Thursday, September 29, 2011

PilotWatch: HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN

CBS Thursdays @ 8:30

What's it about?
A comedy about the unlikely friendship between a traditional, refined writer and an unrefined personal trainer.  Andrew Carlson is an etiquette columnist whose devotion to ideals from a more civilized time has lead [sic] to a life detached from modern society. Infectiously optimistic, Bert Lansing is a reformed "bad boy" from Andrew's past who inherited a fitness center, but can still be rude, loud and sloppy.  When Andrew's editor, Jerry, tells him to put a modern, sexy twist on his column or be fired, he hires Bert as a life coach in the hopes of learning to be less "gentle man" and more "real man."

So, how was it?
I'm literally at a loss of where to start.  Let me simply say that this is by far the worst pilot of the season, if not one of the worst TV shows I have ever seen.  It makes my previous least favorite pilot, THE PLAYBOY CLUB, look like SIX FEET UNDER.  All I can think of is I have lost twenty minutes of my life I will never get back (if it weren't for the sake of my blog, I wouldn't have lasted five).

I knew I wouldn't like it going in because I generally don't love sitcoms and the premise sounded cliché and not very funny.  But with Kevin Dillon as one of the two leads, I wasn't expecting it to be as horrifically awful as it was.  The premise, apart from being unfunny, is supremely dated.  The whole show feels like it was shot at least fifteen years ago.  The production quality is abysmal.  The repeated jokes about how Andrew must not be feeling well because his blazer is unbuttoned made me want to stab something.  And the whole idea that to be a gentleman you have to wear suits everyday and never visit a gym and be too shy to talk to women and just generally be prissy is insulting.  And extremely outdated.  This show was going for a modern day Odd Couple pairing, but somewhere along the way they forgot the "modern" part.

The whole time I could only think about how far Kevin Dillon has fallen since ENTOURAGE ended a mere 18 days ago, what the hell the amazing Mary Lynn Rajskub (Chloe from 24) was doing in this garbage, how many people had to think this show was a good enough idea to let it get this far, and what else the money that got poured into it could have been used for.  Instead of making me laugh, this show just made me depressed.

Rating:
* Atrocious. I will never watch this show again. Ever.
I wish I had a zero-star rating.  I'll be shocked if this show hasn't been cancelled by this time next week.  I think we're looking at the first casualty of the 2011 season.

Okay, Fellow Addicts.  What did you think?  Did anybody else even bother with this show?  If you did, did you make it all the way through?  Or, god forbid, did you like it??  If so, please tell me what I'm missing.  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

(For a quick glance at the other pilots coming out, check out my Fall TV Preview.)

What did you think of HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN?

Starz orders second season of BOSS

Despite the fact that the show doesn't even premiere until October 21, Starz has already picked up a second season of its new drama BOSS, starring Kelsey Grammer.  The first eight-episode season will now be followed next year with ten more episodes.

The show follows Mr. Grammer as Tom Kane, the morally dubious Mayor of Chicago, who is secretly battling a degenerative brain disorder.  Sounds like a lot of juicy, dramatic scenes for the actor most famous for the sitcom FRASIER.  It'll be interesting to see him in such a drastically different role.

The president of Starz, Chris Albrecht, has been reported as saying about the new show, "With each episode, the story grew richer, and the cast continued to turn in breakthrough performances.  For our viewers, we felt it important to start working on the next season as soon as possible."  After such a strong vote of confidence, let's hope the show actually turns out to be good!

How do you feel about BOSS's premature renewal?

PilotWatch: SUBURGATORY

ABC Wednesdays @ 8:30

What's it about?
Single father George Altman is doing his best to raise his sixteen-year-old daughter Tessa in the big city.  When he discovers a box of condoms in her bedroom, though, he decides the time has come to move her to a more wholesome and nurturing environment: the suburbs.  But behind the beautiful homes and perfect lawns lurk the Franken-moms, spray tans, nose jobs, and Red Bull-guzzling teens who have nothing in common with Tessa.  It's a whole new world, one that makes George wonder if they haven't jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire.

So, how was it?
Surprisingly enough, the other pilot from this season that reminds me the most of SUBURGATORY is HART OF DIXIE.  Granted, one is a half-hour comedy on ABC and the other a soapy drama on the CW.  But at their core they are both about girls who grew up in the big city and are forced to move to a smaller town and cope with the crazy locals.  And SUBURGATORY is just as chock-full of stereotypes as HART OF DIXIE.  However, the big difference is that HART OF DIXIE is played straight, whereas SUBURGATORY is meant to be a comedy, and that makes this show infinitely more successful.

Instead of the two-dimensional characters like the jolly mayor and hunky southern gentleman and icy debutante of Alabama, we now get the perfectly-manicured lawns, overly blonde mothers, Sugar-Free-Red-Bull-drinking high school students and garishly pink bedrooms of the suburbs.  The spoiled mean girl with the huge pink room and mother full of plastic seems lifted straight from Regina George's life.  In fact, the whole half hour felt like a melding of two of the greatest contemporary teen comedies: MEAN GIRLS and EASY A.  Our hero, Tessa (Jane Levy) is like a B-list Emma Stone with her red hair, low voice and whip-like sarcasm.  And her foil, Dalia (Carly Chalkin), is just as judgmental and superior as Rachel McAdams was, if not as proactively vicious.

The rest of the cast is just as adept in their roles.  Jeremy Sisto, as Tessa's father George, is a believably concerned parent who clearly wants what's best for his daughter, even if he's not sure what that is (and even if he's apparently the world's biggest overreactor).  Cheryl Hines is overbearing yet surprisingly protective as Dalia's mother, Dallas.  Alan Tudyk (who I didn't even know was in this until he appeared -- pleasant surprise!)  is zany as a spray-tan-orange, bleach-blonde suburban bachelor and former classmate of George.  And Ana Gasteyer is hysterical as usual as George and Tessa's neighbor across the street, who's always watering the lawn and bringing over casseroles.  Her role was fairly small in the pilot, and I can't wait to see more of her.

As much as all of these characters are cartoonish caricatures, they are representations of very real people, just largely drawn.  And as stereotypical as they are, by the end of the first half hour, we've already glimpsed underneath the surface, as Dallas' surprising motherly affection comes through when Tessa needs it the most.  That's the biggest thing setting this show apart from HART OF DIXIE.  The characters on that show are not played for laughs (they may do or say funny things, but their entire existence isn't supposed to be a joke), and show no signs of breaking out of those two-dimensional roles -- and that makes the stereotypes offensive.  The characters on SUBURGATORY are stereotypes as well, but the entire show is meant to be a satire, and the stereotypes are embraced so that they can be slowly broken down over the course of the series to let us see the real people beneath the pink and plastic.

