies of the 70's, as well as being a supernatural anti-"Touched by an Angel". The show operates pretty well on those levels. Sure, some of the episodes don't work (the episodes about the car, and the one where the two leads, Chandler and Henry (Clayton Rohner and Richard Brooks), are stuck on an airplane, being the two most obvious examples). But some of the episodes are a hoot! (I particularly liked the one which satirized Kevin Williamson and Hollywood; with special guest star: Theresa Russell!). And Rohner and Brooks have great chemistry and are good at partner-banter. I also especially like the two second leads who play Chandler's and Henry's cop bosses, Benbow and Plasko (Googy Gress and Marshal Bell, both scene stealers!). And who couldn't like a show where one interrogation (of a demonic little girl!) is broken wide open when Benbow and Plasko get the little girl to crack by torturing and mutilating... a series of dolls!
Still, I can't help but think that "GvsE" is coming up a little short of what it could be capable of. Here's hoping that USA sticks with "GvsE" and gives the show enough time to find its groove. Yeah, sugar.
| Grade for Pilot: | C | |
| Overall Grade for Season: | B- |
No good deed goes unpunished.
"Safe Harbor" was originally conceived as the "perfect companion piece" to WBN's popular (if treacly and cloying) "7th Heaven": take Brenda Hampton ("Heaven's" creator), fiddle with "Heaven's" formula (i.e. make it more male-oriented, and more conservative), give it the timeslot immediate following "Heaven", and mix. The creative result? A show that was clearly superior to its parent show. The tangible result? Ratings in the toilet (SH regularly lost half, or more, of "Heaven's" lead-in audience), and swift cancellation after the initial 13-episode order was filmed (or wasn't; only 10 episodes have aired, and The WB is about to pull the show, so who knows! if those last 3 episodes were ever filmed or not, and whether they'll ever air even if they were filmed!).
Like I said, "No good deed goes unpunished."
Now, that's not to say I was sold by "Harbor's" pilot. Frankly, I wasn't. The pilot found Rue McClanahan's grandma character as much too-over-the-top, and the two youngest boys, Jeff and Chris (played by Jamie Williams and Orlando Brown) as far more obnoxious and unlikable than even "Heaven's" terminally annoying Ruthie.
Luckily for all, The WB found the (second, actually) pilot unsatisfactory as well (finding it *too* male-skewing) and ordered a change. The result was the addition of a runaway (and abuse survivor - but the less said about that the better, and this was by far the most poorly handled plot point in SH's run) named Jamie (Chyler Leigh, cute as a button) to the show. Fortunately, the addition of the character of Jamie opened up the show to everyone's benefit, by adding a fish-out-of-water, girl-in-a-guy's-domain element to the show.
Subsequent episodes found Gregory Harrison settling in as father figure Sheriff Loring, Chris and Jeff settling into more likable (or at least tolerable) grooves, Jamie adding a needed dash to the show, Hayden (Christopher Khayman Lee; do the teeny-poppers of America get to run their fingers through that long flowing hair of his?) growing into The WB's requisite teenage hunk, and Deputy "Stucky" Lopez (Deborah Magdalena) adding a nice touch as the bemused outsider. About my only complaint (character-wise) was that the show never took the character of middle son Turner (Jeremy Lelliot, permanently smirking) very seriously, consigning him to the permanent role of comedy relief.
And that's not to say SH was "All That!" either. "Harbor" suffered from the same sort of superficial writing as "7th Heaven" does. For example, several plot points (e.g. the revelation of the murderer of Sheriff Loring's wife, the events around Jamie's running away, "abuse" and subsequent granting of "emancipated minor" status, etc.) that superior shows would have handled in multiple-episode storyarcs, were unsatisfactorily wrapped up in single episodes on "Safe Harbor".
But, nonetheless, SH actually managed to put together a number of funny and entertaining episodes (e.g. the UFO episode where Jamie has to buy tampons, comes immediately to mind). In short, "Safe Harbor" was good, satisfying 'family' entertainment (without being quite as saccharine and claustrophobic as other 'family' shows such as "7th Heaven" and "Touched by an Angel"). And any show that actually manages to have a couple of Republican characters (even if they are 10-year olds) who aren't there to be demonized can't be all bad.
Unless, of course, you have the misfortune of airing during the Clinton Administration, in a time when the most popular new shows on the air are "Judging Amy" and "The West Wing". Oops.
