PilotWatch: LUCK

HBO Sundays @ 9pm

What's it about?
From acclaimed director Michael Mann and DEADWOOD creator David Milch, LUCK takes a provocative look at the world of horse racing - the owners, gamblers, jockeys and diverse gaming industry players.

You should watch if...
• you are an avid horse racing and/or gambling fanatic.
• you were obsessed with DEADWOOD.
• you will eat up anything HBO throws at you, regardless of quality.

So, how was it?
I have been a huge fan of every HBO show I've ever watched.  I love the realism of THE WIRE, the camp of TRUE BLOOD, the political intrigue of GAME OF THRONES.  In my opinion, what makes all of HBO's shows so freakin' good is that while on one, superficial level, they are about one thing, that "thing" is really only serving as a metaphor or a gateway into much larger, universal themes.  THE SOPRANOS was ostensibly "about" the mob, but was really about family dynamics.  SIX FEET UNDER was "about" a funeral parlor, but was really about relationships and living life.  GAME OF THRONES is "about" dragons and zombies and fantasy kingdoms, but is really about very real political power struggles.  On the other hand, LUCK is "about" horse racing and gambling, but is really about...nothing else, really.

This lack of anything beyond the surface is incredibly disappointing and will alienate any viewer who is not already a die-hard horse racing fan or a dedicated David Milch fan who is still upset that DEADWOOD was cancelled too early.  Not even Dustin Hoffman can save this new show from the dreary weight of its own self-importance.  The first episode of LUCK felt like a sad attempt at recreating the HBO DNA without actually taking the time to craft a compelling story or characters we might care about at all.

At the start of the hour, we are immediately inundated by characters we don't know yet who are spouting terms we also don't know yet about an industry I will wager most audience members are not intimately familiar with.  This felt like a weak attempt at "in medias res," trying to hook us in by not wasting time with exposition.  But if this show is really going to be all about the world of horse racing, a tiny bit of exposition would've been nice.  I pride myself on being a smart person, but I was completely lost amid all the mumbo-jumbo about betting and training horses that I had no familiarity with.  Instead of drawing me in, it made me completely unable to connect.  By the end of the first episode, a group of guys has won over $2 million betting on horses.  I'm supposed to feel their joy.  I felt nothing because I had no idea who these people were yet.  We are introduced to a vast cast of characters, but only what they do, not who they are.

At one point a character shouted out, "Can someone please tell me what's going on?"  Amen.  Doing a little research after I watched the pilot, I found an article in NYMag that had an FAQ about the episode.  It contained FIFTEEN questions, ranging from explanations of the term "bug boy" to how Pick Six gambling works, to the IRS' connection to the race track -- and even after reading all the answers, there were still things I was unclear about and still questions from the episode that lingered.  A show shouldn't require me to have an encyclopedia open at my side the entire time just to enjoy it.

Just about the only thing I enjoyed about the pilot were the racing scenes.  The cinematography and the score combined beautifully to create a visceral sequence.  And the tragic aftermath of one race is heartbreaking (and hard to watch).  But those few scenes were not enough to save the episode from its dreary tone and disappointing clichés -- at one point, Dustin Hoffman's character 'Ace' actually spouts the ridiculous line: "I don't trust anyone.  Not even myself."

This is the first time I have felt truly disappointed by HBO.  I found myself watching the clock only 20 minutes into the 60 minute premiere.  I know that we're going for "realism" and "high-brow entertainment" and drama made for "smart people," but surely it can be all those things without being So. Damn. Boring.

Rating:
** Okay. I may give it another episode or two to see if it gets better.
Honestly, the only reason I'm not giving LUCK an Atrocious rating is because it's on HBO, so I want to give the show the benefit of the doubt.  I'm not going to watch anymore at this point in time due to, you know, complete and utter lack of interest.  But if, by the end of the season, I hear it has evolved into nothing less than a modern-day masterpiece, I may go back and give it another shot.  But until then, LUCK has lost me.

What did you think, Fellow Addicts?  Were you drawn in by the complicated world of horse racing?  Or were you, like me, left out in the cold?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

(For the complete rundown of when all the new shows are premiering, check out my 2012 Midseason TV Preview.)

What did you think of LUCK?

PilotWatch: TOUCH

FOX Mondays @ 9pm  - beginning 3/19
(Special Preview of the pilot aired on FOX last night)

What's it about?
A preternatural drama in which science and spirituality intersect with the hopeful premise that we are all interconnected, tied in invisible ways to those whose lives we are destined to alter and impact.  At the center is Martin Bohm, a widower and single father, haunted by an inability to connect to his mute, severely autistic 11-year-old son, Jake.  Everything changes when Martin discovers that Jake possesses a gift of staggering genius - the ability to see things that no one else can, the patterns that connect everything.  Jake is indeed communicating after all.  But it's not with words, it's with numbers.  And now he needs Martin to decipher their meaning and connect these numbers to the cast of seemingly unrelated characters whose lives they affect.

You should watch if...
• you enjoy stories with ensemble casts whose lives intersect in unpredictable ways (ala CRASH or BABEL).
• you enjoyed the first season of HEROES.
• you've been missing Jack Bauer's presence on your television.

So, how was it?
Created by Tim Kring, who also created HEROES, TOUCH shares a focus on seemingly supernatural powers and a similar epic scope.  Kiefer Sutherland stars as Martin, the father of a maybe-autistic-maybe-just-highly-evolved young boy, Jake.  Throughout the first hour, Martin discovers that the seemingly random scribblings of his son are in fact incredibly deliberate -- Jake is seeing patterns in nature that connect the past with the present to the future.  There's a lot of fancy talk about Fibonacci sequences and other mathematical things (mostly spoken by Donald Glover in a brief guest appearance as a dotty professor), but really the kid might as well have a superpower.  Which, if you can accept that basic conceit of the show, is a terrific catalyst for some pretty compelling drama.

The whole pilot felt very cinematic, from the TREE OF LIFE-esque poster (see above) to the LIFE IN A DAY-esque credits sequence filled with beautiful but random shots of people around the world engaged in various activities.  Kudos to the director and cinematographer for making the show so visually pleasing.  It was great to have Kiefer Sutherland back on my television, this time in a role with vast differences yet odd similarities to Jack Bauer.  Martin is nowhere near the badass that Jack was, but both characters possess an underlying desperation.  While Jack was obsessed with preventing terrible events, Martin is obsessed with facilitating important connections, between himself and his son and also between random people his son points him toward.

As the pieces of the puzzle presented to us in the pilot slowly started to click into place, I found myself totally engrossed.  When the social worker (played by UNDERCOVERS' Gugu Mbatha-Raw, given much better things to do here) finally realized that Jake was trying to communicate an important message, I was instantly hooked.  The fact that he achieved this connection in a gasp-inducing way didn't hurt.  And then when we finally reached the climax of the hour, with all the varying storylines colliding and coming into focus, the emotional catharsis was unexpectedly overwhelming, given that we had just met these characters a mere forty-five minutes ago.

This show is like the movie BABEL with a supernatural twist.  I loved the global scope, the interlocking storylines, and the emotional collisions.  I love the inherent optimism in the story, that everyone on earth is not only connected, but has the ability to positively impact complete strangers, if we only take the time to reach out to one another.  If every episode can replicate this formula successfully, I'm all in.  I especially hope that there's an overarching journey that will keep the formula from becoming stale, but we'll have to wait and see.  For the time-being, I'm addicted to TOUCH.

Rating:
**** Certifiably ADDICTive. A must-see
Considering the show doesn't actually start until halfway through March, last night's special preview drew an impressive amount of viewers.  The show garnered a 3.9 rating with 12 million viewers, significantly more than both of FOX's other sci-fi/supernatural shows this season (ALCATRAZ and TERRA NOVA premiered at 3.3 and 3.2, respectively).  We'll see how many of those viewers return after a two month wait, and how many new viewers the show manages to attract in the meantime.  We'll also hope that Tim Kring doesn't quickly run this show into the ground like he did so spectacularly with HEROES.  Fingers crossed!

