rec.arts.tv Commentary:

MY REVIEW: The '99-'00 Season: The Shows (Sunday-Tuesday):

This article was written, by me, and posted to the 
rec.arts.tv newsgroup on May 31, 2000. 
That original article has been slightly edited by me 
before being placed on the web on January 28, 2001.

THE SHOW REVIEWS (Sunday-Tuesday):

NOTE: See the Discussion Section for the explaination of the Grading scheme for this Review.

It's probably not much of a surprise, but even I have to concede that this seventh season of "The X-Files" (which I was really hoping would be the show's last), left a lot to be desired. Clearly, this is a show that's pretty much running on fumes. Not only were this season's "arc" episodes still unintelligible, but they were also dispatched without the slightest bit of emotional immediacy. The "arc" episodes become more throwaway than the "Monster of the Week" (MotW) episodes!

And the latter are pretty much the only episodes that still work, and even many of the MotW episodes have been lackluster this season. The best of the lot was probably "Hungry", which was told from the point-of-view of the brain devouring mutant, and "Theef", which (while uninspired) was at least fairly solid (and was filmed just down the street from where I work!). But a distressing number of this season's episodes have been "funny" episodes, the kind of episodes that have been undermining "The X-Files" from within for 2 or 3 seasons now. Now, some of these worked, and some didn't. But even the best of these, such as the Duchovny-penned "Hollywood A.D.", lose their effectiveness under the sheer number "funny" episodes that we've been getting recently.

Bottom line: It should be time for "The X-Files" to bid adieu from the TV scene. I am certainly not one of "The X-Files'" bigger critics, because I never took the show too seriously to begin with. But even a passive fan such as myself can probably see that "The X-Files" is looking tired and needs to be put to rest.

Will that happen? Unfortunately, no. Now we can all look forward to an 8th season in which David Duchovny will be absent from half of the episodes. Oh joy...

Frankly, it was a tough call between "Jack & Jill" and "Once & Again" as to which show would be my top pick for the season. And it comes down to this: while I think you can make a good case that "Once & Again" is objectively the better show, I just plum *enjoyed* "Jack & Jill" *more*. I also found J&J to be more consistent than both O&A and "Roswell" in the enjoyment factor (from one episode to the next), so it gets my nod as Best Show of the Season.

So, why "Jack & Jill"? Well, it's pretty simple: J&J was just solid escapism, a "happy" romance that usually had something substantial to say, but usually didn't beat you over the head in saying it.

The characters, led by series leads Jack (Amanda Peet, lovely looking, and managing to make palatable a character who, in lesser hands, would have quickly become annoying) and Jill (Ivan Sergei, proving to me that he is indeed a good actor (and I had serious doubts about him before J&J!)), through third leads Sarah Paulson (also lovely, and recovering nicely from the disappointment of "American Gothic") and Simon Rex (also proving to me that he can do more than play the doffuses he had been stuck with previous to J&J), were all uniformely sympathetic and excellent. Of special note were second leads Barto (Justin Kirk; I don't know where this guy came from, but he's good, and I hope he gets other jobs from this...) and Audrey (beautiful Jaime Pressly, finally rising above the mindless cheesecake roles she's been saddled with previously) who virtually managed to steal the show out from under Peet and Sergei. Of course, it helped that Barto and Audrey were the most interesting characters, and the most interesting couple, on the show, and they (not Jack & Jill) actually provided what urgency there was in J&J's finale.

In any case, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: "Jack & Jill" compares favorably to another show I really loved when it first appeared: the first season of ABC's "Lois & Clark", another show that started out as a really likable, fun "romance" (before ABC network goon interference dumbed down and killed L&C in later seasons). "Jack & Jill" was one of the truly original shows of this season (balancing its romantic focus better than "Once & Again", which aimed for broader drama, or "Now & Again", which never seemed to settle on a single format).

So if you missed J&J, or only saw 1 or 2 episodes, consider yourself unlucky. Because you missed what was my favorite show of the season.

The good news? In the bottom of the 9th inning, "Jack & Jill" was picked up for 13 more episodes, so it *will* be returning in January! Color me thrilled!

Now, if we can just keep The WB's network goons from doing any "retooling" of this show, we may be getting somewhere!...

Now, here's one of those shows that nobody was expecting anything from, and actually turned out to be a fair bit better than many people were expecting! I'd go as far as to say that it was better than the show it replaced ("Felicity"). Of course, The WB buried it in one of its worst timeslots, and then promptly pulled it after only 4 of the show's 8 episodes had aired.

