Being a huge fan of Buffy and thoroughly impressed with the short-lived Firefly, I was very much looking forward to Joss Whedon’s new venture Dollhouse. Joss has the ability to make cheesy, potentially mind numbing concepts into insightful and humorous treats. Here, he takes a very high-concept plot device and the results are surprising and hugely disappointing
The Dollhouse may look like a very exclusive spa but it is in fact a covert and highly illegal operation that treats humans as a blank slate that can be programmed with character traits and abilities for anyone willing to pay the high price for their service. These could come in the form of a sexual plaything or a muscle for hire, and the mission concludes with their memories erased. Buffy alumni, Eliza Dushku, plays one of the “actives” Echo, who as her codename foretells, is slowly beginning to piece together the residual memories of previous missions to form a vague semblance of a personality. But the Dollhouse is no place for individuals and her behaviour draws the attention of her employer/captors. A stubborn cop is on the trail of the Dollhouse, only to be ridiculed by colleagues and superiors who think it a myth.
There are many names in the credits that are familiar to Buffy fans: writers, producers, actors. So why it is reminiscent of an eighties soft porn show is baffling. The Harold Faltamyer –like soundtrack and the countless boob and ab shots are embarrassing. Dusku is a co-producer of the show so I can only guess it is with her approval but this likeable and gifted actress is not doing herself any favours by allowing the focus to be on her body rather than her abilities. The results are often embarrassing, and Whedon should be ashamed of himself for condoning such titillation.
Perhaps the main problem with the show is the concept. If a key player is supposed to be void of personality, how can an actress bring something unique to the role? If that character is then programmed with a new identity, how can a viewer become consistently engaged with that personality? It seems that Whedon has set himself up for failure even before the cameras started rolling. Whedon’s skills are with characters, wit and dialogue, but has chosen to focus on scenarios leaving little room for any of these. The script is too concerned with explaining both the over-all and weekly set-up, leaving it void of heart or charm.
There are no stand outs from the rest of the cast. Topher, the geeky scientist responsible for programming and wiping, is just plain hateful. His attempts at endearing humour fall flat and he has a smirk that incites violence. Boyd, Echo’s handler is wooden. Olivia Williams is the head of the organisation, but brings nothing to the role apart from her menacing British accent. The cop, Ballard (played by Helo from BSG) has yet to impress.
I’m trying to think of something positive to say about Dollhouse, but I’m struggling. I will keep watching in the hope that I can see some of that old Buffy magic but I’m doubtful. Luckily I believe that I won’t be watching for long. This show will be cancelled quite soon. And I can’t believe that I’ll support that decision.
Showing posts with label Television. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Television. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 10
Wednesday, September 10
New Television: Fringe
Fringe is one of the few shows of the new season that I was eagerly awaiting. It’s a concept from JJ Abrahms so it’s automatically got some buzz, but it also sees the return of another JJ – Joshua Jackson- to TV. Jackson played Pacey in Dawson’s Creek with such charm and wit it turned the whole dynamic of the show on its head. It’s been too long, welcome back Pacey. But was it worth the wait?
Despite my initial research on the show, I was unable to find a satisfactory blurb to describe what the hell it was about. It’s not easy to sum up in a sound bite so, having finally seen episode 1, here goes. A female FBI liaison officer (whatever that is) associates with a criminally insane scientist and his estranged maverick of son, who happens to have an off-the-chart IQ. She enlists them to help solve freakish cases concerning what is called fringe science, meaning paranormal activities. Clear?
The first episode sets the scene and although we would expect a swift course of action to get things moving along, the break-neck speed at which our heroine Olivia investigates and partners with the young genius and his loopy Dad, is quite unsettling. It is not clear as to what status Olivia has within the FBI, but she seems to have a lot of resources at her disposal for someone playing the overlooked female card. Within the first 40 minutes she has chartered a plane to Iraq, interviewed and discharged an isolated criminal psych patient, fitted out an extensive laboratory and moved a dying comatose man to aforementioned makeshift lab – along with a jersey cow. Olivia’s blind faith in the ramblings of a convicted felon who hasn’t so much as fondled a test tube in 15 years is the show’s biggest implausibility. Science fiction fans can suspend disbelief for tele-transportation, time travel and psychic phenomena quicker than a Republican candidate can forget who was in power for the last 8 years, but one thing we cannot excuse is weakness of character. And a Sci Fi show will live or die by the warmth, courage and the intelligence of its heroes.
Fringe is a big disappointment. I was bored. The Olivia character is cast well. The actress, unknown to me, plays the role with a balance strength and vulnerability. But she needs an injection of wit to save us from her misplaced tenacity. The minor characters are less participants, more lurkers. And as for Joshua Jackson, he does nothing but begrudgingly babysit his eccentric father. For someone who has an IQ of 190, he contributed nothing to the mystery at hand. Not even a cheeky glint of his eye. What a waste! Fringe has been compared to The X-Files - one advocate, one sceptic of paranormal events. Unfortunately Pacey Witter cannot compensate for the lack of pace and wit so prevalent in its predecessor.
Despite my initial research on the show, I was unable to find a satisfactory blurb to describe what the hell it was about. It’s not easy to sum up in a sound bite so, having finally seen episode 1, here goes. A female FBI liaison officer (whatever that is) associates with a criminally insane scientist and his estranged maverick of son, who happens to have an off-the-chart IQ. She enlists them to help solve freakish cases concerning what is called fringe science, meaning paranormal activities. Clear?
The first episode sets the scene and although we would expect a swift course of action to get things moving along, the break-neck speed at which our heroine Olivia investigates and partners with the young genius and his loopy Dad, is quite unsettling. It is not clear as to what status Olivia has within the FBI, but she seems to have a lot of resources at her disposal for someone playing the overlooked female card. Within the first 40 minutes she has chartered a plane to Iraq, interviewed and discharged an isolated criminal psych patient, fitted out an extensive laboratory and moved a dying comatose man to aforementioned makeshift lab – along with a jersey cow. Olivia’s blind faith in the ramblings of a convicted felon who hasn’t so much as fondled a test tube in 15 years is the show’s biggest implausibility. Science fiction fans can suspend disbelief for tele-transportation, time travel and psychic phenomena quicker than a Republican candidate can forget who was in power for the last 8 years, but one thing we cannot excuse is weakness of character. And a Sci Fi show will live or die by the warmth, courage and the intelligence of its heroes.
Fringe is a big disappointment. I was bored. The Olivia character is cast well. The actress, unknown to me, plays the role with a balance strength and vulnerability. But she needs an injection of wit to save us from her misplaced tenacity. The minor characters are less participants, more lurkers. And as for Joshua Jackson, he does nothing but begrudgingly babysit his eccentric father. For someone who has an IQ of 190, he contributed nothing to the mystery at hand. Not even a cheeky glint of his eye. What a waste! Fringe has been compared to The X-Files - one advocate, one sceptic of paranormal events. Unfortunately Pacey Witter cannot compensate for the lack of pace and wit so prevalent in its predecessor.
Tuesday, August 26
Television: Burn Notice
The tagline for cable channel USA Network is Characters Welcome and that resonates a lot with me. I have a deep hatred of reality TV and unscripted shows. Somebody said that drama is life with all the dull bits taken out. That means that Reality TV is drama with all the dull bits left in. Although occasionally lovely in person real people, as far as TV goes, are quite dull and if they are going to great lengths to be interesting for the sake of TV, that makes them unstable. For a network to buck the populist trend and corroborate my critique, makes me feel vindicated.
Burn Notice is already into its second season on the USA Network. It’s a hard show to catch. It’s not shown on any Canadian network but it is available on the new Super Channel subscription service. It’s a show that deserves a wider audience, but that’s the beauty of cable. They are not slaves to audience meters. Michael Weston is a spy, in the full James Bond sense of the word. He’s a multi-linguist, he’s knows his weapons, he’s a master of subterfuge. He’s an ass-kicking, cool dude. But then he gets fired without warning in the middle of a case - the titular Burn Notice. He has no money, no ID, no plan. Thankfully, he is stranded in Miami, which makes for a far more exciting backdrop then say, Wisconsin or Navan. Michael is stuck in Miami until he finds out why he was burned. To assist him he has an ex-girlfriend, a friend of dubious motives and an overbearing mother.
If I were to pitch this show in one phrase it would be MacGyver meets The Equalizer. Michael's primary focus is to clear his name and get his job back, but he’s a good soul and cannot resist a sob story. He helps the helpless and with the aid of some chewing gum, a dozen bottles of peroxide and various cell phone parts, he can trace the activities of a cheating husband or bring down Miami’s most notorious drug cartel.
In a TV landscape populated with talent shows and teen melodrama it’s good to have a bit of old fashioned hokum. Burn Notice is good solid entertainment. There’s no subtext, it’s not complex but it can be clever. And for those of us who are not up to speed with the latest espionage techniques, Michael provides a helpful voiceover. Jeffery Donavan is a great find as Michael and Sharon Gless channels her inner Pat Butcher to play his Mum. Bruce Campbell is enjoying himself immensely supping beer in South Beach hotspots and playing the fool as Michael’s friend and most-times ally. But Gabrielle Anwar, playing his trigger happy ex, Fiona, is where it all could have gone horribly wrong. Allow me explain.
I was slightly concerned in the very first episode when they announced that she was Irish and she used to be a gun runner for the IRA. I braced myself for yet another awful Hollywood Irish accent but also grimaced because it still seems too soon to be making light-hearted japes about “The Troubles”. But then again, it didn’t seem to take that long for Hollywood to take the IRA from threat to heroine. Sign of the times, I suppose. Hell, Harold and Kumar just escaped from Gitmo! But curiously, the writers decided to back track on the Irish issue. And then I got really mad. She announced in an episode two or three that she couldn’t walk around Miami “talking like a leprechaun” and would therefore no longer be speaking with a brogue. A word to the writers: leprechauns only exist in the minds of US tourists and in the paraphernalia the Irish sell to them. And no Irish person would even use the word leprechaun, let alone compare their accent to one. But I’ve decided to overlook that shameful blip. Anwar is quite good in the role, bringing a great sense of fun laced with menace and let’s face it, and I’ve witnessed far more offensive things on television. Rock of Love, for example.
Burn Notice is already into its second season on the USA Network. It’s a hard show to catch. It’s not shown on any Canadian network but it is available on the new Super Channel subscription service. It’s a show that deserves a wider audience, but that’s the beauty of cable. They are not slaves to audience meters. Michael Weston is a spy, in the full James Bond sense of the word. He’s a multi-linguist, he’s knows his weapons, he’s a master of subterfuge. He’s an ass-kicking, cool dude. But then he gets fired without warning in the middle of a case - the titular Burn Notice. He has no money, no ID, no plan. Thankfully, he is stranded in Miami, which makes for a far more exciting backdrop then say, Wisconsin or Navan. Michael is stuck in Miami until he finds out why he was burned. To assist him he has an ex-girlfriend, a friend of dubious motives and an overbearing mother.
