Lone Star: About a week after this Fox series debuted (and bombed), I fired up a DVRtini and watched the first 10 minutes or so of the pilot before I decided, eh, life is too short. It needed to grab me a lot more considering it was all but D.O.A. A few days later, it was all INCLUDING D.O.A. Maybe this would have been a better fit on FX or something.
Blue Bloods: This is kind of like "The Defenders," only not as ludicrous. It's entertaining, nonessential, and one I might watch given the right circumstances and wouldn't walk out on if someone else had it on. And it just feels like a CBS show.
The cast is strong, and the effort to raise issues is admirable. However, the emphasis on the family part of this family of cops (and a D.A.) will probably mean major compression of the procedural part of the show, and the cases might be weak as a result.
Also, the pilot illustrated the difference between a truly ambitious show and a fairly ordinary one. "Blue Bloods" offered convenient resolutions for its characters; while there are clearly ongoing problems for this family, the main story was wrapped up rather tidily. I don't expect every show to be a dark, complex meditation on life's failures and inherent ambiguity, but I'm just saying.
Another problem I had with the debut episode: A few illogical plot points that distracted me, including one that looks to loom over the whole season (or at least a good stretch) because it is at the heart of a big conspiracy/mystery storyline. But I don't want to sound too negative. "Blue Bloods" isn't a must watch, but it's a decent enough cop show, and I have to say I just like the networks making an effort to put scripted programming on Friday nights.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
New Fall TV, Part 2: Dramas
Continuing where I left off yesterday, here are some quick takes on the broadcast networks' new fall offerings.
The Defenders: I wanted to hate this show, mainly because of the presence of Mr. Smarm, Jerry O'Connell. Coming from a guy, this is probably provoking the worst karma possible, but when I saw him preening in the CBS fall preview special, I found myself wishing that he would come down with a massive bald spot in the next few years.
But if you're looking for Jim Belushi hate, look elsewhere, especially since this role and this show seem tailor made for him (the question of why CBS is telling its tailors to build shows around Jim Belushi is a topic for another day). The pilot of "The Defenders" was fast, entertaining, and often preposterous. But I did chuckle a few times, and there were worse ways I could have spent an hour. I won't seek out future episodes myself, but if Mrs. Shark wants to watch it and I'm around, I won't leave the room. I love the fact that she likes Belushi; talk about keeping the bar at a reasonable height for me!
Chase: There wasn't enough in the first hour to keep me coming back. Jerry Bruckheimer wants us to think this is 45 MINUTES OF PURE ADRENALINE, but despite some decent chase scenes, it feels hollow. The lead actress is appealing, but the rest of the cast does nothing for me, and the whole effect is like watching a more intense USA Network show.
Detroit 1-8-7: I had a bad feeling when I discovered the show was rejiggered to eliminate a "we're filming a reality show" angle of this fictional cop show. Perhaps the wildly inconsistent tone of the pilot stems from the scramble to change it. Most of the things that sort of work in this show are "just another cop show" aspects, not distinctive enough to make this a regular watch. I was turned off by the uneasy juxtaposition of lighter moments with the ongoing, often-grim details of a squad of homicide cops. It can be pulled off, as in "Homicide" or "The Wire," both gritty shows which include natural-feeling moments of humor. But the varying tones in the "1-8-7" pilot seemed only to be there to build to a predictable "shock" ending, one that actually irritated me because it felt so contrived and inappropriate except as a device to raise eyebrows. In short, this is no "Homicide" or "The Wire."
More to come this week...
The Defenders: I wanted to hate this show, mainly because of the presence of Mr. Smarm, Jerry O'Connell. Coming from a guy, this is probably provoking the worst karma possible, but when I saw him preening in the CBS fall preview special, I found myself wishing that he would come down with a massive bald spot in the next few years.