But what we got in those show's first 4 episodes was a lot of promise. Like series lead Mark-Paul Gosselaar's previous effort, "Hyperion Bay", "D.C." was actually one of the few shows that seemed to effectively integrate two things that are rarely integrated well: young (sexy) 20somethings, and their job/careers. Most shows with teens and 20somethings make the mistake of focusing wholly on the character's personal/sex lives (e.g. "Felicity") while ignoring the other aspects of the characters' lives (i.e. work, or school; also, family). This lack of breadth of focus tends to make the characters more 2-dimensional, and, as a result, less interesting (e.g. see again, "Felicity").

But "D.C." *didn't* make this mistake, as both the character's careers, and (to a lesser extent) their families, played a more prominent role in the show. This worked to everyone's benefit, especially the audience's, and made for a "deeper" show than might have been expected.

And, amazingly, here was a show about politics that didn't get partisan (take note "West Wing"!). That alone deserves kudos from this reviewer! And who *ever* expected me to say that about a Dick Wolf show?!!!

Unlike in "Hyperion Bay", where Gosselaar's Dennis Sweeney was total straight-arrow, in "D.C." Gosselaar's Pete Komisky was a more shaded and morally ambiguous character. Pete, together with Kristanna Loken's (breaking out of "bimbo" roles) ambitious reporter Sarah Logan, were the two most interesting characters on the show, and promised a intriguing look at the perils and pitfalls of youth, inexperience and driving ambition. Rounding out the cast were Mason Scott (Gabriel Olds, playing the resident straight-arrow, the role Gosselaar had on "Hyperion Bay"), his vivacious sister Finley (Jacinda Barrett, formerly infamous for MTV's "The Real World (London)", proving her that she's a decent enough actress, even if she's unable to do a convincing American accent), and Lewis Freeman (Daniel Sunjata, playing well the appropriately guilt-ridden show's upwardly-mobile minority character).

In any case, I liked "D.C." It's too bad this show didn't get a better chance. I think it deserved at least that.

Boy, did this show *tank* between its first and its second season! There's not much to say beyond this, but in the "Zoe's" first season, the show was actually funny. It was also obviously derivative (think "teen Seinfeld", and you get what the show was going for), but at least it was going for a formula that worked. In season #2, all that was pretty much gone. Instead, you had a series of unfunny and uninteresting situations, the loss of the character of Zoe's mother (Mary Page Keller in season #1), and the addition of a new character (played by Omar Gooding, Cuba's brother, apparently surviving on nepotism) who was so obviously there to fill a racial quota that nobody on the show even bothered to consider that they still needed to *write* for his character!

Anyway, "Zoe" just plum wasn't funny anymore, and it won't be missed after cancellation. Hopefully, next time, somebody will give Selma Blair (as well as Azura Skye and Micheal Rosenbaum) a show that is actually worthy of her (their) talents...

It was down to the wire on whether "Nikita" or "The Others" would take my #5 Best Show slot, and "The Others" edged "Nikita" with its finale. Still, "Nikita", now in its fourth season, is still going strong enough to get in with a "Special Mention" (last year, it was my #2 Best Drama, so it has slipped some).

Having said all that, I am starting to have some of my own reservations about "Nikita" this season. Several problems have started to crop up this year that are striking somewhat sour notes.

The fourth season of "Nikita" began well enough with a fascinating (though SF-ish) four-episode arc in which the character of Nikita (played by the always kick-ass Aussie babe Peta Wilson) was brainwashed into becoming the "perfect" Section One operative. The problems crept up once this arc was resolved. In the episodes following this arc, there were almost *zero* repercussions (and I'm thinking psychological ones) from Nikita's obviously traumatic brainwashing experience. Indeed, in the episodes that followed, psychological complexities were sacrificed for the facile continuation of the endless romance between Nikita and Michael (Roy Dupuis, adding some nice touches to his repertoire this season).

And that's not all. Other problems? During the past two seasons the show has become more and more focused on "office politics" (i.e. the intra- and inter-Section machinations that define Section One) and less and less on Section One's purported *mission*, namely anti-terrorism (i.e. aren't these guys *supposed* to be after *Red Cell*, et al.?!). While I didn't have as much of a problem with this in the show's third season, I am starting to now, as this routine is getting a little old. Also, a certain repetitiveness has settled into some of the episodes, namely "Time to be Heroes" (which wasn't all that different than the 2nd season's "First Mission") and "Hell Hath No Fury" (which bore a certain thematic similarity to first season's "Gambit").