If I were to pitch this show in one phrase it would be MacGyver meets The Equalizer. Michael's primary focus is to clear his name and get his job back, but he’s a good soul and cannot resist a sob story. He helps the helpless and with the aid of some chewing gum, a dozen bottles of peroxide and various cell phone parts, he can trace the activities of a cheating husband or bring down Miami’s most notorious drug cartel.
In a TV landscape populated with talent shows and teen melodrama it’s good to have a bit of old fashioned hokum. Burn Notice is good solid entertainment. There’s no subtext, it’s not complex but it can be clever. And for those of us who are not up to speed with the latest espionage techniques, Michael provides a helpful voiceover. Jeffery Donavan is a great find as Michael and Sharon Gless channels her inner Pat Butcher to play his Mum. Bruce Campbell is enjoying himself immensely supping beer in South Beach hotspots and playing the fool as Michael’s friend and most-times ally. But Gabrielle Anwar, playing his trigger happy ex, Fiona, is where it all could have gone horribly wrong. Allow me explain.
I was slightly concerned in the very first episode when they announced that she was Irish and she used to be a gun runner for the IRA. I braced myself for yet another awful Hollywood Irish accent but also grimaced because it still seems too soon to be making light-hearted japes about “The Troubles”. But then again, it didn’t seem to take that long for Hollywood to take the IRA from threat to heroine. Sign of the times, I suppose. Hell, Harold and Kumar just escaped from Gitmo! But curiously, the writers decided to back track on the Irish issue. And then I got really mad. She announced in an episode two or three that she couldn’t walk around Miami “talking like a leprechaun” and would therefore no longer be speaking with a brogue. A word to the writers: leprechauns only exist in the minds of US tourists and in the paraphernalia the Irish sell to them. And no Irish person would even use the word leprechaun, let alone compare their accent to one. But I’ve decided to overlook that shameful blip. Anwar is quite good in the role, bringing a great sense of fun laced with menace and let’s face it, and I’ve witnessed far more offensive things on television. Rock of Love, for example.
Television: In Plain Sight
It’s been a while. And I have no excuse. Although the writers’ strike put a spanner in the TV works, there was still a steady, albeit mediocre, stream of TV over the last few months. So thank God for cable. While other channels are busy cancelling their dramas and replacing them with Rock of Love or eighties TV stars in hilarious and challenging situations, US cable channels have been quietly airing some new shows. And although, none are outstanding, the ardent viewer can indulge, safe in the knowledge that low viewership is not a precursor to the guillotine.
From USA Network, In Plain Sight has a dull name and a text book premise, but it’s lifted out of the mire, thanks to a refreshing performance from lead, Mary McCormack. Mary Shannon is a federal marshal in Albuquerque, assigned to protect the anonymity of those under the witness protection program. The action revolves around possible breaches of their security or hazards that may be connected to their status.
The plots involving the witnesses are mildly diverting but it’s the series regulars who provide the most appeal. Mary’s partner, the aptly named Marshall, is a possessor of a wit as gravel-like as his voice. He’s a potential romantic interest for he’s obviously very fond of her beneath all that fraternal joshing. Mary has a number of admirers: her older, jovial boss; a cop who’s both irate and intrigued by her refusal to co-operate; a hunky semi pro baseball player who wants much more from her than the occasional shag Mary is offering. Given the amount of male attention this woman is receiving, she should be one of the most hated characters ever conceived. Thankfully McCormack’s performance is spot on. She’s intuitive, bitchy, sarcastic, brutally honest and mercifully oblivious to the effect she has on men. At the core of her attitude is a lack of self-worth that has yet to be explored. Mary can control the lives and lifestyles of those she is protecting so that she doesn’t have to display any control in her domestic situation.
The weak link in this show is her family. Her mother is an irresponsible lush. Her sister is a troublemaking skank (is there any other kind?). For reasons that have escaped me, both are indefinitely encroaching on Mary’s hospitality and causing her no end of bother. I assume they are brought in for light relief, but they fall flat. They are annoying and charmless.
In Plain Sight will succeed as long as it focuses on the regular characters. The concept that so many witnesses are located in the same area seems careless in plot and downright lethal in practice. Mary calls all characters by their original names. Shouldn’t they be identified by new names? Isn’t rebranding part of the protection too? There are many holes in the structure of this show, but I’ll forgive them. Strong female leads are often pitched but rarely work this well. And she doesn’t even have a superpower!
From USA Network, In Plain Sight has a dull name and a text book premise, but it’s lifted out of the mire, thanks to a refreshing performance from lead, Mary McCormack. Mary Shannon is a federal marshal in Albuquerque, assigned to protect the anonymity of those under the witness protection program. The action revolves around possible breaches of their security or hazards that may be connected to their status.
The plots involving the witnesses are mildly diverting but it’s the series regulars who provide the most appeal. Mary’s partner, the aptly named Marshall, is a possessor of a wit as gravel-like as his voice. He’s a potential romantic interest for he’s obviously very fond of her beneath all that fraternal joshing. Mary has a number of admirers: her older, jovial boss; a cop who’s both irate and intrigued by her refusal to co-operate; a hunky semi pro baseball player who wants much more from her than the occasional shag Mary is offering. Given the amount of male attention this woman is receiving, she should be one of the most hated characters ever conceived. Thankfully McCormack’s performance is spot on. She’s intuitive, bitchy, sarcastic, brutally honest and mercifully oblivious to the effect she has on men. At the core of her attitude is a lack of self-worth that has yet to be explored. Mary can control the lives and lifestyles of those she is protecting so that she doesn’t have to display any control in her domestic situation.
The weak link in this show is her family. Her mother is an irresponsible lush. Her sister is a troublemaking skank (is there any other kind?). For reasons that have escaped me, both are indefinitely encroaching on Mary’s hospitality and causing her no end of bother. I assume they are brought in for light relief, but they fall flat. They are annoying and charmless.
In Plain Sight will succeed as long as it focuses on the regular characters. The concept that so many witnesses are located in the same area seems careless in plot and downright lethal in practice. Mary calls all characters by their original names. Shouldn’t they be identified by new names? Isn’t rebranding part of the protection too? There are many holes in the structure of this show, but I’ll forgive them. Strong female leads are often pitched but rarely work this well. And she doesn’t even have a superpower!
Friday, March 7
Television: Terminator-The Sarah Connor Chronicles
The Terminator is my second favourite movie of all time. Sure, visually it may not have stood the test of time and let's not forget that it was a star vehicle for the now Governor of California, but it is a cracking thrill ride with a mind-bending plot. And, from my pre-teens to a number of years after its release, I was totally in love with the character of Kyle Reese. It spawned two sequels. The first was a credible extension of the story, the third, an interesting but depressing flash forward.
The news of a series based on the movies was not something I received with glee. I believed it to be another example of a creatively bankrupt network attaching its aspirations to an existing fan base. It's not a tale that fans demanded be continued and I have to question if there is material to justify a series.
But of course, inspite of its absurdly long moniker, I tuned in. I had to. In fact, I tuned in to all ten episodes of the writers'-strike-shortened season. Lena Headley (300) plays Sarah Connor, whose teenage son, John, is the freedom fighter of the future. The series picks up a few years after T2, with a few respectful nods to T3's plot details. Sarah and John are still on the run from the cops and an FBI investigation. They discover that another terminator is on their trail. John's high school friend reveals herself to be a smoking hot cyborg with a mission to protect him. And that's it. There is really not a lot else going on. The concept is perfect for a finite movie (or four), but there is no longevity for a series. It's constrictive. There are few opportunities for new dynamics. It's not like Sarah can get a job in a law firm and crusade against injustice. Their fight against Cyberdyne is myopic and restricted to subterfuge.
But somehow it works. It's credible. Although not compelling, it's commendable. The performances are adequate and I mean that as a complement. It must be tremendously difficult to inhabit the roles of such iconic characters. They have the weight of the future to bear, and it's not just the fembot that seems robotic, but I'm okay with that. It's a pre-apocalyptic scenario but there are chinks of humour and humanity that draw you in. Believe it or not, the appearance of Brian Austin Green (around episode 6) re-energises the show. He leaves the zip code of 90120 far behind him. Bravo BAG!
The series debuted with huge audience numbers. It did not maintain them but, for a mid-season series, it was up there. But the cost of production is so huge that Fox need gangbusters to justify its survival. Perhaps the writers' strike has given it a boost, but as much as I applaud it, I have say there should be no future in this show.
There is a 4th movie in production, Christian Bale will play John Connor, leading the revolution against the machines. The whole premise of the show, and the first two movies, is that the future can be changed. The brave and unpopular step that the third movie took is that there is no changing the future. The fourth movie takes the view that war is inevitable. There are many concepts of time travel that can be probed, but the movies have taken the view that, in this tale, the future cannot be changed: the machines will take over, the apocalypse will happen, the human race will suffer. John Connor will be lead the revolt of a broken and subjugated army and he will succeed. The TV series is grasping that this outcome can be changed. Hollywood has dictated otherwise. Regardless how creative this series can hope to be, it is doomed to fail. The plot cannot be expanded beyond the obvious. The audience knows the outcome, the villain, the hero, the battle, the future. This is the series that should never have been made. There's nothing to tell. The fact that it is has impressed this sceptical fan is quite an achievement and I look forward to seeing more.
The news of a series based on the movies was not something I received with glee. I believed it to be another example of a creatively bankrupt network attaching its aspirations to an existing fan base. It's not a tale that fans demanded be continued and I have to question if there is material to justify a series.
But of course, inspite of its absurdly long moniker, I tuned in. I had to. In fact, I tuned in to all ten episodes of the writers'-strike-shortened season. Lena Headley (300) plays Sarah Connor, whose teenage son, John, is the freedom fighter of the future. The series picks up a few years after T2, with a few respectful nods to T3's plot details. Sarah and John are still on the run from the cops and an FBI investigation. They discover that another terminator is on their trail. John's high school friend reveals herself to be a smoking hot cyborg with a mission to protect him. And that's it. There is really not a lot else going on. The concept is perfect for a finite movie (or four), but there is no longevity for a series. It's constrictive. There are few opportunities for new dynamics. It's not like Sarah can get a job in a law firm and crusade against injustice. Their fight against Cyberdyne is myopic and restricted to subterfuge.
But somehow it works. It's credible. Although not compelling, it's commendable. The performances are adequate and I mean that as a complement. It must be tremendously difficult to inhabit the roles of such iconic characters. They have the weight of the future to bear, and it's not just the fembot that seems robotic, but I'm okay with that. It's a pre-apocalyptic scenario but there are chinks of humour and humanity that draw you in. Believe it or not, the appearance of Brian Austin Green (around episode 6) re-energises the show. He leaves the zip code of 90120 far behind him. Bravo BAG!