Rating:
*** Solid. I'm interested and will definitely keep watching.
Anything that can draw inspiration from both MEAN GIRLS and EASY A and not feel redundant gets a passing grade in my book.  Plus all the actors on the show are a delight to watch.  This seems like a smart, satirical look at a very real part of American culture that deserves to be both made fun of and dissected.  At least that's where I hope this show is headed, so I'll be sticking around to find out.

Take it away, Fellow Addicts!  Did you find the stereotypes hilarious?  Or just offensive?  Did anyone catch the WEEDS reference?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

(For a quick glance at the other pilots coming out, check out my Fall TV Preview.)

What did you think of SUBURGATORY?

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

FOX orders full season of NEW GIRL

Congratulations, Zooey!

FOX has just announced an additional order of 11 more episodes for its freshman comedy, NEW GIRL, starring Zooey Deschanel.  That brings the total episode count to 24, making NEW GIRL the first new show of 2011 to receive a full season pickup.

This is unsurprising after the show had FOX's highest debut ratings for a sitcom EVER last week with 10.1 million viewers, and this week it managed to hold on to 92% of that audience for its second episode.

So we have at least 22 more episodes to look forward to full of Douchebag Jars, impromptu theme songs, and Zooey's zany adorkableness.

How do you feel about NEW GIRL getting a full season?

PilotWatch Update 2: RINGER

The CW's RINGER just aired its third episode last night.  I gave its pilot a two-star rating (read my review here), and then in my first Update, I said that the second episode got even worse.  I also said that I would give the show one more chance to redeem itself before I gave up entirely.  So here I am to give you a second update.

Did it get any better?
After last week's tangential sidetrack into a slapstick body-stashing adventure, I am happy to report that the third episode was much better.  Maybe that in itself isn't saying much, as it's hard to go downhill from that, but this was also definitely my favorite episode so far.

The mystery got back on track after Bridget spent an entire episode trying to hide a corpse rather than finding out who he was or who sent him.  She finally gets around to that this week, trying to trace the would-be assassin's phone and temporarily suspecting Siobhan's husband Andrew of being responsible.  In my favorite moment of the episode, a mysterious someone called the dead man's phone and demanded that she leave it on a bench and walk away.  Bridget totally surprised me here by doing exactly the opposite, keeping the phone and running away.  Way to show some gumption there, Bridge!

Another plus in this episode was that Siobhan managed to appear outside of the last thirty seconds of the episode.  We got to glimpse her a couple times, seducing a man in Paris and then freaking out and prank-calling Henry when she figures out she's pregnant with his child.

By week three, the show finally seems to be finding its footing.  It combines ridiculously soapy plot lines and outrageous costumes (seriously, Bridget could've smuggled a few small children inside that coat of hers) with some genuinely dark moments (torturing a recovering drug addict by injecting him with the drug he's trying to quit? yikes...).  The show is still struggling to overcome some of its biggest clichés like the relentless FBI agent, the pregnancy subplot and the long-haired, evil gangster.  And by far the show's biggest drag is its unforgivingly boring storyline about investments and money and icy British bankers and...sorry, dozed off for a second.  It's in the moments when the show tries to be taken seriously that it's at its worst.  The writers should just give in to the show's ridiculously soapy nature and stop apologizing for it, and then maybe it could become an addictive guilty pleasure.  As of now though, it feels like it's still treading a dangerous line of wanting to be a veryseriousdrama.

I don't think this will ever become my new favorite show, but if the writers manage to stay away from embarrassing self-importance and give in to the trash-tastic nature of its plot, while simultaneously focusing more on the premise that got us hooked (the story and relationship of the twins) and less on the more cliché storylines, I can see myself continuing to watch.  Until I see where the writers are headed, however, I'm going to continue to reserve judgment.  Maybe it's just because I wanted so much to like this show, but I remain cautiously optimistic.

Verdict:
Getting better, but still reserving judgment.

What did you think, Fellow Addicts?  Is the show looking better or worse?  Or did you just love it from Day One?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

What did you think of Episode 3 of RINGER?

PilotWatch Update: NEW GIRL

I gave a two-star rating to the series premiere of NEW GIRL on FOX (check out my review here) and said I would give it another episode or two to see if it gets any better.  Well, I just watched the second episode of the show, so I'm here to give an update.

Did it get any better?
The biggest question mark going into the second episode was the replacement of lead cast member Damon Wayans Jr (Coach) with Lamorne Morris (Winston) after Wayans had to leave the show to return to HAPPY ENDINGS on ABC.  I'm actually surprised that the writers chose not to just replace the actor and keep the same character, and instead create a whole new character, especially since Wayans had only been around for one episode.  It was gutsy, but I think they pulled it off.  Coach's departure did feel a little abrupt and unexplained, but the fact that Winston was introduced as a former roommate of Schmidt and Nick who was moving back in helped ease the transition.  That meant he already had chemistry with the other two guys and didn't have to be yet another new roommate after Zooey Deschanel's Jess joined them just a week ago.  And at least in their one episode each, I liked Morris' character better, even if I preferred Wayans more as an actor.

So that aside, did the show get any better from its merely sort-of funny pilot?  I think so, yes.  It was probably just because I hadn't seen every single funny line in rampant advertisements (ala the pilot), but I found it funnier, faster, and more likable.  I especially liked the absence of girls-are-icky humor that made me nervous in the first episode.  The show still finds humor in the "girly" actions of Jess juxtaposed with her three manly roommates (ie. she can't throw a basketball or move on from a breakup), but at least there was no line about how girls are good at folding things.  And the basic fish-out-of-water premise of the "adorkable" Jess living with three single guys is going to result in a lot of guys-versus-girls reactions to things.  And to be fair, the guys aren't all shining examples of the male specimen either.  There's stereotypes there too, especially in the douchey Schmidt.  Thankfully, his douche-factor was turned down this episode, from outright uncomfortable moments to eye-rolling goofiness.  There was no mention of the Douchebag Jar and only one occurrence of shirtlessness.

In short, I think this was definitely an improvement on the pilot, even if that's just because it felt fresher without having seen every single punchline of every single joke in advance.  Zooey Deschanel is still adorable to watch, Winston is a vast improvement on the awkward anger-management-challenged Coach, and the plot of the roommates all teaming together to help Jess confront her ex was cute (even if they were just doing it to get a new TV).  Any show whose climax involves all of its characters wearing silly hats is a winner in my eyes.  And who didn't love watching Schmidt give Jess's ex a well-deserved slap in the face?

Verdict:
Much better!

What did you think, Fellow Addicts?  Did you think this was an improvement over the pilot?  Or did you already love it anyway?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

What did you think of Episode 2 of NEW GIRL?

