Monday, September 20, 2010

Wet Work

When pondering the heights of creative expression, the Jersey Shore doesn’t make many lists. There are a lot of lists on which it does merit an entry, but they’re usually the kind that are maintained by the public health department. After the depths have been plumbed by Snooki levels of self-tanner and hair gel, it would take a miracle to recover. Or, as is the case with HBO’s Atlantic City drama Boardwalk Empire, it takes Martin Scorsese.


Wow. It’s honestly difficult to articulate criticisms for this new series because the pilot was such a visual stunner, showcasing the roaring, rumrunning, gunslinging 20s into vibrant, visceral, technicolor modernity. I found I was instantly enveloped by the lush historical construct and richness of the production and happily lost myself amid the trappings of Prohibition even though this isn’t generally my kind of story. I’ve never been a fan of gangster dramas and the mob generally bores me to tears, but this show thankfully has a lot more going for it than that.

Terence Winter’s Boardwalk Empire is a period piece, in the strictest of senses, but as with any great period piece, it easily transcends the confines of a certain era. On the contrary, the era makes for a tantalizing backdrop to universal, timeless themes. Set in 1920, right at the time the passage of the 18th amendment legislated that the country had to dry out, Boardwalk Empire almost comes across as an alternate reality where liquor is outlawed and the men who rise to power and wealth are those who can keep the country wet. It was incredibly interesting to see Prohibition take effect in terms of how actual people reacted, not how a history book paints it. To see a room full of party-goers mourn the ban on liquor at midnight, only to pop the champagne and celebrate moments later really put things in perspective. This was a ban that didn't actually dry out the country at all, it simply made the smugglers live like sultans. In a televisionscape that’s brimming with scads of your standard cop shows, legal shows, and medical dramas, it’s not easy to create something new and fresh. Apparently, the way to create something new is to resurrect something old. It feels like the kind of alternate universe that science fiction often employs and can be appreciated on a similar level. I was constantly fascinated by the little things of this world that are simultaneously so like and so unlike my own. The fact that the clothes, cars, buildings, social strata, and political climate of Boardwalk Empire actually happened makes it all the more engrossing.

This production is slick and accurate down the button and hubcap. Granted I’m no expert on the era, so there may have been historical inaccuracies that I couldn’t perceive, but from where I was sitting, it was absolutely stunning. It was fascinating in the same way that museums and documentaries are, only with a gripping narrative to go with it. It felt like walking through one of those historical homes that’s been preserved for tourist groups, only without the velvet ropes. People weren’t gingerly handling antiques and historical artifacts here. They were actively engaging with this amazing backdrop, which is always exciting to see. The more accurately done, the more effective it is. Indeed, the best part of Titanic was the set design as far as I'm concerned. What’s this? You mean it wasn’t the touching love story that spans the ages or the Celine Dion ballad? Yeah, no. I’m the kind of person who’ll spend an entire book tweaking character design in my head, so to see it onscreen in lush perfection is extremely satisfying. Little things kept catching my eye that would remind me of how far removed I am from this time period. At one point, a couple of men are wearing pieces of fabric over their faces, with holes cut for eyes. Before my itty bitty brain had actually processed things, I thought it was weird that I could see their hair… because I’m used to ski masks. Which didn’t exist in 1920. I love that kind of thing. I think my only quibble would be that everything seemed a bit too clean, but they generally got splattered with blood soon after, so, you know, problem solved!

The setting is spectacular and pretty much so is everything else. The cast is stellar. Anchored by Steve Buscemi as morally ambiguous Atlantic City kingpin Enoch “Nucky” Thompson, this show has a lot going for it. It’s a hell of a concept to rest largely on one man’s shoulders, but Buscemi luxuriates in the role and seems to relish every moment. I imagine working on this kind of show, in this setting, and with this kind of creative team is every actor’s dream and Buscemi’s not the only one who knows it. The entire cast brings their A-games and embraces their roles body and soul. Michael Pitt does a particularly nice job as Jimmy Darmody, a conflicted 22-year-old war vet who isn’t sure what to make of the world he’s just come home to, ultimately finding himself playing both sides. His experiences in the war have made him an efficient murderer and he's not sure where to go from there. Pitt plays the ambiguity with surprising aplomb. Most of the cast were relative unknowns so I didn’t have to combat preconceived notions, but even if I had, these actors all settled into their roles as they would a feature film and really brought this story of corruption, power, violence, and decadence to life. With a television series, there’s the luxury of settling into a role over the course of a season, but with a film, viewers have to buy these characters almost instantly. With Martin Scorsese at the helm, I’m not surprised that this was the end result. This series has an eminently cinematic feel and visual aesthetic that’s inescapable. It really felt like I had just watched a high-budget, Oscar-contender rather than a television pilot.

To that end, however, there are certain pitfalls associated with movie-making that didn’t quite translate to the small screen as well as I would have liked. Perhaps there simply wasn’t enough time allotted by this format, but certain cinematic tropes just didn’t quite have the intended impact. Chief among them was starting the pilot in medias res and then backtracking to “three days earlier." This is a convention that just about every television show employs at some point and seeing those words flash on the screen led to some misgivings that were mildly irksome in their familiarity. It’s the kind of device that when it works, it works incredibly well, but when it doesn’t, it just seems like a gimmick. Boardwalk Empire’s foray into this trope was more toward the gimmick end of the spectrum. It’s a device that isn’t usually employed until well into the run of a television series. At its best, the audience is met with characters they feel they know and understand in a situation that is wholly unfathomable or acting in a way that’s completely out of character. When I find myself wondering how on earth these people were brought to this state of affairs and why Random Character would be doing that, I’m thrilled at the prospect shifting to “three days earlier." With Boardwalk Empire, I don’t know any of these characters, so their actions don’t seem counterintuitive, and the things they’re doing seem like par for the course based on what information I have thus far. Maybe I just know too much about the concept of the show or maybe the History Channel gave me a little too much inside knowledge of Prohibition (the documentary Rumrunners, Moonshiners And Bootleggers is excellent), but I was only moderately intrigued by what was happening. In fact, when shows employ this device, the audience is usually abundantly aware that they’re missing information and that a time warp will probably be forthcoming. Here, I was actually a little surprised to see it. It just didn’t seem necessary. At that point, you have to wonder if the creative powers that be simply wanted to draw in viewers by starting off with something flashy and exciting and that it had no real narrative purpose. That’s when I take issue with this conceit. I wouldn’t say Boardwalk Empire falls into that trap entirely, but its use seemed more self-indulgent than effective. Indeed, by the time the story caught up with where the pilot started, there wasn’t much in the way of a startling revelation or a new, profound understanding of the world, it was just nice to get back to where we were. Sure I know who these people are now, but it doesn’t make the scene any more or less sensational than it was the first time around.

Another element that seems to work better in a feature film than on a television show (at least in my experience) is deceptive editing. With a film, you only have one chance to interact with the story and characters, so it’s harder to predict where things are headed. With most television shows, audiences at least have a working knowledge of the regular cast, so it makes things slightly more predictable in terms of consequences. In Boardwalk Empire, there’s a scene where the audience is led to believe that the feds are approaching some of the principal cast, cutting back and forth between shots. I don’t know if it’s just me, but I only fell for it for about half a second. Unlike the crazy suspenseful edits in The Silence of the Lambs when those feds are approaching the presumed suspect, here, I was fully expecting the feds to be approaching a different target entirely. Again, when this is done right, it is extremely effective. When it doesn’t quite work, it just seems gimmicky. Again, I think if this were a feature film, it would have worked better. I don’t know what kind of a role Scorsese will have in the ongoing series, but I think the differences between what works well in film and what works in TV are the things he’s going to have to watch out for.