Too bad too, as "Safe Harbor" was the one self-proclaimed 'family show' that I could stomach (not counting PAX's "Little Men" which I watch sporadically, at best). And anything would be better than the alternative (i.e. The WB's "Brutally Normal"). Darn...
| Grade for Pilot: | B | |
| Overall Grade for Season: | B+ |
And here is my vote for the Most Underappreciated New Show of the Season. Clearly, people's mileage may very, as I've seen several people say they find "Jack & Jill" to be awful. (Including "Entertainment Weekly's" resident lovable geezer Ken Tucker who, in a fit of jaw-dropping obtuseness, declared "Felicity" clearly superior to J&J - someone needs to tell Tucker that he has it exactly *backwards*!)
It's clear that cute, light 'romance' shows are not everyone's cup of tea.
But, for me, "Jack & Jill" is the most pleasant and unexpected surprise of the new season. And I'm not just saying that because J&J has "The Most Beautiful Cast on a TV Show" either! (Actually, both "Wasteland" and "Roswell" could make a good bid for this award, but I think J&J's cast just slightly edges them.) Here was a show that I was expecting almost nothing from, and which has delivered far more than I ever would have imagined possible.
While the pilot for "Jack & Jill" was pleasant enough, I am happy to report that, like "Roswell", "Jack & Jill" has continued to grow and develop since the pilot. While the first episode dealt mostly with Jack (the luminous Amanda Peet) and Jill (the (I've been told!) hunky Ivan Sergei), subsequent episodes have developed the supporting characters, such as Jill's ex-girlfriend, Elisa (the equally luminous Sarah Paulson - check out that smile: it could light up an entire room!), Jill's best bud, med student Barto (Justin Kirk, solid and likable), Jack's commitment-phobic, actress roommate, Audrey (the va-va-voom! Jaime Pressley, convincing as a neurotic), and even Jill's other friend, bartender Mikey (Simon Rex, playing something a little more complex that a doofus, for once!).
While "Jack & Jill" does have a tendency to get too cutesy for its own good (the recent subplot involving Elisa's search for a guy she bumped into on a street corner, or the recent "boxing" episode, being two examples of this), what makes J&J so good is an attention to such mundane details as plot and character development (take note "Dawson's Creek" writers!). This attention to detail is responsible for J&J's overall air of romance, sweetness and (above all) believability. Actually developing likable characters helps (as opposed to lead-in "Felicity", where it's hard to like any of the show's characters these days) as well.
If I had to compare "Jack & Jill" to another show, the example that immediately pops into my head is the first season of "Lois & Clark". And that's a *good* thing for the first season of "Lois & Clark" was one of the best shows on TV that year (before ABC network goon interference forced L&C creator Deborah Joy Levine out, and ruined the show in its later seasons), being both tangibly romantic and interesting.
Of course, this isn't to say that J&J 'reruns' well: I've noticed that, like many 'soapy' shows, sitting through a rerun of "Jack & Jill" is somewhat more of a chore than watching a first-run episode. Like all good soaps (and novels), clearly the journey is the reward in "Jack & Jill", and watching reruns interrupts the 'flow' of the show.
Another problem (for others) that has developed as this show has progressed is its problematic central conceit: If Jack and Jill are "meant" for each other, won't the show be over once they do get together? And if they don't get together, won't it just be contrivance and writer fiat that keeps them apart? Luckily, I think the writers have stumbled upon a workable solution to this: Jack and Jill may be meant to be together (eventually), but they aren't ready for each other *yet*. This conceit will allow the writers to have Jack and Jill date other people (at least, for a while), and concurrently develop the show's other relationship between Barto and Audrey, until they get to the point where Jack and Jill have grown to the point where they are "right" for each other. Of course, this is a short term solution, and it *will* become contrived if "Jack & Jill" doesn't come across (so to speak) and put these two together in a season or two. But I think this expectation that Jack and Jill should be together *now* (yet, can't be, according to oft followed Hollywood convention) is one of the things that is turning some people off this show.
As others have stated, part of the reason for "Jack & Jill's" low ratings (not that anything on The WB ever does well on Sundays) is that it is so unlike anything else on The WB right now. And thank God for that! After all, how many "Dawson's Creek"/"Felicity" knock-offs can we tolerate?! If The WB's network goons had any cajones, they'd move J&J to a better night (the suggestion of pairing it with "Charmed" probably makes the most sense). Without such a move, I fear this show is doomed.
In the end, I guess that it is true this show may not last to a second season. But know one thing for certain: I'll be watching every episode of "Jack & Jill" until the last dog has been hung.
| Grade for Pilot: | D+ |
It says something that I could only sit through the pilot of this show. Call me crazy, but I vastly preferred John Wells' "Trinity" to this! And, go figure! When I heard that Wells (the man behind "ER") was going to do a show about cops & firefighters, I thought to myself, "What a great fit!"
Well... maybe not, as I found "Third Watch's" pilot disjoined, and basically uninteresting (not to mention formulaic), having not one character I could muster any attachment to.