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

PilotWatch: HART OF DIXIE

CW Mondays @ 9pm

What's it about?
Fast-talking New Yorker and brand new doctor Zoe Hart has it all figured out - after graduating top of her class from medical school, she'll follow in her father's footsteps and become a cardio-thoracic surgeon.  But when her dreams fall apart, Zoe decides to accept an offer from a stranger, Dr. Harley Wilkes, to work with him at his small practice in Bluebell, Alabama.  Zoe arrives in this small Gulf Coast town only to find that Harley has passed away and left his half of the medical practice to her in his will.

So, how was it?
Less supernaturally violent and inherently dramatic than THE VAMPIRE DIARIES or THE SECRET CIRCLE, but equally soapy, HART OF DIXIE stars Rachel Bilson (THE O.C.) as Zoe Hart.  When we first see her, she's sitting on a bus and her voiceover asks us, "See that New Yorker in the Chanel coat?"  That very first line tells us pretty much everything we need to know about this girl.  She's cute, she's trendy, she wears fancy clothes...and she's completely out of place in the Deep South.

The pilot is completely focused around the fish-out-of-water concept of this New Yorker arriving in Alabama, and delights in showing how backward these adorable, Taylor-Swift-listening Southerners are.  Twenty-something young women walk down the sidewalk wearing full-out gowns straight out of Gone With The Wind, complete with parasols.  The mayor is a jolly, black former NFL star who always has a smile on his face and owns a pet alligator named Burt Reynolds.  The next-door neighbor wears wife beaters, so we immediately know he's a bad boy.  The obese young woman doesn't know she's pregnant and her mom berates her for eating too many potato chips.  All of this and more, just in the first 41 minutes of screen time!  Granted, I live in New York City, not Alabama, but I hardly think this is a 100% accurate portrayal of the south.  Sure, they have a different lifestyle and every small town has its eccentricities, but it just felt so slathered on in such a stereotypical way, it was hard not to feel offended.  And I'm not even from there!

Rachel Bilson is horrifically miscast as a wannabe cardio-thoracic surgeon.  Not that surgeons can't be pretty, but she just lacks the weight or gravitas of someone who has spent the past fourteen years of her life studying medicine and performing complicated surgeries.  She was infinitely more at home in Orange County.  It doesn't help that she is given impossible-to-deliver oneliners such as "He's one avocado short of a Cobb Salad."  Seriously?  I think the writers thought that was supposed to sound witty...?  Luckily, everyone else in the cast is believable in their supporting roles, and do their best with the two-dimensional roles they're given.  Scott Porter is charming as the hunky attorney George Tucker, who flirts shamelessly with Zoe and literally scoops her off the ground to protect her from an alligator (because all city girls need handsome men to save them from rustic life).  Jamie King is all sugar and spice as the town's reigning Queen Bee who's name is, naturally, Lemon.  Not joking.  Oh, and she just happens to be engaged to George.  Uh oh!  Her father, Brick (yes, Brick named his daughter Lemon...what's wrong with these people?), is the other doctor in the practice that Zoe is working at, and is a typical domineering, take-no-guff Southern man-in-charge.  He wants that awful New York girl out of his town!  How dare she try to, you know, help that poor girl deliver her baby?  How selfish.

That being said, the show isn't all bad.  The setting is gorgeous, the actors are mostly likable, and the soundtrack is typical CW teenage-attention-grabbing hip.  I can see this show hooking a decent-for-the-CW-sized audience, and the soapy drama between the chic young doctor, the chivalrous hunk and the devious Southern Belle makes for an addicting guilty pleasure.  But the show's premise that small town life can teach us busy (a.k.a. "soulless") cityfolk important lessons about life and love is a little much for me.  Oh, and of course there's a "twist" at the end, which I can only imagine any semi-intelligent viewer will see coming a mile away.

Rating:
* Atrocious. I will never watch this show again. Ever.
If I'm being honest, the show isn't quite "atrocious" per se, but I definitely have no intention of tuning in again.  That may be more due to my personal preferences than the actual quality, as I'm sure this show will find its niche quite easily.  But I prefer my shows minus the offensive caricatures and plus good writing.  I'd rather get my soapy drama fix watching filthy rich Hamptonites who have no qualms about the fact that they're two-faced, than from a show that pretends to be sincere while actively reinforcing harmful stereotypes.  Not exactly my cup of tea.

What about you, Fellow Addicts?  Did you find the show charming, or offensive?  Did you find Rachel Bilson believable as a hardcore surgeon?  Will you be tuning in again?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

(For a quick glance at the other pilots coming out, check out my Fall TV Preview.)

What did you think of HART OF DIXIE?

PilotWatch: TERRA NOVA

FOX Mondays @ 8pm

What's it about?
Follows an ordinary family on an incredible journey back in time to prehistoric Earth as a small part of a daring experiment to save the human race.  In the year 2149, the world is dying.  The planet is overdeveloped and overcrowded, with the majority of plant and animal life extinct.  The future of mankind is in jeopardy, and its only hope for survival is in the distant past.  When scientists unexpectedly discovered a fracture in time that made it possible to construct a portal into primeval history, the bold notion was born to resettle humanity in the past - a second chance to rebuilt civilization and get it right this time.

So, how was it?
Not nearly as good as I'd hoped.  The budget for the two-hour pilot alone was a staggering $20 million (twice that of the two-hour LOST pilot which was, at the time, the most expensive pilot ever filmed).  Supposedly a full half of that 20mil was spent before even a single frame had been shot, as preproduction was plagued by setbacks, departing showrunners and untold numbers of rewrites (reportedly the highest-level writers were paid $200,000 a week to significantly retool the show).  If you're wondering what $20 million can pay for, here's a short list: two-thirds of the GDP of the nation of Tuvalu; seven Super Bowl commercials; or Kim Kardashian's second wedding.  For a much-hyped, mega-funded, Steven Spielberg-produced, long-delayed show, the end result was terribly underwhelming.

It takes eight or nine days to shoot an episode of TERRA NOVA, which is par for the course for television.  But each episode of this show takes a whopping six weeks in postproduction before it can be aired, which is twice the average for TV.  Each episode after the pilot will reportedly cost an average of $4 million.  In fact, this show is so expensive that FOX executives made the unheard-of decision to forgo ordering just a pilot and instead immediately gave the greenlight to a full 13-episode run.  Go big or go home, right?

Even after all these setbacks and overspending before the show started filming, its premiere date was still pushed back by four months.  FOX was originally planning to air the two-hour pilot in May as a teaser of the actual series starting in September (much like they did with the first season of GLEE).  It was decided at the last minute to push the premiere back to September as well to give the effects team more time to make the show look convincing.  So now here we are -- $20 million and four months later.  And the results are disappointingly mediocre.