The series debuted with huge audience numbers. It did not maintain them but, for a mid-season series, it was up there. But the cost of production is so huge that Fox need gangbusters to justify its survival. Perhaps the writers' strike has given it a boost, but as much as I applaud it, I have say there should be no future in this show.
There is a 4th movie in production, Christian Bale will play John Connor, leading the revolution against the machines. The whole premise of the show, and the first two movies, is that the future can be changed. The brave and unpopular step that the third movie took is that there is no changing the future. The fourth movie takes the view that war is inevitable. There are many concepts of time travel that can be probed, but the movies have taken the view that, in this tale, the future cannot be changed: the machines will take over, the apocalypse will happen, the human race will suffer. John Connor will be lead the revolt of a broken and subjugated army and he will succeed. The TV series is grasping that this outcome can be changed. Hollywood has dictated otherwise. Regardless how creative this series can hope to be, it is doomed to fail. The plot cannot be expanded beyond the obvious. The audience knows the outcome, the villain, the hero, the battle, the future. This is the series that should never have been made. There's nothing to tell. The fact that it is has impressed this sceptical fan is quite an achievement and I look forward to seeing more.
Tuesday, October 23
Heroes in Ireland
Warning : This post contains spoilers for the first five episodes of Heroes Season 2, but if you are not a fan of the show, your comments are still relevant
As mentioned exclusively on this blog, the second season of Heroes has set some scenes in Ireland. When a Heroes' insider gave me this scoop I had no idea which characters would be in the Emerald Isle and how many episodes would be set there. But five episodes in, County Cork is the basis of much Peter Petrelli action.
Irish people have had to endure decades of celluloid misrepresentation. Dodgy accents, drunken bowsies, international terrorists, it's not a particularly glamorous image. But those stereo types are waning. Thanks to Bono, Mary Robinson and Colin Farrell, we are sexy again, caring, saving the world (not necessarily in that order).
Still, I can't help being on edge when the Irish are portrayed on mass media. I don't know whether other nationalities feel the same about how their citizens and native land are displayed, but I am hyper-critical when an Irish person or setting is represented by Hollywood. Since I emigrated, I find myself constantly explaining to North Americans that Ireland is not part of the UK. I have had to reprimand colleagues for co-relating my homeland with excessive drinking. I was recently advised by a co-worker to carry my passport at all times as I was from a country of known terrorists. The misconceptions are not only absurd but often hurtful. Canada is a country built on immigrants, and the Irish are held in high regard as a nation. I shudder to think of how other immigrants are dealing with their stereotypes.
So let the hyper-criticism of Heroes: The Irish Adventure, begin, and remember that all of this is filmed in LA.
An amnesiac Peter Petrilli has found himself in a cargo container in the docks of County Cork. Is there an active dock in Cork? Is it not filled with designer apartments and wine bars like Dublin's docklands? The first people he encounters are thugs, gurriers, criminals (0 points). None of them have Cork accents (0 points). In fact they are slightly Northern Irish accents (-1 point). One of them is black with a northern accent (+ 5 points for not conforming to stereotypes)
The first thing they do is try to kill him (0 points). So much for a thousand Irish welcomes.
Tally so far : 4 points
There is a lovely Irish colleen. With a bad accent (-1 point). Her name is Catlin (-2 points, no Irish female is called Catlin, Colleen or Erin. Fact.). She works in a bar (+1 point) which has just three customers and regularly shuts up early(-10 points). The closed sign on the bar says "Dunta" (+2 points, Irish word for "Closed"). There is a massive wood burning fire at all times even when the bar is empty (-1 point, physical impossibility). It is often raining. (+2 points, this is unfortunately, very true). An Irish dock worker allows a beautiful blonde tourist to walk away without asking her what she's doing so far from home (-5 points, a woman, particularly a blonde one, is incapable of walking past a manual labourer without being hit on). Said blonde woman is corrected for thinking she's in Scotland (+ 5 points, Irish people don't even know what haggis is.) but barman failed to mention the delights of a toasted ham and cheese sandwich (0 points, the staple food of an Irish pub menu). A woman who generates electricity is sent on a mission to Ireland in a rain storm (incalculable, bound to cause problems)
Tally so far : - 5 points.
Verdict: Not bad. Producers of the show have grasped on to the fact that there is nothing more Irish than a lovable thug, and that is why so many of them are elected into government.
As mentioned exclusively on this blog, the second season of Heroes has set some scenes in Ireland. When a Heroes' insider gave me this scoop I had no idea which characters would be in the Emerald Isle and how many episodes would be set there. But five episodes in, County Cork is the basis of much Peter Petrelli action.
Irish people have had to endure decades of celluloid misrepresentation. Dodgy accents, drunken bowsies, international terrorists, it's not a particularly glamorous image. But those stereo types are waning. Thanks to Bono, Mary Robinson and Colin Farrell, we are sexy again, caring, saving the world (not necessarily in that order).
Still, I can't help being on edge when the Irish are portrayed on mass media. I don't know whether other nationalities feel the same about how their citizens and native land are displayed, but I am hyper-critical when an Irish person or setting is represented by Hollywood. Since I emigrated, I find myself constantly explaining to North Americans that Ireland is not part of the UK. I have had to reprimand colleagues for co-relating my homeland with excessive drinking. I was recently advised by a co-worker to carry my passport at all times as I was from a country of known terrorists. The misconceptions are not only absurd but often hurtful. Canada is a country built on immigrants, and the Irish are held in high regard as a nation. I shudder to think of how other immigrants are dealing with their stereotypes.
So let the hyper-criticism of Heroes: The Irish Adventure, begin, and remember that all of this is filmed in LA.
An amnesiac Peter Petrilli has found himself in a cargo container in the docks of County Cork. Is there an active dock in Cork? Is it not filled with designer apartments and wine bars like Dublin's docklands? The first people he encounters are thugs, gurriers, criminals (0 points). None of them have Cork accents (0 points). In fact they are slightly Northern Irish accents (-1 point). One of them is black with a northern accent (+ 5 points for not conforming to stereotypes)
The first thing they do is try to kill him (0 points). So much for a thousand Irish welcomes.
Tally so far : 4 points
There is a lovely Irish colleen. With a bad accent (-1 point). Her name is Catlin (-2 points, no Irish female is called Catlin, Colleen or Erin. Fact.). She works in a bar (+1 point) which has just three customers and regularly shuts up early(-10 points). The closed sign on the bar says "Dunta" (+2 points, Irish word for "Closed"). There is a massive wood burning fire at all times even when the bar is empty (-1 point, physical impossibility). It is often raining. (+2 points, this is unfortunately, very true). An Irish dock worker allows a beautiful blonde tourist to walk away without asking her what she's doing so far from home (-5 points, a woman, particularly a blonde one, is incapable of walking past a manual labourer without being hit on). Said blonde woman is corrected for thinking she's in Scotland (+ 5 points, Irish people don't even know what haggis is.) but barman failed to mention the delights of a toasted ham and cheese sandwich (0 points, the staple food of an Irish pub menu). A woman who generates electricity is sent on a mission to Ireland in a rain storm (incalculable, bound to cause problems)
Tally so far : - 5 points.
Verdict: Not bad. Producers of the show have grasped on to the fact that there is nothing more Irish than a lovable thug, and that is why so many of them are elected into government.
Sunday, September 16
New TV - Californication
David Duchovny stars as Hank Moody, a novelist from New York who is struggling artistically since his move to LA. His beloved, acclaimed novel has been filmed, but transformed into a mediocre rom-com. Unable to write, he is pining for his ex-girlfriend and mother of his child, even though she's engaged to Mr Solid-but-Dull. Hank finds refuge in drinking, pontificating and fornicating
Hank shags a lot of women and they are all beautiful. Much like Vincent Chase in Entourage, Hank is the type of man LA women want to have sex with. They pull up next to him at a traffic light and throw their phone number into his car. They ask his opinion on wine in a supermarket and then drag him home to get naked and high. But Hank is no movie star, in fact he's not even famous so the idea that these promiscuous women experience lust at first sight is quite ridiculous. Duchovny/Hank is not a bad looking guy, but what is it about Hank that makes women, (from aged 16 upwards) behave so?
This show is nothing more than an approaching-middle-aged man's fantasy. Women are seen as nothing more than sexual conquests, either an easy to obtain or a challenge to be exploited. His ex-wife, the object of his affection, is a beautiful free-spirited, ex-wild child,who's seeking the stability that eluded her and Hank with the rich and mediocre Bill. Bill's daughter is a highly over-sexed 16 year old, who's blatant desire for Hank is causing him no end of problems. Hank's best friend and agent is rebuffing the advances of his randy wife, but engaging in a bit of slap and tickle with his young (of course) personal assistant. Even Hank's 12 year old daughter is swooning after her guitar teacher.
Californication is cliched, slapstick and arguably sexist. It's also hilarious, sharply written and surprisingly touching. The only way I could justify Hank Moody's character in my head was when I realised he is the male version of Samantha from Sex and the City. He's the tart with the heart; the smart, witty guy who likes to screw. But under the frat boy behaviour is someone looking to connect. He wants his family back, he wants to be a writer again, but all he is capable of achieving are short-term flings and blogging. Yet his exploits along the way are as charming as they are daft.
Duchovny is outstanding, giving Hank, who should be a contemptible dirtbag, a natural charm and wit that absolves him of all dubious acts. As a fondness for casual sex is thankfully not a hanging offence, it is honesty that is Hank's fundamental relationship flaw. He never tells a woman what they want to hear, but they are endeared to him anyway. He will stand up for his family, and family values, if they are being threatened. He is not an adulterer or home wrecker, in fact there are several scenes where he tries to put relationships back together. He is outspoken about what's lacking in culture and in self-esteem (yes, even a woman's). He is clever man who is sleeping and drinking his way back to his identity. It all seems like a massive ego trip for Duchovny-also a producer of the show - yet he pulls it off. His performance saves this show from being a male's indulgent sexual delusion
The cast are spot on, particularly Natascha McElhone as his ex, an actress who brings to the performance a dignified beauty with a dash of mischief. It's easy to see why Hank wants her back. His daughter is a quirky, wickedly smart pre-teen with a fondness for rock music. His best friend/agent varies from being a solid-as-a-rock advisor to a man in danger of emulating Hank's ways for all the wrong reasons. But Californication is by no means unique or high-brow, but it makes a great guilty pleasure. You'll never believe you could be so fond of a fornicating boozy blogger.
http://www.sho.com/site/californication/home.do
Hank shags a lot of women and they are all beautiful. Much like Vincent Chase in Entourage, Hank is the type of man LA women want to have sex with. They pull up next to him at a traffic light and throw their phone number into his car. They ask his opinion on wine in a supermarket and then drag him home to get naked and high. But Hank is no movie star, in fact he's not even famous so the idea that these promiscuous women experience lust at first sight is quite ridiculous. Duchovny/Hank is not a bad looking guy, but what is it about Hank that makes women, (from aged 16 upwards) behave so?