That is not to say that "Nikita" is necessarily bad this season. It's just that the show has, itself, been *better* previously.

Of course, none of this probably matters much as USA has just announced that they are not renewing "Nikita" for a 5th season! Isn't that grand?! The good news? The final episode of season #4 have not been completed quite yet, so this early cancellation announcement may actually give the writers enough time to give us a proper series finale. The bad news? The writers really needed that 5th season to wrap up this show properly...

Unfortunately, "King of Queens" has somewhat failed to live up to the promise of its first season. While still passably funny, I'm not finding KoQ to be as riotously funny as it was in the show's first season. And it's not the characters that are the problem. Ultimately, I just think it's that this season's situations (or at least the ones I've seen) haven't been all that funny.

I hope this show can rebound some in its third season. Because this show displayed a lot of promise in its first season, and I'd really like to see it live up to that promise.

I haven't seen this show too much this season either, but what I have seen lead me to believe that it is still going strong in its second season. While I don't think this season has been as outstanding as the show's first season, it's still plugging along well enough to make it one of the few sitcoms I will actually watch. And that says a lot...

What do I like most about "Titus"? Two things: 1) the premise: Christopher Titus, the son of basically deranged father (and insane mother) tries to make it through life (e.g. business, girlfriend) in as functional way as possible using only the tools of his dysfunctional upbringing, and 2) the "aside scenes" (where Titus, in a fashion similar to earlier "Seinfeld", uses material from his stand-up act to comment on the action taking place during the particular episode). All of these bits just plain *work* for me, in some cases flawlessly. (My favorite? Titus, commenting on his great relationship with his girlfriend (paraphrasing): "My life was perfect. Now what? It can only go downhill from here. So I thought to myself, 'How can I *destroy* this?'" LOL!) These scenes, and the flashbacks where Stacey Keach's deranged Titus Sr. terrorizes little Christopher and his brother, are often very funny, and validate the promise that "Titus" has.

The problem? The main proceedings of "Titus'" episodes are, much more often than not, stock 'wacky' sitcom situations, which just plum aren't very funny most of the time, though there are exceptions (like the episode where Titus and the gang drive up the I-5 with a enraged driver pursuing them the whole way, and the one where the gang stages an "intervention" to get "Papa" Titus to *start* drinking again! (yes, you read that correctly), two episodes that were very funny).

It is rather too bad that "Titus" occasionally degenerates to "standard" sitcom fare, because I think "Titus" is *this* close to breaking through the envelope and establishing itself as a "groundbreaking" sitcom a la "Seinfeld". It just needs that extra *oomph*. Right now, it doesn't quite have it.

The good news? "Titus" has already been renewed, so it will have at least one more shot at perfecting its formula next Fall. Hopefully, the extra time will allow the makers the opportunity to break this whole show wide open. Personally, I'm keeping my fingers crossed...

Without a doubt, *this* was the show I was most eagerly anticipating last summer. Start with an awesome premise (e.g. "The X-Files" crossed with "My So-Called Life" or "Dawson's Creek"), add in an attractive "up and comer" cast (most notably mega-babe Katherine Heigl), and a killer crew (starting with "X-Files" alum David Nutter, "Next Generation" alum Jonathan Frakes, and "My So-Called Life" scribe Jason Katmis), and mix. The result shouldn't be boring, that's for sure!

Still, I've got to tell you, after the early episodes of "Roswell's" first season, I was starting to think that "Roswell" would never live up to its potential (and my expectations), while "Angel" would be the surprise breakout hit of the season. What a difference two months make!

What happened within those two months? Well, "Roswell" turned out "285 South", "Blood Brothers" and "The Balance"... and "Angel" put out "The Bachelor Party", "Hero" and "Parting Gifts". It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which was the better show!