But if you're looking for Jim Belushi hate, look elsewhere, especially since this role and this show seem tailor made for him (the question of why CBS is telling its tailors to build shows around Jim Belushi is a topic for another day). The pilot of "The Defenders" was fast, entertaining, and often preposterous. But I did chuckle a few times, and there were worse ways I could have spent an hour. I won't seek out future episodes myself, but if Mrs. Shark wants to watch it and I'm around, I won't leave the room. I love the fact that she likes Belushi; talk about keeping the bar at a reasonable height for me!
Chase: There wasn't enough in the first hour to keep me coming back. Jerry Bruckheimer wants us to think this is 45 MINUTES OF PURE ADRENALINE, but despite some decent chase scenes, it feels hollow. The lead actress is appealing, but the rest of the cast does nothing for me, and the whole effect is like watching a more intense USA Network show.
Detroit 1-8-7: I had a bad feeling when I discovered the show was rejiggered to eliminate a "we're filming a reality show" angle of this fictional cop show. Perhaps the wildly inconsistent tone of the pilot stems from the scramble to change it. Most of the things that sort of work in this show are "just another cop show" aspects, not distinctive enough to make this a regular watch. I was turned off by the uneasy juxtaposition of lighter moments with the ongoing, often-grim details of a squad of homicide cops. It can be pulled off, as in "Homicide" or "The Wire," both gritty shows which include natural-feeling moments of humor. But the varying tones in the "1-8-7" pilot seemed only to be there to build to a predictable "shock" ending, one that actually irritated me because it felt so contrived and inappropriate except as a device to raise eyebrows. In short, this is no "Homicide" or "The Wire."
More to come this week...
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
New Fall TV: So far, so blah (Comedies)
Here are some brief thoughts on shows about which I want to comment without doing a full "Should you watch" post. Today, let's look at the new network comedies.
Mike and Molly: Somewhere in this Chuck Lorre sitcom is a sweet if not all that hilarious romantic comedy about two overweight people who meet and fall in love. Unfortunately, it's buried under a barrage of crude gags. The fat jokes received all the attention from critics, but the pilot also rewarded viewers with lines about flatulence, oral sex, and pot smoking.
You can make a funny show with that kind of humor (I'm sure Chuck Lorre has a vanity card in the works explaining that this IS the funny show), but you need sharper jokes and a funnier cast. The leads in this show are likable but don't seem capable of carrying a sitcom without help--help they're not getting.
Better with You: I was stunned at how UNterrible the pilot was. The series was firmly ensconced in my "10 most annoying new shows" list, but in retrospect, perhaps judging the cast based on their smarmy appearance at an ABC fall premiere hype event wasn't the best gauge of the show's quality.
This isn't the most sophisticated relationship comedy, but it is funny. The editing rhythms of the dialogue feel very 1990s, but that's almost a breath of fresh air right now. It'll be interesting to see if the show continues the gimmick it emphasized heavily in the pilot: Comparing and contrasting 3 couples in various stages of relationships. I may find out soon because I'll watch this week, and I may add this to my lineup. The fact that it's on the same night and network as "Modern Family" might help keep it on my radar.
Raising Hope: I think this garnered some critical praise, but I don't see much here to make me revisit it. It reminded me of creator Greg Garcia's previous "My Name Is Earl," and that's not a good thing. I think there's place on TV for working-class comedy--I sure want there to be, anyway--but does "Raising Hope" love its characters or ridicule them?
Oh, there was a nice "aww" moment near the end of the pilot as Martha Plimpton's grizzled "suddenly a grandma" character serenades the baby her son has brought home determined to keep and raise. But it seemed contrived, calculated to inject "heart" into the show (every crude comedy has to have "heart" now with the exception of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia"), when you consider other moments.
For example, Plimpton's character is a maid. It's good to establish that early, but must it be with her telling another, "You do realize we're cleaning toilets, right?" as they carpool to work? Or when the lead character and new father brings a shopping cart to a grocery store, he tells a cashier his family uses it as a grill (among other things). Ha ha ha, but then later when the cart is missing, his cousin interjects with disappointment that he was gonna make burgers that night. It's more like overkill than a clever callback.