I intend to find out if the show has improved when it makes its move to Mondays. But, for now, put me down as a skeptic...
| Grade for Pilot: | F | |
| Overall Grade for Season: | F |
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what the worst new (drama) show of the season is! Contrast the execrable "Time of Your Life" with the very similarly premised, and vastly superior, "Jack & Jill". The latter has excellent writing, compelling characters and situations that develop interest and draw the viewer in. The former has a host of totally unlikable supporting characters, a shrill lead character, terrible and unbelievable writing (that totally trashes the continuity with its parent show "Party of Five"!), and situations beyond belief. Whether its Sarah Reeves' (or is it Marin now?) mysterious rich benefactor, or her bizarre relationship with one of her boss' sons (played by the underappreciated Patrick Fabian - he *deserves* better than this!) or her friend Romy's (played by the terminally annoying Jennifer Garner) uninteresting relationship with the guy in the next building (played by Diego Serrano, whom I feel sorry for here, as I actually liked him when he was on NBC's "Another World"), *nothing* about "Time of Your Life" works. Especially not Sarah's budding romance with Maguire (played by Jonathan Schaech, who just looks creepy in this show).
All this probably explains why even I could stomach ToYL beyond its third episode. Sorry, even I have my limits.
I mean, can you imagine the worst impulses of "Party of Five" and "Felicity" combined into one show?! I can't! It makes my head *hurt*! And whichever FOX executive thought Love Hewitt and Jennifer Garner could headline a show should be promptly fired.
While they're at it, *please* cancel this show! Wait a minute, isn't this the same FOX that cancelled "Harsh Realm", "Ryan Caufield" and "Action", but *kept* "Time or Your Life" and "Get Real"?! *Who* exactly is running FOX these days?!!! UGH!
| Grade for Pilot: | INCOMPLETE | |
| Overall Grade for Season: | B |
I missed this show's pilot (so sue me! I was watching "Safe Harbor"!), but the subsequent episodes I have seen have impressed me. I think I like this show more than its parent show ("Law & Order", which I'm pretty indifferent about, and have been since Paul Sorvino left the show (7 years ago!)). I find "S.V.U." (or, as we all like to call it, "S.U.V.") both grittier, and more compelling, than "Law & Order". One of the reasons, I think, is that (unlike "Law & Order" itself), this show doesn't duck the issue of who these cops are when they're not walking the beat, nor do they duck the issue of how these cases personally affect these cops. (Of course, I've subsequently heard that Dick Wolf is going to cut back on this aspect of the show; I hope he relents, as I think this is a mistake...)
The acting (especially from the guest stars) and writing is solid, and this show has potential. If I have a complaint, it's that this show hasn't utilized its second leads (particularly Richard Belzer, who was similarly underutilized on "Homicide") enough yet, relying far too much on Christopher Meloni and Mariska Hargitay. But, hopefully in time, this show will further develop all of its aspects.
And, now that it's being moved to Fridays, I might get a chance to watch it a little more. That is, when "Nash" isn't on... ;)
| Grade for Pilot: | A | |
|
Overall Grade for Season: (w/ Doyle, thru episode #9) | B | |
| Expected Grade (post-Doyle): | C- (or possibly even D+) |
Recent developments on "Angel" have pointed up a very important truth about TV series: the balance and make-up of a show, and of a show's cast, is a very delicate thing indeed... fiddle with it at your own peril! This, in a nutshell, is why I am so dead-set against the idea of "retooling" a show: 9 times out of 10, you destroy what little was working on a show, and end up making things worse. (For example, see "Profiler" where removing Ally Walker has made the show stale and boring. Or see "Martial Law"...) But I'm getting ahead of myself...
As this season began, I made a deliberate attempt to have no expectations about "Angel". Yeah, sure it was from Joss Whedon and the other geniuses behind "Buffy The Vampire Slayer", but that doesn't mean lightening will strike twice (look at Chris Carter or John Wells!).
So imagine my surprise when "Angel's" pilot, "City of...", ROCKED! Here, unquestionably, was the best pilot of the season. Whedon and company managed several impossible feats in this pilot: they established the premise of the show (and its relation to "Buffy"), introduced the character of Doyle (Glenn Quinn, sorely missed...), overhauled the character of Angel (David Boreanaz, hunk and sex-symbol extrodinaire!) and made Angel interesting (at least for a while...), further developed the character of Cordelia (Charisma Carpenter, often the saving grace on "Buffy", as well as on "Angel"), established a continuing storyarc with a demonic law firm, and stuffed it chock full of good action *and* humor. Oh, and they even managed to have an incredibly engaging guest star (kudos to Tracy Middendorf for a job well done) and a great villain! Wow, it'll be hard to top that!