The plot seems like a hodgepodge of ideas and the editing is all over the place -- a consequence, I'm assuming, of those numerous rewrites and approximately 3,497 writers.  The original script started with a scene about 20 minutes into the show.  Everything that we see before that point was added much later, presumably because the producers thought we would be too dumb to piece a backstory together without actually seeing it happen.  Personally, I would have preferred more mysterious backgrounds for our characters and finding out everything as we went.  It would have drawn me into the story more to not know everything right off the bat, since I would've had to keep paying attention to get the answers.  But whatever.

We're introduced to our hero, Jim Shannon, a family man -- too much of a family man since he has three kids, and apparently you're only allowed to have two due to overpopulation.  This creates much drama when he's thrown in jail and his wife is recruited to go to Terra Nova, a new colony that requires colonists to walk through a glowing blue portal that is actually a rip in the fabric of space and time.  This requires Jim to break out of prison (something we don't even get a glimpse of -- we just have to assume a tiny laser is a get-out-of-maximum-security-prison-free card) and then goes to pick up his stowaway third child in a backpack.  THIS is where the pilot was originally supposed to start, which would have been infinitely more interesting.  Why is this man running from the cops?  What's in his backpack?  Why isn't he allowed to go with his family?  All of these would have been unknowns and made for a much more dramatic opening.

We finally get to Terra Nova and are introduced to the rest of the cast, all of whom are decidedly two-dimensional.  The head of the colony is Nathaniel Taylor (AVATAR's Stephen Lang), a typical hardass military-type.  He's backed up by a couple of uniformed cronies whose names I can't remember and whose characters had no defining traits other than standing around holding guns.  There's Skye, the rebellious teenager who tempts Jim's son Josh, The Fresh (slang for new colonists), to go OTG (Outside the Gates) to drink moonshine made from Fruts (fruit-nuts).  This show is trying way too hard to be cool and appealing to teenagers with the overly slang-happy Skye.  Then there's Mira, the beautiful but deadly leader of the Sixers, a group of colonists that split off from Terra Nova and have been living in the wild and siphoning the colony's resources.  Mira?  Skye?  Even though they supposedly came from the same place as our main characters Jim, Josh and Elizabeth, they have these vaguely-ethnic-or-tribal-sounding names, I guess because we have to distinguish that they've been there longer.  Strange.

A few mysteries are thrown in for good measure, because what's a sci-fi show without mythology?  So far we have: Who sent the Sixers?  What do they want?  Why did Taylor's son go missing three years ago?  Where's he been?  What are the weird geometric gold carvings on the rocks around the waterfall?  (That one, at least, got part of an answer by the end of the pilot -- apparently they were left by Taylor's missing son.)  But the most pressing question I have is the one totally ignored and glossed over -- if the portal to Terra Nova is a one-way trip, as is quickly established, how did anyone in the future ever find out what was on the other side of the portal, and how have the colonists been communicating with the other side?  This seems a pretty important point but is never even addressed.  I guess that the audience is just supposed to assume that communication is possible without ever establishing how.  I understand that this is science-fiction, but that doesn't give you free reign.  Even within a sci-fi story, you have to establish ground rules or your story will spiral out of control quickly into utter nonsense.

Oh, and there's dinosaurs.  We saw three main types: friendly long-neck plant eaters, ferocious Carnotaurs and the smaller but even more vicious Slashers who have razor-sharp tails they use to whip their prey.  I'm not a dinosaur expert, but I don't remember ever reading about that last one.  Anyway, even with the four-month delay, these dinosaurs were extremely fake-looking.  Granted, by TV standards, they were impressive, but after such a delay and heaps of money thrown at the project, I expected them to be more realistic.

That was probably my biggest problem with the pilot: my expectations.  I expected, with the involvement of Steven Spielberg and $20 million, to get something better than average.  Instead I was treated to two-dimensional characters, some of the clunkiest exposition I've ever witnessed, and countless LOST ripoffs (a small group of people who can't get back to their previous lives, nefarious Others who live in the wild and terrorize the main characters, loud roars coming from unseen Howlers, mysterious artifacts found in the jungle, etc).  Perhaps I set my sights too high, but everything about this was underwhelming.  I was especially disappointed to see the entire climax of the pilot center on the "rebellious, angst-ridden teenage son angry at his absentee father who wanders off and finds himself in danger, resulting in his concerned father and mother striking out to find him and save him from the evil, evil dinos."  Cliché much?

In the same way that THE PLAYBOY CLUB was trying to be like MAD MEN, I feel like TERRA NOVA was trying to be like LOST.  And just like THE PLAYBOY CLUB, it went about it all the wrong ways.  Instead of being inspired by a great idea, they tried to copy a great idea and fell remarkably short.  What made the LOST pilot so captivating was its complete lack of explanations and its focus on characters.  TERRA NOVA was the exact opposite.  It was focused on spectacle at the expense of its characters, and was too eager to make sure we understood everything that was happening to maintain any sense of real mystery.  The "mysteries" that were presented felt shoehorned in and not actually organic to the plot, something I found insulting rather than captivating.  TV shows trying to capitalize on the LOST phenomenon have a notorious reputation of failing miserably.  Just look at what happened to both FLASHFORWARD and THE EVENT.  It unfortunately seems like TERRA NOVA is following more in their footsteps than in LOST's.  I will be shocked to see it last past its first season.

Rating:
** Okay. I may give it another episode or two to see if it gets better.
As is probably apparent, I felt incredibly let-down by this pilot.  But FOX ordering a full thirteen-episode run before the show had even aired makes me think that there must be something in the show they're confident in.  Pilots are notoriously rocky with all the character introductions, exposition and plot setup they have to do, so maybe this one just suffered even more from the countless rewrites and massive expectations.  With how long I've been waiting to see this show, I will give it at least one more episode to see if it improves or remains the same underwhelming, cliché-ridden mess.  Fingers crossed.  This show will need to draw in a massive audience to justify its equally massive budget, or it will be faced with a quick extinction (pun intended).

What do you think, Fellow Addicts?  Were you underwhelmed or thrilled by the pilot?  Would you go OTG with the Fresh to drink Frut moonshine?  Do you think it'll be the first LOST-inspired show to last past its first season, or do you think it'll get canned?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

(For a quick glance at the other pilots coming out, check out my Fall TV Preview.)

What did you think of TERRA NOVA?

Monday, September 26, 2011

PilotWatch: PAN AM

ABC Sundays @ 10pm

What's it about?
Welcome to 1963: a time when only a lucky few could take flight, experience a global adventure or gain a front-row seat to history.  Those lucky few flew Pan Am, the largest, most prestigious airline in the world.  More than Coca-Cola, Elvis Presley or the transistor, Pan Am exported American culture to the world abroad and brought that world back to American shores.  Join our crew as they travel to intoxicating cities such as Paris, Berlin, Monte Carlo and Rome and bump into history along the way.  Through their eyes we revisit an era nearly half a century ago.