And, indeed, once "Roswell" settled into its groove after an inconsistent start, the show really started to work for me. The major portion of this first season has developed the show's parameters. Conceived primarily as a rumination on "alienation" in the form of three *real* teen aliens, Max, Michael and Isabel, the show then layered this with added complications, such as star-crossed (literally!) lovers Max Evans (the broodingly hunky Jason Behr - ah, those eyes!...) and Liz Parker (Shiri Appleby, rather successfully attempting to perfect the (teen) girl-next-door territory patented most recently by "Charmed's" Holly Marie Combs, DC's Katie Holmes and Y&R's Ashley Jones), on-again-off-again lovers/sparring partners Maria DeLuca (Marjandra Deflino, the "find" of this series) and Michael Gerran (Brendon Fehr, quickly becoming my favorite on the show), and the two most isolated members of this group of friends, "poor me!" alien sis Isabel Evans (Katherine Heigl, virtually Queen of the Goddesses in an industry where almost every actress nearly achieves "Goddess" status!) and nerdy helper-boy Alex (Colin Hanks, son of... aw, you know!). The cast is rounded out by William Sadler as the deliciously ambivalent Sheriff Valenti and Nick Wechsler as his jocky (and sarcastic!) son Kyle (who, unfortunately, was virtually forgotten about in the latter half of the show's first season).

Through the show's first 16 episodes, I felt that (in general) this show was getting better and better. Sure it was somewhat inconsistent (e.g. great episodes like "285 South" and "Blood Brothers" were followed up by so-so episodes like "River Dog" and "Heat Wave", respectively), and somewhat repetitive (i.e. how *many* different ways can we see Max & Liz get together/break-up/make-up?! And didn't we already see this with Buffy & Angel?!!!) But episodes like "Monsters", "285 South", "The Toy House" and "The Convention" really got me thinking that this show was going somewhere special.

However, as they've done before, The WB was made nervous by "Roswell's" only lukewarm early ratings, and so The WB ordered a "retool" away from "relationships" and much more into "Sci-Fi" in the latter half of the season. (Sound familiar "Hyperion Bay" fans?!) (The WB also moved "Roswell" from Wednesday to Monday.) Well, luckily, as with "Hyperion Bay", these changes didn't made "Roswell" into a "worse" show, just a different one.

Still, these last 6 episodes of "Roswell's" first season have been a little disconcerting in their overwhelming (Sci-Fi tinged) focus on the 3 (now 4, when you throw in Aussie cutie Emilie De Ravin's Tess Harding) aliens. The "up" side? More screentime for Katherine Heigl and Emilie De Ravin (and William Sadler)! The "Down" side? Much less screentime for Nick Wechsler, Majandra Delfino and even Shiri Appleby...

Anyway, the good news is that the change in focus hasn't killed "Roswell", and the show has been renewed for the Fall. This should give "Roswell's" writers another chance to do a better job of balancing their "relationship"/"Sci-Fi" and alien/human elements. I, for one, will be tuning in (excitedly) to see how this all shakes out. ;>

As stated above, it was a tough call between "Jack & Jill" and "Once & Again" as to which show was going to be my pick as my #1 Show of the Year. Why did "Once & Again" come up just short? Three reasons primarily:

1. As good as O&A is, it is *tough* sledding! "Jack & Jill" was a mostly "happy" show, which made it much more entertaining (and palatable) escapism, and so I tended to view J&J more fondly as a result. That's not exactly a slam on O&A, but it's no less true.
2. I found O&A to be uneven. While there is *no* question in my mind that *individual* episodes of O&A were the *best* single episodes of any show I saw all season (the three that leap immediately to mind are "There Be Dragons", "The Gingerbread House" and "The Mystery Dance"), there were also a number of episodes I just didn't care that much about (notably, "A Dream Deferred", "The Past Is Prologue" and "Sneaky Feelings"). This unevenness tended to detract from "Once & Again" (and to a lesser extent, "Roswell") to the benefit of "Jack & Jill" which had very few episodes that I didn't like a lot.
3. The structure of O&A. This is closely related to my second point above, and is both O&A's strength and weakness. What do I mean by "its structure"? Namely, the way the focus of the show shifts from character to character to character over the course of various episodes. The positive aspect of this is that every character gets "their day" from the show, an episode (or two) in which their character is explored in depth and insights about that character can be gained by the viewer. The downside? If the episode is about a character (or an aspect of a character) that you don't like or don't care about, it may mean that virtually the whole episode is a waste (see, for example, my previous mentioned examples of "A Dream Deferred" and "The Past Is Prologue").