This one's not for me.
Running Wilde: Another FOX comedy with a punning title, another disappointment. The pedigree behind this one--from the people who brought you "Arrested Development" may have Raised Hope, but the finished work quashed it. It's ridiculous premise could be acceptable with funnier writing, but the main problem is the decision to build a sitcom around Will Arnett. The guy is acceptable, even effective, in smaller doses, but there's no way he, not to say his by-design-unlikable character, will hold up over a whole season of being the lead. Keri Russell is cute, but the show expects us to believe that her ultraliberal goody-two-shoes would fall hard for Arnett's self-absorbed privileged rich son. The chemistry doesn't support it so far, and I won't be coming back to see if it develops.
Mike and Molly: Somewhere in this Chuck Lorre sitcom is a sweet if not all that hilarious romantic comedy about two overweight people who meet and fall in love. Unfortunately, it's buried under a barrage of crude gags. The fat jokes received all the attention from critics, but the pilot also rewarded viewers with lines about flatulence, oral sex, and pot smoking.
You can make a funny show with that kind of humor (I'm sure Chuck Lorre has a vanity card in the works explaining that this IS the funny show), but you need sharper jokes and a funnier cast. The leads in this show are likable but don't seem capable of carrying a sitcom without help--help they're not getting.
Better with You: I was stunned at how UNterrible the pilot was. The series was firmly ensconced in my "10 most annoying new shows" list, but in retrospect, perhaps judging the cast based on their smarmy appearance at an ABC fall premiere hype event wasn't the best gauge of the show's quality.
This isn't the most sophisticated relationship comedy, but it is funny. The editing rhythms of the dialogue feel very 1990s, but that's almost a breath of fresh air right now. It'll be interesting to see if the show continues the gimmick it emphasized heavily in the pilot: Comparing and contrasting 3 couples in various stages of relationships. I may find out soon because I'll watch this week, and I may add this to my lineup. The fact that it's on the same night and network as "Modern Family" might help keep it on my radar.
Raising Hope: I think this garnered some critical praise, but I don't see much here to make me revisit it. It reminded me of creator Greg Garcia's previous "My Name Is Earl," and that's not a good thing. I think there's place on TV for working-class comedy--I sure want there to be, anyway--but does "Raising Hope" love its characters or ridicule them?
Oh, there was a nice "aww" moment near the end of the pilot as Martha Plimpton's grizzled "suddenly a grandma" character serenades the baby her son has brought home determined to keep and raise. But it seemed contrived, calculated to inject "heart" into the show (every crude comedy has to have "heart" now with the exception of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia"), when you consider other moments.
For example, Plimpton's character is a maid. It's good to establish that early, but must it be with her telling another, "You do realize we're cleaning toilets, right?" as they carpool to work? Or when the lead character and new father brings a shopping cart to a grocery store, he tells a cashier his family uses it as a grill (among other things). Ha ha ha, but then later when the cart is missing, his cousin interjects with disappointment that he was gonna make burgers that night. It's more like overkill than a clever callback.
This one's not for me.
Running Wilde: Another FOX comedy with a punning title, another disappointment. The pedigree behind this one--from the people who brought you "Arrested Development" may have Raised Hope, but the finished work quashed it. It's ridiculous premise could be acceptable with funnier writing, but the main problem is the decision to build a sitcom around Will Arnett. The guy is acceptable, even effective, in smaller doses, but there's no way he, not to say his by-design-unlikable character, will hold up over a whole season of being the lead. Keri Russell is cute, but the show expects us to believe that her ultraliberal goody-two-shoes would fall hard for Arnett's self-absorbed privileged rich son. The chemistry doesn't support it so far, and I won't be coming back to see if it develops.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Should you watch: "Outsourced"
The good news is NBC's new sitcom "Outsourced" is not as offensive as I expected it to be. The bad news is it isn't as funny as...well, it just isn't funny.