When looking at the pilot as a whole, however, these are but minor quibbles. The things that don’t work in a show are a lot more noticeable than the things that do, so the fact that I have so few complaints speaks volumes about the quality of the show. By and large, the story and direction are beyond reproach. While certain cinematic touches didn’t quite come off as well as intended, for the most part, Scorsese’s expertise behind the camera added a striking grandeur and effortlessness to the show. I think it was the little things that married the story and direction that were the most satisfying. For instance, when early on in the pilot we see fishermen doling out the catch of day, right from the net, it is seen as simply adding to the 1920s milieu, but in actuality, it will factor into the plot in a surprising way. Also, little indicators of personality traits and character priorities were appreciated. Although at times slightly heavy-handed, for the most part the pilot didn’t spoon-feed information to viewers. I always respect a pilot that is willing to trust its viewers. Boardwalk Empire didn’t spend the entire pilot explaining each and every detail to me. It simply created a universe and characters and let me soak in the salient points and details as they rolled out. I don’t need to understand everything all at once and appreciated the opportunity to make inferences based on what was available.

As mentioned, I think my only disconnect with the show is its basis in gangsters and the mob. For whatever reason, that’s a subject that has never really captivated me. The same goes for narcotics and drug trafficking. By and large, I simply couldn’t care less. But, in the same way that The Wire managed to interest me in the war on drugs, I’m hopeful that Boardwalk Empire can suck me into the world of organized crime. The show has a lot more going on than just power plays and gangsters, so I have high hopes. Based on the pilot alone, I’m already a lot more interested than I thought I’d be, even if I’m not perched on the edge of my seat, giddy for the next episode. This is a show that will take some effort and won’t likely be enjoyed by the casual, occasional viewer. So far, it’s a commitment I’m willing to make. Prohibition politics puts a new bent on the old routine, and I’m happy to give it some time to really make me invest.

In short, Boardwalk Empire is a sophisticated, high-budget production that’s a visual delight. Although certain story elements didn’t strike a chord with me, the cast, creative team, and concept are solid. They’ve created a world where morality isn’t black and white, character motivations are ever-changing, and loyalties can never be assured. It’s a set-up that allows for a lot of different kinds of narrative, so the long-term potential is compelling. At the very least, it lets me show my History Channel might. The pilot made several mentions to importing Canadian liquor. Canada actually went dry at about the same time as the US, but they kept it legal to export liquor instead. So, not only did the country at least pretend to dry out, but they made millions of dollars exporting liquor to the States. Brilliant. Anyway, this is going to be a difficult (and incredibly expensive) show to pull off week-to-week, so the creative team certainly has its work cut out for it. If they can make this work, however, I could see this turning into a long-term classic.

Pilot Grade: A-

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Supreme Fail

It’s not often that I know I’m going to hate a pilot in less than a minute, but leave it to the unfortunately titled Outlaw, NBC’s latest legal debacle, to elicit a groan in roughly 26 seconds. Ooh, impressive! And for all the wrong reasons.

I’m going to try to keep this short and sweet, er, civil (to the extent possible), which shouldn’t be too hard given the amount of fast-forwarding that comes with such a terrible pilot. The opening scene truly set the tone for the show and was about as ugh-worthy as it gets. It featured a couple talking to each other through prison glass as the husband asks his wife to promise him that she’ll move on after he’s gone because their girls need a man in the house. She responds accordingly, with tears and lip-quivering and schmaltziness, culminating in the coup de gras of cheesy: she puts her hand on the glass and he tenderly places his hand over hers. Touching! Right!? No? That was lame? Well, if it wasn’t, the inter-cutting between this heartbreaking love story and with his lawyer racing to the jail with a last minute Hail Mary plan to stay his execution certainly shoves it over the top. Yeah, that all went down in the first minute and didn’t do the show any favors at all… in that it accurately represents the tone, the writing, and the eye-roll-inducing flavor of the rest of the pilot. If they really wanted people to accidentally watch the show, they should have started off with the first few minutes of a different program.

Going in, I had heard that Jimmie Smits (who headlines this mess as a Supreme Court Justice who leaves the bench in order to defend the little guy against the big, bad system) was the best part of the show. This is true. This is also a very sad commentary on the rest of the show, because Jimmie, the supposed cherry on top of this mess, is awful. I’ve never been a huge fan of his (even less so after his disappointing turn as Miguel Prado on Dexter’s misguided third season), but I have to admit, in a sea of awful, he was only mostly awful. In his defense (apparently I’ve been watching/reading too much media from across the pond because I just spelled that “defence”), the writing and concept of this pilot were the primary problems. I don’t know that anyone could have made this role work, but Smits fell painfully short. Good god, even the scenes that didn’t involve cringe-worthy courtroom antics were painful and forced. At one point, Smits’s character, having a crisis of conscience, literally watches footage of his late father in the dark, with tears in his eyes. You know, because his character has depth and stuff. Ooh! And a gambling problem! And he's a lothario! Thems are layers.

The supporting cast, if possible, is even worse. It’s barely even worth mentioning, except that two of his unfortunate underlings were familiar faces trapped in thankless, thoroughly unlikeable roles. Carly Pope stars as Lucinda, who’s basically Lisbeth Salander, but, you know, sexy and sassy (which I believe is required by Standards and Practices... this is network TV after all). Being an alum of Ryan Murphy’s prior pet project Popular, methinks Pope should really be angling for a role on Murphy’s newest pet project… a little show called Glee. Then there’s Jesse Bradford, whom you may recognize as the brother from Bring It On. Based on all the wholesale thievery going on, I think it’s safe to say that Hellcats would be more than happy to give him the exact same role, and sad to say that a stint on Hellcats that would be a step up. Yeah, I’ll just let that statement sink in for a minute.

Even if I had never seen another legal show before or if I was unfamiliar with this brand of cheesiness, I’m confident I would have hated this pilot. I did a hell of a lot of fast-forwarding, so if you loved this show and think I’m crazy, maybe I just skipped over all the half-second, insanely awesome bits that sneaked in amongst the crap. It’s possible, right? Ugh. This show is absurd, predictable, and above all, sanctimonious. The powerful bad boy resigns from his position on high to fight for the little guy. I can practically hear the inspirational music swelling… no, wait, I can actually hear it. Groan. Every time I stopped to watch a few minutes of the show, I was met with all the courtroom blustering, the defiant speechifying, and the ethical soapboxing that you’d expect with this kind of a concept, only worse. When the judge overturns the death row inmate’s guilty verdict, you’re not surprised in the least when minutes later the guy is sauntering out of the courtroom, all smiles. Yeah, because that’s exactly how it works.

Long story short, you’d have to be a true, indiscriminate die hard for legal dramas or to have never even seen a legal drama before to find much charm in this hard-boiled, pretentious mess.

The verdict is in… and I’m out.