And yet, in the second episode ("Lonely Hearts"), they did (or came close), even managing to make the (now cliched) focus of 'sexual tension' on the show, girlie cop Kate (Elisabeth Rohm, looking far different from her softer "One Life to Live" days) as palatable as possible. In two episodes, "Angel" had managed the impossible: it was better than its parent show "Buffy The Vampire Slayer"!
Of course, this incredible pace could not be maintained, and "Buffy" regained the lead by the "Harsh Light of Day"/"In the Dark" crossover, and hasn't looked back since. This isn't to say that "Angel" hasn't been good since then. It has, particularly with the episode "Sense & Sensitivity" which wielded the machete of satire better than any episode of "Buffy" ever managed. And even unfairly maligned episodes such as "I Fall to Pieces" and "The Bachelor Party" have much to recommend them.However, as the season has worn on, warning signs began to appear. "Angel" was still a show attempting to find its voice and purpose, and, unfortunately, it began to deviate from the show's charter set out in the pilot. "Angel" was supposed to be about Angel "not just saving lives, but saving souls". However, the last several episodes have been more about the various weird and quirky demons that inhabit L.A., and the prophesied 'Final Battle between Good and Evil', than it has been about reclaiming the lost souls from the (metaphorical) demons of Los Angeles. This is not a welcome development, to say the least. Indeed, "Angel" hasn't developed nearly as far and as fast as I would have liked. (Contrast it with either "Roswell", "Jack & Jill" or "Once & Again" who've covered much more territory in the same amount of time.)
"Angel's" problems came to a head in its two most recent episodes. In "Heroes", for whatever inexplicable reason (and personally, I don't buy the Whedon party line on this), the producers of "Angel" killed of the character of Doyle, in what was otherwise a totally unremarkable and unexceptional episode (where, by the way, Angel and co. were once again saving lives (of demons, yet!), and not saving souls). They followed this with by far the flattest and least interesting episode of "Angel" so far, "Parting Gifts". In this episode, the show's makers have made the colossal blunder of replacing the (serious, respectable) character of Doyle with the (clownish, superfluous) character of Wesley (Alex Denisof, good in a part that isn't worth being good in). David Hines has correctly described Wesley as a "f***ing *Joxer*!" I couldn't have said it better myself. What a huge mistake!
Suffice it to say that I think the balance and make-up of "Angel" have been irreparably harmed by this move. I'll stick with "Angel" for a couple of more episodes. But I make no promises after that.
For me, it appears that the magic of "Angel", the promise laid out in "City of..", "Lonely Hearts" and "Sense & Sensitivity", has been destroyed. Mark it down now: "Angel" is likely to end up as my Biggest Disappointment of the Season in my Year-End Review. What a waste...
(Note: Episode titles obtained from http://www.epguides.com/)
| Grade for Pilot: | B+ | |
| Overall Grade for Season: | A- |
If someone had told me last summer that I'd be picking a Herskovitz & Zwick show as the Best New Show of the Season, I would have laughed at them! I mean, Herskovitz & Zwick's most famous previous show was "My So-Called Life", a show that I downright despised! (And let's not forget their bizarre movie, "Dangerous Beauty", which has the audacity to attempt to make infidelity look noble and to imply that frigid wives get what they deserve!)
And yet, here I am, anointing "Once & Again" as the Best of New Show of the Season. How did we get here?!
Delicate and careful characterizations, that's how! Sure, like "Jack & Jill", this is an unabashed 'relationship show' (though a much darker 'relationship' show than "Jack & Jill"), and that won't be everybody's cup of tea. But if you tend to go for this sort of thing (and I do), "Once & Again" is one of the best, most solid examples you'll come across. What's most amazing about this is, unlike their previous shows, Herskovitz & Zwick and co. have finally learned to write characters who aren't so shrill and self-absorbed as to be totally unlikable (which was pretty much the kiss of death for "My So-Called Life").
Sure, some of this show is gimmicky. Much has been made of the black & white, "Real World"-esque, 'breaking the 4th wall' segments. But (so far) they don't bother me because, rather than being distracting, they actually tend to provide insights into the characters that we wouldn't otherwise get. And these segments still accomplish this in subtle, metaphorical ways. (Besides, would a voice-over narration be any more effective, or any less annoying?!)