Your turn, Fellow Addicts?  Did you catch last night's special preview?  If so, were you affected by its emotional storytelling?  Or were you left cold by its mathematical, destiny-focused view of life?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

(For the complete rundown of when all the new shows are premiering, check out my 2012 Midseason TV Preview.)

What did you think of TOUCH?

And the nominees are...

The 2012 Oscar nominations were announced at 8:30am this morning by Jennifer Lawrence, one of last year's Best Actress nominees for WINTER'S BONE and star of the upcoming THE HUNGER GAMES.  The announcement ceremony was pleasantly surprising, filled with unexpected nominations (not that all the surprises themselves were pleasant, but it's always nice when they're not boring).  Here's the list:

Best Picture
• The Artist
• The Descendants
• Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close
• The Help
• Hugo
• Midnight In Paris
• Moneyball
• The Tree Of Life
• War Horse

Best Director
• Woody Allen, Midnight In Paris
• Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist
• Terrence Malick, The Tree Of Life
• Alexander Payne, The Descendants
• Martin Scorsese, Hugo

Best Actor
• Demián Bichir, A Better Life
• George Clooney, The Descendants
• Jean Dujardin, The Artist
• Gary Oldman, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
• Brad Pitt, Moneyball

Best Actress
• Glenn Close, Albert Nobbs
• Viola Davis, The Help
• Rooney Mara, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
• Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady
• Michelle Williams, My Week With Marilyn

Best Supporting Actor
• Kenneth Branagh, My Week With Marilyn
• Jonah Hill, Moneyball
• Nick Nolte, Warrior
• Christopher Plummer, Beginners
• Max Von Sydow, Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close

Best Supporting Actress
• Bérénice Bejo, The Artist
• Jessica Chastain, The Help
• Melissa McCarthy, Bridesmaids
• Janet McTeer, Albert Nobbs
• Octavia Spencer, The Help

Best Original Screenplay
• The Artist
• Bridesmaids
• Margin Call
• Midnight In Paris
• A Separation

Best Adapted Screenplay
• The Descendants
• Hugo
• The Ides Of March
• Moneyball
• Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Best Animated Feature
• A Cat In Paris
• Chico & Rita
• Kung Fu Panda 2
• Puss In Boots
• Rango

Best Foreign Language Film
• Bullhead (Belgium)
• Monsieur Lazhar (Canada)
• A Separation (Iran)
• Footnote (Israel)
• In Darkness (Poland)

Quite a few surprises there, yes?  Here's a few of them:

• No Best Animated Feature nomination for CARS 2 or THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN.  Not so surprising in the case of CARS 2, but it is a Pixar film, which is generally strong in the category.  The absence of TINTIN, however, is completely shocking.

• Nick Nolte for WARRIOR pushes out Albert Brooks for DRIVE in the Best Supporting Actor race, which means a no nominations for DRIVE in the major categories (the film's only nod will come in the Best Sound Editing category).

• Rooney Mara for THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO sneaks into the Best Actress race, most likely at the expense of Tilda Swinton for WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN.

• Demián Bichir for A BETTER LIFE and Gary Oldman for TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY replace both Leonardo DiCaprio for J. EDGAR (no biggie) and Michael Fassbender for SHAME (shocking) in the Best Actor race.  This is, shockingly, Gary Oldman's first-ever Oscar nomination, so they're likely nominating him as much for his body of work as for this one movie.  It is a terrific body of work.  But that they had to nominate him at the expense of Michael Fassbender is a huge shame.  (Get it, shame? I'm so clever.)

• THE TREE OF LIFE gets nominations for both Best Director and Best Picture, after being totally absent from the Golden Globes and not really on anyone's radar screen for either award.

• EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE manages to snag a nomination for Best Picture despite being totally unrecognized in the awards circuit those far.  Granted, it was directed by Stephen Daldry, who has never directed a movie that wasn't nominated for Best Picture (BILLY ELLIOT, THE HOURS, THE READER), but this particular film had garnered approximately zero buzz.  Daldry himself missed out on his habitual Best Director nomination, but somehow his film managed to sneak into the mix, despite having a Rotten 48% percent on Rotten Tomatoes.

• Neither BRIDESMAIDS or HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS - PART 2 manage to get Best Picture nominations.  Okay, so maybe this last one isn't a surprise to anyone except me, but I was really hoping at least one of the two would nab a nom.  Of the two, BRIDESMAIDS had the best shot, but the Academy unfortunately is continuing its trend of not recognizing comedies (although Melissa McCarthy did get a nom for Best Supporting Actress).  HARRY POTTER, meanwhile, could have garnered the nom as a recognition of the entire series' body of work, not to mention the fact that it was the highest grossing movie of the year AND garnered a 96% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is a higher score than any film that was actually nominated for Best Picture, with the exception of THE ARTIST, which beats it by 1 percentage point.  Seriously, what's wrong with recognizing a critical AND commercial success, especially when you have up to 10 slots available?

• This year's Best Picture nominations comes to a total of 9 films.  After catching some flack for expanding the field to 10 for a couple of years and therefore allowing some "lesser" films into the mix, the Academy decided to change its rules again, saying that a film had to garner at least 5% of first place votes to get a nomination, resulting in anywhere from 5-10 noms.  Many were predicting that with these stricter rules, the final number would end up around 5 or 6.  However, 9 different movies were all considered THE #1 BEST movie of the year by at least 5% of Academy voters, which means there is a very wide spread of taste this year, which is kind of cool.  It just now seems silly, in retrospect, to have changed the rules to only end up with 1 less nominee, when you could have kept it at 10 and nominated one crowd pleaser like BRIDESMAIDS or HARRY POTTER or the violent and edgy THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO.

So there you have it!  An unprecedented amount of shocks and surprises this year. What do you think of the list?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

Update: Here's the rest of the nominations not included in the ceremony:

Art Direction
• The Artist
• Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows - Part 2
• Hugo
• War Horse
Cinematography
• The Artist
• The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
• Hugo
• The Tree Of Life
• War Horse
Costume Design
• Anonymous
• The Artist
• Hugo
• Jane Eyre
• W.E.
Film Editing
• The Artist
• The Descendants
• The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
• Hugo
• Moneyball
Makeup
• Albert Nobbs
• Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows - Part 2
• The Iron Lady
Original Score
• The Adventures Of Tintin
• The Artist
• Hugo
• Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
• War Horse
Original Song
• "Man Or Muppet" - The Muppets
• "Real In Rio" - Rio
Sound Editing
• Drive
• The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
• Hugo
• Transformers: Dark Of The Moon
• War Horse
Sound Mixing
• The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
• Hugo
• Moneyball
• Transformers: Dark Of The Moon
• War Horse
Visual Effects
• Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows - Part 2
• Hugo
• Real Steel
• Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes
• Transformers: Dark Of The Moon
Documentary Feature
• Hell And Back Again
• If A Tree Falls: A Story Of The Earth Liberation Front
• Paradies Lost 3: Purgatory
• Pina
• Undefeated
Documentary Short
• The Barber Of Birmingham: Foot Soldier Of The Civil Rights Movement
• God Is The Bigger Elvis
• Incident In New Baghdad
• Saving Face
• The Tsunami And The Cherry Blossom
Short Film (Animated)
• Dimanche/Sunday
• The Fantastic Flying Books Of Mr. Morris Lessmore
• La Luna
• A Morning Stroll
• Wild Life
Short Film (Live Action)
• Pentecost
• Raju
• The Shore
• Time Freak
• Tuba Atlantic

Most-nominated movies:
11 - HUGO
10 - THE ARTIST
6 - MONEYBALL; WAR HORSE
5 - THE DESCENDANTS; THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO
4 - THE HELP

What do you think was the biggest surprise this year?