Pilot Grade: F

Friday, September 10, 2010

Pretty Killer

It’s not often that the CW really does things right, but after last night’s awesomeness squared, it’s safe to say they are right on the money when it comes to Thursdays. After the stellar sophomore outing for The Vampire Diaries (which was basically an hour of “Did that (and that and THAT) really just happen?!” Seriously? Damn.), I had to assume the CW’s latest new series would pale in comparison. While Nikita couldn’t quite measure up to the edge-of-your-seatiness of TVD (who could?), this reboot certainly held its own and even managed to take a seemingly familiar story and make it fresh, intriguing, and literally kickass.

I’m honestly not too familiar with the Nikita franchise and have little knowledge of previous iterations. The presumed similarities in the conceit are based on my love of Alias (which, as I understand it, owes quite a bit to the original La Femme Nikita). Based on the trailer, I went in expecting things to have come full circle. La Femme Nikita spawns Alias which then morphs back into the latest Nikita. As the pilot began, complete with a covert branch of the government that’s gone rogue, a handler named Michael, murdered fiancé named Danny, and new versions of both Sloane and Marshall, I assumed I’d have to resign myself to yet another rehash, but much to my delight, Nikita is an entity unto itself. While various basic elements and themes are familiar, the look, the tone, the interpersonal dynamics, character motivations and profiles, and overall story arc make for a different animal than what I’ve seen before.

In this incarnation of the spy thriller, we have Nikita, a former spy who was recruited by Division (basically, SD-6), the mysterious black ops branch of the CIA that trained her to be the ultimate assassin. Similar to our old friend Sydney Bristow, Nikita breaks the rules and is faced with her fiance’s murder as a result. I know, it sounds seriously familiar, but really, Nikita has a foundation that we’re familiar with, but it builds its own universe and narrative on top of that. While Sydney was a super-secret double agent, sneakily trying to destroy an evil organization, Nikita takes a very straight-forward approach to vengeance and makes sure her countermeasures out in the open. She wants her foes to know they’re being hunted and makes sure they know that she’s the huntress. This manages to take the base concept and give it a very different vibe. With that kind of major tonal change, the show itself takes on a whole different feel.

Badass Maggie Q stars as the titular Nikita and sells the character in a matter of minutes. I’m not familiar with her previous works, so going in, I wasn’t sure she’d be able to carry a series. I think it’s safe to say I was I wrong. I bought her character, the construct, and her drive for vengeance almost immediately. It’s always a blessing when an actor embodies a character so well that they’re almost instantly believable. Nothing will ruin a pilot quicker than actors who can’t sell their characters. If I have to struggle to suspend my disbelief, I’m probably not going to enjoy a series. Maggie Q quite simply is Nikita from the very first moments you see her onscreen. She manages to imbue the character with a disturbingly cool demeanor and white hot passion at the same time. Best of all? She makes it look easy. Nikita is a smooth operator who’s collected and calm under pressure. She’s a legendary killer and one of Division’s finest achievements. And now she’s their greatest enemy. When a role depends on the audience believing that one determined person could take down an evil empire, you need to have a power-player at the helm. Much to my delight, Maggie Q pulls it off. She also manages to juggle the more in-depth emotional side of her backstory and inject some soul into her otherwise stoic façade. She’s charming and enigmatic and had a lot to work with. From only a pilot, it’s difficult to sum up a persona entirely, but this character has a lot of room to grow and with someone of her talents in the role, I expect great things.

The rest of the casting is pretty solid, although Shane West’s turn as Nikita’s former handler could have been better. He wouldn’t have been my pick for the role, but he manages. I think once he really settles into the role, it could turn into something more compelling, but for now, he just feels a bit out of place and I’m not quite buying it yet. At present, his character is only interesting because of his dynamic with Nikita. Former allies who depended on each other (and had an alluded to romantic connection) who are now enemies… that always makes for a slippery and exciting dynamic. Neither knows if he/she can trust the other, what motivations are at play, what mitigating factors will have an impact, or where this crazy train is headed and I can’t wait to see it play out. Nikita is enigmatic, dangerous, and unpredictable and I wouldn’t want to be any member of Division, even someone who used to trust her. After cornering Nikita in an alley and agreeing to give her a head start, she turns around and shoots him in the chest. I honestly didn’t see it coming and had to question Nikita’s motives, moral compass, her loyalties, and her thirst for revenge. Maggie Q plays it very well and even after it’s made clear that she shot him in order to give him a cover story of trying to stop her, I was still questioning how much of that was true and how much she just really wanted to shoot him.

I suspect the relationship between Michael and Nikita will form the basis for the show, each hunting the other and at the same time, wanting to protect the other, but in the grander scheme of things, this show is a royal rumble between Nikita and Division, each stopping at nothing to destroy the other. The Arvin Sloane of the series (now called Percy, because that’ll strike terror into the hearts of millions) doesn’t yet have the truly menacing flavor that Sloane had, but I’m hopeful for more. In his Division arsenal, the fabulous Melinda Clarke (aka Julie Cooper Nichol Cooper Roberts Cooper) provides spy training in the more delicate arts (conversation, seduction, blending in, manipulation), a role for which she’s abundantly suited (although I’d love to see her play against type more often). Her ice queen façade is chilling, yet disarming, a role Clarke wields with delicious aplomb. We also have the requisite tech savvy nerd, but even his seemingly standard character has a slightly different edge to him than usual. Again, having worked with Nikita in the past, their relationship is tenuous and inscrutable. The show does a very nice job establishing ambiguity between their loyalties and sets up a believable construct for the twist at the end of the episode (so well done, in fact, that I honestly didn’t see it coming). I don't remember the character's name, but the computer specialist also provides some much appreciated levity and snark to the episode (as is the wont of this character type from show to show). Having been kidnapped by Nikita, his rescue team rushes in, guns ablazin', finding him alone and duct taped to a jungle gym toy. To which computer guy annoyedly reponds along the lines of, "She's long gone, guys. But that was impressive. Good hustle." Heh.

Rounding out the cast is the daughter from How I Met Your Mother (you know, she’s the girl in the beginning when Bob Saget’s voice starts talking to the kids), who plays street urchin Alex, Division’s newest recruit. Having only ever seen her sitting on a couch and pretending to listen to her dad’s ramblings, this was yet another case where possible talents were essentially unknown to me. And yet again, I was pleasantly surprised. She plays the role of street kid who had to learn to be brutal in order to survive quite convincingly. I found myself easily invested in her story. The show sets up Alex’s character in such a way that you’re not entirely sure how she’s going to fit in with Nikita. I had a few theories as the pilot ran, but I didn’t foresee the twist at the end. Having established that the computer guy’s moral compass is somewhat less than fixed, I was willing to believe that he had set things up for Nikita so that she’d receive messages regarding Division’s missions. At the end, however, when it’s revealed that it’s actually Alex who’s conspiring with our femme fatale, I was delightfully surprised. The ambiguity in timelines made it a little harder to see this coming as well (e.g. people’s ages, when everyone did whatever they did, etc). Given Alex’s fighting ability and grit, I probably should have theorized that she and Nikita were already linked (as mentor and protégé, as it turns out), but instead I guessed that the first season would focus on Nikita either establishing a relationship with Alex in order to take down Division or that Alex would be used in some way to draw Nikita out. Either of those options would have been intriguing, but the actual situation is even more tantalizing, methinks. The very fact that the pilot had me interested enough to start guessing and theorizing at all is a very good sign.