So, how was it?
Now THIS is how to capitalize on the current 60s craze.  Not with Don Draper look-alikes and death by stiletto heel (ahem, PLAYBOY CLUB), but by crafting an entirely different story and setting it within the confines of the same era.  In Entertainment Weekly's Fall TV Preview issue, Jack Orman, creator of PAN AM, was quoted as saying, in response to the comparisons to MAD MEN, "Is The Good Wife comparable to House because they take place in this decade?"  I scoffed when I first read this because when you're crafting a period piece, you choose to set it in a specific period, and they deliberately chose the 60s, so comparisons to other 60s-set shows are inevitable.  However, in the same article, star Christina Ricci is also quoted as saying, "The only thing similar is the time period, and the fact that both shows are shot in very cinematic ways."  Now, having seen the pilot, I agree with Ms. Ricci's assessment much more than Mr. Orman's.  Of course parallels to MAD MEN will be drawn, but instead of simply cloning that show's DNA, as THE PLAYBOY CLUB did, the writers of PAN AM chose to cash in on 60s popularity by telling a new story in the same time period.  And it's infinitely more successful than THE PLAYBOY CLUB's attempt.

The pilot was a veritable hodgepodge of styles and storylines, from high-flying fun to wistful romance to suspenseful spy drama to sibling rivalry to Marxist stewardesses to missing-person mystery.  I understand why the writers chose to start the show off with this mixture -- in providing as many genres as possible, they hoped to attract as wide of an audience as possible.  I'm worried that the scattered nature of the pilot will have been off-putting to some people, but I'm intrigued by the ambitious scope of it to see where it goes and watch it settle into its week-by-week groove.  Eventually it will probably have to let some of these storylines go in favor of others, and I'll be interested to see which ones they choose to focus on.

Christina Ricci is terrific as always as Maggie, the experienced yet frazzled veteran stewardess.  Margot Robbie is gorgeous as Laura, the small-town girl who runs away from home to join her sister in Pan Am and has since attracted unwanted attention.    Kelli Garner is believably conflicted as Kate, Laura's jealous sister, and also a new recruit to the government whose job-on-the-side is to spy on high-profile passengers.  Karine Vanasse is sophisticated yet lovelorn as the French stewardess Colette.  None of these are the most incredibly unique or compellingly-drawn characters as of yet (we just got to know them), but at least they're not the offensive cardboard cutouts that populate THE PLAYBOY CLUB.  I actually found myself interested in their stories, but maybe that was just because none of them were wearing bunny ears or stabbing mob bosses in the neck with their high heels.

Also, this show looks great.  In just the first hour we visited America, Rome, Cuba, London and, of course, the skies.  The uniforms are retro-chic and the planes are gorgeous.  It is simultaneously fun and depressing to get to visit a time when air travel was new and exciting -- when the terminals were glossy, the planes were roomy, the stewardesses attentive, and the whole experience was "cool."  I feel like the nostalgia quotient and the exotic locales combined with the light, soapy drama of the storylines will combine to make for an audience-catching show.

Rating:
*** Solid. I'm interested and will definitely keep watching.
An effective cash in on the 60s-mania by not being a direct copy of MAD MEN, this show has a little something for everybody.  As of now it remains a bit scattered, but hopefully in time it will settle down and find its groove.  In the meantime, I'll sit back and enjoy the flight (awful pun intended).

Take it away, Fellow Addicts!  Did you like the scope of the pilot?  Or did you find the myriad of plotlines distracting?  Will you be flying with Pan Am again?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

(For a quick glance at the other pilots coming out, check out my Fall TV Preview.)

What did you think of PAN AM?

Sunday, September 25, 2011

PilotWatch Update: FREE AGENTS

Last week I gave a two-star rating to the series premiere of FREE AGENTS on NBC (check out my review here).  I said I would give it another episode or two to see if it gets any better.  Well, I just watched the second episode of the show, so I'm here to give an update.

Did it get any better?
Not really.  But neither did it get any worse.  I'd say the first two episodes of this show were very consistent in quality.  And that quality is wildly uneven.  Yes.  You read that correctly.  Consistent unevenness.

Hank Azaria and Kathryn Hahn remain immensely likable, which makes watching this show incredibly infuriating.  I want so much to like it, but I just can't because whenever anyone other than those two (or the hilarious Natasha Leggero) is on screen, I fall into boring-sitcom-stupor.  Mo Mandel, Al Madrigal, Joe Lo Truglio and Anthony Head are all painfully unfunny.  I'm not sure if that's their fault or the material's, although I'm inclined to lean towards the material because two of those four are standup comics.  Apparently scripted comedy doesn't do them any favors.  (And this is totally superficial, but I find Mo Mandel really weird-looking.  Is that just me?  Am I a terrible person for saying that?  Probably.)

If the entire show consisted of Mr. Azaria and Ms. Hahn interacting, occasionally with the bitingly sarcastic Ms. Leggero, I would be totally on board.  The two leads have such a breezy, natural rapport that is so believable it's a joy to watch.  It's a shame that the writers are letting them down with such inconsistent material.  Plus, I'm afraid that the premise of the show is simply not interesting enough to hold my attention.  There's no will-they-won't they suspense because the entire premise is that they already have.  Where does the show go from there?  I'm not sure, and I probably won't find out because I don't think this is a show I'll be sticking with.  Of course, I won't turn off the TV if it happens to come on and if I find myself with an empty Hulu queue and time to kill, I may give it another shot.  But in the meantime, I've got too many shows and too little time.  Sorry, Hank and Kathryn.  You deserve better.

Verdict:
About the same.

What did you think, Fellow Addicts?  Are you still watching?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

What did you think of Episode 2 of FREE AGENTS?

Saturday, September 24, 2011

PilotWatch: A GIFTED MAN

CBS Fridays @ 8pm

What's it about?
A drama about a brilliant, charismatic surgeon whose life changes forever when his deceased ex-wife begins teaching him the meaning of life from the "hereafter."

So, how was it?
I have been a fan of Patrick Wilson since seeing him in HBO's miniseries ANGELS IN AMERICA.  I've followed his film career with great interest, from HARD CANDY to LITTLE CHILDREN to INSIDIOUS.  He's versatile, always believable, and not at all hard on the eyes.  Imagine my surprise when I found out he would be headlining a new drama on CBS.  I sincerely hoped that only a project of strong quality would be able to divert him from his burgeoning film career.  And thankfully, I was right.

