Archive for October 2010
Checking in: Mike and Molly
Posted on: October 26, 2010
When I first reviewed Mike and Molly, I commented that two shows were arguing with each other in the pilot episode: one a show about two ordinary people who fall in love, and one a show about fat people. My note was that if the show about fat people persisted, I’d be out, but that I had hope given some commentary I had heard from the showrunners.
I barrelled through four additional episodes yesterday and today, and I’m still not sure which show is winning. Especially in episodes 2 and 3, the writing is still cruel to the show’s heavier leads. The laugh track is way too loud and finds the show way funnier than I do. And the supporting cast is still so broadly drawing on stereotypes: the floozy mother, the drunk and obnoxious sister, the jealous partner, sassy black grandma. In the episode featuring Mike and Molly’s first date, Molly gets high on codeine and diet pills (don’t think too much about that one), and the resulting date is so painfully awkward and loud that I almost couldn’t watch it.
However, in the moments where the show remembers that it’s about two ordinary people, it pulls out all the stops. The fledging relationship, their respective hangups and anxieties, and the realities of dating are handled with surprising sweetness and tact. They make jokes about themselves too, but the self-depreciating humour is much more pleasant to watch than the cruel jokes from the others. And while the supporting cast is too broadly drawn and often over-played, Billy Gardell and Melissa McMarthy as leads are poignant, honest, and played on just the right note. Each is becoming better developed and finding great depth.
The show still isn’t outright funny. For a comedy, it is sorely lacking in any moments that made me laugh out loud. But I am a sucker for the sweetness. I’m sticking for a bit. I want to see if they can pull it out of the fat jokes and derive real comedy out of ordinary people.
Just a quick post today to let you know that ABC cancelled The Whole Truth last night. I had been dragging my feet on watching and reviewing the second episode because the first one was so tiring. I’ll probably put it in a low priority to watch another episode and offer cancellation thoughts, and that will be that.
Checking in: Better With You
Posted on: October 24, 2010
Since I’m way ridiculously behind on tv, I had four episodes of Better With You queued up before I got around to watching. I intended to watch two episodes, then review, but I was still undecided after two so I watched all four. And while there might be a magical factor of interest from watching four episodes of one show in a row (which, in case you’re curious, is how I got hooked on Dollhouse), I think Better With You might be growing on me.
I wasn’t wild about the second episode, but by the third, I think the cast had fallen into a rhythm. The awkward first steps of any pilot seem to be abating as everyone finds their characters. Like Modern Family, the show is better when the family is all together, or when they find unusual combinations of family members to put together. And while the cast all brings some serious game, Joanna Garcia had me nearly tearful at her scene in episode 5 where she admits to her pregnant belly that she isn’t ready for motherhood.
As I’ve mentioned before, I’m not crazy about stupidity as a point of humour, and my sole note for this show through four episodes was “Casey is an idiot.” But either they toned it down or he’s growing on me too, because he wasn’t bothering me nearly as much by the end. Both parents seem fairly broadly drawn, but I think they are figuring it out.
Better With You isn’t nearly as good as the other ABC Wednesday night comedies, and it’s not laugh-out-loud funny yet. I can see why ABC thinks it fits into their block of family comedy though. I think it has room to improve and grow into its timeslot. I’ll stick for a bit.
Checking in: Undercovers
Posted on: October 24, 2010
In my initial review of Undercovers, I talked about how the show has a lot going for it, but for some reason I wasn’t riveted and I couldn’t really pinpoint why. I’ve now seen the second and third episodes, and I think I have it figured it. It’s because Undercovers is apparently a spy procedural.
I don’t think I knew that this genre existed, though I suppose it’s a subset of the cop procedural drama inasmuch as every episode has a case/murder/kidnap/crime of the week that has to be solved and resolved in 42 minutes. Very little is carrying between the episodes, including both plot points and character continuity; for example, episode 2 has a subplot about Steven being unable to read instruction manuals, which is gone in episode 3. The marital troubles that Steven and Samantha had in the pilot are all gone in episodes 2 and 3.
This gripe really has more to do with the nature of procedural drama than it does about this particular show, so I’ll be a bit more specific. The show still looks good. They’ve got some fancy special effects and computer whizbang (though not in the same category as NCIS: LA or Hawaii Five-O, if you’re following either of those), and make decent use of their technology. The locations look fine. They don’t have much in the way of awesome fight scenes, but maybe the stunts are coming up. The leads are strong and capable.