Nikita is a slick, high-budget production that doesn’t skimp on the action. Pilots generally get cushier funding than subsequent episodes, however, so hopefully they’ll be able to keep up the production values as the series progresses. The plotting and pacing are satisfying and are varied enough to keep you on your toes. The pilot managed to establish a hell of a lot and did so in a solid, logical way. There was a boat load of exposition that had to fit into only 43 minutes, but it only rarely felt forced or awkward because the dialogue was well-written, and more importantly, delivered with conviction. It didn’t feel like anyone was phoning it in and that everyone committed to their roles. Dialogue is an area that usually leads to a lot of cringing, but the writing in Nikita is crisp and grounded, even in spite of the over-the-top spy universe in which it operates. There were a couple of lines that felt a little clunky or cheesy, but I think that can be chalked up to Shane West’s delivery more than to the writing itself. All in all, it was a solid narrative that has huge potential for the future. I could see where this is the kind of show that could reinvent itself season to season as allegiances change, players fall, and agendas are revealed. Plus, without the oppressiveness of Rimbaldi hanging over the proceedings, the show will be allowed to have a more fundamental drive to it rather than the never-ending search for music boxes and sketches.

On the whole, the pilot was quite good, but it wasn’t without flaws. There were several instances where CIA/Division standard operating procedures seemed a bit ridiculous and elements of the action that were just a little too convenient. I’m sorry, you guys have detailed surveillance footage of Nikita visiting her late fiance’s grave, but you don’t have footage of her dragging a full-sized Nikita mannequin to that same grave a few minutes later? Really? You guys saw that she was at the grave and decided to turn off the cameras? And then you leave the computer guy alone in the van in close proximity to your target because, well, she was at the grave a while ago, so surely she’s still there, right? You guys decided to take five while she was propping up a dummy? Oy. Anyway, instances like that were thankfully few and far between, and to be honest, while it was happening, the action was engaging enough that I just went with it. It wasn’t until later that it occurred to me that that was kind of ridiculous. Pesky Fridge Logic. Anyway, the fundamentals of the show were strong enough that I can forgive the few finer points that were a bit lacking. It wasn’t perfect, but I was enjoying myself enough that I was happy to go along for the ride.

In terms of genre, I think I’ve had my fill of lawyers, doctors, and cops, so even though there are a fair number of spies on air at the moment, I’m happy to have another. In terms of job description, the spy game has a lot more options than a crime procedural or medical drama would, so even when operating in the same genre, there’s a lot more room for originality. This show has a lot of potential and made a good showing with its pilot, so I don’t see any reason it shouldn’t be a force to be reckoned with. It performed well in the ratings and retained nearly all of The Vampire Diaries key demo audience, and even built a bit on the total viewers. Granted, this is the series premiere, which generally performs better than subsequent episodes, but the fact that Nikita retained its audience throughout the whole hour means that viewers who started watching, finished watching, and are likely to come back next week.

I certainly will.

Pilot Grade: B+

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Hell, now with cheerleaders! (Well, *more* cheerleaders...)

I generally try to avoid reviews of shows until after I've seen and assessed them for myself. I try to go in with an open, unbiased mind, so I eschew as many outside influences as possible. Given my daily travels online, this isn't easy, but I generally manage to hold off until after I've screened it for myself. Indeed, on various occasions, I'll give a show a horrible or rave review, then stumble across someone else's review and I'm tempted to revise mine. I never do, but when other critics have a response to a program that is diametrically opposed to my own, I start to second-guess myself. Seriously, having been fairly unimpressed by the pilot of Life Unexpected (and then utterly disillusioned by the subsequent episodes), I kept coming across glowing reviews and started to wonder if maybe I'd been too harsh on the show or if there was something awesome about it that I was simply missing. I was tempted to water-down my criticisms, but ultimately didn't. Looking back on things, I'm glad I stuck to my guns.

Why does any of this matter, you ask? I present to you, Hellcats. Okay, based on the clips and previews I'd seen, I wasn't even going to screen the pilot. As such, when I happened by a headline for a glowing review of the show, I was unduly curious. I didn't read the whole review, but it was from a reasonably decent source (an entertainment mag of some sort), and had shockingly good things to say about this ostensible mess. Curiosity piqued, I decided I simply had to watch the pilot to see if maybe there was a surprise winner hidden beneath layer upon layer of hairspray and Ashley Tisdale. Also, I had heard rumor that Gale Harold (our dear friend Brian Kinney) was in the show. After shedding an embarrassed tear for his career, I gave in and screened the pilot.

It honestly wasn’t as bad as I expected, but it certainly wasn’t good either. For whatever reason, the two minute clip they decided to post online were two of the most painful minutes of the pilot. There were plenty of other painful moments, don’t get me wrong, but the powers that be somehow settled on the absolute worst ones to act as spokesmodel for the show. Good thinkin’, Superman (Tom Welling is an executive producer… for some reason).

All in all, it certainly wasn’t the worst pilot I’ve ever seen, but it definitely felt like the kind of show that ABC Family mulled over and decided to pass on. Believe me, that’s not an endorsement on several levels because this show constantly struck me as the kind of drivel that would be right at home among the ridiculous Make It Or Break It and the horrendous Secret Life of the American Teenager. I’ve never had much success with shows on ABC Family (or shows that would logically fit in with that crowd) so it’s little wonder that Hellcats didn’t work for me. But, if ABC Family has the kind of programming that’s your cup of tea, Hellcats might just be the new show you’ve been looking for.

There were a lot of problems with the pilot, but I’d say chief among them was the thick slathering of storylines that we’ve all seen 187 times before. Seriously, every single character, interpersonal dynamic, plotline, story arc set up, and one-off scene was painfully familiar. This show seems to have borrowed from just about everyone, threw in a few pom-poms and decided it had a new series on its hands. It wasn’t quite as substance-less as anticipated, but what substance it had was borrowed wholesale from somewhere else.

I could go into the specifics of the plot, but the quick and nasty summation involves recommending you re-watch Bring It On (original flavor) instead. Literally, the pilot was so similar that it actually got meta at one point where the lead actress actually watches Bring It On. I kid you not. On the one hand, I had to give them props for acknowledging the obvious and being brassy enough to lampshade this fact. On the other hand, the last thing this pilot needed was yet another reminder that we’ve seen this show before… only better. I realize that just about everything has been done in one way or another at this point, so even the most original show will have some familiar characters and storylines, but this show didn't even try to revinvent the wheel here.

To give a brass tacks account of the tropes we've all seen before... it's hard to even know where to begin.
  • Rebellious/snarky (yet attractive) girl butts heads with the popular kids...
  • ...only to join up with them out of necessity 15 minutes later.
  • Low-key rebel and bubbly queen bee absolutely hate each other...
  • ...but then become the best of friends.
  • Oh, and they just so happen to be roomies! What a coincidence!
  • Odd-couple hi-jinx ensue.
  • Girls bond over personal anecdote surrounding a painful past
  • Girl's best friend is a guy who's just a friend as far as she's concerned...
  • ...only that it's abundantly obvious that he's totally in love with her and will be the long-term will-they-or-won't-they pairing on the show.
  • Rebel girl promises her "bud, that's it" that she won't let the cool kids change who she is. Expect crises of conscience to follow.
  • New guy shows up to run the joint and he had a past romantic relationship with one of his new colleagues (who is surprised, yet smitten).
  • Love quadrangle leads the diva among them to use Blair Waldorf-style tactics to destroy opponent.
  • Booze-hound parental figure that is both loved and loathed by industrious main character is an embarrassment.
  • Primary group/glee club/business/(or in this case) cheerleading squad must perform well or they'll be shut down.
  • Success rests on new girl's shoulders because she brings something new and special to the group.
  • New girl doesn't fit in with the mean girls, so they steal her clothes while she's in the shower (okay, this is starting to get more specific than general, but seriously, we've seen this all before).
  • Class tension based on financial concerns
I could go on and on, but I really tried not to commit too much of this pilot to memory.