The pilot was an incredibly intriguing and effective blend of genres -- between GREY'S ANATOMY-style cases and GHOST-style otherworldly visitations, this show could best be described as a medical fantasy -- not something you see very often.  But anchored by Mr. Wilson's grounded and believable performance, it succeeds.  Wilson as super-talented neurosurgeon Michael Holt is by turns arrogant, charming, insufferable, charismatic, disingenuous, and sincere.  The juxtaposition of his no-nonsense manner in the operating room with his completely unguarded interactions with his ex-wife (and later her ghost) is remarkable.  Matching him stride for stride is Jennifer Ehle as his ex, Anna.  She radiates an aura of kindness and genuineness that makes you want to listen to her every word.  (She managed the same feat in CONTAGION.)

Oh, and the rest of the cast is incredible, too.  Recent Emmy-winner Margo Martindale is terrific as always as Michael's beleaguered assistant.  Julie Benz lends her at-times-manic energy into a role that gives that energy room to breathe.  It wasn't necessarily always believable in the demure and broken Rita on DEXTER, but as Michael's hippy sister, it works.  Bill Irwin gives a particularly strong turn as a super-rich and ignorantly arrogant patient and friend of Michael's.  If A GIFTED MAN continues to pull in guest stars of such superb talent and pedigree, it could easily start matching THE GOOD WIFE's guest-star-palooza.

The premise of a world-renowned doctor suddenly having visions of his dead ex-wife is intriguing to me, particularly because of all the questions it raises.  Is she actually just a spirit, or will there be other explanations later?  If she is a spirit, can Michael be visited by other dead people?  What exactly is she there for?  How will her presence affect the plot of the show week by week?  These are all unspoken questions that the pilot raises that make me interested in seeing where this show goes next.  And with the quality of all the talent involved, I can't wait to find out.

Rating:
*** Solid. I'm interested and will definitely keep watching.
A unique premise and some very solid acting makes this a must-watch for fans of genre-blending dramas.  Much in the way that CBS's THE GOOD WIFE successfully blended the courtroom procedural with a political scandal story line, A GIFTED MAN succeeds in blending the medical with the fantastic.  Only time will tell if it attracts a similar audience and becomes a hit.  The only thing that worries me is that it's airing on Friday nights.  It is notoriously difficult to build an audience on Fridays, so hopefully CBS hasn't killed a good thing before it's even begun.

Take it away, Fellow Addicts!  What did you think of the genre-bending premise of the show?  Do you think it will draw audiences in or alienate them?  Or did you not even see it because it aired on Friday night?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

(For a quick glance at the other pilots coming out, check out my Fall TV Preview.)

What did you think of A GIFTED MAN?

Friday, September 23, 2011

PilotWatch: PRIME SUSPECT

NBC Thursdays @ 10pm

What's it about?
A crime drama that takes a look inside a New York City homicide department.  The series stars Maria Bello as tough-as-nails NYPD homicide Detective Jane Timoney, an outsider who has just transferred to a new squad where her new colleagues already dislike her.  Jane is confident and focused - and also rude, abrupt and occasionally reckless.  She has her vices, and rumors of a questionable past follow her everywhere - but at the end of the day, she's an instinctively brilliant cop who can't be distracted from the only important thing: the prime suspect.

So, how was it?
This show has by the far the biggest, most talented cast of any pilot so far.  Maria Bello is fantastic as Jane, a woman who can't let her vulnerability come through in a room full of crass, chauvinistic male cops, and instead channels all her focus and power into catching the bad guys, regardless of what any of her coworkers might think of her.  Brían F. O'Byrne is committed and believable if not likable as the tough guy who takes his anger out on Jane.  Kirk Acevedo is always a welcome presence on any TV show and now lends his talents as fellow detective Carter.  The rest of the cast is filled out by lesser known (at least by me) actors who all excel at natural speech patterns and interactions and lend the entire show an aura of realism.

The odd thing is that the basic premise of the show itself undermines this sense of realism built so carefully by the actors.  This show is a remake of a British show of the same name starring Helen Mirren.  The biggest difference is that the original premiered twenty years ago, in 1991.  The over-the-top, blatant sexism and discrimination that Jane faces may have been believable then.  And I'm not trying to say that sexism isn't still a very real issue, but the pure in-your-face attitude seems somewhat dated in a world where it's fortunately not as okay to be so open with your prejudices.  I'm obviously not in the NYPD, but I would imagine that sexism is much more of an unspoken (if ever-present) undercurrent rather than constant, everyday harassment.  In a season where several pilots are coming out focused on the concept of men learning to accept that they now live in a woman's world (LAST MAN STANDING, MAN UP, even NEW GIRL to an extent), a show focused on the concept of a woman trying to make it in a man's world feels old-fashioned.

Luckily the actors, the production quality and the writing (apart from the basic premise) all seem strong.  If the show focuses more on Jane's character and her unique way of handling cases, it could remain interesting.  If the show instead focuses on her constant battle to get the men to accept her, I'm not sure I'll be staying invested.

Rating:
** Okay. I may give it another episode or two to see if it gets good.
I'll reserve total judgment until I see where the focus of the show goes beyond the pilot.  The pure talent of the cast is remarkable and I wish them all the best, so hopefully this show will grow into something more complex and relevant than the pilot made it seem.

Your turn, Fellow Addicts!  Did you also find the premise to be dated?  Or am I off base here?  What did you think of the pilot?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

(For a quick glance at the other pilots coming out, check out my Fall TV Preview.)

What did you think of PRIME SUSPECT?

PilotWatch: WHITNEY

NBC Thursdays @ 9:30pm

What's it about?
Centers around Whitney and Alex, a happily unmarried couple. Together for three years, the duo is in no rush to get hitched, which seems to get a mixed response from their friends.  At the end of the day, Whitney and Alex try to have a relationship on their own terms - in a world that expects a more traditional approach.

So, how was it?
I've already admitted my prejudice against multi-cam comedies in my review for 2 Broke Girls.  Fortunately for that show, it starred two immensely likable leads that drew me in against my wishes.  WHITNEY, on the other hand, didn't offer me anything all that special to set it apart from other sitcoms.  (Ironic, because Whitney Cummings created both shows.)

The idea that this couple is insecure because they're not married even though they've been together for three years is simply not interesting enough for me to keep watching every week.  And Whitney herself is simultaneously too bitingly witty yet also inexplicably un-self-aware to seem like a real character.  I don't need a caricature to teach me about unconventional relationships when I have a show that does that with better characters and better actors that makes me laugh more -- without a laugh track telling me when something is funny (yes, I'm talking about MODERN FAMILY).