This show is nothing more than an approaching-middle-aged man's fantasy. Women are seen as nothing more than sexual conquests, either an easy to obtain or a challenge to be exploited. His ex-wife, the object of his affection, is a beautiful free-spirited, ex-wild child,who's seeking the stability that eluded her and Hank with the rich and mediocre Bill. Bill's daughter is a highly over-sexed 16 year old, who's blatant desire for Hank is causing him no end of problems. Hank's best friend and agent is rebuffing the advances of his randy wife, but engaging in a bit of slap and tickle with his young (of course) personal assistant. Even Hank's 12 year old daughter is swooning after her guitar teacher.
Californication is cliched, slapstick and arguably sexist. It's also hilarious, sharply written and surprisingly touching. The only way I could justify Hank Moody's character in my head was when I realised he is the male version of Samantha from Sex and the City. He's the tart with the heart; the smart, witty guy who likes to screw. But under the frat boy behaviour is someone looking to connect. He wants his family back, he wants to be a writer again, but all he is capable of achieving are short-term flings and blogging. Yet his exploits along the way are as charming as they are daft.
Duchovny is outstanding, giving Hank, who should be a contemptible dirtbag, a natural charm and wit that absolves him of all dubious acts. As a fondness for casual sex is thankfully not a hanging offence, it is honesty that is Hank's fundamental relationship flaw. He never tells a woman what they want to hear, but they are endeared to him anyway. He will stand up for his family, and family values, if they are being threatened. He is not an adulterer or home wrecker, in fact there are several scenes where he tries to put relationships back together. He is outspoken about what's lacking in culture and in self-esteem (yes, even a woman's). He is clever man who is sleeping and drinking his way back to his identity. It all seems like a massive ego trip for Duchovny-also a producer of the show - yet he pulls it off. His performance saves this show from being a male's indulgent sexual delusion
The cast are spot on, particularly Natascha McElhone as his ex, an actress who brings to the performance a dignified beauty with a dash of mischief. It's easy to see why Hank wants her back. His daughter is a quirky, wickedly smart pre-teen with a fondness for rock music. His best friend/agent varies from being a solid-as-a-rock advisor to a man in danger of emulating Hank's ways for all the wrong reasons. But Californication is by no means unique or high-brow, but it makes a great guilty pleasure. You'll never believe you could be so fond of a fornicating boozy blogger.
http://www.sho.com/site/californication/home.do
Wednesday, September 5
Exclusive (no, seriously!) - Heroes
Working in an ad agency can be unremarkable and the pay is just adequate, but the perks can be great. One such perk is that TV stations invite you to parties where you can drink for free and stars from their shows will pose for photos with you. In Ireland, the highlights of such events could be watching Fizz from Coronation Street hammer back vodka and Red Bull or spilling your drink over a leathery blonde who you later discover had a pivotal role in Footballer's Wives.
Last week I had the good fortune to be invited to one such party in Toronto with various members of the cast of Heroes. In attendance was Sylar (main villain), Ando (comedic sidekick), Mia (no idea, she hasn't appeared yet) and the kid that fixes things. As a 30-something woman I draw the line at asking a ten-year old for his autograph, or gushing over a woman I couldn't pick out of a line-up, but I did set the schmooze factor to maximum and pushed my way into the company of Sylar and Ando for a chin wag, in the hope they would reveal some exclusive Heroes scoop. And they did, in a way.
Ando, or James Kyson Lee, as his mother calls him, is a charming, very smiley man who seemed to genuinely enjoy all the attention. When I asked him what was coming up on the show, he claimed ignorance, that the actors don't know until they get the scripts. But he did let slip that some of the story takes place in Ireland. Every piece of the show is filmed in Los Angeles, so they won't be filming in the Emerald Isle, but I did make him promise that leprechauns would not be involved. I asked him if Ando would discover a power of his own, and, surprise, he said he didn't know. I asked if there is a particular power that he would like and he said he was very fond of animals and it would be cool to talk to them. What about morphing into them, I asked? He was very excited about that suggestion. I told him I'd talk to the producers and see what I could do.
Getting some face time with Sylar proved a little tougher so I segued my way via Jeff Loeb, a producer of the show. He revealed very little about future developments, but, being the pushy fan-geek that I am, he did reveal that Christopher Eccleston had a major plot sidelined because he had to return to the UK unexpectedly. He didn't elaborate but said that when he's ready to come back there is a place for him. And it seems that Peter Petrelli ends up in Canada when he finally returns from his explosive trip into the stratosphere.
Zachery Quinto, who plays Sylar, cuts quite a dashing figure in the flesh and I admitted to him that he smelled great. He told me that he worked in the Cafe Java in Galway for 4 months several years ago, which proves you should always be nice to your server; you never know when they will turn into a brain-eating mutant. And speaking of which, does he actually eat the brains or just absorb the power? He said that detail is yet to be explored but they are planning to do something cool with it. I talked to him about his role as Spock in the new Star Trek movie. I thought he'd enjoy my anecdote about Leonard Nimoy having to wear dozens of pairs of fake ears a day, which melted under the studio lights. He said he'd ask Nimoy, the next time they met, if that was true. Gulp! I hope my source stands up. He was divulging no further casting details about the film. Finally I had to ask him about Kristen Bell's arrival on the show. He proudly admitted he was responsible for her signing. She is a good friend of his and when Veronica Mars was cancelled, he knew that Heroes was one show she would be interested in joining. Ms Bell will make her debut in episode 5 of the show.
A few exclusive scoops, excellent voignier and some tasty canapes. I thought my first venture as official reporter for Media Cake was quite a success.
Last week I had the good fortune to be invited to one such party in Toronto with various members of the cast of Heroes. In attendance was Sylar (main villain), Ando (comedic sidekick), Mia (no idea, she hasn't appeared yet) and the kid that fixes things. As a 30-something woman I draw the line at asking a ten-year old for his autograph, or gushing over a woman I couldn't pick out of a line-up, but I did set the schmooze factor to maximum and pushed my way into the company of Sylar and Ando for a chin wag, in the hope they would reveal some exclusive Heroes scoop. And they did, in a way.
Ando, or James Kyson Lee, as his mother calls him, is a charming, very smiley man who seemed to genuinely enjoy all the attention. When I asked him what was coming up on the show, he claimed ignorance, that the actors don't know until they get the scripts. But he did let slip that some of the story takes place in Ireland. Every piece of the show is filmed in Los Angeles, so they won't be filming in the Emerald Isle, but I did make him promise that leprechauns would not be involved. I asked him if Ando would discover a power of his own, and, surprise, he said he didn't know. I asked if there is a particular power that he would like and he said he was very fond of animals and it would be cool to talk to them. What about morphing into them, I asked? He was very excited about that suggestion. I told him I'd talk to the producers and see what I could do.
Getting some face time with Sylar proved a little tougher so I segued my way via Jeff Loeb, a producer of the show. He revealed very little about future developments, but, being the pushy fan-geek that I am, he did reveal that Christopher Eccleston had a major plot sidelined because he had to return to the UK unexpectedly. He didn't elaborate but said that when he's ready to come back there is a place for him. And it seems that Peter Petrelli ends up in Canada when he finally returns from his explosive trip into the stratosphere.
Zachery Quinto, who plays Sylar, cuts quite a dashing figure in the flesh and I admitted to him that he smelled great. He told me that he worked in the Cafe Java in Galway for 4 months several years ago, which proves you should always be nice to your server; you never know when they will turn into a brain-eating mutant. And speaking of which, does he actually eat the brains or just absorb the power? He said that detail is yet to be explored but they are planning to do something cool with it. I talked to him about his role as Spock in the new Star Trek movie. I thought he'd enjoy my anecdote about Leonard Nimoy having to wear dozens of pairs of fake ears a day, which melted under the studio lights. He said he'd ask Nimoy, the next time they met, if that was true. Gulp! I hope my source stands up. He was divulging no further casting details about the film. Finally I had to ask him about Kristen Bell's arrival on the show. He proudly admitted he was responsible for her signing. She is a good friend of his and when Veronica Mars was cancelled, he knew that Heroes was one show she would be interested in joining. Ms Bell will make her debut in episode 5 of the show.
A few exclusive scoops, excellent voignier and some tasty canapes. I thought my first venture as official reporter for Media Cake was quite a success.
Sunday, August 26
New TV - Damages
There's no doubt that Glenn Close is up there with Meryl Streep and Helen Mirren for credibility and sheer talent, and if Ms Close commits to a television series, one would hope it would be something special. Her previous venture into TV was the 4th season of The Shield. Her performance was perfect and proved that the weight of her star power did not overwhelm the gritty realism of this powerhouse of a series. Obviously the experience was considered to be an all-round success, as FX, the network that produces The Shield, has created an entire series for this remarkable actress.
Patty Hewes is an uber-successful and highly intimidating litigator, who runs her own law firm. Doesn't sound so exciting, does it! Based on this description alone, Damages could be a close relative of Canterbury's Law, the new Julianna Margulies vehicle, which I've seen and will review when I think of something interesting to say about it. But there many aspects of this show that raise it above the average legal fare. For starters, it defies genres. It's not a court-room drama, it's not a procedural. Although it concerns law suits and litigators, it's not even a legal drama. There is murder, intrigue, psychological game play; nobody is innocent and every one is duplicitous. Villains are proved to be victims and vice versa. Patty Hewes herself is the most complex of protagonists, After watching two episodes of this show, my opinion for her has gone from impressed to appalled, and I look forward to the writers switching back my loyalty to her as the series proceeds. There is nothing familiar or predictable about this show.
The pacing also gives it an edge. This is not a case-of-the-week structure. It has a single story to tell over the season but with many, many dimensions to the narrative. It is slow-building, but still compelling. It starts with a woman, dazed and bloody, running through the streets and eventually into the hands of the police. The rest of the episode is told six months earlier, when we are introduced to the woman, a young lawyer who is being wooed by a number of law firms, including Hewes. The story builds from here with occasional flash forwards to the present, as the truth about her gruesome circumstances gradually unravels.
Visually, it has the feel of a movie rather than a TV series. partly because of the pacing but also because of the settings. Although set in Manhattan, it has a European feel. There are no shots of modern skyscrapers, instead, you will see neo-classical courthouse exteriors, tree lined residential streets and sidewalk cafes.
As you would expect, Glenn Close is outstanding in the role. She gives a multi-faceted performance that never overshadows the plot, the suspense or the rest of the cast. Ted Danson is a revelation as the billionaire defendant in Hewes high-profile law-suit, who may or may not be a murderous, deceitful swindler. It's a successful change of pace from his previous work.