I went in with such colossally low expectations that the fact that the pilot had basic elements like, you know, characters having names, won it points in my book. I found myself giving the show credit for things that no other show would receive credit for. Well, I'll be damned! Complete sentences! All the pity-points in the world still didn't win me over. At the very most, it could maybe turn into a guilty pleasure... for someone. Someone who's too young or too cave-dwelling to have seen all the shows and movies that spurred this series. I was bored and unimpressed and found myself fast-forwarding a fair bit here and there. It was so blatantly predictable that I really didn’t miss much. The thing that kills me is that if you’re going to be self-referential enough that you have your characters watch the movie you’ve copied, then these characters should be savvy enough about the genre (well, genres) they’re trapped in to see what’s coming as easily as the audience does. I was annoyed to an eye-rolling degree on many an occasion. If you’re going to get all meta and have your characters be genre savvy, I suggest you stay there, Show. It’s like the movie Scream. The characters knew what genre they were in, knew the mechanics of that particular universe, and worked within it. Here, the characters sporadically know what movie they’re in, but haven’t actually read the whole script. It was annoying.

This review is already far longer than this show warrants, and tells you basically nothing about the show itself (except that it's the latest sequel to Bring It On... which, actually, tells you everything you'll ever need to know), so I’ll just wrap things up. The show had enough depth and a solid enough set-up that it wasn’t a total disaster, but only just barely. It was a generic rehash of every teenage cliché you’ve ever seen, all rolled into one show about cheerleading. Yikes. Too boot, Brian Kinney wasn’t even in the pilot. I certainly won’t be giving this one another shot, but learned that a negative balance of expectations leads to watchable returns. It had more crackle and stability than you’d expect, but was still ultimately pretty vapid and hackneyed. I’ll pass, but I guess if I fell into the demographic this show is actually targeting, I might be more willing to give it a shot. Presumably, the tween set hasn't seen all the stuff that I've seen, so this must seem a lot more original to them than it does to little old 28-year-old me.

Pilot Grade: D+

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Watch, DVR, Skip

Having soldiered on and on and on through the valley of new pilots for this fall, I think it's time to sum things up and give a brass tacks assessment of what worth your time and what isn't. I toyed long and hard with how best to do this. Just evaluate the pilots? Stack pilots up against returning shows? Give an hour-by-hour guide to what to watch? Network by network? Well, all those options seemed pretty daunting, but just looking at the pilots seemed the most useful and least taxing..

For a handy-dandy grid of shows day-by-day, go here.

For clarity's sake, here is how I'm breaking things down. I toyed with the idea of assessing what you should do with a show based on what its timeslot competition had to offer, but everyone watches different shows, so that seemed pretty useless. As such, my determinations of Watch, DVR, or Skip are based solely on my level of excitement about each show and the perceived merits of said show.

WATCH
  • The Event
    While I've heard that the pilot does very little to tell you what "the event" actually is, it looks to be pretty intriguing and could definitely be spoiled by watercooler chatter the next day. It's a good option to watch live.

  • Lone Star
    I can't even quite decide why I'm excited for this one, but all the promotions I've seem have my interests piqued. I'm not sure how sustainable it is over the long-run, but I'm eager to see how it goes.

  • Hawaii Five-0
    This looks like a slick production and a solid addition to a regular line-up. From what I'm hearing, it's one of the few reboots that doesn't have you pining for the original, so it's at least worth giving it a shot.

  • No Ordinary Family
    I'm a little on the fence about this one, what with the disappointing casting decisions, but I've heard good things and see some definite potential for the series.

  • Undercovers
    I was intrigued by the trailer, but not blown away. Honestly though, a spy thriller from JJ Abrams? Yeah, I'll be tuning in, don't you worry.

  • Happy Endings
    I'm not saying this looks spectacular or anything, but as far as new comedies are concerned, this one looks a lot more promising than most. I at least smiled during the trailer and that's more than I can say for most.

  • Nikita
    Because you can't have too many spy thrillers on your plate, right?

  • Friends with Benefits
    It's hard to know what this show will actually look like now that half the regulars are being recast, but Ryan Hansen is always a treat, so I'm hopeful the show works.

  • The Cape
    This is definitely one of the riskier concepts out there, but if they pull it off, I think they could win big. I'm going to give this one a lot of leash because I'm really hoping it succeeds.

  • Terra Nova
    Well, if this show ever actually sees the light of day, it looks to be pretty spectacular...

  • Ride-Along
    Based more on what I hear about the show and its creative team than on the actual trailer, I'm giving this show a tentative "watch" designation. The lead actor may not pull off an American accent very well, but he sure is pretty to look at.

DVR (at least at first, then cut 'em loose or keep 'em)

  • Raising Hope
    As with most comedies, I doubt this will ever fall into "appointment TV" territory, but this looks like it could. At the very least, it would make for a nice "there's nothing on" option.

  • Running Wilde
    Given the creative team alone, I wanted to put this on the MUST WATCH AT ALL COSTS list, but until I see the revamped pilot, I'm relegating this one to DVR status. I'm hopeful they can make this one work, but based on the original trailer, I'm still cringing a little bit...

  • Detroit 1-8-7
    This strikes me as the kind of show that could turn into something I can really sink my teeth into, but it looks equally likely that it could be just another cop show. Till the chips have fallen where they may, I'll be DVRing this sucker.

  • The Defenders
    I'm guessing this one will eventually dip into "skip" territory, but it's a tough call based solely on the trailer. I'll give it a shot, but doubt it will stick.

  • The Whole Truth
    It's a slightly different take on the same old routine, so I guess that's enough reason to give it a shot. I'm less enthused now that Maura Tierney has been confirmed as the lead, though... I enjoyed her well enough on ER, but after Sally Field showed up, I thinjk we all lost a little faith...

  • Off the Map
    I lost most of my faith in Shondaland a long time ago, so the best this show can hope for on my schedule is a tentative spot on my DVR.

  • My Generation
    I teetered between "DVR" and "Skip" for this one, but I'm willing to at least give it a shot. It's a different approach and I hear it's better than it looks, so... DVR it is!

  • Mr. Sunshine
    Based on the people involved, I'm hopeful for this one, but it doesn't strike me as the kind of show that you absolutely have to watch the minute its on.

  • Perfect Couples
    This is another one that I could take or leave. It doesn't look awful or anything, but I'm just not all that excited about this. I suspect it will move from DVR to Skip pretty quickly, but here's hoping for better.

  • Harry's Law
    This is another one that's undergoing some serious changes, so it's hard to make a definitive call. Not only are they recasting some roles, but they're changing the dynamics too. Apparently one of the main guys is now going to be Kathy Bates' son or something... We'll see. I'm still hopeful, but less enthused.

  • Blue Bloods
    I've heard it's quite good, but at the end of the day, it's yet another cop show. I can see where this could turn into more, but at this point, second tier DVR spot is the best I can muster.