The supporting cast is still too broadly drawn (I’m still unsure what the difference between Hoyt and Leo is), and the catering business that serves as their cover either needs to be more in the story or a lot less. The leads bicker constantly, but it’s not really the bickering that’s a problem, because bickering can be funny. The real problem is that the bickering feels forced. The show is using it as a way for the audience to connect with the characters, but since the show is brand new, we don’t understand either character well enough to care about the bickering. Also the obstacles are just too obvious: their handler gripes and groans at them in all three episodes, threatening to take them off their cases for various infractions, but provides no support and seems oblivious to to the fact that he’s the one who brought them in to begin with.
As it’s time for me to begin culling shows from my ever-exploding TiVo, I’m out on this one. I gave it longer than some other shows because it’s JJ Abrams, but there’s nothing in it to keep me watching from week to week. The episodes could be completely out of order and no one would know. Procedurals just aren’t my thing anymore. If you’re fine with the procedural element, don’t need any carryover plot points, and aren’t bothered by the dialogue (“is it the BLACK or the RED wire?!”), then it’s probably fine for you as a fluff Wednesday piece. It’s okay, but it’s not for my regular rotation.
Checking in: Hawaii Five-O
Posted on: October 21, 2010
I marathoned three episodes of Hawaii Five-O last night, and in doing so, I’ve pinpointed my problem with the show: I honestly can’t think of anything that really distinguished one episode from another. Essentially this is my problem with cop procedural shows and is the reason that I have been slowly removing them from my regular viewing rotation.
However, I’ll offer a few comments. Five episodes in, the show still looks really good. I love the on-location shooting in Hawaii; the blue skies and white sand beaches are doing my heart some good as fall arrives here. They’ve maintained a decent budget for stunts and explosions. They are still making excellent use of local Hawaiian talent. The main cast is developing a rapport, so they are turning the show a bit closer to buddy-cop. And as procedurals go, it’s quite well-made. I’m not wild about the precedent that this elite group of officers doesn’t have to follow normal procedure and can just get.the.job.done., but maybe that’s just me being too picky about my entertainment.
I’ll mention a few things that I don’t like as well. Alex O’Loughlin is a bit further away from charismatic man than CBS would like us to believe, and he plays the serious brow-furrowed leader a bit more heavily than I’d like. While I understand that Scott Caan’s character is the comic relief of the show, I think he could throttle down a little because he’s trying too hard and it shows. And as I said, nothing much distinguishes one episode from another. That’s probably fine for most people, but it’s a little dull for me.
I’ll stick with it for now, but more out of a desire to see Hawaii than out of real interest. I’ll be watching while talking to people or folding laundry. It’s a fine show, but just a bit outside my particular interest realm.
Checking in: No Ordinary Family
Posted on: October 21, 2010
As I mentioned in my initial review, I had high hopes for No Ordinary Family. In a crop of mediocre and mostly run-of-the-mill new shows on network tv, NoF seemed to be aimed at something a little different. I liked the focus on family dynamics in addition to the effects of superpowers. It also appeared to be aimed away from the problems that Heroes experienced after its first season.
I’ve seen the second and third episodes now, and I’m still liking the show. I’m not overwhelmed by it, and it doesn’t kill me to wait a week before I watch an episode, but I am finding it entertaining. The show is hinting at a deeper mythology or ongoing plotline, which engages my need for a serialized story. And I’m really digging the special effects, especially those displayed when the son JJ is using his brain powers.
A few things still aren’t clicking. The obstacles in front of our family foursome are feeling a little forced. (Really, JJ’s teacher calls him stupid and makes unsubstantiated cheating accusations? Really, Jim’s coworkers make cracks about how inconsequential he is to law enforcement? And really, Jim told the other detective about his power right there in his driveway?) On top of that, I’m not sure the show has enough meat or enough story to tell. It’s almost like they aren’t buying the story that they are selling. I’d like to see them go all in. It’s a superhero story: embrace it. Let’s get this story moving.
I’m still feeling good about this one. I’m hoping that these initial episodes are tentative baby steps and that meatier, more interesting stories are coming. I’m sticking for a bit.
Snap Review: Blue Bloods
Posted on: October 14, 2010
After far too much time, I’ve finally gotten around to watching the pilot of Blue Bloods. I’m as surprised as anyone to report that it’s actually quite good.