PilotWatch: SMASH

NBC Mondays @ 10
(Premiering 2/6, first episode available now on iTunes)

What's it about?
There's nothing more exciting than the opening night of a hit Broadway musical, except maybe what happens getting there.  While Wicked and The Lion King pack audiences in on the Great White Way, Julia and Tom, a successful songwriting team begin work on a new musical based on the life of Marilyn Monroe.  When a tenacious producer jumps aboard, so begins the difficult task of casting the silver screen icon.  Ivy Lynn, a tough Broadway veteran, seems like the obvious choice.  But enter Karen Cartwright, a young girl from Iowa with a dream of making it on Broadway who walks in and blows everyone away.  So who will get the part and begin a journey that will change their lives?  It's an age-old story, but a star just might be born once again.  While everyone is consumed with putting the show together, real life has a tendency of getting in the way.  Julia and her husband are in the middle of a complicated adoption; the producer's husband begins divorce proceedings which could threaten the finances of the show; and the brilliant but womanizing director could derail everything if he puts the young star in a compromising position.  This will be a rollercoaster ride that culminates on opening night when the audience gets to determine whether or not the show is a smash!

You should watch if...
• you have ever enjoyed a musical.
• you have ever wanted to know what goes on behind the scenes of Broadway.
• you have been a struggling actor in New York City.

So, how was it?
Leading up to its heavily-publicized debute in February, SMASH is being incessantly billed as two things: A) the new GLEE and B) NBC's last best hope.  One of these things is true. One is decidedly not.

No, this show is nothing like GLEE.  Would it ever have happened if GLEE hadn't paved the way for musical television shows?  Maybe not.  (Probably not.)  But the comparisons stop there.  Whereas GLEE is a brightly-colored, fast-paced, hyperactive, satirically comedic look at high school that covers anywhere from 4 to 7 pop songs per week with the occasional original song thrown in, SMASH is a deliberate, realistic, dramatic look at the creation of a new musical that features anywhere from 1 to 3 original songs per week with the occasional pop song thrown in.  The two shows are pretty much polar opposites.  (Cue the -- GLEE is better! No SMASH is better! No SMASH is dumb! No GLEE is dumb! -- wars on the IMDB message boards, those breeding grounds for civilized debates.)

The thing that is true about SMASH is that it probably is NBC's last best hope.  At least for this season.  NBC is consistently the fourth-place network, well behind CBS, FOX and ABC, and only slightly ahead of the newest Big Five network, the CW.  This season in particular saw some woeful missteps from the cancelled FREE AGENTS, PRIME SUSPECT and THE PLAYBOY CLUB to the cringe-worthy WHITNEY.  Enter SMASH.  Just listen to the pedigree involved in this show:

Created by Theresa Rebeck (famous playwright whose newest work, SEMINAR, is currently on Broadway starring Alan Rickman); produced by Steven Spielberg and Craig Zadan & Neil Meron (who produced the CHICAGO and HAIRSPRAY movies); original songs written by Marc Shaiman & Scott Wittman (who wrote the musical HAIRSPRAY); starring Debra Messing (WILL & GRACE) and Christian Borle (stage actor in SPAMALOT and LEGALLY BLONDE) as the writers of the musical, Katharine McPhee (AMERICAN IDOL) and Megan Hilty (stage actress in WICKED and 9 TO 5) as prospective Marilyns, Jack Davenport (PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN) as the director, Anjelica Huston (THE ADDAMS FAMILY) as the producer, and Brian d'Arcy James (stage actor in THE WILD PARTY, TITANIC, SHREK, NEXT TO NORMAL...and fellow Northwestern grad, represent!) as Julia's husband (I hope they find a way for him to sing at some point...).  That's quite an impressive list.

With that much talent behind it, SMASH was either going to be spectacular...or a spectacular failure.  Luckily, it's the former.  McPhee and Hilty both sound spectacular and do a phenomenal job of getting us on their side...it's truly going to be hard to see one of them get it over the other (although I take slight issue with the show's seeming stance that McPhee's Karen deserves to get it because she's a bright and shiny newcomer from the Midwest when Hilty's Ivy has been putting her time in for the better part of a decade in Broadway chorus after chorus...but whatever).  Messing and Borle make a lovably neurotic pair as the passionate writers who can't help but fall in love with their topic despite outside pressures (aka Messing's Julia is trying to adopt a baby and had agreed to not write for a while).  Anjelica Huston is a presence to be reckoned with as the snappy producer who takes on the new show.  Jack Davenport portrays both artistic brilliance and personal sleaziness in equal measure.  The influence from the producers of CHICAGO are evident as several of the songs transition in and out of reality into a glitzy showbiz production number complete with bright costumes and sparkling lights.  And the ballad that closes the pilot, written by Shaiman & Wittman, is a showstopper.

I'm excited to see where this show goes.  I'm wondering how long they can drag out the casting decision to prolong suspense and hold on to viewers.  Will the show get all the way to opening night by the end of the season?  Or will Marilyn: The Musical stretch all the way into Season 2?  If not, what exactly is Season 2 going to be about?  A premature question, of course, because if people who aren't in love with showbiz aren't drawn to SMASH, it may be a moot point.  I hope it finds an audience wider than those who are already obsessed with musicals.

My one small gripe with the pilot was that for the most part it was a hyper-realistic portrayal of the musical theater scene complete with discussions about whether a certain passage in a song should be sung in mix or full belt...but then at times it would dip into clearly fabricated events conjured up for the sole purpose of drama, such as when the director invites the young wannabe star over to his apartment late at night for a booze-fueled chat about Marilyn's sexy side.  A) No real director would ever ask that of someone.  B) No 24-year-old girl in her right mind would comply, even if she was from Iowa.  C) If she did, he would be facing sexual harassment charges faster than he could say "From the top!"  In this episode at least, SMASH is straddling a fine line between realism and melodrama that the writers should be careful with -- realism will be its friend, otherwise people will get as tired of the fabricated theatrics as quickly as some did with GLEE.  Plus, the juxtaposition of such manufactured moments with such truthful ones will make those not familiar with the theater scene think the manufactured ones are as real as the rest, only reinforcing the stereotype that theater is a drama-saturated business filled with drama-seeking drama queens.  SMASH is at its best when it is reminding us that show business is, after all, just another business.

Rating:
**** Certifiably ADDICTive.  A must-see.
Despite my minor qualms, I'm still definitely addicted, and can't wait to see where this show is going next.  It's the first certified hit of 2012 (in my opinion) and I hope it manages to snag a wide audience, both for its own sake and for the sake of the flailing NBC.  You don't have to love musicals to love this show -- it's full of great acting, great writing, great cinematography, and great drama -- there just happens to be some songs every now and then.

What did you think, Fellow Addicts? Were you won over by the glitz and glamor of SMASH?  Or does another musical TV show not appeal to you?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!  (And please, no GLEE vs. SMASH debates...there's plenty of room for both.)

(For the complete rundown of when all the new shows are premiering, check out my 2012 Midseason TV Preview.)

What did you think of SMASH?

PilotWatch: UNSUPERVISED

FX Thursdays @ 10:30

What's it about?
UNSUPERVISED is an animated, half-hour comedy about two eternally optimistic best friends "Gary" and "Joel," who are navigating the harsh landscape of adolescence and trying to do what's right despite having no parental guidance whatsoever.  Gary's father took off years ago and left him with his absentee stepmom, while Joel's elderly parents remain unseen and uninvolved.  And the adults that are actually present in Gary and Joel's lives are anything but role models.  At first glance, Gary and Joel's world may be bleak but their worldview is bright as they guide themselves through life with each other to depend on.

You should watch if...
• you like ARCHER or IT'S ALWAYS SUNNY IN PHILADELPHIA...or that's what they want you to think.
• you are still yearning to move out of your parents' basement and live a life free of supervision and any apparent consequences.