I'm totally hooked on this and look forward to more red herrings and u-turns, as I try to decipher what the hell is going on.
http://www.fxnetworks.com/shows/originals/damages/main.html#home
Patty Hewes is an uber-successful and highly intimidating litigator, who runs her own law firm. Doesn't sound so exciting, does it! Based on this description alone, Damages could be a close relative of Canterbury's Law, the new Julianna Margulies vehicle, which I've seen and will review when I think of something interesting to say about it. But there many aspects of this show that raise it above the average legal fare. For starters, it defies genres. It's not a court-room drama, it's not a procedural. Although it concerns law suits and litigators, it's not even a legal drama. There is murder, intrigue, psychological game play; nobody is innocent and every one is duplicitous. Villains are proved to be victims and vice versa. Patty Hewes herself is the most complex of protagonists, After watching two episodes of this show, my opinion for her has gone from impressed to appalled, and I look forward to the writers switching back my loyalty to her as the series proceeds. There is nothing familiar or predictable about this show.
The pacing also gives it an edge. This is not a case-of-the-week structure. It has a single story to tell over the season but with many, many dimensions to the narrative. It is slow-building, but still compelling. It starts with a woman, dazed and bloody, running through the streets and eventually into the hands of the police. The rest of the episode is told six months earlier, when we are introduced to the woman, a young lawyer who is being wooed by a number of law firms, including Hewes. The story builds from here with occasional flash forwards to the present, as the truth about her gruesome circumstances gradually unravels.
Visually, it has the feel of a movie rather than a TV series. partly because of the pacing but also because of the settings. Although set in Manhattan, it has a European feel. There are no shots of modern skyscrapers, instead, you will see neo-classical courthouse exteriors, tree lined residential streets and sidewalk cafes.
As you would expect, Glenn Close is outstanding in the role. She gives a multi-faceted performance that never overshadows the plot, the suspense or the rest of the cast. Ted Danson is a revelation as the billionaire defendant in Hewes high-profile law-suit, who may or may not be a murderous, deceitful swindler. It's a successful change of pace from his previous work.
I'm totally hooked on this and look forward to more red herrings and u-turns, as I try to decipher what the hell is going on.
http://www.fxnetworks.com/shows/originals/damages/main.html#home
Tuesday, August 21
Good TV You May Have Missed.....Friday Night Lights
Some shows are successes from the start, some build slowly and rely on word-of-mouth to push them to success. Some are outstanding yet never pull in the audience. Part of the fun (and irritation) of the new TV season is trying to pick out the Hits from the Misses. For me, the shows that have appeal can fall into both categories and more often then not, the latter.
I saw an advance pilot of Friday Night Lights this time last year and decided it wasn't for me. I liked it, particularly the cinematography, and I felt it had potential, but when I weighed up the pros and cons of this show, I omitted it from my viewing repertoire. Set in Texas, about high school football, I believed this to be a show that had no relevance to me. I was also reluctant to get involved in another drama featuring characters half my age.
Throughout the broadcast season, the critics had high praise for FNL, but at that stage it was too late for me. Previous episodes were not available for download or streaming and I wouldn't join a drama half way through. But the accolades were growing and coming from the unlikeliest of sources, ie: females, and they weren't just watching it for the teen athletes. Despite less than stellar ratings, it was renewed for a second season. It was time to correct my mistake.
Thankfully, there were summer reruns and I picked up from the start. Last Saturday morning I watched the final 6 episodes concurrently through tears and laughter. It is one of the most beguiling shows I have seen. It has many fine qualities and great performances, but for me, it is Coach Eric Taylor and his wife Tammy, played by Kyle Chandler (from Early Edition and King Kong) and Connie Britton, who raise this show to a superior level. Their performances are outstanding. Not in a melodramatic, shouty, chew-the-scenery way, but subtle, heart-wrenching in a manner I've never thought possible on the small screen; the polite restraint on the coach's face when a car sales man is trying to tell him how to run the team; the quiver in Tammi's voice when she realises her 15 year old daughter is going to sleep with her boyfriend. Fantastic, gut busting, understated performances without being over scripted or played for Emmys. (Are you watching Grey's writers? Less is more!)
The common thread in the show is the obsession the town of Dillon has with football, and everyone has some vested interest in the success of the team. The sport is without a doubt, the backbone of this show. Initially, you'll watch it in spite of the football. There are plenty of scandals, heartbreaks and humour outside of the field to sustain this small town drama. If you're lucky enough to see it through to the season finale, you'll watch it because of the football. I know nothing about American football, and am little wiser from 22 episodes of FNL, but the climb of the Dillon Panthers, from being the underdogs to the team to beat in Texas, was exhilarating, heart-warming and ultimately very satisfying. Who knew that there was still a heart beating in the cut-throat world of network TV, and that it was in Texas!
http://www.nbc.com/Friday_Night_Lights/
I saw an advance pilot of Friday Night Lights this time last year and decided it wasn't for me. I liked it, particularly the cinematography, and I felt it had potential, but when I weighed up the pros and cons of this show, I omitted it from my viewing repertoire. Set in Texas, about high school football, I believed this to be a show that had no relevance to me. I was also reluctant to get involved in another drama featuring characters half my age.
Throughout the broadcast season, the critics had high praise for FNL, but at that stage it was too late for me. Previous episodes were not available for download or streaming and I wouldn't join a drama half way through. But the accolades were growing and coming from the unlikeliest of sources, ie: females, and they weren't just watching it for the teen athletes. Despite less than stellar ratings, it was renewed for a second season. It was time to correct my mistake.
Thankfully, there were summer reruns and I picked up from the start. Last Saturday morning I watched the final 6 episodes concurrently through tears and laughter. It is one of the most beguiling shows I have seen. It has many fine qualities and great performances, but for me, it is Coach Eric Taylor and his wife Tammy, played by Kyle Chandler (from Early Edition and King Kong) and Connie Britton, who raise this show to a superior level. Their performances are outstanding. Not in a melodramatic, shouty, chew-the-scenery way, but subtle, heart-wrenching in a manner I've never thought possible on the small screen; the polite restraint on the coach's face when a car sales man is trying to tell him how to run the team; the quiver in Tammi's voice when she realises her 15 year old daughter is going to sleep with her boyfriend. Fantastic, gut busting, understated performances without being over scripted or played for Emmys. (Are you watching Grey's writers? Less is more!)
The common thread in the show is the obsession the town of Dillon has with football, and everyone has some vested interest in the success of the team. The sport is without a doubt, the backbone of this show. Initially, you'll watch it in spite of the football. There are plenty of scandals, heartbreaks and humour outside of the field to sustain this small town drama. If you're lucky enough to see it through to the season finale, you'll watch it because of the football. I know nothing about American football, and am little wiser from 22 episodes of FNL, but the climb of the Dillon Panthers, from being the underdogs to the team to beat in Texas, was exhilarating, heart-warming and ultimately very satisfying. Who knew that there was still a heart beating in the cut-throat world of network TV, and that it was in Texas!
http://www.nbc.com/Friday_Night_Lights/
Monday, August 20
New Fall TV - Chuck, Reaper
So I'm cheating a bit by lumping these two together but I can't really help it. In my head they are the same show.
Both are comedy-dramas (Dramodies? Comas?) and concern themselves with a young geek, working in a dead end job who discovers through a bizarre twist of fate, that life has something far bigger mapped out for him. He has an annoying nerdy best friend to accompany him on his adventures and his new empowerment provides lots of daring and dangerous scrapes to amuse and exhilarate us.
In The CW's Reaper, Sam works in a Home Depot-type store with his comedic sidekick. As he turns 21, he discovers that his parents sold his soul to the devil before he was born and now the devil wants what's due. He has a job in store for our slacker friend, which is to recapture all the tortured souls who have escaped from hell. Armed with a satanically-enhanced dustbuster, he must do his duty or suffer the consequences.
In NBC's Chuck, the titular character works in a Best Buy-type store with his comedic sidekick. he receives a subliminally encoded email which contains encrypted CIA information, and unwittingly absorbs every government secret into his brain. Now the government wants him, the bad guys want him, the bad guys in the government want him, and we are not quite sure who they are.
There are not just similarities in set-up. The humour, production standards and overall quality of the shows are comparable, even though they are on different networks. The best friends are buffoons, villains are comic book and the female characters are unimpressive, even seeming a little dated. They are aimed at the same target market and it will impossible to tell if they will cancel each other out or succeed on each other's steam. I've already dismissed them both.
http://www.cwtv.com/shows/reaper/about
http://www.nbc.com/Chuck/
Both are comedy-dramas (Dramodies? Comas?) and concern themselves with a young geek, working in a dead end job who discovers through a bizarre twist of fate, that life has something far bigger mapped out for him. He has an annoying nerdy best friend to accompany him on his adventures and his new empowerment provides lots of daring and dangerous scrapes to amuse and exhilarate us.
In The CW's Reaper, Sam works in a Home Depot-type store with his comedic sidekick. As he turns 21, he discovers that his parents sold his soul to the devil before he was born and now the devil wants what's due. He has a job in store for our slacker friend, which is to recapture all the tortured souls who have escaped from hell. Armed with a satanically-enhanced dustbuster, he must do his duty or suffer the consequences.
In NBC's Chuck, the titular character works in a Best Buy-type store with his comedic sidekick. he receives a subliminally encoded email which contains encrypted CIA information, and unwittingly absorbs every government secret into his brain. Now the government wants him, the bad guys want him, the bad guys in the government want him, and we are not quite sure who they are.
There are not just similarities in set-up. The humour, production standards and overall quality of the shows are comparable, even though they are on different networks. The best friends are buffoons, villains are comic book and the female characters are unimpressive, even seeming a little dated. They are aimed at the same target market and it will impossible to tell if they will cancel each other out or succeed on each other's steam. I've already dismissed them both.
http://www.cwtv.com/shows/reaper/about
http://www.nbc.com/Chuck/
Sunday, August 19
New TV - Life
This one seems to have slipped under the radar in terms of advance press for the new Fall season, which is a shame because I quite liked it. A cop is sentenced to life in prison for murder, and, after serving 12 years, is released when new evidence clears him. Rather than taking his massive financial settlement and rebuilding his life, he takes his millions and rejoins the police force.
British actor Damian Lewis channels his inner Bruce Willis, playing a character who approaches his new freedom with a zen-like optimism much to the surprise and discomfort of his former colleagues and friends. He's partnered with a discredited female cop, who is doubtful of his ability to reintegrate himself into the force, but is more concerned as to how he will impact on her already shaky record. The show has the procedural element - he is now an outside-the-box thinker whose unorthodox detecting methods raise eyebrows but ultimately get the job done. Lewis sets a nice balance of an odd character whose personality has adapted to betrayal and subsequent exoneration, without overdosing on quirky charm. He is bright yet stunted, socially awkward but offering great insights into human behaviour. He's not quite likable, but definitely sympathetic. It's therefore all the more impactful when it is revealed, that far from moving on, he is doggedly investigating who is responsible for framing him. And everyone, past and present, colleague, friend, superior and relative is a suspect.