Of course, the actors on this show are a large part of why this show works. The leads of this show are played by Sela Ward (often the only saving grace on NBC's "Sisters") and Billy Campbell (finally landing a good gig!), and they are outstanding (they actually *deserved* those Golden Globe nods). To give you an idea of how good they are, I can't even conceive of anyone else playing the roles of Lily and Rick! But it doesn't stop there. The second leads on this show, starting with Lily's daughter, Grace (Julia Whalen, and, despite LAGuy's vendetta, she's perfect in this role; she puts Claire Danes to *shame*!), and Rick's son Eli (Shane West, playing a teen so frustrated by life that you actually want to cry for him!), are all excellent.
Several episodes of O&A have been down right outstanding, including "Outside Hearts" (the teen party episode), "Thanksgiving" and the most recent "The Gingerbread House". But the best of the bunch was unquestionably "There Be Dragons", where we finally gained insights into Rick's pensive daughter Jessie (Evan Rachel Wood, proving that she *was* being wasted on "Profiler"); this episode was truly an emotional rollercoster, and pretty neatly encapsulates all of O&A's best aspects.
Now, that's not to say everything about this show is totally perfect. Because it tends to shift its focus around, those episodes that tend to deal with less cherished characters tend to be somewhat less interesting. The two most obvious examples of this were "A Dream Deferred" where Lily and her sister Judy (Marin Hinkle, appropriately snippy and whiny) fiddled with their bookstore, and "The Past Is Prologue" where Rick fiddled about at his architecture job. It's not too much of a stretch to say that I was less than engrossed by these two episodes. Still, even in episodes such as these, O&A is redeemed by giving us insights into all of the characters. But, in general, I greatly prefer the family/children/ex's oriented episodes of "Once & Again" over the others.
As is well known by now, "Once & Again" is being hammered in the ratings by the clearly inferior "Judging Amy". (You mean quality doesn't always win out on TV?! Go figure!) But if you want a good (almost great) relationship show, with *solid* characters who actually *develop* in a (mostly) *believable* manner, I'd strongly urge you to check out "Once & Again". Afterall, it's my vote for Best of New Show of the Season. ;)
(Note: Episode titles obtained from http://www.crashdown.com/)
| Grade for Pilot: | B- | |
| Overall Grade for Season: | B+ |
"Roswell", more than any other new show this season, has taken a lot of time to build up a head of steam. It turns out, it's been well worth the wait.
"Roswell" began its season as the show/pilot I was most anticipating - and I was promptly disappointed. I probably should have guessed that a show like this wouldn't be able to do everything that it needed to do in its pilot. And "Roswell's" pilot left much to be desired (though it's musical score, if not its heavy use of pop tunes, was *awesome*), only managing to develop interest in the characters Liz (Shiri Appleby, taking the "girl next door" to the next level), and maybe Maria (Majandra Delfino, making the "wacky best friend" part not just palatable, but *crucial*!) and Sheriff Valenti (William Sadler, playing against type as something more than a simple "heavy").
However, I am happy to report that in subsequent episodes "Roswell" has developed into a very good, solid, entertaining little TV show (even if it doesn't always do so as consistently from episode to episode as I'd like). However, in its best episodes such as "Monsters", "Leaving Normal", "285 South", "Blood Brothers" and the most recent "The Balance", "Roswell" really crackles with vitality. In these episodes, the pacing is fast and furious, the plot developments are both totally unpredictable and yet completely organic, and the writing juggles half-a-dozen (or more) characters seemlessly (probably better than almost any other show on the air right now). The two romances that have developed both hold interest, and Sheriff Valenti's ongoing quest to clear his father's name is almost as interesting as the quest of Max (Jason Behr; he's so sensitive!), Michael (Brendon Fehr; he's such a *rebel*!) and Isabel (Katherine Heigl; showing all the Stick Princess in Hollywood what a *real* 'bombshell' looks like!) to discover exactly who they are and where they came from. Meanwhile, the addition of dweeby Alex (Colin Hanks) to the mix of Liz, Maria, Max, Michael and Isabel is a welcome development on the show. Now, if only FBI Agent Topolski (Julie Benz) would return, we might really be cooking with gas!
"Roswell" unprecedented mix of sci-fi storyarcs and teen suds has turned some potential viewers off, and I can easily see how it's not a show for everyone. But if you are a fan of either the sci-fi or teen soap/romance genre (and especially if you are a fan of both, as this reviewer is), I'd urge you check out "Roswell". Right now, it's my vote for Most Improved New Show, and the SPOILERS I've seen for the next 3 episodes (to air in January and February) lead me to believe that this show will still be going strong in 2000.
| Grade for Pilot: | D | |
| Overall Grade for Season: | C- |
It's good luck that "Get Real" and "Popular" get reviewed right next to each other, because they both share many of the same problems. Like "Popular", "Get Real" is laden with gimmicks (and like "Popular", most of them are obviously "inspired" (though I'd probably use the word, "infected") by "Ally McBeal"). The problem is, of course, that these gimmicks, much more often than not, distract from what this show is attempting to accomplish rather than helping it.