Blue Bloods is a police procedural featuring a family with three generations in the NYPD. While cop shows are no longer my particular cup of tea (as I’m offended by the idea that audiences can’t maintain the thread of a serialized story week-to-week), I’m still able to appreciate a well-made procedural, and I like this one. I like shows that feature ensemble cast of a big and diverse family. I like seeing the play of family dynamics interacting with professional lives. The cast is quite well-drawn.
The pilot takes itself pretty seriously and leaned a bit too much on overdramatism for my taste, but the story did move pretty quickly and maybe the drama will wear off. Also, while some of the pilot was definitely shot on a green screen, I’m fairly sure that some of it was shot in NYC, and we all know what a fan I am of shooting on location.
The only thing dragging it off my radar is that it’s still a cop show and I probably don’t need more of those in my life. However, they do begin and hint at a larger overarching story, so I’m interested to see if they are able to blend the two genres for a good show.
I’m in for a bit.
Checking in: Running Wilde
Posted on: October 12, 2010
I think Running Wilde falls into the category of comedy that I don’t get. I understand intellectually that someone finds it funny, yet I have no idea where the jokes are. It doesn’t make me laugh. Five minutes after a joke, I think, “Ohh, maybe someone found -that- funny.” Will Arnett’s character is stuck-up and I don’t need to see a spoiled man-child on my tv every week. Keri Russell’s character is sanctimonious and obnoxious. I just don’t get it. I think other people will enjoy it, but it’s just not for me.
I’m out.
Snap Review: No Ordinary Family
Posted on: October 5, 2010
Of all the shows of the fall 2010 season, I was most looking forward to No Ordinary Family. It was the show that seemed to have the most promise, and fit neatly into a superhero genre for which I’m a sucker. I heard a few initial reviews and tempered my expectations somewhat. I’ve now seen the pilot episode, and while I’m glad I lowered my expectations a little, I’m also happy to say that I really enjoyed it.
For the first 15 minutes, I thought it was way too on-the-nose. The show was doling out so much exposition before the second act that it seemed overdone and spoonfed. And the powers seemed to come together so obviously: Mom doesn’t have enough time for both family and work, so now she can run really fast. Dad feels inadequate at work and as a husband and father, and now he can catch bullets and leap buildings. But by minute 50 when the son JJ gets his power, I’d been turned around on this. It’s not that the show is trying to be obvious. It’s spotlighting that sometimes our greatest failure can become our greatest strength. That sometimes in the moment where we are weakest, we find the power from somewhere else to become strong. I like that. It’s a strong sense of hope.
The show has a great special effects budget and it was a very good-looking pilot. Michael Chiklis and Julie Benz are pros and fit together well. I don’t mind the mockumentary style, though I’d be fine with dumping it as well. The supporting characters have distinct personalities and are well-drawn.
And it’s just fun. The problem with the show Heroes was that the story treated the superpowers as something that no one would ever want to have. NoF doesn’t have this problem, or not yet anyway. It’s fun to see.
No Ordinary Family isn’t perfect. The pilot had moments where it was a little overacted, especially in the first half hour. I don’t quite get why the detectives that Chiklis’ character works for treat him with such contempt. (Sketch artists are essential, no?) And they spent far too much time outlining that the leads were having marital problems, where it might’ve been nicer to do it with a bit of subtlety. But it has promise. I hope it lives up to it.
I’m in for awhile.
Snap Review: Outlaw
Posted on: October 5, 2010
I’m not even sure what to say about this show. The most conservative judge on the Supreme Court resigns from the court after his father dies, changes his entire belief system, collects a ragtag band of clerks and followers, and sets out across the country to right the nation’s wrongs. It’s unclear whether he has a license to practice law in all states. I don’t know why the clerks and investigators are willing to give up their entire careers to follow him. He uses phrases like, “sometimes the rules don’t lead to the truth” and “you can’t put the system before a man’s life.” He’s sarcastic and frankly a little obnoxious.
Let’s be honest here. This is a legal procedural star vehicle for Jimmy Smits. He’s a good-looking man, but I’m not in the demographic that finds him irrestible. On top of that, a procedural of any kind is going to have to be pretty darn amazing to keep me tuning in. This isn’t amazing. It’s not well thought-out. It almost feels like the show is just winging it from scene to scene.
I have approximately one zillion hours of tv to watch, and I was bored on this one after 20 mins. I’m out.
Dee on TV 