This could be a good show, a solid procedural drama setting the framework for a far more interesting background mystery. But I fear that it will be lost in the plethora of new shows and the online previews don't do it justice. This one is almost invisible in the critics' Fall previews and I unfortunately predict that it will be one of the first shows to be dropped. Time will tell.
http://www.nbc.com/Life/
British actor Damian Lewis channels his inner Bruce Willis, playing a character who approaches his new freedom with a zen-like optimism much to the surprise and discomfort of his former colleagues and friends. He's partnered with a discredited female cop, who is doubtful of his ability to reintegrate himself into the force, but is more concerned as to how he will impact on her already shaky record. The show has the procedural element - he is now an outside-the-box thinker whose unorthodox detecting methods raise eyebrows but ultimately get the job done. Lewis sets a nice balance of an odd character whose personality has adapted to betrayal and subsequent exoneration, without overdosing on quirky charm. He is bright yet stunted, socially awkward but offering great insights into human behaviour. He's not quite likable, but definitely sympathetic. It's therefore all the more impactful when it is revealed, that far from moving on, he is doggedly investigating who is responsible for framing him. And everyone, past and present, colleague, friend, superior and relative is a suspect.
This could be a good show, a solid procedural drama setting the framework for a far more interesting background mystery. But I fear that it will be lost in the plethora of new shows and the online previews don't do it justice. This one is almost invisible in the critics' Fall previews and I unfortunately predict that it will be one of the first shows to be dropped. Time will tell.
http://www.nbc.com/Life/
Monday, August 13
New Fall TV - Moonlight
Now, no one is more open to a vampire tale than me. I'm a huge fan of Buffy. I watched the spin-off, Angel, with the same enthusiasm, although not the same obsession. And despite dreadful performances from Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves, I'd watch Coppola's Dracula every day, just to hear Gary Oldman utter "I've crossed ooooceans of time to find you".
Moonlight is about a vampire. A good one. Battling crime and other evil vampires. Okay I'm sold.
The undead in question is played by Alex O'Loughlin who did a brief but not-too-shabby turn in the last season of The Shield, which by the way if you are not watching, shame on you. He's not classically good looking but in The Shield he had a certain appeal. Still, if I was going to cast a sexy member of the undead, he'd be nowhere near my wish-list.
Aesthetics aside, I can honestly say, hand on heart, that Moonlight is the worst pilot that I have ever seen. If you took a group of 12 year old children, asked them to write a script, threw it away and then asked monkeys to salvage it, it wouldn't differ from this appalling offering. Are we living in the 70's? Have we learned nothing about this genre? When we have characters declaring their love telepathically in the style of a Mike Hammer voice-over, it is time to laugh with embarrassment and switch off. The script, the casting, the plot, all are beyond redemption. It is truly, truly awful. Which is why it pains me to say that I will watch it again. Why? For starters, they are recasting and reshooting the whole thing. The weak-chinned O'Loughlin will still be the unsexy undead, but the ditzy female lead is recast (I couldn't concur more) and the old vampire mentor, who I didn't have an issue with, has been ditched in favour of a younger model. Jason Dohring to be precise, who did such an amazing job playing complex bad-boy Logan in Veronica Mars. I'll admit that I have a bit of a crush on this guy and he is one of few people who could have possibly inspired me to give this dreadful show a second chance!
Unfortunately I doubt that any number of reshoots could save this show, O'Loughlin is wrong for the role. Dohring will outshine him, and I hope it succeeds for his sake. But as an advocate of the genre, based on the pilot, no Buffy fan will bother with this shoddy affair.
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/moonlight/
Moonlight is about a vampire. A good one. Battling crime and other evil vampires. Okay I'm sold.
The undead in question is played by Alex O'Loughlin who did a brief but not-too-shabby turn in the last season of The Shield, which by the way if you are not watching, shame on you. He's not classically good looking but in The Shield he had a certain appeal. Still, if I was going to cast a sexy member of the undead, he'd be nowhere near my wish-list.
Aesthetics aside, I can honestly say, hand on heart, that Moonlight is the worst pilot that I have ever seen. If you took a group of 12 year old children, asked them to write a script, threw it away and then asked monkeys to salvage it, it wouldn't differ from this appalling offering. Are we living in the 70's? Have we learned nothing about this genre? When we have characters declaring their love telepathically in the style of a Mike Hammer voice-over, it is time to laugh with embarrassment and switch off. The script, the casting, the plot, all are beyond redemption. It is truly, truly awful. Which is why it pains me to say that I will watch it again. Why? For starters, they are recasting and reshooting the whole thing. The weak-chinned O'Loughlin will still be the unsexy undead, but the ditzy female lead is recast (I couldn't concur more) and the old vampire mentor, who I didn't have an issue with, has been ditched in favour of a younger model. Jason Dohring to be precise, who did such an amazing job playing complex bad-boy Logan in Veronica Mars. I'll admit that I have a bit of a crush on this guy and he is one of few people who could have possibly inspired me to give this dreadful show a second chance!
Unfortunately I doubt that any number of reshoots could save this show, O'Loughlin is wrong for the role. Dohring will outshine him, and I hope it succeeds for his sake. But as an advocate of the genre, based on the pilot, no Buffy fan will bother with this shoddy affair.
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/moonlight/
Sunday, August 12
New Fall TV - Swingtown
Well, isn't American TV getting brave!!! Here we have a show set in the seventies about married couples and their swinging lifestyles. We've come a long way since Mad about You.
If any of you were wondering whatever happened to the actor who played Jake Hanson in Melrose Place, well here he is, as the King of the Swingers. Donning a terrible 'tache he is as sexy as cystitis. New to his neighborhood (and subsequently the swing scene) are a couple who I thought were newlyweds, such was their enthusiasm for each other. It turns out they have two teenage children and I can't help feeling that the secrets of these amorous parents' marriage could be a successful show right there. Their PDAs are spotted by Mr and Mrs Swing and they are invited to the party to end all parties. For some reason that's not entirely explained, they feel that consensual sex with other partners is exactly what their not-at-all-ailing marriage needed.
The Bush voting, bible thumping, family values regions of the US are going to hate this, which is why I wanted to love it. But I don't. It feels dated but not in the way that evokes a bygone era. It's like watching the flashback in Cold Case. The clothes and the music create the seventies, but I'm not buying it. If you want to recreate the past watch Mad Men or even Life on Mars. It's as much to do with attitudes and beliefs as it is visual or audio props. Having contemporary characters does not help a retro set show. We need the references and behaviours of what it was like to live in that era.
Since the success of Hugh Laurie in House, there is an abundance of British actors cast in American shows where each one of them has a US accent: Eddie Izzard in The Riches; Damian Lewis in Life; Michelle Ryan in The Bionic Woman; Kevin McKidd in Journeyman; Jamie Bamber in Battlestar Galactica (which isn't even set on Earth, never mind North America) to name but a few. For those of us in Europe, hearing actors' US accents, when we know them to be British is, at first, jarring. It took me so long to get used to Laurie on House, but now I think he is wonderful, on what could be a very average procedural show. Jack Davenport, following his success in Pirates of the Caribbean, plays the lucky new neighbour in Swingtown. Any female who watched This Life on the BBC in the nineties, will always be slightly in love with Miles, the incredibly flawed yet sexy character Davenport played in this pivotal series. Watching him, struggling with the American accent, in this inferior show is just wrong. He is awkward, insipid and I can't help feeling he's slightly embarrassed! The character of his wife is more interesting. While she seems to love her attentive husband, there seems to be a reciprocated affection towards her previous neighbor's husband. Is that who she envisages having non-marital sex with? Unfortunately it's only barely suggested in the pilot.
I applaud the network for such a brave concept, particularly in this pro-family values era. But this is not the show to break ground. A show that is based in the seventies has few teeth for today's age and a network station at the mercy of advertisers is unfortunately not the forum. Gossip Girl has more balls than this one.
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/fall_preview_2007/tools.shtml
If any of you were wondering whatever happened to the actor who played Jake Hanson in Melrose Place, well here he is, as the King of the Swingers. Donning a terrible 'tache he is as sexy as cystitis. New to his neighborhood (and subsequently the swing scene) are a couple who I thought were newlyweds, such was their enthusiasm for each other. It turns out they have two teenage children and I can't help feeling that the secrets of these amorous parents' marriage could be a successful show right there. Their PDAs are spotted by Mr and Mrs Swing and they are invited to the party to end all parties. For some reason that's not entirely explained, they feel that consensual sex with other partners is exactly what their not-at-all-ailing marriage needed.
The Bush voting, bible thumping, family values regions of the US are going to hate this, which is why I wanted to love it. But I don't. It feels dated but not in the way that evokes a bygone era. It's like watching the flashback in Cold Case. The clothes and the music create the seventies, but I'm not buying it. If you want to recreate the past watch Mad Men or even Life on Mars. It's as much to do with attitudes and beliefs as it is visual or audio props. Having contemporary characters does not help a retro set show. We need the references and behaviours of what it was like to live in that era.
Since the success of Hugh Laurie in House, there is an abundance of British actors cast in American shows where each one of them has a US accent: Eddie Izzard in The Riches; Damian Lewis in Life; Michelle Ryan in The Bionic Woman; Kevin McKidd in Journeyman; Jamie Bamber in Battlestar Galactica (which isn't even set on Earth, never mind North America) to name but a few. For those of us in Europe, hearing actors' US accents, when we know them to be British is, at first, jarring. It took me so long to get used to Laurie on House, but now I think he is wonderful, on what could be a very average procedural show. Jack Davenport, following his success in Pirates of the Caribbean, plays the lucky new neighbour in Swingtown. Any female who watched This Life on the BBC in the nineties, will always be slightly in love with Miles, the incredibly flawed yet sexy character Davenport played in this pivotal series. Watching him, struggling with the American accent, in this inferior show is just wrong. He is awkward, insipid and I can't help feeling he's slightly embarrassed! The character of his wife is more interesting. While she seems to love her attentive husband, there seems to be a reciprocated affection towards her previous neighbor's husband. Is that who she envisages having non-marital sex with? Unfortunately it's only barely suggested in the pilot.
I applaud the network for such a brave concept, particularly in this pro-family values era. But this is not the show to break ground. A show that is based in the seventies has few teeth for today's age and a network station at the mercy of advertisers is unfortunately not the forum. Gossip Girl has more balls than this one.
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/fall_preview_2007/tools.shtml
New Fall TV - Journeyman
The Time Traveller's Wife meets Quantum Leap is the most efficient way of describing this one. A man inexplicably and uncontrollably, travels back in time and discovers that his actions can make for a better future. The common bond with his multiple displacements is that he reconnects with a former girlfriend who was killed in an accident. He may or may not be supposed to save her and/or re-enact their passionate relationship. The rub is that the guy is happily married in the future. Can you be unfaithful if you are not yet with your wife? Time travelling shows are always great for mind fucks like that, which is why this was top of my list when it came to screening the new shows.