The one bright spot in the pilot was Rhea Seehorn.  She plays Roxanne, an utterly convincing, scathingly sarcastic, pseudo-alcoholic friend of Whitney and Alex.  As absurd as her character was, she seemed the most real to me.  I know people like her.  If Whitney had more of Roxanne's self-awareness and comedic timing, the show might be more worth watching.  Heck, give Ms. Seehorn her own spin-off right now and I'd watch it!  As it stands, there's really nothing in this show to keep drawing me in week after week.  No amazingly unique and catchy concept, no fully-drawn, engaging characters, and not even that many laughs.  It's too bad, because NBC knows its comedy.  Look at PARKS AND RECREATION, 30 ROCK, THE OFFICE or COMMUNITY.  It just seems like they missed the mark on this one.

Rating:
* Atrocious. I will never watch this show again. Ever.
Nothing here for me.  I'd rather spend an hour watching Michael Emerson fight crime than a half hour watching Whitney Cummings flounder her way through her relationship with her boring boyfriend.  Good thing for Ms. Cummings that she'll still have the infinitely funnier 2 BROKE GIRLS to focus on after WHITNEY inevitably gets cancelled.

What did you think, Fellow Addicts?  Am I way off?  Or did you also find it...not funny?  Vote in the polls below and then hit the comments!

(For a quick glance at the other pilots coming out, check out my Fall TV Preview.)

What did you think of WHITNEY?

PilotWatch: PERSON OF INTEREST

CBS Thursdays @ 9pm

What's it about?
A crime thriller about a presumed dead former-CIA agent, Reese, who teams up with a mysterious billionaire, Finch, to prevent violent crimes by using their own brand of vigilante justice.  Reese's special training in covert operations appeals to Finch, a software genius who invented a program that uses pattern recognition to identify people about to be involved in violent crimes.  Using state-of-the-art surveillance technology, the two work outside of the law, using Reese's adept skills and Finch's unlimited wealth to unravel the mystery of the "person of interest" and stop the crime before it happens.

So, how was it?
Just so you're forewarned: I love all things J.J. Abrams (LOST, FRINGE, ALIAS, STAR TREK, SUPER 8), and was therefore prepared to love this show.  And I did.  It has exactly the right proportions of complex concept, interesting characters, levels of mythology, and exciting action to immediately grab my interest.  Plus, anything with the incredible Michael Emerson is going to be worth watching.  This is no exception.

The conceit of the show is that after 9/11, Finch (played by Emerson) developed a pattern recognition software for the government that uses surveillance cameras to identify people who are going to be involved in crimes (think MINORITY REPORT with cameras instead of precogs).  However, the government was only interested in those crimes relevant to national security, and "everyday" murders and such are logged away into an Irrelevant file to be deleted.  Finch, unable to let those supposedly "irrelevant" crimes go unnoticed, built himself a backdoor so that he could access the information.  The catch?  He only gets a social security number, and he has no idea how that person will be involved in the crime: he or she could be either the victim or the perpetrator.

Now, if that concept sounds totally uninteresting to you, then skip this show.  If, on the other hand, you find this absolutely fascinating, you need to check it out.  Michael Emerson is, as always, a delight to watch as the enigmatic Finch.  Much like Ben, he fights more effectively with his words than his fists.  So he recruits Jim Caviezel's Reese to do the actual fighting for him.  The two make for an odd-couple team: the eccentric, know-it-all billionaire and the shadowy, depressed fighting machine.  I can't wait to watch them interact every week, and hopefully with JJ Abrams and Jonathan Nolan (brother of Christopher and writer of MEMENTO, THE PRESTIGE and THE DARK KNIGHT) at the helm, the show will continue to churn out interesting crimes every week.

In my ideal world, I imagine this show being much like FRINGE, one of my favorite shows currently on the air.  It seems like initially PERSON OF INTEREST will remain largely a procedural, with Finch and Reese solving a different case every week.  But I hope as time goes on that the writers will start delving into deeper levels of mythology and tying the story into a unified whole with an overarching plot line.  But for now I'm content to sit back and watch the story unravel each week.

Plus it's just great to have Michael Emerson back on my TV screen.  He's been sorely missed.

Rating:
**** Certifiably ADDICTive.  A must-see.
If you, like me, enjoy high concept shows with great acting and great production quality, then this is the best pilot so far this year.  I have complete faith in JJ Abrams, and can't wait to see what he has up his sleeve for this show.  I'm sure there are plenty of surprises in store.

What about you, Fellow Addicts?  Did the concept hook you?  Or did you find it too unbelievable?  Were you happy to see Benjamin Linus again?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

(For a quick glance at the other pilots coming out, check out my Fall TV Preview.)

What did you think of PERSON OF INTEREST?

PilotWatch: CHARLIE'S ANGELS

ABC Thursdays @ 8pm

What's it about?
Everyone deserves a second chance -- even a thief, a street racer, and a cop who got in a little too deep.  After all, the three women who solve cases for their elusive boss, Charlie Townsend, are no saints.  They're angels... Charlie's Angels.

So, how was it?
The brief summary above, pulled directly from ABC's website, should give you a clue.  The tone of this reboot of the popular 70s women-fighting-crime series is campy to the max.  It's fast, frothy fun as three beautiful women (Rachael Taylor of GREY'S ANATOMY, Minka Kelly of FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS and Annie Ilonzeh of GENERAL HOSPITAL) kick ass and take names.

The one big departure from the original that this version takes is that all three Angels are former (and reformed) criminals.  One is a cat burglar, one is a car thief, and one is a dirty cop.  The enigmatic Charlie (who I'm 99% sure was voiced by Victor Garber, though I'm not sure we're supposed to know that...) scooped them up off the streets and gave them a second chance.  The three main ladies are all undeniably beautiful and very adept at looking good while beating up bad guys.  However, it's hard to tell if they're actually good actors when they're trying to say lines like "I never thought my heart could hurt this much" -- I'm not sure anyone could make that sound convincing.

The writing is definitely the weakest point so far.  The lines are cheesy to the max (see the above, also: "She puts the 'cat' in 'cat burglar!'"), and the mystery of the week was nothing we haven't seen before.  Fortunately, the show already walks a very campy line, so it is easier to forgive the writers for such atrocious dialogue than it would be if they were writing for, say, MAD MEN.

Fortunately, everything else is surprisingly good.  The production quality is top-notch, the Miami setting is vibrant, the colors pop, the cinematography is generally good, the pace is fast, the action is decent for a first-time outing, and the actors are all easy on the eyes.  I can imagine this becoming a decent-sized hit for those who enjoy some campy action release on their Thursday nights.

Rating:
** Okay. I may give it another episode or two to see if it gets better.
I was actually a bit pleasantly surprised by this pilot.  I expected it to be a lot worse than it was, as it had all the potential to be a disaster of epic proportions.  While not perfect by any means, the show is nowhere near atrocious.  However, I can't give it three stars and say I'll definitely keep watching, but that's due to my personal preference.  With all the shows in my Hulu queue, I'm not sure I'll be devoted enough to watch this every week.  On the other hand, if it happened to come on the TV and I had time, I wouldn't turn it off.  So a very respectable two stars for the show.  I'll be interested to see if it finds a steady audience.