Like "Popular", I found the pilot of "Get Real" so off-putting as to be downright jarring. (I still can't decide which of these two pilots was worse!) Virtually all of the characters came off as shrill and unlikable. And the gimmicks, such as having the teenage characters "break the 4th wall", or having out-of-nowhere fantasies by the various characters, were so annoying that it made me want to throw something at the TV screen!
The subsequent episodes that I saw (and I think there were only 2 or 3 of them before "Roswell" came on to the scene, and I dropped "Get Real" like a bad habit!), like "Popular", showed evidence that they were slowly whittling down the gimmicks. But, short of eliminating them, I doubt that this show was ever going to get where it needed to be. In addition, I found that "Get Real" showed a really leering, almost unhealthy, focus on sex (especially teenage sex), which was a real turn-off (to me, anyway).
Which is too bad, because, like "Popular", I think some of what "Get Real" is trying to say is probably something that would be worth hearing, if the show's producers didn't overwhelm the "message" by the nature of its delivery. In short, if they dropped the gimmicks, and just TOLD THE F***ING STORY! "Get Real" might get somewhere. This show certainly has acting talent (Deborah Farentino as the Mom, and Anne Hathaway as the daughter, deserve special mention for breathing some life into characters who are basically unlikable) to become a "good" or "great" show. But, Ghu! it's not going to get there with all of these annoying gimmicks!
Clearly, YMMV, as there are actually a couple of people (among them Brad Dancer) who are very attached to this show. But, then again, there are people who are attached to "Popular" as well, so... ;p
(Note: Episode titles obtained from http://www.mightybigtv.com/popular/)
| Grade for Pilot: | D | |
| Overall Grade for Season: | C (with wild fluctuations!) | |
| Grade for "A Popular Christmas": | B+ |
Anyone who's seen my earlier review of "Popular" already knows that I find it to perhaps the single most frustrating show on the air right now. In my humble opinion, "Popular" is what I have sometimes heard referred to as a "brilliant failure" (contrast it with something like "Time of Your Life" which is simply a run-of-the-mill "abject failure"!). Give the show's creators props for reaching though, for they are trying the impossible: a complete mixing of high drama and gut-wrenching melodrama with out-and-out slapstick, satire and farce. (Technically, the show is labeled as a "comedy", though I personally don't consider any hour-long show to be a "comedy".)
Of course, all of this leads to problems: while its genre- and thematic-brethren, "Dawson's Creek", careens wildly back and forth in terms of quality from episode to episode, "Popular" takes it one step further by careening wildly back and forth in terms of quality from SCENE TO SCENE! Never before have I watched a show that is so wildly inconsistent from one scene to the next! To say that I find "Popular's" wild swings between melodrama and comedy "jarring" would be a huge understatement.
"Popular" began its run with a most inauspicious start, serving up perhaps the second worst pilot of any new show that I've seen this season. Marked by incredibly jarring and over-the-top gimmicks (e.g. an incredibly annoying alternative "chyck" rocker laying out the show's premise in a soulful alterna-ballad; the overuse of annoying and distracting on-screen graphics and scene titles, etc.), the pilot was further dragged down by a hefty dose of overacting, and dialogue "inspired" (i.e. "ripped off") directly (and incredibly poorly!) from "Dawson's Creek".
However, after the first couple of episodes, "Popular" started whittling down its gimmicks, the actors and writers began reigning in their worst impulses, and "Popular" soon settled into a more consistent, if only somewhat less frustrating, groove. (Once again proving that axiom, "You can never judge a show by its pilot!")
On occasion, when the writers let the (metaphorical) fists fly between lead characters Brooke (Leslie Bibb, filling out the resident "gorgeous blond" quota) and Sam (Carly Pope, filling out the resident "gorgeous brunette" quota; and Pope's from Vancouver, CANADA... Yay!), as well as from resident mega-bitches, Nicole (Tammy Lynn Michaels, having more fun than an actress should be allowed to have) and Mary Cherry (Leslie Grossman, having almost as much fun as Michaels), "Popular" can get to the point where it's actually (almost) brilliant... in some scenes anyway. This happened in episodes such as in "Under Siege" (the episode with Sam's expose of the cheerleading squad) or in "Truth or Consequences" (the 'food fight' episode), where are two leads waged pitched battles to destroy one and other, leading to "Popular's" transformation into Montgomery's so-called "Bitter Valley High".
However, every time this show builds up a head of steam, it diffuses it via the usual writing blunders, especially by having the slapstick comedy undercut the drama. In addition, semi-major plot points are often dropped for the conveniences of the writers (if not the viewers!). Examples?