I was disappointed in it for two reasons. The first being lead actor, Kevin McKidd's performance. McKidd enjoyed success in the HBO show Rome, but here he puts in an unsatisfying performance of a man who, although experiencing the most bizarre of circumstances, fails to convey with conviction the disbelief or awe that the situation deserves. I also think there is a little room for humour here. Fantasy shows require a suspension of disbelief, and humour can be used very effectively, to lighten the mood and make the audience feel comfortable about what they are supposed to embrace. If any of us were lucky enough to penetrate the space time continuum, would we not spend the post-realisation moments going "Holy crap! I did it" much like Hiro's reaction to his teleporting in Heroes? McKidd's performance is so earnest and humourless it takes all the fun out of time travel. And while I would imagine it's a lot to take in, I can't help thinking, this could be a blast. Especially once you've explained it to your wife!
My other issue is that the plot played one of its hands too quickly. The connection between time travel and his girlfriend's death, although not explained, is revealed in the pilot and the suspense is therefore deflated. I would have been happy to indulge this mystery a bit longer.
There is a lovely scene where he proves his travel quirk to his wife. I was grateful that the series won't be following the path of the baffled spouse and disintegrating marriage . The scene was perfectly placed and actually quite romantic.
I'd like to see where Journeyman's journey leads. I do think it could lead to interesting TV, but I don't believe that it has the strength of its convictions to properly engage a fantasy audience, nor is it dramatic enough for the mainstream. Shame though, it could have been fun.
http://www.nbc.com/Journeyman/
I was disappointed in it for two reasons. The first being lead actor, Kevin McKidd's performance. McKidd enjoyed success in the HBO show Rome, but here he puts in an unsatisfying performance of a man who, although experiencing the most bizarre of circumstances, fails to convey with conviction the disbelief or awe that the situation deserves. I also think there is a little room for humour here. Fantasy shows require a suspension of disbelief, and humour can be used very effectively, to lighten the mood and make the audience feel comfortable about what they are supposed to embrace. If any of us were lucky enough to penetrate the space time continuum, would we not spend the post-realisation moments going "Holy crap! I did it" much like Hiro's reaction to his teleporting in Heroes? McKidd's performance is so earnest and humourless it takes all the fun out of time travel. And while I would imagine it's a lot to take in, I can't help thinking, this could be a blast. Especially once you've explained it to your wife!
My other issue is that the plot played one of its hands too quickly. The connection between time travel and his girlfriend's death, although not explained, is revealed in the pilot and the suspense is therefore deflated. I would have been happy to indulge this mystery a bit longer.
There is a lovely scene where he proves his travel quirk to his wife. I was grateful that the series won't be following the path of the baffled spouse and disintegrating marriage . The scene was perfectly placed and actually quite romantic.
I'd like to see where Journeyman's journey leads. I do think it could lead to interesting TV, but I don't believe that it has the strength of its convictions to properly engage a fantasy audience, nor is it dramatic enough for the mainstream. Shame though, it could have been fun.
http://www.nbc.com/Journeyman/
Wednesday, August 8
New Fall TV - Gossip Girl
I have a love/hate relationship with the CW Network. On the one hand they provide me with some very enjoyable fantasy shows such as Smallville and Supernatural. No other network would provide airtime for such wonderful weirdness. On the other hand, they cancelled one of my all-time favourites, Veronica Mars, and replaced it with the Search for the Next PussyCat Doll. So rather than give the critically acclaimed Veronica another season, they have decided to invest major bucks in a rehash of every vacuous, rich kid, teen drama we have ever seen. And yet, it will be huge. Viewers, I give you the commercial genius that is Gossip Girl.
The CW targets young viewers so it is perhaps unfair of me to criticise them for giving the kids what they want. But I do believe that good TV can transcend demographics. There is no age limit on good drama, smart scripts and great performances, and there are many examples of shows set in high schools have provided some great TV for all ages. Buffy, Veronica Mars, and Friday Night Lights, for example, even the first year of The OC, which, although as corny as hell, was loaded with quick humour and meta-semiotic referencing. I tried to be open-minded about Gossip Girl, and in truth, it does what it's supposed to do and it does it well. It's set around a bunch of privileged kids in New York and, specifically, the return of popular it-girl after a sudden and unexplained absence. Other members on the scene include the bitchy ex-best friend, the ex-boyfriend who hasn't quite moved on, the playboy-in-the-making with taste for virgins, and the nice, not-so-loaded guy with a childhood crush way beyond his social status.
The titular girl is a never-seen voice-over who writes a popular and timely blog, tracking the movements and scandals of this elite set. And this is where the commercial genius of the show clicks in. Every character has a Blackberry, Sidekick or equivalent mobile email device which they regularly check on screen (with highly visible logos), in order to update themselves with the latest tittle tattle. From a product placement viewpoint, this show can't lose. Telecoms are some of the biggest spenders in advertising and here they are, not only reaching their primary target market, but a pivotal tool of the story. Even with moderate ratings this show could be one of the biggest money-spinners of the season.
But I doubt I'll keep watching. It's mildly diverting but it has few values that are relevant to anyone but a vapid, socially aspiring teen who values status over smarts. That's not to say it doesn't have broader appeal. It's flashy and shallow and there's always room for that on a TV schedule. One plus I'll give it however, is its unashamed and realistic portrayal of teenagers' indulgence in sex, drugs and alcohol. They do it all, a lot, and this show seems, from the pilot anyway, unconcerned with imparting any moral lessons from this behaviour. Which is realistic, brave and refreshing. It is rare to see TV characters, particularly teens, drink a few martinis and not get enrolled in AA.
http://www.cwtv.com/shows/gossip-girl
The CW targets young viewers so it is perhaps unfair of me to criticise them for giving the kids what they want. But I do believe that good TV can transcend demographics. There is no age limit on good drama, smart scripts and great performances, and there are many examples of shows set in high schools have provided some great TV for all ages. Buffy, Veronica Mars, and Friday Night Lights, for example, even the first year of The OC, which, although as corny as hell, was loaded with quick humour and meta-semiotic referencing. I tried to be open-minded about Gossip Girl, and in truth, it does what it's supposed to do and it does it well. It's set around a bunch of privileged kids in New York and, specifically, the return of popular it-girl after a sudden and unexplained absence. Other members on the scene include the bitchy ex-best friend, the ex-boyfriend who hasn't quite moved on, the playboy-in-the-making with taste for virgins, and the nice, not-so-loaded guy with a childhood crush way beyond his social status.
The titular girl is a never-seen voice-over who writes a popular and timely blog, tracking the movements and scandals of this elite set. And this is where the commercial genius of the show clicks in. Every character has a Blackberry, Sidekick or equivalent mobile email device which they regularly check on screen (with highly visible logos), in order to update themselves with the latest tittle tattle. From a product placement viewpoint, this show can't lose. Telecoms are some of the biggest spenders in advertising and here they are, not only reaching their primary target market, but a pivotal tool of the story. Even with moderate ratings this show could be one of the biggest money-spinners of the season.
But I doubt I'll keep watching. It's mildly diverting but it has few values that are relevant to anyone but a vapid, socially aspiring teen who values status over smarts. That's not to say it doesn't have broader appeal. It's flashy and shallow and there's always room for that on a TV schedule. One plus I'll give it however, is its unashamed and realistic portrayal of teenagers' indulgence in sex, drugs and alcohol. They do it all, a lot, and this show seems, from the pilot anyway, unconcerned with imparting any moral lessons from this behaviour. Which is realistic, brave and refreshing. It is rare to see TV characters, particularly teens, drink a few martinis and not get enrolled in AA.
http://www.cwtv.com/shows/gossip-girl
Friday, August 3
New Fall TV- Cashmere Mafia
Without a doubt, the winner of the worst-titled show of the new season.
There are high hopes that this hour long drama will mimic the popularity of Sex and the City and to ensure success, there are many similarities. Four female friends living in Manhattan, each with an enviable career, attractive and dazzlingly groomed, with not a flip-flop or comfortable tracksuit between them. They meet regularly in the same restaurant for lunch and gossip, and they all love each other dearly. So far it's like a carbon copy, there's even a "so that got me thinking..." voice over.
The biggest difference between this show and our SATC friends is the genre. While it is lighthearted, it's a drama so don't expect any of the lewd humour that made SATC so popular. Also our heroines here are further along the lifestyle cycle. They're not older, just more advanced than their neurotic predecessors. They are all top of their game professionally, two are married with kids and one is in a long-term relationship. We can assume that a show about happy, gorgeous, successful, neurosis-free women living in the world's coolest city and with a beautiful work-life-family balance, is just not going to generate much empathy from its target demographic. So numerous spanners must be thrown in the works, such as adultery, career dilemmas and same-sex attractions.
But is it any good? In truth, it's exactly what you'd expect. It's like putting on a comfortable old pair of slippers and imagining they are Jimmy Choos. It's neither clever nor unique but it is mildly entertaining. The characters are likable enough, despite their near-perfect lifestyles. Lucy Lui will always be, to me, the brilliantly bitchy Ling from Ally McBeal, and to see her play nice is a bit disappointing. But she is no better or worse than her fellow co-stars, who are all somewhat beige. They'll need to develop some sharper claws if CashMaf wants to emulate the water cooler momentum of those four other New York gals.
http://abc.go.com/fallpreview/cashmeremafia/index
There are high hopes that this hour long drama will mimic the popularity of Sex and the City and to ensure success, there are many similarities. Four female friends living in Manhattan, each with an enviable career, attractive and dazzlingly groomed, with not a flip-flop or comfortable tracksuit between them. They meet regularly in the same restaurant for lunch and gossip, and they all love each other dearly. So far it's like a carbon copy, there's even a "so that got me thinking..." voice over.
The biggest difference between this show and our SATC friends is the genre. While it is lighthearted, it's a drama so don't expect any of the lewd humour that made SATC so popular. Also our heroines here are further along the lifestyle cycle. They're not older, just more advanced than their neurotic predecessors. They are all top of their game professionally, two are married with kids and one is in a long-term relationship. We can assume that a show about happy, gorgeous, successful, neurosis-free women living in the world's coolest city and with a beautiful work-life-family balance, is just not going to generate much empathy from its target demographic. So numerous spanners must be thrown in the works, such as adultery, career dilemmas and same-sex attractions.