Thursday night's premiere scored fairly well in the ratings, so many of you may have already sampled this half-hour about an American sent to a call center in India to have wacky cultural misunderstandings with them--er, train them up and run the business. But for the rest of you, here are some reasons why you should check it out:
*You think India is just a pretty damn funny country...
*And its citizens, even more so.
*You think it's about time someone set a situation comedy in the glamorous, high-stakes world of novelty toy sales.
*Ever since co-star Diedrich Bader became the voice of Batman in "The Brave and the Bold," you just find everything he says in live action funnier.
*You're determined to watch NBC each Thursday at the same time until someone goes ahead and dumps this and returns "Parks and Recreation" to the schedule (if this is you, Ivan, I'm telling you, buddy, back away from the TV, and we'll let you know when it's back on).
Thursday night's premiere scored fairly well in the ratings, so many of you may have already sampled this half-hour about an American sent to a call center in India to have wacky cultural misunderstandings with them--er, train them up and run the business. But for the rest of you, here are some reasons why you should check it out:
*You think India is just a pretty damn funny country...
*And its citizens, even more so.
*You think it's about time someone set a situation comedy in the glamorous, high-stakes world of novelty toy sales.
*Ever since co-star Diedrich Bader became the voice of Batman in "The Brave and the Bold," you just find everything he says in live action funnier.
*You're determined to watch NBC each Thursday at the same time until someone goes ahead and dumps this and returns "Parks and Recreation" to the schedule (if this is you, Ivan, I'm telling you, buddy, back away from the TV, and we'll let you know when it's back on).
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Brooks on Books: What the Heck Are You Up To, Mr. President?" by Kevin Mattson
If you're one of the millions of people that knows/thinks/believes/assumes Jimmy Carter was a terrible President, I'm not gonna try to change your opinion. But this book might surprise you a bit. Carter may still have been a terrible prez, but maybe for different reasons.
Mattson is apparently (judging from his resume) a left-leaning writer, and his book is sympathetic to Carter but not biased or partisan. Included in his subtitle is the phrase "The Speech That Should Have Changed the Country," but this is isn't a left-wing propaganda job. The goal here is to examine the infamous address to the nation in which Carter used the word "malaise" and supposedly torpedoed his political future. The focus is not on ideology but on process--that is, how Carter himself squandered the momentum this moment gave him (that's right, momentum; read on) through his own mismanagement, hence the poor reputation of a speech that "should have" changed the United States.
Mattson lays out the particulars of the speech (also presenting the entire text in the back for your convenience), but examines it in context, showing what was going on in the country before it and what, in fact, instigated it. He also takes us through the aftermath of the infamous oratory and in so doing challenges much of the conventional wisdom surrounding it.
I was born in the seventies, but I had a pretty happy toddler life and was unaware of what a drag it was for much of the country much of the time. Mattson's book details the problems Carter and the USA faced: sputtering economy, gas shortages, hostage crisis in Iran...yeah, it wasn't always a fun time outside of the discotheque. Is it any wonder Carter used the word "malaise" in a speech to illustrate how bummed America was?
But while many people believe that people hated Carter for committing the political sin of, like, bringing everybody down, man, contrasting Jimmy with the sunny "Morning in America" reputation of Ronald Reagan, Mattson shows that the truth is much more complex. For example--and this is kind of a big thing--Carter never used the word "malaise" in the speech. It was the media reaction that pushed that word into the discussion and forever linked it to Carter's televised address. Also, Carter's approval ratings actually went up, and the majority of the reaction was positive to Carter's attempt to link honest assessment of some of the country's problems with a positive assessment about the chance to beat the energy crisis.
Mattson convincingly asserts that it wasn't until the media started discussing the politics of the speech, not the substance, that the message got lost. More importantly, Carter made the disastrous move of axing a good chunk of his cabinet just days after the speech, a move which made an already questionable chief executive look out of control at best, incompetent or even unhinged at worst, and this, according to Mattson, is what sunk the presidency and killed the chance of the speech having lasting success.