So, how was it?
Proudly advertised as being from the writers/producers of IT'S ALWAYS SUNNY IN PHILADELPHIA and the animators of ARCHER and featuring the voice talents of the likes of Justin Long and Kristen Bell, I was expecting this new animated series to be a whip-smart, satirical look at teenage life.  Instead I got a flaccid, joke-free show about a couple of whiny kids who for whatever odd, unexplained reason, don't have parental supervision in their lives.

Perhaps they should have advertised it as being from the mind of creator, producer, animator and voice-r Nick Hornsby, most recently known as the creator, producer and star of that gem of 2011, CBS' HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN.  That would be a more accurate advertisement for this equally disappointing show.  GENTLEMAN managed to last all of two episodes before being unceremoniously dumped onto Saturday nights and then outright cancelled shortly after.  I predict a similar fate for UNSUPERVISED.  The two main characters, Gary and Joel, are indistinguishable, sloppy caricatures of teenagers with no likable traits or...really any personality to speak of.  They suddenly wake up one day, wonder why their lack of parental units isn't resulting in more boobs in their lives, and decide to try to be cooler.  Which  mostly means getting themselves and all the other high schoolers wasted and high and then feeling their female classmates up in their blood-spattered bedroom (don't ask).  Nothing resembling comedy here.  More like a sad commentary on the aimless, sex-driven nature of youth today and our culture's continued glorification of that party-rock consequence-free lifestyle.

I honestly don't know what the obviously talented cast and crew were thinking.  ARCHER and IT'S ALWAYS SUNNY are both beloved, extremely hysterical shows that are a far and away in a separate class of comedy than this crass, humorless mess.  I didn't crack a smile once in the twenty minutes it took me to get through the first episode...twenty minutes I would like back, please.

Rating:
* Atrocious. I will never watch this show again. Ever.
Maybe I'm just in a bad mood (judging by other comments I've seen online, I don't think that's the problem), but I was expecting way more from this show.  Maybe it'll get better with age.  Too bad I won't be around to see it improve...it's already lost me.

What did you think, Fellow Addicts?  Were you equally disappointed?  Or did you actually find things to laugh at (besides the obviously poor quality of the writing)?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

(For the complete rundown of when all the new shows are premiering, check out my 2012 Midseason TV Preview.)

What did you think of UNSUPERVISED?

PilotWatch: ALCATRAZ

FOX Mondays @ 9

What's it about?
When San Francisco Police Department Det. Rebecca Madsen is assigned to a grisly homicide case, a fingerprint leads her to a shocking suspect: Jack Sylvane, a former Alcatraz inmate who died decades ago.  Once the enigmatic, knows-everything-but-tells-nothing government agent Emerson Hauser tries to impede her investigation, she's doggedly committed.  Madsen turns to Alcatraz expert and comic book enthusiast, Dr. Diego "Doc" Soto, to piece together the inexplicable sequence of events.  The twosome discovers that Sylvane is not only alive, but he's loose on the streets of San Francisco, leaving bodies in his wake.  And strangely, he hasn't aged a day since he was in Alcatraz.  By delving into Alcatraz history, government cover-ups and Rebecca's own heritage, the team will ultimately discover that Sylvane is only a small part of a much large, more sinister present-day threat.  For while he may be the first, it quickly becomes clear that Sylvane won't be the last prisoner to reappear from Alcatraz.

You should watch if...
• you have enjoyed J.J. Abrams' other work (LOST, FRINGE, PERSON OF INTEREST).
• you like a little supernatural mystery sprinkled in with your police procedural.
• you want to see Dr. Alan Grant from JURASSIC PARK play a shady government agent.

So, how was it?
I've been a gigantic fan of J.J. Abrams ever since I watched the first episode of LOST.  I followed that show every week for six years with nigh-on-rabid interest.  I've since fallen in love with FRINGE, CLOVERFIELD, STAR TREK, SUPER 8, MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III & IV and ALIAS.  And while PERSON OF INTEREST didn't grab me as much as I hoped it would this fall (I've still only seen the first two episodes), I was still extremely excited and hopeful for ALCATRAZ.

That being said, I was not blown away in the way I was (and millions of people were) during the first two hours of LOST.  I don't think anything will compare to the sheer scope of the action, mystery and great characterization that the LOST pilot embodied.  And yet I keep hoping for it every time J.J. Abrams comes out with a new show.  So in a way I set myself up for disappointment.  But regardless of my extremely high expectations, the first two hours of ALCATRAZ were kind of a mixed bag.  There were some things I really loved, and some things I'm not so sure about.

Things I loved: seeing Hurley back on my television.  Granted, I couldn't think of Jorge Garcia as anything but his beloved character from LOST, and at times it just seemed like before Hurley boarded the ill-fated plane he was a comic book geek and Alcatraz-enthusiast who teamed up with some blonde chick to solve crimes.  But whatever.  His presence on my television was very welcome.  Sam Neill (JURASSIC PARK) is intriguing playing a man whose past as well as his present is entangled in Alcatraz history.  I like that we're not sure of his motives yet: are the prisoners he's catching really the bad guys?  Or is he?  I'm not sure yet and that's one of the questions that will keep me watching.  Another thing I loved were the unsolved questions, mysterious occurrences and plot twists that were sprinkled throughout the two-hour premiere.  J.J. Abrams is at his best when dealing with a heavily mythology-based, serialized show (being so episodic was one reason UNDERCOVERS was so awful...also it was just plain terrible), so I can't wait to see these and more mysteries unfold over the course of the season.

Things I'm not so sure about: Sarah Jones (SONS OF ANARCHY) as Det. Madsen.  She seemed a little reserved and unsure of herself at times during the first two hours.  And given that she's the main character, this made my entrance into the show a little difficult.  Granted, I remember a lot of people thinking the same thing about Anna Torv when FRINGE first started, and look at the bang-up job she's doing now.  So I'll give her a little time to warm up to her role.  Also, I'm not so sure about the procedural nature of this show.  The few mysteries and questions scattered throughout the first two hours are hopefully setting up an over-arching storyline, but for at least the foreseeable future, it looks like this show will be about catching a different bad guy every week.  J.J. Abrams himself was quoted as saying that ALCATRAZ will be episodic.  As anyone who knows me will attest, I really don't like procedurals, so this news makes me nervous.  However, when FRINGE first started it was focused on weird-case-of-the-week and is now one of the most serialized sci-fi shows on television.  So maybe they're just starting slowly here, too.

Rating:
*** Solid. I'm interested and will definitely keep watching.
Going in, I really wanted to give this show a Certifiably ADDICTive rating, but unfortunately I was not addicted by the premiere.  I am definitely interested though, and hopefully that interest will pay off by the end of the first season and keep me invested in returning.  But for now, the show really feels like a mashup of all of J.J. Abrams' previous shows - the same-characters-different-timelines approach of FRINGE, the mysterious island of LOST, the shady government conspiracies of ALIAS, the high-tech investigations of PERSON OF INTEREST and (unfortunately) the case-of-the-week nature of UNDERCOVERS.  We'll see which one of these shows ALCATRAZ eventually becomes more like.  I'm personally hoping for more FRINGE/LOST than PERSON OF INTEREST/UNDERCOVERS.  But for now I'm content to wait and see.

What about you, Fellow Addicts?  Are you sad that this show won't be serialized like LOST?  Or are you looking forward to a more episodic project from J.J. Abrams?  What has been your favorite show helmed by Abrams?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

(For the complete rundown of when all the new shows are premiering, check out my 2012 Midseason TV Preview.)

What did you think of ALCATRAZ?

PilotWatch: NAPOLEON DYNAMITE

FOX Sundays @ 8:30

What's it about?
An animated series based on the hit film, NAPOLEON DYNAMITE follows the comic adventures of America's most awesomely awkward teenage and his offbeat family and friends as they navigate small-town life in rural Idaho.  Whether he's facing down bullies or discovering the meaning of friendship, Napoleon proves that true heroes follow their own path - especially when they have secret ninja skills from the government.