  • Mixed Signals
    There's a reason this one is at the bottom of this section and just before "Skip"... I'm really on the fence, but I'm willing to give it a shot.

SKIP

  • Mike & Molly
    I've heard Mike & Molly is likable enough, but I'm not convinced. At its very best, it won't be appointment TV or anything. From what I've seen, it's not worth my time.

  • Chase
    This looks to be a woefully derivative mess. For as much as the cast thinks that they're doing something completely new, I'm afraid I've seen this show before. Only better. One of the regulars (Jesse Metcalf?) actually said that what they're doing is original because no other show has ever focused on US Marshals... Apparently he doesn't watch much TV. If you're hankering for a show about marshals, you'd be doing yourself a favor to skip this mess and get a hold of Justified or In Plain Sight instead. On a side note, who the hell keeps casting Kelli Giddish in shows? Was Past Life not enough for you? Really? I'm guessing she must have the same agent as Robin Tunney and Navi Rawat and that said agent is in actuality some sort of sorcerer.

  • Better with You (formerly Better Together)
    "Skip" just isn't as strong a word as one needs when telling people to avoid this show. "Schedule a Root Canal Instead" seems more apt. And would have a lot more laughs.

  • Hellcats
    See previous rant, mentally copy and paste. (Although I suspect that show probably has its fair share of unintentionally funny moments, the dentist will still be more fun.)

  • Law & Order: Los Angeles
    I think this franchise ran its course about 11 spin-offs ago.

  • Outsourced
    From the trailer alone, I was pretty sure they wouldn't be able to pull off this concept, but now, having heard from people who've seen the full pilot, we can remove all doubt. From what I hear, it's offensive and unfunny and embarrassing from beginning to end. Here's hoping to hell it doesn't catch on...

  • $#*! My Dad Says
    Don't be tempted by this one because of Shatner (I know we're all a little morbidly curious). This looks awful. Skip it. Skip it good.

  • Body of Proof
    I enjoy Dana Delany as much as the next person, but this show looks completely generic and overdone. If you've seen one crime procedural, you've seen them all, basically.

  • Love Bites
    I'm honestly not even sure this show is still going to be produced... The show has been recast, showrunners have exited, scripts have changed... it's a mess. But, I'm pretty sure there's nothing that could happen that would make it any better or that could make it any worse, so whatever it ends up being, it probably isn't worth watching.

  • Outlaw
    I toyed with putting this in the DVR list, but when all is said and done, I'm just not into it. Absurd premise, Jimmie Smits, law show... Nah.

Monday, August 30, 2010

CW Pilots: Both of them!

Oh, CW. Cute, adorable, not-quite-a-network, CW. For all the CW's foibles, and let's face it, there are a lot, the mere fact that I only have two new pilots to review for it makes up for a lot.

With only two offerings, you'd assume they'd both be good, but, well, then I screened the trailer for Hellcats... Wow... Fortunately, their other new venture looks pretty promising, so technically they're batting 50-50, which is actually a better ratio than most... Way to swing for the fences, CW. (Geez,what's with the baseball idioms? That is baseball, right...?)

Anyway, here's how the CW's fall line-up is stacking up so far. At this point, the Vampire Diaries is the only show on the network that I watch, so here's hoping Nikita lives up to expectations. What happened to my Gossip Girl adoration, you ask? Season three. I honestly still have 8 1/2 episodes saved on my DVR, but I just can't bring myself to finish them, so I'm calling this break-up official. Such a shame. The first two seasons were completely awesome, but the third... well... yeah... The Vampire Diaries, by contrast is shaping up to be stronger than ever. Seriously, have you seen the [SPOILER ALERT for those who haven't watched season 1--seriously DO NOT WATCH if you haven't seen the entire season yet, Annie] new promo?! Oh my god, I'm excited! Next week! It really turned out to be oh-so-much-more than a stupid tween vampire love story. Highly recommended.

Anyway, back on track, here's the schedule:

MONDAY
7 pm 90210
8 pm Gossip Girl

TUESDAY
7 pm One Tree Hill
8 pm Life Unexpected

WEDNESDAY
7 pm America's Next Top Model
8 pm Hellcats (new)

THURSDAY
7 pm The Vampire Diaries
8 pm Nikita (new)

FRIDAY
7 pm Smallville
8 pm Supernatural

We'll start with the bad news first... Ugh, I watched this trailer months ago and I can't believe I'm about to watch it again. It's all out of love for you, gentle readers, not the show...


HELLCATS

Description: Stars Alyson Michalka, Ashley Tisdale (of High School Musical infamy), Heather Hemmens, Robbie Jones, and a bunch of other people I've never heard of. From executive producers Kevin Murphy (“Desperate Housewives”), Tom Welling (“Smallville”) and Allan Arkush (“Heroes,” “Crossing Jordan”). The pilot was directed by Allan Arkush.



That was just a commercial for it and yet, I'm guessing most people have already seen enough. For an excruciating, two-minute clip from the pilot, go here. Embedding has been disabled, because, you know, this is the kind of quality content that the CW is going to want to protect...

My Take: Well, I already used the adjective "excruciating," so where does one go from there? Oh my god, this looks awful. The collection of people comprising the creative team is absolutely dumfoudning. Never would I have put this collection of people together and never would I have thought that such a collection would come up with something like this. The basic premise is tired and overdone (I think we settled on 11 sequels to Bring It On before they finally called it quits) and only worked with the first Bring It On because it was largely mocking. "Cheerleaders are dancers... who've gone retarded..." Classic. This mess? Not so much. Oh good god, seriously, I barely made it through that two minute clip linked prior. "Cringe-worthy" doesn't do it justice. I felt completely embarrassed for everyone on the screen and just kept glancing at the time bar to see how much longer I had to suffer. In case this was just too subtle, this looks to be one of the worst pilots of the season, if not all eternity. I don't know that I'll even be able to bring myself to screen the pilot. It's not even painful in a hilarious, this-is-so-bad-it's-a-blast-to-make-fun-of kind of way. It's just bad. And is yet another in the long line of shows over the past decade that seem hell-bent on making frivolous bitches the societal ideal. Don't get me wrong, when done right, that can be a lot of guilty fun, but here? I have the unrelenting sensation to set things on fire. PASS.


NIKITA

Description: Stars Maggie Q (Mission Impossible III), Lyndsy Fonseca (she plays the daughter of Narrator Ted on How I Met Your Mother), Shane West (ER), Aaron Stanford, Ashton Holmes, and Tiffany Hines. From executive producers Craig Silverstein (“Bones,” “K-Ville”), Danny Cannon (“CSI: Crime Scene Investigation,” “Chuck”), McG (“Supernatural,” “Chuck,” “The O.C.,” “Charlie’s Angels”), and Peter Johnson (“Supernatural,” “Chuck”). The pilot was directed by Danny Cannon.