Whether you agree or disagree with the ideology in here--Mattson isn't writing a policy paper, but he is telling the story from the Democratic POV, and he is clearly sympathetic to Carter-- you'll be impressed by the research Mattson has done and his skill at telling this story. The level of detail brings life to this time in American history and illuminates underchronicled aspects of it (at least I think so). The book is worthwhile if only for its fascinating account of an extraordinary retreat Carter hosted at Camp David before the speech, a kind of intellectual powow where notables like Jesse Jackson and a young Bill Clinton showed up to share ideas.
Mattson has written an entertaining, provocative account of what he demonstrates is a misunderstood but critical moment in American history. I highly recommend it for readers with an interest in history and/or politics.
Mattson is apparently (judging from his resume) a left-leaning writer, and his book is sympathetic to Carter but not biased or partisan. Included in his subtitle is the phrase "The Speech That Should Have Changed the Country," but this is isn't a left-wing propaganda job. The goal here is to examine the infamous address to the nation in which Carter used the word "malaise" and supposedly torpedoed his political future. The focus is not on ideology but on process--that is, how Carter himself squandered the momentum this moment gave him (that's right, momentum; read on) through his own mismanagement, hence the poor reputation of a speech that "should have" changed the United States.
Mattson lays out the particulars of the speech (also presenting the entire text in the back for your convenience), but examines it in context, showing what was going on in the country before it and what, in fact, instigated it. He also takes us through the aftermath of the infamous oratory and in so doing challenges much of the conventional wisdom surrounding it.
I was born in the seventies, but I had a pretty happy toddler life and was unaware of what a drag it was for much of the country much of the time. Mattson's book details the problems Carter and the USA faced: sputtering economy, gas shortages, hostage crisis in Iran...yeah, it wasn't always a fun time outside of the discotheque. Is it any wonder Carter used the word "malaise" in a speech to illustrate how bummed America was?
But while many people believe that people hated Carter for committing the political sin of, like, bringing everybody down, man, contrasting Jimmy with the sunny "Morning in America" reputation of Ronald Reagan, Mattson shows that the truth is much more complex. For example--and this is kind of a big thing--Carter never used the word "malaise" in the speech. It was the media reaction that pushed that word into the discussion and forever linked it to Carter's televised address. Also, Carter's approval ratings actually went up, and the majority of the reaction was positive to Carter's attempt to link honest assessment of some of the country's problems with a positive assessment about the chance to beat the energy crisis.
Mattson convincingly asserts that it wasn't until the media started discussing the politics of the speech, not the substance, that the message got lost. More importantly, Carter made the disastrous move of axing a good chunk of his cabinet just days after the speech, a move which made an already questionable chief executive look out of control at best, incompetent or even unhinged at worst, and this, according to Mattson, is what sunk the presidency and killed the chance of the speech having lasting success.
Whether you agree or disagree with the ideology in here--Mattson isn't writing a policy paper, but he is telling the story from the Democratic POV, and he is clearly sympathetic to Carter-- you'll be impressed by the research Mattson has done and his skill at telling this story. The level of detail brings life to this time in American history and illuminates underchronicled aspects of it (at least I think so). The book is worthwhile if only for its fascinating account of an extraordinary retreat Carter hosted at Camp David before the speech, a kind of intellectual powow where notables like Jesse Jackson and a young Bill Clinton showed up to share ideas.
Mattson has written an entertaining, provocative account of what he demonstrates is a misunderstood but critical moment in American history. I highly recommend it for readers with an interest in history and/or politics.
Friday, September 24, 2010
This Week in DVD
It's another slow week for recent theatrical releases. I know studios are saving some big stuff for the holiday shopping season, but looking at the releases each week is making me wonder if any movies actually came out earlier this year.
Robin Hood: I always liked the legendary character, but when this Ridley Scott/Russell Crowe reimagining came out, all I heard was how UNLIKE classic Robin Hood it was, with none of the usual scenes we'd expect. So, you know, no pulling the sword out of the stone, no carving out the letter "Z," no landing on Earth after being rocketed into space as an infant...What's the point, then?