But is it any good? In truth, it's exactly what you'd expect. It's like putting on a comfortable old pair of slippers and imagining they are Jimmy Choos. It's neither clever nor unique but it is mildly entertaining. The characters are likable enough, despite their near-perfect lifestyles. Lucy Lui will always be, to me, the brilliantly bitchy Ling from Ally McBeal, and to see her play nice is a bit disappointing. But she is no better or worse than her fellow co-stars, who are all somewhat beige. They'll need to develop some sharper claws if CashMaf wants to emulate the water cooler momentum of those four other New York gals.
http://abc.go.com/fallpreview/cashmeremafia/index
Wednesday, August 1
New TV - Mad Men
Mad Men is the first commissioned show for AMC - American Movie Classics, a channel that shows movies, much in the lines of TCM. Following from the success and quality of cable shows on Showcase and HBO, it's nice to see this departure from them, and if the experiment works, AMC says they will produce more drama.
Right out of the gate, this has one of the the most gorgeous title sequences I can remember and I already want one of the shots hanging on my wall. The title refers to Madison Avenue, New York, the birth place of the modern advertising agency, and this show is set in the late fifties at the start of that boom. If any of you ever watched Bewitched as a kid, and remember Darren's job as an ad man, you'll get a sense of the environment we're talking about: men in slicked-back hair and suits, and women in pill-box hats and nipped-waist dresses to the knee. But apart from the office furniture that's where the similarity ends. These guys are arrogant, adulterous and, boy, do they smoke a lot! It's actually quite distracting. They smoke in bed, in restaurants, in the office, whilst driving. If this show gains in viewership, it's only a matter of time before the anti-smoking lobby call for its censorship. But in fact there are lots of health hazards to be observed in this interesting retro drama, and strangely, it's part of the appeal! In one scene, a mother chastises her daughter for wearing a plastic bag over here head whilst playing with her brother. Rather than point out the risks of suffocation, this concerned parent was troubled by the location of the dry cleaning from whence it came. At least with today's kids, we just have to worry about obesity.
The characters on first introduction seem quite stereotypical of what we've come to expect from movies of that era. The men are rugged and misogynistic and the women are pretty, perfectly groomed and are valued for either their typing or their housekeeping. There are issues of adultery, depression and sexual discrimination, but the heart of the story is Don Draper, a brilliant Creative Director with a perfect family and a past he wants to keep hidden. There is no soap-opera pacing to this show. Much like The Sopranos, Mad Men is a whole package and if you chase a closure to a storyline, you'll miss the nuances and social commentary that enhance viewing . It's also entertaining to see how agencies and campaigns worked back then and also to observe the massive social and technological differences to today's lifestyles. The performances are solid and the absence of recognisable actors assists in transposing the viewer into the past. There are a number of shows in the works set in past eras and this one evokes the retro-ambiance most effectively.
http://media.amctv.com/originals/madmen/
Right out of the gate, this has one of the the most gorgeous title sequences I can remember and I already want one of the shots hanging on my wall. The title refers to Madison Avenue, New York, the birth place of the modern advertising agency, and this show is set in the late fifties at the start of that boom. If any of you ever watched Bewitched as a kid, and remember Darren's job as an ad man, you'll get a sense of the environment we're talking about: men in slicked-back hair and suits, and women in pill-box hats and nipped-waist dresses to the knee. But apart from the office furniture that's where the similarity ends. These guys are arrogant, adulterous and, boy, do they smoke a lot! It's actually quite distracting. They smoke in bed, in restaurants, in the office, whilst driving. If this show gains in viewership, it's only a matter of time before the anti-smoking lobby call for its censorship. But in fact there are lots of health hazards to be observed in this interesting retro drama, and strangely, it's part of the appeal! In one scene, a mother chastises her daughter for wearing a plastic bag over here head whilst playing with her brother. Rather than point out the risks of suffocation, this concerned parent was troubled by the location of the dry cleaning from whence it came. At least with today's kids, we just have to worry about obesity.
The characters on first introduction seem quite stereotypical of what we've come to expect from movies of that era. The men are rugged and misogynistic and the women are pretty, perfectly groomed and are valued for either their typing or their housekeeping. There are issues of adultery, depression and sexual discrimination, but the heart of the story is Don Draper, a brilliant Creative Director with a perfect family and a past he wants to keep hidden. There is no soap-opera pacing to this show. Much like The Sopranos, Mad Men is a whole package and if you chase a closure to a storyline, you'll miss the nuances and social commentary that enhance viewing . It's also entertaining to see how agencies and campaigns worked back then and also to observe the massive social and technological differences to today's lifestyles. The performances are solid and the absence of recognisable actors assists in transposing the viewer into the past. There are a number of shows in the works set in past eras and this one evokes the retro-ambiance most effectively.
http://media.amctv.com/originals/madmen/
Tuesday, July 24
New Fall TV- The Bionic Woman
The big problem for me, and potential viewers eastside of the Atlantic, is the casting of Michelle Ryan as Jamie Summers. Michelle played Zoe Slater in Eastenders and like most characters in that show she was whiny, dumb and more than slightly screwed up. Could this actress shake off the shackles of Walford and re-invent herself in the US? Can we look at this remake of the iconic classic, without expecting someone to say "let's make a fresh start""or anticipating Barbara Windsor to pop up shouting "leave-ir'ow!!"?
Well, the answer is yes. Miss Ryan doesn't do too badly in this at all. While I didn't find her performance particularly endearing, it was not an irritant, and that was far more than I expected. As for the show itself, it passed the time and that was about it. The highlight is by far Katie Sackoff's performance as a batty bionic version 1, but I believe her appearances will be limited as she will be too busy playing Starbuck in Season 4 of Battlestar Galactica, and rightly so.
The premise of the show is perhaps what makes the pilot unsatisfying. It rushes along too quickly from the pre-bionic set-up, into the accident and subsequent superpowers, with little or no time focused on the emotional consequences of her physical overhaul. In 43 minutes she goes from lowly bartender to would-be assassin/vigilante with remarkable ease. Her lover/bionic surgeon is quite bland and dispensable. There are some menacing sub-characters who will possible provide some intrigue, but their purposes are, as yet, unclear
The pilot I saw will not be the one that is aired. There will be a few character changes and the controversial Isaiah Washington from Grey's Anatomy will be joining the series. I'll give it a few episodes but I'm not expecting a hit.
http://www.nbc.com/Bionic_Woman/
Well, the answer is yes. Miss Ryan doesn't do too badly in this at all. While I didn't find her performance particularly endearing, it was not an irritant, and that was far more than I expected. As for the show itself, it passed the time and that was about it. The highlight is by far Katie Sackoff's performance as a batty bionic version 1, but I believe her appearances will be limited as she will be too busy playing Starbuck in Season 4 of Battlestar Galactica, and rightly so.
The premise of the show is perhaps what makes the pilot unsatisfying. It rushes along too quickly from the pre-bionic set-up, into the accident and subsequent superpowers, with little or no time focused on the emotional consequences of her physical overhaul. In 43 minutes she goes from lowly bartender to would-be assassin/vigilante with remarkable ease. Her lover/bionic surgeon is quite bland and dispensable. There are some menacing sub-characters who will possible provide some intrigue, but their purposes are, as yet, unclear
The pilot I saw will not be the one that is aired. There will be a few character changes and the controversial Isaiah Washington from Grey's Anatomy will be joining the series. I'll give it a few episodes but I'm not expecting a hit.
http://www.nbc.com/Bionic_Woman/
Friday, July 13
New TV - Big Shots
This show can best be described as Desperate Husbands, and I'll understand if you want to stop reading here. There really is very little you need to know apart from that. If you are still watching Desperate Housewives with any amount of enthusiasm, then you will probably like this show. If, like me, you dropped DH somewhere towards the end of season 2, then don't bother investing in Big Shots. It's not as clever or as dark as Season 1, but it has all the nonsense and slapstick of DH sophomore slump.
Four male friends enjoy successful and lucrative careers. Their love lives are interesting, if not always successful and they have an assortment of wives, ex-wives, mistresses, hookers and offspring. They play golf a lot, attend upscale social events with dramatic interruptions, and try to unravel the mystery that is the female. Dylan McDermot (the handsome but bland guy from The Practice) plays the CEO of a cosmetic company. He has a daughter he barely speaks to and an ex-wife he shags in unusual places. His most pressing concern is that he had a liaison with a hooker who turned out to be a guy and it's about to be exposed to the press. Michael Vartan (the handsome but bland guy from Alias), is James, whose personal life is collapsing just as his career is rocketing. The third friend is an adulterous family man, played for feeble laughs by Joshua Malina (the bland and not handsome press officer from The West Wing), and the last of the quartet (an actor unknown to me) is of an unclear occupation, hen-pecked by a wife unseen.
The main issue I had with the pilot was the performances. McDermot struts around with an arrogance and stupidity that makes him instantly unlikeable. Malina's gormless antics makes me think he wandered into the wrong show. And as much as I loved Alias and Vartan's character in that show, he is all wrong in this role. His storyline in the pilot is the most emotional and although he has that handsome sincerity to endear us to his character, his performance is so wooden and lacking in emotion it is distracting. His reaction to a shocking revelation is no different to if he discovered his Merlot was corked. (I don't think I had an opinion on the other guy.)
I'm not sure who this appeals to. It's too slapstick and soapy for guys, but it misses out on an emotional level that hooks in a discerning female audience. The script is not clever and the plot is predictable. The familiar faces may bring in the audience initially but I doubt they will stay there.
http://abc.go.com/fallpreview/bigshots/
Four male friends enjoy successful and lucrative careers. Their love lives are interesting, if not always successful and they have an assortment of wives, ex-wives, mistresses, hookers and offspring. They play golf a lot, attend upscale social events with dramatic interruptions, and try to unravel the mystery that is the female. Dylan McDermot (the handsome but bland guy from The Practice) plays the CEO of a cosmetic company. He has a daughter he barely speaks to and an ex-wife he shags in unusual places. His most pressing concern is that he had a liaison with a hooker who turned out to be a guy and it's about to be exposed to the press. Michael Vartan (the handsome but bland guy from Alias), is James, whose personal life is collapsing just as his career is rocketing. The third friend is an adulterous family man, played for feeble laughs by Joshua Malina (the bland and not handsome press officer from The West Wing), and the last of the quartet (an actor unknown to me) is of an unclear occupation, hen-pecked by a wife unseen.
The main issue I had with the pilot was the performances. McDermot struts around with an arrogance and stupidity that makes him instantly unlikeable. Malina's gormless antics makes me think he wandered into the wrong show. And as much as I loved Alias and Vartan's character in that show, he is all wrong in this role. His storyline in the pilot is the most emotional and although he has that handsome sincerity to endear us to his character, his performance is so wooden and lacking in emotion it is distracting. His reaction to a shocking revelation is no different to if he discovered his Merlot was corked. (I don't think I had an opinion on the other guy.)
I'm not sure who this appeals to. It's too slapstick and soapy for guys, but it misses out on an emotional level that hooks in a discerning female audience. The script is not clever and the plot is predictable. The familiar faces may bring in the audience initially but I doubt they will stay there.
http://abc.go.com/fallpreview/bigshots/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