My Take: Color me intrigued. Granted, it has more than a few Alias-style overtones (good hell, the murdered lover's name is Daniel... again), but I loved Alias, so I say bring it. I'm not too familiar with previous iterations of La Femme Nikita, however, so odds are, Alias stole most of its trump cards in the first place. Provenance aside, this looks pretty slick and sexy and I'm totally on board. I love a good game of cat and mouse and when it's on the scale of a spy-thriller, I'm even more intrigued. I'm not all that familiar with Maggie Q, but from the trailer alone, I'm already buying her as the deadly Nikita. She has tremendous presence onscreen and looks more than capable of anchoring such a demanding show. The supporting cast looks equally strong, and was that Melinda Clarke I spied? Excellent. It was easy to track down the executive producers on the show, but singling out a showrunner has proved more difficult. All signs point to a solid creative team, however, so I'm confident they can pull off the difficult move from a film to a series. All the same, it'll be interesting to see what they do with this story season to season because the basic conceit seems untenable over the long-run. The fact that I'm already thinking about future seasons, however, is a very good sign. If I had to choose a genre that I'd be happy to have more entrants, the spy thriller would definitely win out over lawyer shows, cop shows, and medical dramas, so I say, bring it on. Although, I am a little afraid that they're all starting to bleed together a bit in my mind. While watching the pilot, I could hear Michael Westen in my head saying, "In a fight, you have to be careful not to break the little bones in your hand on someone's face. That's why I like bathrooms... lots of hard surfaces." Way to watch TV and use it to your advantage, Nikita. Long story short, this one looks like it could have some serious potential. Count me in.

I'm actually quite fond of Alex O'Loughlin...

Wowzers, I don't often get a lot of comments on this blog, but the Alex O'Loughlin fans really turned out for my last post! I think my comments may have been a bit misconstrued or maybe my definitions are a bit off...

I actually quite adore Alex O'Loughlin and can't believe I spelled his name wrong. (In my defense, I pulled the cast list off a show description on the web, and that's how they had spelled it. I should have questioned their spelling, but took it at face value rather than putting in the effort to look it up for sure.) I was a late-comer to Moonlight, but really enjoyed it once I got started. I was completely bummed that it got canceled and kept hoping Alex would find a steady gig that was truly deserving of his talents. His many talents.. which were not showcased on the awful beyond awful Three Rivers. I couldn't agree more that it wasn't his fault that the show was terrible or that it got canceled. Indeed, he was the only redeeming quality. When that show premiered, I lamented the fact that Alex had found himself in such a poor role and was glad it got canceled because that would mean he could move onto better projects.

In terms of him being a "showkiller," based on reader response, I think my definition of the term must be a bit off (or simply not as hyperbolic as it really is). As I understand it, the status of "showkiller" has very little, if anything, to do with the talents or appeal of the person in question. Nathan Fillion, one of my absolute favorite people in world, is totally a showkiller. In my mind, it's simply someone who finds him/herself in projects that get canceled quickly (whether justifiably or not). One definition I found online reads, "A show killer is basically someone who bounces from television show to television show because each one gets canceled." And indeed, this website lists the actors it considers the top 8 showkillers, Alex O'Loughlin among them. Many of the actors on the list are superb and are people who bring a tremendous amount to the table. In my mind, I've never chalked showkiller status up to the relative abilities of the actors with said dubious distinction, but rather to unfortunate writing, poor circumstances, or, as is so often the case, some completely undefinable element that gets a show canceled too soon. In looking around further on the web though, there's certainly room for interpretation of the definition (everyone seems to have his/her own take), so I can see where my post provoked some ire.

Indeed, in seeing that my feelings about Mr. O'Loughlin were delivered with verbal butterfingers in my last post, I was pretty dismayed as well. He has a dedicated legion of fans, myself among them. I'm really hopeful that Hawaii Five-0 is as solid as it seems and that our fine friend Alex has finally found himself in a show that won't get killed. Honestly, if CBS just wants to put an Alex O'Loughlin screensaver with rotating pictures on the screen, I'd be fine with that. :)

I think I sense a spin-off in the works... The awesomest spin-off of all time...

Friday, August 27, 2010

CBS Pilots: Changing things up a bit...

Not only is CBS changing things up a bit, but so am I. Rather than break up the CBS slate of pilots into two digestible blogposts, I'm just going put the whole magilla into one. What can I say, we're in the home stretch and I'm getting lazy.

CBS, however, is actually putting forth more effort than usual. Rather than simply spinning off their library of crime procedurals into even more crime procedurals, they've actually added some variety to their fall line-up. Oh, don't you worry, the bulk of it still fits into the standard TV genres, but at least it's not all from the same genre for once. Hopefully the success of The Good Wife is what bolstered their confidence, but really, I'm guessing it's the sagging ratings of their aging line-up that led to some toe-dips out of the box. Whatever the reason, it's a nice change.

Here is how the new fall schedule is stacking up:

MONDAY
7:00 pm How I Met Your Mother
7:30 pm Rules Of Engagement
8:00 pm Two And A Half Men
8:30 pm Mike & Molly (new)
9:00 pm Hawaii Five-0 (new)

TUESDAY
7:00 pm NCIS
8:00 pm NCIS: Los Angeles
9:00 pm The Good Wife

WEDNESDAY
7:00 pm Survivor
8:00 pm Criminal Minds
9:00 pm The Defenders (new)

THURSDAY
7:00 pm The Big Bang Theory
7:30 pm $#*! My Dad Says (new)
8:00 pm CSI
9:00 pm The Mentalist

FRIDAY
7:00 pm Medium
8:00 pm CSI: NY
9:00 pm Blue Bloods (new)

SUNDAY
7:00 pm The Amazing Race
8:00 pm Undercover Boss
9:00 pm CSI: Miami

Why CBS does some of the things it does in terms of scheduling, I'll never understand, but whatever. I realize that both NCIS and The Good Wife skew older, but I can't imagine it's really the same demographic of older. Their placement of Hawaii Five-0 also has me scratching my head. It's one thing for people to stick around after the god-awful, but shockingly successful Two and a Half Men for Mike & Molly, but it's quite another to think they'll stick around after that. If Mike & Molly is a dud, then a lot of the lead-out from Two and a Half Men could be seriously diminished. It seems like a risky move to me. I would have paired Hawaii Five-0 with a returning show directly. Whatever. I'm sure it'll do fine regardless (barring Alex O'Laughlin's showkilling abilities, that is).

Anyway, on with the show! ...er, shows!

HAWAII FIVE-0

Description: Stars perennial showkiller Alex O'Laughlin, Lost alum Daniel Dae Kim, Scott Caan (Ocean's Eleven), and Grace Park (Battlestar Galactica). The behind-the-scenes talent has changed hands a few times, but I believe they settled on Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci to script a pilot episode, and Peter Lenkov (CSI: NY) to serve as series showrunner.