You should watch if...
• you loved the movie so much that you still watch it at least once a week.
• you are perpetually stuck in 2004.

So, how was it?
Meh.  That was pretty much my reaction to the first episode of this animated series written by the writers of the movie and starring the voices of the whole main cast from the movie.  Now, I have to get it right out there at the start that I've never seen the original NAPOLEON DYNAMITE movie.  I know, I know.  Whatever.  I think that in some ways that makes me uniquely qualified to review the TV show, as it should not only aim itself at fans of the film if it wants to achieve any sort of longevity.

As a non-fan of the movie, it did nothing for me.  My impression of the film was that, for some reason or other, it managed to hit a cultural nerve of loserdom back in 2004, but actually isn't all that great.  It had a cult following for about twelve seconds and then disappeared into our collective memory of the early 00s.  It seems to be one of those movies that's funnier to quote than to actually watch.  So why, eight years later, anyone thought the world was clamoring for an animated spin-off, is beyond me.  The fact that every single person involved in the film is on board for the show makes me feel like none of them had anything better to do and therefore went back to the one at-least-marginally-popular thing they'd ever done.  And now we get to sit through repetitive non-jokes about acne cream and pioneer wrestling.  Hooray for us.

Maybe I don't "get" it because I haven't seen that movie.  I'll totally admit that that's a possibility.  But the show will not survive by having its audience solely be made up of people who not only saw the movie, but a) are still amused by it and b) have the time or mental space to add another show to their schedule every week.  I'll be very interested to see what kind of life this show ends up having.  If any.

Rating:
* Atrocious. I will never watch this show again. Ever.
Okay, it may be slightly unfair of me to give an Atrocious rating to a show that is based on a movie I've never seen, but if I'm being honest I have no intention of ever watching it again.  So that's what it gets.

What did you think, Fellow Addicts?  Did you like it?  If so, have you seen the movie or not?  And if you haven't seen the movie and still liked the show, what did I miss?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

(For the complete rundown of when all the new shows are premiering, check out my 2012 Midseason TV Preview.)

What did you think of NAPOLEON DYNAMITE?

Golden Globe Awards 2012

Hollywood let out a collective sigh of relief as this year's Ricky-Gervais-hosted Golden Globes turned out to be much tamer than last year's infamous celebrity roast ceremony.  Gervais wisely chose to forgo awkward "jokes" that only made every one in the audience visibly uncomfortable in favor of a series of pithy one-liners.  (My personal favorite: "The Golden Globes are to the Oscars what Kim Kardashian is to Kate Middleton -- a bit louder, a bit trashier, a bit drunker, and more easily bought."  So true.)

Anyway, here's the full list of winners followed by some of my thoughts.  Check it out and then vote for your favorite moment in the poll below!

• Best Picture - Drama: THE DESCENDANTS
• Best Picture - Comedy or Musical: THE ARTIST
• Best Actor - Drama: George Clooney, THE DESCENDANTS
• Best Actress - Drama: Meryl Streep, THE IRON LADY
• Best Actor - Comedy or Musical: Jean Dujardin, THE ARTIST
• Best Actress - Comedy or Musical: Michelle Williams, MY WEEK WITH MARILYN
• Best Supporting Actor: Christopher Plummer, BEGINNERS
• Best Supporting Actress: Octavia Spencer, THE HELP
• Best Director: Martin Scorsese, HUGO
• Best Screenplay: Woody Allen, MIDNIGHT IN PARIS
• Best Score: THE ARTIST
• Best Original Song: "Masterpiece," W.E.
• Best Animated Film: THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN
• Best Foreign Film: A SEPARATION
• Best TV Drama: HOMELAND
• Best TV Comedy: MODERN FAMILY
• Best TV Movie or Miniseries: DOWNTON ABBEY
• Best TV Actor - Drama: Kelsey Grammer, BOSS
• Best TV Actress - Drama: Claire Danes, HOMELAND
• Best TV Actor - Comedy: Matt LeBlanc, EPISODES
• Best TV Actress - Comedy: Laura Dern, ENLIGHTENED
• Best TV Actor - Movie or Miniseries: Idris Elba, LUTHER
• Best TV Actress - Movie or Miniseries: Kate Winslet, MILDRED PIERCE
• Best TV Supporting Actor: Peter Dinklage, GAME OF THRONES
• Best TV Supporting Actress: Jessica Lange, AMERICAN HORROR STORY

•  Every single win in the TV category went to cable networks, except one...Best Comedy Show for MODERN FAMILY.  That's 10 wins for cable, 1 for network.  Compare that to last year's 4 wins for network television, and I'd say that's pretty reflective of the year that network TV has had.

•  There was no correlation this year between either Best Screenplay or Best Director and Best Picture Drama OR Comedy.  That's extremely unusual -- for example, last year's winner for Best Drama, THE SOCIAL NETWORK, won both Best Director for David Fincher AND Best Screenplay.  However, both winners for Best Actor - Drama and Best Actor - Comedy came from the films that ended up winning that category (George Clooney from THE DESCENDANTS and Jean Dujardin from THE ARTIST).

•  Meryl Streep upsets long-time frontrunner Viola Davis for Best Actress in a Drama.  Uh...what?

• Claire Danes, who won for Best Actress in a TV Drama (for HOMELAND), first won a Golden Globe when she was fifteen for MY SO-CALLED LIFE.  Way to make me feel like an underachiever, Claire.  Thanks for that.

What did you think of the ceremony, Fellow Addicts?  Any surprises/disappointments?  How do you think Ricky did?  Vote for your favorite moments now and then hit the comments!

What were your favorite moments of the Golden Globes?

ABC cancels WORK IT!

Praise the sweet little baby Jesus.  After only two episodes of soul-crushingly horrendous, horrifically offensive cross-dressing "humor" (two episodes too many), ABC has wisely dropped the axe on their freshman sitcom WORK IT!  Although the truly wise decision would have been to never air it in the first place.

WORK IT! now ties HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN for fastest cancelation of the 2011-2012 season.  This comes as no surprise after the countless critical pans, GLAAD releasing a statement condemning the show, and embarrassing ratings (it premiered at a scant 2.0 and dropped in its second week to an even worse 1.6).  The time slot will temporarily be filled with reruns of its lead-in, LAST MAN STANDING, although speculation is rife that the long-absent COUGAR TOWN will soon take its place.

How do you feel about WORK IT! getting canceled?

The Sound Of Silence: A Review of THE ARTIST

Expected grade: 8/10
Actual grade: 10/10

I had, of course, heard many of the wonderful things people had to say about THE ARTIST before I finally got to see it last night.  I knew it was a shoe-in for a Best Picture nomination and a frontrunner for the award itself, as well as for its lead actor, Jean Dujardin.  I also knew that it was a black-and-white silent picture, of the kind not often made since the evolution of talkies in the 1920s.  I was both excited and slightly skeptical about how I would react to this seemingly way-past-outdated format.  The short answer?  It blew me away.  To quote a cliché, they really do not make them like this anymore.

Though the introduction of sound to motion pictures was obviously a revolutionary technology, the early films that employed it still largely maintained the spectacle of the silent films that came before -- this combination of spectacle and sound led itself naturally to musicals.  It's no coincidence that the first widely released talkie was THE JAZZ SINGER.  Musicals reached their peak in the 60s (4 out of the 10 Best Picture winners that decade were musicals), but have since faded into now-and-again curiosities (ala MOULIN ROUGE).  After that, the dialogue itself came to the forefront, and soon movies were featuring scenes of characters sitting in a room just talking for fifteen or twenty minutes (a prime example of this kind of filmmaking can be found in, you guessed it, Quentin Tarantino).  But now we've evolved even past these battle of wits, dialogue-heavy films.  What is now front-and-center in most films is not picture, it's not music, it's not dialogue -- it's special effects.  Started as far back as 1975 by Stephen Spielberg with JAWS and cemented in 1993 by JURASSIC PARK, special effects were originally a revolutionary tool used to tell a story, much like sound was back in the 20s.  But now it has been turned by some (Michael Bay, Roland Emmerich, Zack Snyder...not to name names) into not just a tool, but the focus of a film itself (ala TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON.)  Not to say that one form of film (silent, musical, dialogue-heavy, or effects-centric) is inherently better than others (though you could certainly make an argument for some), but that has been the natural progression.  It is therefore fascinating to see what can be accomplished by stripping away all the layers that movies have been burdened with over the years and tell a story with nothing more than shadows and light.