Still, despite its flaws, "Once & Again" was unquestionably one of the best shows of this season (and certainly the single most innovative). As I stated above, individual episodes of O&A were *by far* the best things I saw on TV all season. (And I don't care what anyone says! There is *no* way that I can ever believe that the best episodes of "The West Wing", "The Practice", "ER" or "Law & Order" were better than the best of "Once & Again"!)

The cast for O&A is uniformly excellent. Sela Ward makes Lily Manning (a character some people don't seem to like very much) as sympathetic as possible, while Billy Campbell just makes Rick Samler seem like a real person. Doing similarly excellent jobs are Marin Hinkle (as Lily's hopelessly pathetic sister Judy), Julia Whelan (as Lily's skittish daughter Grace) and Evan Rachel Wood (as Rick's pensive daughter Jessie). Everyone in the cast is similarly excellent, and do the best job of any show I can think of us showing us *real* seeming, believable, fully 3-dimensional characters.

Mercifully after the debacle of previous seasons (remember "C-16", "Cupid" and "Vengeance Unlimited" anyone?), ABC actually grabbed a clue a renewed this show. So it'll be back next season. Color me pleased by that.

Boy, can you say "Tankin'"?! Last season, I spelled "tanking" E-R and P-A-R-T-Y-O-F-F-I-V-E. This season? No question: It's spelled B-U-F-F-Y. And in a big way. Last season (and the season before that!), "Buffy" was actually my pick as #1 Best Drama on TV. This season?... Well, all I can say is "Yuck!" and "What the Hell happened here?!"...

Part of what makes a show work for its audience is the "mystery" its proceedings generate. Like the Wizard of Oz, TV shows only maintain their ability to awe and inspire if the audience is unable to see the strings that make the characters and the plot advance. That mystery and uncertainty is one of the principle means of generating entertainment value. However, once the audience starts to see behind the proverbial curtain, starts to see the strings pulling at the characters, the audience will tend to lose its "reverence" for (and, often, the enjoyment in) the show proceedings (think of "90210" after the umpteenth "partner switching", or "Party of Five" after one "tragedy" too many, and I think you'll start to see what I talking about...). Unfortunately, for me, season #4 was the season when I started to see the strings pulling at the characters on "Buffy" far too clearly, and it killed any enjoyment I got out of watching the show.

But first, let's back up. "Buffy" actually started this season in a promising, if unspectacular fashion. With the move from High School to College, this 4th season's first 8 or so episodes actually *dealt* with the college setting. Now clearly, I probably should have been tipped off that this fourth season wasn't going to be "all that" by the fact that this season's premiere episode, "The Freshman", didn't really get going until a full *30 minutes* into the episode, and relied on a plot device so rickety ("Hey, kids! Buffy's off her game! In fact, she's so off her game that some uppity, fourth-rate college vampire chick can kick Buffy's ass! Can you dig it?!"... NOT!) that I couldn't even buy it. But subsequent episodes, such as "Living Conditions", "Fear Itself", "Beer Bad", "Pangs" and "Something Blue", at least had me cracking up enough that I didn't notice the growing problems in the show's underlying structure.

All that changed with "Hush" on. By "Hush", it was clear that "Buffy" was relying more on gimmickry than on the solid characterizations that we'd gotten (primarily) in the show's first two seasons. (The only good characterizations that we got in "Buffy's" 3rd season were Angel, The Mayor, Faith (a debatable case) and Willow (and her character developments were not for the better).)

And these problems just built on one another. The characters, aside from Buffy and Riley <gag!> (and Willow & Tara), stopped meaningfully interacting with each other. Then The Initiative storyarc was short-circuited and rendered impotent by the death of emerging villain Maggie Walsh (Lindsay Crouse, don't ask me why she was slumming in this ill-conceived part). Then the humor evaporated (the last truly funny episode of season #4 was the aforementioned "Something Blue"). And we got far too many basically useless "crossovers" with "Buffy" spin-off "Angel". Finally, in the last 2/3 of season #4, we've just gotten one middling to awful episode after another. The only exceptions were the Faith two-parter (which rejuvenated the show temporarily, thanks to Faith (and the Mayor) alone), and the recent "The Yoko Factor" which, while a shameless retcon ("Hey, guys! We've had the gang vaguely drifting apart all season... Why don't we have Spike pull a Deus Ex Machina, and have him finish off the job!"... uh, no) was at least fairly decent viewing.