Further, "Popular" doesn't have one believable adult character, not Sam's Mom or Brooke's Dad (Lisa Darr and Scott Bryce, both deserving better than this), and especially not the teachers (led by Principal Hall and the Glass sisters (played by Diane Delano, who, thanks to silly writing, is defining the bounds of unbelievability)). I could maybe accept characters like these in a half-hour sitcom; but in a 1-hour show, cartoon characters like these are *deadly* for sustaining interest.
In "Popular's" favor, they did come up with one of the best homage/rip-offs of "A Christmas Carol" I've seen by any TV series yet. Why? Because they actually used the episode to develop (and give motivations to) the previously (and woefully) underdeveloped character of mega-bitch Nicole Julian. Indeed by directly using (i.e. stealing) the dialogue from Dickens' classic, they elevated the dialogue above the often stale flippancy usual in "Popular". However, "A Popular Christmas" didn't hold up quite as well on second viewing, and this episode itself introduced new problems: if Brooke and Sam don't hate each other anymore, and if Nicole will now try to get back in touch with her 'softer' side, haven't they totally eliminated the premise of the show?! Methinks some reset buttons will have to be hit on this, lest "Popular" degenerate into a straight "Dawson's Creek"/"90210" rip-off.
Anyway, I guess I'll still be watching, if nothing else to see if "Popular" ever gets its act together, and becomes the show it could be if they'd tighten it up and stop playing the show for such broad comedy. Word to the wise, "Popular" writers:
bitter, vitriolic melodrama = good!
cloying, over-the-top slapstick = bad!
| Grade for Pilot: | C+ |
For all the pissing and moaning about how "bad" it supposed to be, "Wasteland" ended up being not nearly as bad as it was reported to be (at least, based on the pilot, as I never saw either of the two episodes that followed it). In fact, I found the pilot to be slightly better than passably watchable. It certainly wasn't as bad as the pilots to "Popular", "Get Real" or "Time of Your Life" (I don't think *anything* could be as bad as the latter!).
Sure, this was fairly typical Kevin Williamson 'fluff'. But, as with Aaron Spelling, that ain't all bad. It also didn't hurt that the cast of "Wasteland" wasn't half-bad looking! (headlined by such notable lookers as Rebecca Gayheart, Marisa Coughlin and Brad Rowe). But, aside from that, "Wasteland" wasn't nearly as off-putting as I was expecting. Sure, Coughlin's Dawnie character was whiny and annoying in the same way that Katie Holmes' Joey is on "Dawson's Creek". But, by and large, the other characters were variously sympathetic, and the acting on "Wasteland" was certainly decent enough. In short, this show probably had potential.
Of course, ABC isn't interested in such things and, after "Wasteland's" ratings started out in the toilet (against NBC's "Must See" Thursday line-up and WBN's "Charmed", yet! Who would have thought?!!!), ABC unceremoniously cancelled "Wasteland" after a mere 3 episodes. Uh, shouldn't this show have been given another chance in a better timeslot (say, sometime on Monday after MNF)?! Oh, yeah, I forgot. This is ABC, the network that is cancelling virtually every show on its schedule to make room for a lame-ass game show. And they said that "Wasteland" was "insipid"?!!
| Grade for Pilot: | B- | |
| Overall Grade for Season: | B |
It's not easy to grade a show based on two episodes. But I will say this: based on the 2 episodes that aired, I think FOX's "Ryan Caufield" had probably more potential than any other new FOX show this season. How the brain trust at FOX could cancel this show, which was at least interesting, and somewhat innovative (thanks to creator F. Gary Gray), and yet keep the horrible, derivative dreck that is "Time of Your Life" is truly mind-*boggling*!
Now, was "Ryan Caufield" all that great? Well, after 2 episodes, not quite. But it had a distinctive feel and voice, and the acting was certainly decent enough. I found the second episode, where one of Ryan's buds get stuck up in a store robbery, to be particularly memorable.
Bottom line: I think this show had potential. It certainly deserved better treatment than it got from FOX.
| Grade for Pilot: | B- | |
| Overall Grade for Season: | B |
And speaking of squelched potential...
Yeah, yeah, I know. "Harsh Realm" was another in Chris Carter's growing line of 'paranoid' (read: convoluted) dramas, and we all know that only Carter's "The X-Files" has ever gotten any traction.
But, more than "The X-Files" or "Millennium", "Harsh Realm" actually seemed to have the most potential. Why? First, because it has a 'wide open' premise (after all, you can do *anything* you want in virtual reality). But, more than that, "Harsh Realm" actually seemed to have an in-place and functional storyarc for the show's creators to follow. In other words, unlike Carter's "The X-Files" (or "Millennium", for that matter), it actually appeared that Carter and co. had a *plan* and some idea where they were going with the story of this show! (Had they done this with "The X-Files" from the start, we'd all be better off!)