That's all merely a preamble to say that THE ARTIST was a revelation.  Shot in 1:33:1 Academy ratio, the same ratio used in silent movie days, the film is in every way a throwback to the early days of Hollywood...while somehow simultaneously remaining modern.  It's a fascination combination that, in less capable hands, could have ended up as a jarring collision of styles.  As directed by French filmmaker Michel Hazanavicius (who also wrote the screenplay), it is a beautiful medley of past and present of movies, and hopefully a glimpse of the future as well.

Without the crutch of special effects and dialogue, Hazanavicius must rely on nothing more than the visual composition of his shots, the capabilities of his actors, and the music of the soundtrack to set the mood and tell a story.  The film is only 100 minutes long (incredibly short for this day and age), as the story must, by necessity, remain brief without the elaborative help of words.  It is instead painted in broad, sweeping emotional strokes, just like the silent films of the olden days, yet somehow in the hands of lead actors Jean Dujardin as George Valentin and Bérénice Bejo as Peppy Miller, the emotions never feel broad.  Again, in less capable hands, the story could have easily succumbed to saccharine melodrama, but Dujardin and Bejo breathe life into every single frame, portraying simple, believable, varying and (most importantly) specific emotions throughout those 100 brief minutes.  The two leads are, wisely, unknowns in the United States, Dujardin being French and Bejo being Argentinian.  However, the periphery of the film is populated by American character actors that many audience members will recognize, from John Goodman to James Cromwell to Missi Pyle and Malcolm McDowell.  (There's also a sidekick-dog that audiences of any country will fall in love with instantly.)

Hazanivicius and his cinematographer, Guillaume Schiffman, frame every shot with an eye for both beauty and precision.  With the visuals being the main storytelling device (even title cards are used sparingly), each shot must be chosen carefully.  For example, when George is leaving the studio office after being summarily fired, to be replaced by a new wave of "talkie stars" (including Peppy), he runs into Peppy on the stairs outside the studio.  He is descending -- she is going up.  Such simple devices help the storytelling to flow beautifully from scene to scene.  (Shiffman has already been nominated by five separate organizations for his cinematography in this film, and I would easily expect the Academy Awards to add a sixth.)

Do I think Hazanavicius and THE ARTIST are trying to spark a resurgence of silent films?  No.  Do I think Hazanivicius was deliberately making a commentary on modern moviemaking?  No, but the film can definitely serve as one if you want it to.  I don't believe either of those things.  I believe he simply set out to make a good film and tell a moving story, and found the best way he knew to do it.  It's amazing what effect the stripping away of sound and effects does -- you become aware of every noise around you in the theater, and you literally can't look away from the screen or you'll miss something.  It's an engrossing experience unlike any other I've had in the cinema (only occasionally in my living room or a college classroom).  Is the story revolutionary?  No -- SINGIN' IN THE RAIN tackled the same subject exactly 60 years ago.  But is it told in a unique, effective and affecting manner?  Absolutely.  Out of all the films I've seen that people have been talking about for Best Picture, this is far and away my personal favorite.

Do not walk -- run -- to see this movie in theaters before it's too late.

Your turn, Fellow Addicts.  Have you managed to catch a screening of THE ARTIST yet?  If so, what did you think?  Did you find the style refreshing or antiquated?  What did it make you think about the state of modern cinema?  (It made me a little depressed.)  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

What did you think of THE ARTIST?

PilotWatch: ROB

CBS Thursdays @ 9:30

What's it about?
ROB is a comedy starring Rob Schneider as a lifelong bachelor who just married into a tight-knit Mexican-America family.  Rob is a successful landscape architect who, after a whirlwind romance, marries Maggie, a beautiful, smart book translator, who is way out of his league.  After eloping in las Vegas, Maggie and Rob must break the news to her overprotective, judgmental parents, Rosa and Fernando, that they are married.  Shocked by news that they've eloped, the family remains skeptical of Maggie's choice for a husband, with the exception of her uncle Hector, the black sheep of the family, who immediately declares himself Rob's best friend.  Rob hopes he will one day win over his new in-laws, aunts, uncles and Maggie's Abuelita, and live happily ever after with his one true love, Maggie.

You should watch if...
• you are the kind of person who goes around spouting racist jokes.
• you are the kind of person who enjoys Rob Schneider.
(I honestly can't decide which of those is worse.)

So, how was it?
2011-2012 may be setting the record for most offensive, most poorly written, most eye-gougingly awful season of television ever.  ROB is only the latest in a slew of face-palm-worthy sitcoms (its partners in crime being: WHITNEY, HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN, LAST MAN STANDING, ALLEN GREGORY, I HATE MY TEENAGE DAUGHTER, and WORK IT!).  Can we just pretend like none of these ever happened?  On the bright side, they've set an incredibly low bar for 2012-2013.

The pilot of ROB was 20 soul-crushing minutes of unrelenting jokes about Hispanics, Catholics, old people, women, gardeners, and even hoarders.  As a critic for Entertainment Weekly put it, "Look out, WORK IT, you  may have some competition in the outdated and culturally insensitive department."  Which is really saying something.

Imagine, for a moment, that the writers of MODERN FAMILY had decided to focus solely on Jay and Gloria.  Then they recast Ed O'Neill with Rob Schneider.  Then they rounded out the supporting cast with a horde of stereotypical, accent-heavy Hispanics.  Then the writers were all struck by lightning and replaced with chimpanzees, who proceded to mindlessly poke at some typewriters until CBS had enough pages and randomly collected them into a loose version of a "script."  Throw in an ear-grating laugh track on top, and you've got ROB.

If you're not weeping inside right now, then this show was made for you.

Rating:
* Atrocious. I will never watch this show again. Ever.
It's sad that out of the 7 midseason shows that have premiered thus far, this is the 4th Atrocious rating I've had to give (1 was Okay and 2 were Solid).  I'm really at a loss for how such blatantly offensive dreck continues to make its way onto our airwaves.  How did anyone think this show was a good idea?  How did anyone think that any show starring Rob Schneider was a good idea?  It's beyond me.

Take it away, Fellow Addicts.  Were you as shocked by the insensitiveness as I was?  Or did you find it amusing?  Or were you not shocked merely because your soul is now dead after being so mercilessly assaulted by atrocity after atrocity this season?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

(For the complete rundown of when all the new shows are premiering, check out my 2012 Midseason TV Preview.)

What did you think of ROB?

PilotWatch: THE FINDER

FOX Thursdays @ 9

What's it about?
Iraq war veteran Walter Sherman gained a reputation while serving in the Army Military Police as someone who was very good at tracking down insurgents, deserters and improvised explosive devices.  Unfortunately, Walter found one IED just moments before it found him.  Two months later, when Walter woke from his come, he earned an honorable discharge and returned home.  His resulting brain damage from the explosion transformed him from someone skilled at recovering people and things into something much more extraordinary: a Finder.

You should watch if...
• you watch BONES. That's literally the only reason. Unless...
• you happen to like shows with protagonists who have vague and unexplained pseudo-superpowers. Which maybe you do. In which case, go crazy.