Your turn, Fellow Addicts!  Did you like the campy feel of the pilot?  Or did you wish it had been more serious?  Do you see yourself tuning in again?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

(For a quick glance at the other pilots coming out, check out my Fall TV Preview.)

What did you think of CHARLIE'S ANGELS?

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

PilotWatch Update: RINGER

Last week I gave a two-star rating to the series premiere of RINGER on the CW (check out my review here).  I said I would give it another episode or two to see if it gets any better.  Well, last night was the second episode of the show, so I'm here to give an update.

Did it get any better?
No.  This week saw the same trying-too-hard-to-be-complicated plot, the same two-dimensional characters, and the same OVERLY. DRAMATIC. CLIFFHANGERS.  The entire episode focused around the man that Bridget shot at the end of the pilot.  Or, more accurately, his body.  Actually, an episode about the man would've been more interesting, with Bridget trying to find out who he was, who sent him, and why he apparently wanted to kill Siobahn.  But the writers decided that those infinitely more interesting questions could wait in favor of an entire episode focused on Bridget trying to hide the body from her friends and coworkers in increasingly hilarious situations.  That's right.  Episode 2 of RINGER was a corpse-hiding adventure!

It's remarkable how easily this episode could have been written as a slapstick comedy, what with the friends popping up at inopportune moments, the sly glances at table saws, the stashing of corpses inside trunks, the conspicuously leaking blood that only the protagonist notices, and the corpse's cell phone ringing at inopportune moments...  I felt like I was watching a contemporary take on ARSENIC AND OLD LACE.  Except, you know, not funny.

Literally no storyline progressed.  Bridget/Siobahn's best friend is still trying to find out who her husband's cheating on her with (it's Siobahn!), the FBI agent is still trying to track down Bridget, Siobahn's husband still remains infuriatingly unaware that his wife has been replaced by a completely different person, Siobahn's man-on-the-side is still pining after her with puppy dog eyes...  Instead, we got treated to Sarah Michelle Gellar's inability to act like a convincing drunk, vague companies (they do something with money?) that inexplicably only employ snooty British people, over-the-top gay party planners, a Titanic-themed fundraiser, and the following gem of a line: "She's a snake in Louboutins."

Only in the last thirty seconds did we get treated to a glimpse of the real Siobahn, still hiding out in Paris, still throwing tantrums at random people over the phone.  If the show insists on relegating its most interesting character and storyline to the last thirty seconds of every episode, I'm not sure that they'll be maintaining my interest much longer.  I'll give this show one more chance before I give up entirely.  Third time's the charm, right?

Verdict:
Worse than the pilot.

What did you think, Fellow Addicts?  Are you still watching?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

What did you think of Episode 2 of RINGER?

PilotWatch: UNFORGETTABLE

CBS Tuesdays @ 10pm

What's it about?
Carrie Wells is an enigmatic former police detective with a rare condition that makes her memory so flawless that every place, every conversation, every moment of joy and every heartbreak is forever embedded in her mind.  It's not just that she doesn't forget anything - she can't; except for one thing: the details that would help solve her sister's long-ago murder.

So, how was it?
I've never been a big fan of police procedurals.  I prefer dramas with ongoing storylines I can get invested in (ala LOST, FRINGE).  The odd episode of LAW & ORDER or CSI is great while I'm at the laundromat waiting for my clothes to finish drying, but I never feel compelled to follow up on the show the next week.  So I must admit bias against UNFORGETTABLE before going in, but unfortunately the show didn't really do anything special to overcome that bias.

The one twist this show has that sets it apart from other procedurals is that its protagonist, Carrie, CAN'T.  FORGET.  ANYTHING.  Much is made of this ability (which is actually a real medical condition) throughout the pilot, with characters incessantly talking about it, as though just because the audience doesn't have it, they expected us to forget that Carrie does.  But the ability was interesting in this first hour, because the scene of the murder being investigated happened to be at Carrie's apartment building, and she knew the victim.  Therefore, her memories came in handy.  What I'm confused about is how this ability will come in handy week after week.  Isn't it only useful if she's at the scene when the murder is committed so she can remember details other witnesses may have missed or forgotten?  I'm not sure what advantage this ability has in the long-run, but I assume the writers have some sort of plan.

The scenes where Carrie slips back into her memories were mildly interesting in the way that they were shot, but I imagine the use of this slow, surreal, dream-like state in order to arrive at one small clue several times throughout every episode would get old very quickly.  And the one overarching plot line within the show isn't really enough to hold my attention for a whole season: of course the day her sister was murdered is the one day Carrie CAN'T.  REMEMBER.  But the idea of a mysteriously dead sibling and shadowy figures in the woods is too cliché to make me hope that the resolution will be anything particularly interesting.

Poppy Montgomery (WITHOUT A TRACE) and Dylan Walsh (NIP/TUCK) make for relatable leads.  No one in this show is terrible -- whatever fault this show has is not in the acting.  Neither is any one cast member particularly amazing, but they manage to serve the story well.  However, the entire aura of street smarts and feelings of likability that Carrie builds up over the first hour are entirely shattered when she makes the incredibly asinine decision to go after who she (and she alone) knows is the murderer by herself at night.  Really?  Really???  She must be the world's worst cop.  It also doesn't bode well that I figured out the "twist" well before anyone on the show did.  Am I the only one who saw it coming about a mile away?  If the writers can't come up with a genuinely compelling mystery on their very first outing when the whole world of crime is their oyster, how am I supposed to have faith that the cases every week will be any more interesting?

Rating:
** Okay. I may give this another episode or two to see if it gets good.
Let me clarify.  I was really on the fence about this one.  I wanted to give it just one star because I have absolutely no intention of watching this show again.  But the fact is, it's not full-out atrocious, so I couldn't do that.  It is not measurably better or worse than any procedural crime drama on television, at least in my experience.  And if that genre is your thing, then this show may be right up your alley.  So in the sake of fairness, I gave it two stars, mostly for its likable leads and interesting premise.  But if I'm being honest, I won't be tuning in again next week.  Maybe someday at the laundromat.  (Warning: I'm now going to make a pun I'm sure has already been made countless times.)  Unfortunately, despite the claims of its title, this show was completely FORGETTABLE.

What did you think, Fellow Addicts?  Are crime procedurals your thing?  If so, did this live up to them, or not?  Did you figure out the twist, too?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

(For a quick glance at the other pilots coming out, check out my Fall TV Preview.)

What did you think of UNFORGETTABLE?