My Take: Well, first off, no one can seem to decide if that's a zero or an "o" in the title... I saw a tweet that CBS issued an official memo, but I can't remember what is said and neither can anyone else. I believe it's supposed to be a zero, but that looks awfully funny depending on what font you're in. Anyway... This is a remake/reimagining of the original series from the 70's. I have to admit, I have never seen even a single episode of the original, so I came into this latest incarnation without any substantial pre-conceived notions. Coming in blind generally helps more than it hurts because shows don't have anything to live up to or exceed in my mind. As such, the trailer was pretty solid and managed to pique my interest (for more reasons than the simple fact that Spike appears to be the baddie-of-the-week in the pilot--yay!). Unlike the majority of cop shows coming down the pike, Hawaii Five-0 seems to be taking the splashy, fun-loving, thrill ride approach, rather than the gritty, nastily realistic approach of its genre compatriots. It's a bit of a throwback to older buddy cop shows, which I guess makes sense, what with it being a remake and all. I wouldn't say I'm on the edge of my seat for this one, but it looks like some low-commitment, carefree fun. I've always liked Alex O'Laughlin, even if his latest career moves have been... uh... how to put this gently...? Okay, he's a showkiller, plain and simple, but I think the shows he's been on had already signed DNRs, so he's a mercy showkiller. I don't think anyone is going to miss Three Rivers... Hopefully, third time really is the charm for O'Laughlin's relationship with CBS. If ever a show he was associated with looked like it could break his bad streak, I'd say it's this. It looks a little shallow, but that's what most people seem to like. I'd like to believe that it's a serial, but I'm willing to wager it'll have a bad-guy-of-the-week and get wrapped up in a nice, neat little bow at the end of every hour. Sigh. If they do it right, that's fine with me. I've learned to accept the fact that most Americans can't bring themselves to follow a storyline for more than one episode at a time, so I've learned to enjoy encapsulated episodes in their own right. Long story short, this looks like a slick, expensive production with a solid cast. I've never watched CSI: NY, so in terms of showrunners, I can't really offer much of an opinion, but I think we can all thank our lucky stars that at least he's not coming from CSI: Miami. I think this show will do very well and just might have enough panache and budget to pull this off. I'll definitely be giving it a shot.


MIKE & MOLLY

Description: From Chuck Lorre (“Two and a Half Men,” and “The Big Bang Theory”), stars Billy Gardell and Melissa McCarthy (Sookie from Gilmore Girls, not True Blood (yeah, cause that wouldn't be weird at all)), and the resplendent Swoozie Kurtz.



My Take: Okay, wow. I shouldn't be surprised considering Lorre's other shows, but Mike & Molly looks absolutely terrible (The Big Bang Theory is okay, I guess, in small doses, but Two and Half Men is positively pestilent). I didn't even crack a smile during this trailer. I'm a little conflicted though because I keep reading things on the web that says the full pilot is actually pretty charming and funny. Based solely on what I've seen so far, I find this hard to believe. Near as I can tell, it's just going to be 23 minutes of fat jokes and lame relationship anecdotes. I love Melissa McCarthy and her comedic timing is unimpeachable, but I'm afraid the jokes she was given fell pretty flat. She tried, she really did, but it all just struck me as predictable, forced, and stupid. The only reason I will even be screening the pilot is because I have heard some good reviews, but I'll be absolutely shocked if it's anything but painful to watch. Honestly, getting through the three minute trailer was fairly difficult... Also, on a purely shallow note, I have a hard time watching unattractive people engaged in romantic relationships, and the guy playing Mike is thoroughly unappealing... Sookie can do better, methinks. Much better. In all honesty though, I doubt I'll be around long enough for it be an issue.


BLUE BLOODS

Description: Stars Tom Selleck, Donnie Wahlberg, Will Estes, and Bridget Moynahan. From executive producers Robin Green and Mitch Burgess (The Sopranos).



My Take: Man alive, exactly how many new cop shows and I going to have to watch this fall? At last count, I think we hit 17. The glut makes it difficult to really get excited about any of them at all. Anyway, I find that I'm even less excited about this one than most, but I can't quite pinpoint why exactly. There's something off-putting about police officers in general (police work and military experience are pre-existing conditions as far as I'm concerned and are not covered under my dating policy) and unlawfully brutal police officers are even worse. Seriously, just hearing Tom Selleck say the words "enhanced interrogation techniques" made me a little ill. Which, to the show's credit, is probably the point. They are trying to stir a debate into the nature of justice, which is commendable, but not exactly appointment TV for me. I'm not really on the fence in this particular debate, so hearing it discussed at length doesn't really appeal to me. Anyway, I don't suppose that's going to be the central aspect of every single episode or anything and it really does point to a deeper, more conscientious narrative construct than most shows. Maybe it boils down to Donnie Wahlberg and his total lack of any and all appeal... Sigh. I'm mildly intrigued by the multi-generational family and the dynamics of a "family business" of sorts, but I'm not sure this is a capacity in which I'd want to explore it. In spite of Wahlberg, the on-air talent is seasoned and solid. The creative team has similarly impressive pedigrees. I never watched much of The Sopranos, but I'm well aware of its sustained quality over the years. I think the problem here is that this creative team is moving from the freedom of HBO to the confines of primetime network TV. Gritty crime dramas have a hard time being reined in by standards and practices in general, but for a team like this, I think they're going to have a hell of a time translating their style to a more family-friendly format. My other concern is that this show is premiering on Fridays at 9 pm, so I think finding an audience is going to be difficult. CBS has a better track record with this timeslot than other networks, however, so if anyone could pull this off, it's them. I'm not all that excited for this one, but I can definitely see where it could be better than it looks.


THE DEFENDERS

Description: Stars Jim Belushi, Jerry O'Connell, Jurnee Smollett, Tanya Fischer, and Gillian Vigman. Created by a couple of people I've never heard of...



My Take: Okay, so when I say CBS is changing things up a bit, I mean in terms of the CBS network brand only. In terms of TV, yeah, no, they're just as pathetically "business as usual" as the rest of the airwaves. Sigh. Here we have yet another lawyer show. Dear TV Writers, there are scads of workplaces that would make for interesting show settings, but you only seem to think there are three: lawyers, cops, and doctors. If you could casually dip your toe into something, anything else, it would be greatly appreciated. Honestly, this is getting ridiculous. Anyway... this show is a legal show, but it's totally different, see, because it's told from the point of view of the defense! Sooo... not different at all, then? I don't know. It's hard to be objective at this point. This looks like your standard client-of-the-week lawyer show, but I suppose with a more low-brow edge to it than usual. It looks like it could be a fun, low-commitment show, but at this point, I'm so weary of this genre that I just can't bring myself to be excited about it. Really, The Good Wife is the only recent legal drama that has brought something new and interesting to the table, and that's why I love it. This doesn't look like a bad show or anything, and the two leads have an obvious buddy chemistry going that's appealing, but I just don't know that I really care. What aspect of the trailer piqued my interest the most? The fact that Natalie Zea was in it. She isn't listed as a series regular or anything, so I assume she's only in the pilot, which is a good thing for Justified's sake, but not such a good thing for The Defenders. I'm sure I'll end up giving this show a shot, but as with the deluge of cop shows, I find myself looking for something newer and fresher to explore. With legal, doctor, and cop shows? I'm pretty sure I've seen it all.


$#*! MY DAD SAYS

Description: Stars William Shatner, Will Sasso, Nicole Sullivan, and Stephanie Lemelin. From the creators of Will & Grace.



My Take: Yeah, you lost me at "Based on the Twitter sensation"... Ugh. While this isn't the worst comedy trailer I've seen this year, it's pretty damn close. This looks pretty awful. I actually quite liked Will & Grace back in the day, and the creative team has other impressive credits as well, so I'm not sure what happened here. Maybe it's the multi-camera format, maybe it's the oppressive laugh track, maybe it's the weak-ass concept, maybe it's the Shatner, but whatever it is, it isn't working. Geez, even Nicole Sullivan is awful in this, and I quite like her in general. As with most CBS comedies, I don't think this one is going to win me over. And, from what I've been hearing on the web, it won't be winning over anyone else either. It's a lame concept, with forced, predictable jokes, and an unsuccessful attempt at giving it some heart as well. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll pass.