So, how was it?
As someone who has never seen a single episode of BONES, I missed the ep of that show where Walter Sherman was introduced in his own back-door pilot that was developed into this spin-off.  I hope that FOX was not planning on drawing anyone in to THE FINDER who wasn't already a pre-existing fan of BONES, because I felt like I was being punished for not having watched that show.  I missed his introduction, I missed any explanation of his "finding powers," and there was absolutely no exposition to help catch up someone who was meeting this character for the first time.  If FOX was trying to alienate outside viewers, congratulations -- it worked like a charm.

I had to do some digging to find out why Walter is supposedly so much better at finding things than literally anybody else on the planet, and ended up on FOX's website, where the description of the show (pasted above) provided this vague and utterly ridiculous-sounding explanation: "His resulting brain damage from the explosion transformed him from someone skilled at recovering people and things into something much more extraordinary: a Finder."  Riiiiiiiiiight.

A Finder!  With a Capital F!  Of course, an Iraqi IED exploded in his face and mutated his brain so now he's one of that elusive race of Capital F Finders who now employ their superpowers to get drunk at bars in the remote Florida Keys and every now and then find a crashed plane for young boys playing hooky from the Air Force.  It all makes sense now.

Seriously, could this show be more ridiculous?  I was too distracted by the absurd premise to focus on anything like the acting (which in hindsight was no better than mediocre) or the storyline (which somehow involved cock fighters covered in fluorescent orange paint, an utterly tangential pretty blonde parolee who I couldn't have cared less about struggling with whether or not to steal Walter's money, and a female mob boss with a British accent playing trumpet on a yacht.  I swear to God, I did not make that last one up.  It actually happened.)

Rating:
* Atrocious. I will never watch this show again. Ever.
I have no doubt that there will be plenty of people who find something in this show to like -- those who are avid fanatics of BONES (which I know there are more than a few of), or who like procedurals (which I don't), or who for some reason have nothing better to do on Thursdays at 9 than to watch this show (which I do).  I'm happy for those people.  But there are too many new shows premiering for me to take time to find things to like about this absurd show when the writers couldn't even take the time to make it make an iota of sense.

Your turn, Fellow Addicts.  If you don't watch BONES and watched THE FINDER, did it make any more sense to you?  If you're going to tune in again, what did you find to like about it?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

(For the complete rundown of when all the new shows are premiering, check out my 2012 Midseason TV Preview.)

What did you think of THE FINDER?

PilotWatch: ARE YOU THERE, CHELSEA?

NBC Wednesdays @ 8:30

What's it about?
Inspired by the best-selling books from actress/comedian Chelsea Handler, ARE YOU THERE, CHELSEA? follows the exploits of the twentysomething Chelsea, an opinionated and unapologetic young woman who lives life to the fullest as a cocktail waitress, friend, daughter, sister and sexually dynamic "advanced drinker."
(Synopsis from NBC.)



You should watch if...
• you like Chelsea Handler.
• you enjoy sex & booze-related jokes.
• you are an alcoholic.

So, how was it?
After this season presented a slew of pretentious comedies that masqueraded as progressive while harboring harmful stereotypes (LAST MAN STANDING, WORK IT!, HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN), it was actually refreshing to see ARE YOU THERE, CHELSEA? be completely obvious and blatant in what it wanted to be: a show centered around nothing more than dirty jokes about sex and drinking.  Was it terrific?  No.  But it did accomplish what it set out to be, nothing more and nothing less.

Laura Prepon (THAT 70s SHOW) is likable as the unapologetically loud, opinionated and sarcastic Chelsea.  When we first meet her, she is getting a DUI, which tells us pretty much everything we need to know about this character.  In a meta-twist, Chelsea Handler herself plays Chelsea (the characters)'s sister Sloane, a born-again conservative new mother whose husband is off fighting in Afghanistan.  If you dislike Handler's humor, you will find nothing to like in this show as it is centered around her, costarring her.

The cast is rounded out with a bunch of equally over-the-top supporting players: Rick, Chelsea's boss at the bar (Jake McDorman, GREEK); Olivia (Ali Wong), Chelsea's best friend, coworker and fellow alcohol-lover; and Dee Dee (Lauren Lapkus), Chelsea's clueless, virgin roommate.  Everyone here is a caricature, writ large for laughs.  The pilot equal-opportunity offends, making fun alternately of alcoholics, virgins, lesbians, little people and redheads.  Sure, the laugh track is annoying (aren't we like a couple decades past those yet?) and the characters are clichés, but the show's bluntness is its biggest strength.

My biggest confusion centers around the title -- why the change?  Originally called ARE YOU THERE, VODKA? IT'S ME, CHELSEA (directly after one of Handler's memoirs), that title both drew on the source material and is uttered in the pilot.  Sure, it was long, but it made sense.  ARE YOU THERE, CHELSEA? sounds like an unrelated woman is drawing inspiration from Chelsea Handler herself.  But the character is supposed to be Chelsea.  I don't know.  Whatever.

Rating:
** Okay. I may give it another episode or two to see if it gets better.
If I'm being honest, I don't see the show getting remarkably better or worse.  I think it is what it is, and the writers intended it to be exactly that.  I just can't give it a three-star rating -- the show's not revolutionary or smart or anything to write home about.  If you enjoy some good, sarcastic booze-related humor and want to commiserate with a fellow soul who doesn't apologize for loving vodka a bit too much, then this is the show for you.  But if you're looking for the next great American comedy, steer clear.

What'd you think, Fellow Addicts? Did you find the blunt offensive tone refreshing? Or just offensive? Will you be tuning in again? Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

(For the complete rundown of when all the new shows are premiering, check out my 2012 Midseason TV Preview.)

What did you think of ARE YOU THERE, CHELSEA?

MAD MEN Season 5 FINALLY gets a premiere date!

Every season of AMC's acclaimed drama MAD MEN has been getting better and better...which made Season 5's delay after the absolute gangbusters Season 4 such a disappointment (the last episode that aired was in October of 2010).  But the show will finally be returning to television, on...

March 25!

That's according to Don Draper himself (or at least according to Jon Hamm, in a recent interview).  AMC has yet to confirm this exact date, but it's a great sign for those of us who have been waiting with bated breath for any news of our favorite whiskey-swilling, chain-smoking show.

PilotWatch: THE FIRM

NBC Sundays @ 10pm

What's it about?
Based on the blockbuster feature film and best-selling novel by world-renowned author John Grisham, THE FIRM continues the story of attorney Mitchell McDeere and his family 10 years after the events of the film and novel.  As a young associate, McDeere brought down the prestigious Memphis law firm of Bendini, Lambert & Locke, which operated as a front for the Chicago mob -- and his life was never the same.  After a difficult decade, which included a stay in the Federal Witness Protection Program, Mitch and his family now emerge from isolation to reclaim their lives and their future -- only to find that past dangers are still lurking and new threats are everywhere.
(Synopsis from NBC.)

So, how was it?
First, let me get my hesitations out of the way.  I'm not sure why this show chose to start 10 years after the events of the novel, instead of just being based on the novel itself (though rebooted in 2012, not as a period piece).  It would've given viewers a well-known story to latch onto, which, in this world of never-ending sequels and book adaptations, we know is a bankable tactic.  (Not to mention that 10 years after the events of the novel would be 2003, not 2012.  Yet this show exists in a world utterly indistinguishable from our modern day life.  At least thus far.)  A straight-up adaptation would also have added to the longevity of the show -- they could've spent an entire season on the book and then branched out from there.  And the writers have had to strain credulity a bit to get us to believe that Mitch and his family would leave the Witness Protection Program after 10 years against professional advice because they think the mob will have stopped looking for them.  Although the explanation of wanting a stable life for his daughter almost does the job.  And finally, the pilot is punctuated with a couple flashbacks to the events 10 years ago, where apparently the makeup and costume department has put in absolutely no effort to make anyone look even a day younger.  Seriously, these characters are not old enough to have looked exactly the same an entire decade ago.