There has been a lot of back and forth on the exact cause of "Buffy's" malaise this season: it's Riley's fault, it's the fault of Joss and co. going "P.C." with lesbian/bisexual storylines, it's the increasing inability for the audience to like (or admire) either Buffy or Willow, it's the neutering of Spike, it's the lack of Xander and Giles, it's the overabundance of characters, it's the lack of vampires, it's the sucky Initiative storyarc, it's the lameness of Adam as a villain, etc.

But, you know what the answer is? It's all of the above, and more. If I had to pin it on any one thing, I'd vote for the overemphasis on (sexual/romantic) relationships (take note "Felicity"!). Basically, this season has had way too much Buffy/Parker/Riley and Willow/Oz/Tara. But the frequent inability of the show's own writers to grasp some of the underlying complexities of their own storylines (e.g. why wasn't Xander's isolation handled better? why were the underlying issues around Willow's "changing teams" never dealt with? why is Buffy even attracted to Riley - what does she see in him? why was the tension between the Slayerette's use of ancient magic versus The Initiative's use of modern technology never explored? why is Anya tolerated? and what does Xander see in Anya, exactly? why did Giles never *attempt* to find a job? why have the gang *not* staked Spike?! etc.) is certainly of potentially greater concern.

Bottom line? "Buffy" pretty much sucks this season. Shows from "Roswell" to "Charmed" to "Once & Again" to even its spin-off "Angel" are running rings around this show.

Will things get better in season #5? Well, Riley, Anya and Tara will all be back next Fall. And the proverbial "Cousin Oliver" may even be coming on board next season! Now *that's* excitement, kids! (Get the sarcasm?...) So am I hopeful? Not really...

Now, here's a show I still don't know what to make of. But, then again, I'm not sure the show's makers do either!

Of all the shows I have watched this season, I don't think I have watched any show that was as "all over the map" as "Angel". Unable to really decide on what *kind* of show it was, "Angel" lurched from one direction to the other and back again.

The good news? This actually lead to some downright good, if somewhat unspectacular and basically uninspired, episodes. Starting with the pilot "City of..." (which was actually my vote for the best pilot of the season), "Angel" went on to produce some really good stuff, notably "Lonely Hearts", "Sense & Sensitivity", "Somnambulist", "Prodigal", "Five by Five", and the finale "To Shanshu in L.A.". (However, do you notice that all of these episodes either featured Kate (Elisabeth Rohm, ditching her 'softer' side, for a character that is pleasingly all 'edges', and a tough chick to boot!), or used a structure ripped off from "Forever Knight"? 'Cos I do!)

The bad news? There were an equal number of real *clunkers*: "I Will Remember You" (you want "Reset Buttons"? We *got* "Reset Buttons"!), "Hero" (hey, do you mind if we kill off a main character for no good reason, and use a really clunky analogy to do it?!), "Parting Gifts" (so God awful it *scares* me!), "She" (you want a lame-ass romantic interest? We *got* one!), "The Ring" ("Fight Club" - yawn!) and "War Zone" (episodes devoted to never-before-seen, non-main characters (usually for spin-off purposes) are *always* a bore!).

And after all this, I *still* can't tell you what this show is! Is it a "P.I." show with supernatural undertones? Is it a supernatural fantasy with some P.I. show conventions? Is it about "saving souls"? Is it about the coming "Big Showdown" with Evil? Is it about Angel's (David Boreanaz - so hunky!) journey for redemption? Cordelia's (Charisma Carpenter, trying to be a co-lead, but still not being given enough to actually do it)? Wesley's (Alex Denisof, doing the best he can with a previously totally undermined character)? Kate's? You got me, on all counts!

So, what does all of this leave you with? Well, in my case, it leaves me with a show that I'm only marginally committed to, and only somewhat interested in. Do I usually watch "Angel"? Yep. And more often than not, I'm passably entertained by it. But would it bother me much if I missed an episode, or do I go out of my way to watch "Angel" in reruns? Nope.

In short, "Angel" has turned out to be a 'pleasant diversion'. It could have (probably should have) been a lot more than that. But, for now, a 'pleasant diversion' will have to suffice. And I guess that's OK, for *now*. But I hope this show pulls it together to become more.

On thing's for sure: that cliffhanger in the season finale is a good start! That last kicker has renewed my interest in this show. So count me back in on season #2 "Angel"!

Go to: [99-00 Review: Lists] [99-00 Shows: Wed-Sat] [99-00 Shows: Cable & Syndicated] [FAQ Intro] [TV Page]