Was "Harsh Realm" perfect? No. As other have alluded to, Scott Barstow (as army man Lt. Hobbes) isn't the greatest actor in the word. And his character's voice-over narration of the series distracted more than it helped. But, as always, D.B. Sweeney (as Hobbes' unlikely ally Pinocchio) and Terry O'Quinn (as show villain Gen. Santiago), gave solid supporting performances. And several of the other supporting characters (especially, Sarah-Jane Redmond's Inga Fosse) looked like they had potential.
Of course, thanks for FOX, we'll never know how this would have turned out. But, based on HR's first 3 episodes, I think the foundation was there for Chris Carter's best effort yet. Now, we'll never know.| Grade for Pilot: | INCOMPLETE | |
| Overall Grade for Season: | C- |
Was this the worst "TGIF" show ever? Nope. Was it the best? Not hardly. Was it watchable? Eh, barely, I suppose. The lead teenage boy (played by the essentially hapless Erik von Detten) was uncharismatic and uncompelling. And most everything else about the show was contrived. But there was the occasional amusing moment. So it wasn't all a dud.
Of course, this is all moot: ABC has already pulled the plug on this show, so you'll never have to watch it again.
| Grade for Pilot: | INCOMPLETE | |
| Overall Grade for Season: | B- |
For the record: the pilot was a 3-parter, and I only saw part of the first and all of the last part, so I don't feel I can give the pilot a fair grade. Still, I did like a lot of that third part, and I found the concept of "The Eggman" riveting. But...
"Now & Again" is a show that I really, *really* want to like more than I do. Here's a show starring Margaret Colin (an actress I've loved for years) and Eric Close (whose career I've been following ever since his time in ABC's short-lived "McKenna"!) that also has a great supporting cast, notably Dennis Haysbert (as Dr. Theo Morris) and Gerrit Graham (as Close character's friend Roger Bender). Further, you've got an interesting premise: Close's Michael Wiseman has his nearly dead brain transferred into a new artificial, superhuman body to perform good deeds for the U.S. of A., but he's only allowed to live if he never tells his wife (Colin) and daughter, Heather (indie movie fave Heather Matarazzo) who he really is. What this premise allows for is a wide-open show that can cover action/adventure, romance, drama, comedy, and more.
So what's my problem, you ask? My "problem" (if you can call it that) is that this show fails to "grab" me. I like it, really I do. I find it nice. And pleasant. And likable. And I feel the way about it kind of like the way one might feel about one's sister: sure, I like it, but I don't really *love* it.
I'm not sure why this show just hasn't grabbed me. But it hasn't. Which is why I'll watch it when I remember to, but it isn't a show I go out of my way to watch.
Still, YMMV, so you may want to check this show out. There sure are plenty of people who love it.
| Grade for Pilot: | C- | |
| Overall Grade for Season: | B- |
You know, I've seen this show pop up on a couple of "Worst 10 of the Year" lists, but it really wasn't that bad.
Sure, the pilot was unbelievably 'cutesy-cutesy', to the point where it was off-putting. (I also could have lived without the odd structure of that pilot).
But, after the pilot, the show settled into a modestly entertaining groove. "Cold Feet" wasn't great TV (though I'd like to see the original BritTV series that this show was based on), but it was fairly decent entertainment. And any show with Jean Louisa Kelly and Alicia Coppola can't be all bad.
I really don't know what NBC expected. Did it not occur to them that this show should have been placed at 9 pm on Friday (immediately after "Providence"), and not at 10 pm (in "Homicide's" old timeslot)?! I guess not, because NBC cancelled "Cold Feet" with little warning and no fanfare after about 4 episodes. I guess you can count this as another "win" for NBC... (not)...
| Grade for Pilot: | B- | |
| Overall Grade for Season: | B |
Like "Now & Again", this is another show that I wish I could say I like more than I actually do. But, while I like do this show, it just fails to really "grab" me. I certainly like all of the characters, and all of the performances (particularly Linda Cardellini, the obvious "find" of this show) are excellent. But this show is much more bittersweet than funny, and I think that can make it a little more difficult to watch. (In fact, I think it's this "bittersweet" mood to F&G that puts a limit on the number of viewers this show will ever attract.)
I do like "Freaks & Geeks", but, let's face it, this show is doomed. And while I'll miss this show when it's inevitably cancelled, I won't be heartbroken.
Bottom line: if you're a fan of this show, better enjoy it... while you still can.
Go to: [FAQ Intro] [TV Page]