Stomp the Yard 2: The Homecoming: Uh-oh. That :The Homecoming worries me. The fact that they didn't just call it "Stomp the Yard 2" indicates someone thinks this is...a franchise.
The Experiment: Adrien Brody and Forest Whitaker slumming it--er, starring in a movie about what an experimental placement of subjects in prison conditions goes horribly wrong. Least surprising MPAA rating detail of the week: This movie includes a rape scene.
Tom and Jerry's Greatest Chases Volume 5: I have a feeling it's gonna be a while before we get a comprehensive Tom and Jerry collection with uncut, undubbed cartoons. After all, Warners has this prestigious "Greatest Chases" series to continue...
Desperate Housewives Season 6: Remember last week when I mentioned all the TV-on-DVD releases tying into season premieres? Well, it's much the same this week, only with shows that I actually watch! Uh, wait, I don't want to admit I watch this one. Let's move on.
How I Met Your Mother Season 5: Not the series' high point, really, but, hey, season 5 has its moments.
Community Season 1: The biggest surprise and best new network show of last season hits DVD with tons of extras. In an era when companies are skimming on the bonuses, I salute the makers of "Community" for loading up this box set. And thanks to a pal o' mine, I own the set and get to enjoy it all! MWAH HA HA HA HA HA!
(Of course, you're welcome to buy the set yourself and enjoy it, too. I'm not sure why I gave you that big evil laugh.)
Human Target Season 1: This underappreciated adventure series delivered more often that not in its debut season, and I hope the tweaks the show made for season 2 increase the audience while not screwing things up. Folks, you need to do your part by watching it, and here's your chance to catch up.
Numerous other TV shows which I do not watch: We'd be here all day if I listed them all, and I'm too happy about the "Community" set to make snide comments about the ones I dislike.
Robin Hood: I always liked the legendary character, but when this Ridley Scott/Russell Crowe reimagining came out, all I heard was how UNLIKE classic Robin Hood it was, with none of the usual scenes we'd expect. So, you know, no pulling the sword out of the stone, no carving out the letter "Z," no landing on Earth after being rocketed into space as an infant...What's the point, then?
Stomp the Yard 2: The Homecoming: Uh-oh. That :The Homecoming worries me. The fact that they didn't just call it "Stomp the Yard 2" indicates someone thinks this is...a franchise.
The Experiment: Adrien Brody and Forest Whitaker slumming it--er, starring in a movie about what an experimental placement of subjects in prison conditions goes horribly wrong. Least surprising MPAA rating detail of the week: This movie includes a rape scene.
Tom and Jerry's Greatest Chases Volume 5: I have a feeling it's gonna be a while before we get a comprehensive Tom and Jerry collection with uncut, undubbed cartoons. After all, Warners has this prestigious "Greatest Chases" series to continue...
Desperate Housewives Season 6: Remember last week when I mentioned all the TV-on-DVD releases tying into season premieres? Well, it's much the same this week, only with shows that I actually watch! Uh, wait, I don't want to admit I watch this one. Let's move on.
How I Met Your Mother Season 5: Not the series' high point, really, but, hey, season 5 has its moments.
Community Season 1: The biggest surprise and best new network show of last season hits DVD with tons of extras. In an era when companies are skimming on the bonuses, I salute the makers of "Community" for loading up this box set. And thanks to a pal o' mine, I own the set and get to enjoy it all! MWAH HA HA HA HA HA!
(Of course, you're welcome to buy the set yourself and enjoy it, too. I'm not sure why I gave you that big evil laugh.)
Human Target Season 1: This underappreciated adventure series delivered more often that not in its debut season, and I hope the tweaks the show made for season 2 increase the audience while not screwing things up. Folks, you need to do your part by watching it, and here's your chance to catch up.
Numerous other TV shows which I do not watch: We'd be here all day if I listed them all, and I'm too happy about the "Community" set to make snide comments about the ones I dislike.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