Now that probably sounds like a lot, but it's mostly minor stuff and I wanted to get it out of the way first, because my overwhelming response to the pilot was positive.  I enjoyed the pace, the plotting, the atmosphere, the acting...it all gelled for me.  Josh Lucas (POSEIDON) makes for a handsome, likable protagonist, even if his character is a wee bit too goody-two-shoes.  Molly Parker (DEADWOOD) is excellent as his wife Abby, who I am pleased to say doesn't merely fill the role of pretty damsel in distress.  She's smart and knowledgable enough to give input on Mitch's legal conundrums.  Not to mention the two have great chemistry.  Then there's Juliette Lewis (NATURAL BORN KILLERS) as Mitch's assistant and Callum Keith Rennie (BATTLESTAR GALACTICA) as his brother and P.I.  The two bring just enough quirkiness to fulfill the supporting character roles nicely.  And finally, the gorgeous Tricia Helfer (BATTLESTAR GALACTICA) is icy and intriguing as the head of the firm Mitch joins by the end of the pilot, who harbors as-of-yet vague and nefarious motives.

The show exists largely in one timeline, but contains both flashbacks to events 10 years ago and flashforwards to some very dramatic events six weeks in the future (which bookend the pilot).  The fast-paced legal drama with a season-long mystery and unexplained flashforwards reminds me of DAMAGES, and that can never be a bad thing.  Granted, THE FIRM doesn't have Glenn Close in its cast, but at least thus far it's doing okay on its own.  John Grisham himself helped create the show, and hopefully he's been writing legal thrillers long enough to be able to sustain a good show for a whole season (and hopefully even more seasons after that).

Rating:
*** Solid. I'm interested and will definitely keep watching.
This is the first show of the new year that I'm genuinely excited about.  Unfortunately, the ratings for its premiere were absolutely atrocious.  Only 6.2 million people tuned in for a scant 1.4 rating, which is 46% fewer than watched the premiere of THE CAPE last year, and we all know how that turned out (and if you don't, it only lasted for 10 episodes).  I don't know if the poor ratings were due to bad publicity or what, because Grisham is an extremely popular brand name, but hopefully viewership will pick up to sustain this show, because it has great promise.  And because NBC needs a win.

Your turn, Fellow Addicts!  Were you one of the few who tuned in to the pilot?  If so, what'd you think?  If not, why not?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

(For the complete rundown of when all the new shows are premiering, check out my 2012 Midseason TV Preview.)

What did you think of THE FIRM?

PilotWatch: HOUSE OF LIES

SHO Sundays @ 10pm

What's it about?
Charming, fast talking Marty Kaan and his crack team of MBA-toting management consultants are playing America's 1 percent for everything they've got.  They put the con in consulting as they charm smug, unsuspecting corporate fat cats into closing huge deals, and spending a fortune for their services.  Twisting the facts, spinning the numbers, and spouting just enough business school jargon to dazzle the clients, there's no end to what this crew wont' do to and for each other, while laughing all the way to the bank.
(Synopsis fro SHO.)

So, how was it?
Headlined by Don Cheadle and Kristen Bell, I was hopefully that this show would be a new guilty pleasure.  Boy, was I wrong.  There was nothing pleasurable about watching the first episode of this over-bloated, smug, crass show.

"Management consultant" is an intriguing job, if only because no one really knows what it means.  A show about management consultants and their jobs and how they wrangle big corporations could be fascinating.  A show about the tawdry sex lives of people whose job happens to be that of management consultants?  Infinitely less so.

It seems like the writers wanted to see how much they could shock the audience, stuffing nearly every frame with innuendo, nudity or straight-up sex, including a completely pointless lesbian hook-up in a public bathroom and completely manufactured sexual tension between Cheadle and Bell.  We know that one advantage of being on cable is that you can have more realistic, explicit sex.  But it should still be at least tangentially related to your show's plotline.  Everything about the pilot of this show was gratuitous.

Then there's the awkward moments where the action freezes and Cheadle steps out of the tableau to speak directly to the audience.  This is usually to explain some consulting term that we weren't all that interested in anyway.  The writers seem to think this is a really clever stylistic choice, as they use it five or six times in the first half-hour alone.  It actually feels awkward and condescending.

Then there's the whole idea of the plot: that these "management consultants" are actually conning the 1% out of their ill-deserved spoils.  This could be interesting, what with all the pent-up aggression against corporate fat cats that's been building up lately.  Could be, if the protagonists were then doing anything interesting with the money (it doesn't have to be anything as on-the-nose as donating it to sick children, but there's got to be something constructive you can do with that much dough).  That kind of modern-day, slick, Robin Hood story would've been intriguing.  Instead, Kaan and his cohorts use the money to visit strip clubs, hook up with strippers, eat at $1000/plate sushi restaurants, and get into drunken brawls with their clients.  In short, they use the money to do exactly what the people they're stealing it from are doing with it.  At the end of the day, Kaan and Co. are completely indistinguishable from the greedy CEOs.  They are the 1%.

Rating:
* Atrocious. I will never watch this show again. Ever.
I have no interest in spending time every week watching a bunch of greedy, spoiled adults who act like children swindling other greedy, spoiled people out of their money so they can blow it on strippers.  Count me out.  After three new midseason premieres, we have two new Atrocious ratings -- first WORK IT and now this mess.  Let's hope the rest of the midseason lineup turns out better than these two duds.

What about you, Fellow Addicts?  Did you find anything to like in the pilot?  Or did you also think Don Cheadle and Kristen Bell's undeniable talents were criminally wasted?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

(For the complete rundown of when all the new shows are premiering, check out my 2012 Midseason TV Preview.)

What did you think of HOUSE OF LIES?

Quick Thoughts On: DRIVE

NOTE: So I saw a few movies over the holidays that I didn't have a chance to post my reviews on because of busy holiday schedules, spending time with family, and limited access to internet.  Shame on me.  Since I'm sure you were waiting breathlessly for my opinion on these films, I'll be posting some "Quick Thoughts."  Not full-fledged reviews, just some brief (for me) notes on how I felt about the movies.  First up:  DRIVE.

*****

Every few years, there comes a film that truly enters the national conversation...that you just can't get on board with.  It happened to me in 2006 with CHILDREN OF MEN.  In 2011 it happened again for me with DRIVE.  That movie has been on (almost) literally every single Top 10 films-of-the-year lists I've read, and often in the #1 or 2 slots.  When I saw it last month, I couldn't have been more excited to see it.  Color me extremely disappointed.

I simply don't understand the unabashed love for this film.  While I didn't think it was abjectly terrible, neither did I think it was anything special.  Ryan Gosling was fine, but he was better in both other films he was in last year (THE IDES OF MARCH and, especially, CRAZY STUPID LOVE).  This film was trying so hard to be an arty, moody, atmospheric, stylized, violently "cool" indie flick -- and when I can see a film trying, it has ceased being successful.  It was as though director Nicholas Winding Refn had watched one too many indie films and tried desperately to emulate their appearance without actually studying their content.

DRIVE is full of shots of Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan staring at each other, out a window, or merely into empty space.  Their dialogue is filled with silences...that mean nothing.  It's as though Refn thinks the sign of romantic chemistry is plenty of pregnant pauses.  In a movie with good dialogue, a good director and good actors (DRIVE only has one of those three things), silences can be extremely effective, but they should always be an outward symptom of something coming organically from the character -- in DRIVE, the silences are there for their own sake, to construct "mood."  Harold Pinter, the playwright who was notorious for his use of "pauses" and "silences" in his scripts, has been quoted as saying: "I've really been extremely depressed when I've seen productions in which a silence happens because it says silence [...] and it's totally artificial and meaningless."  That is exactly what's happening in DRIVE.

There are some cool parts -- the opening sequence, in particular, is breathtaking.  Christina Hendricks (MAD MEN) is entertaining as a two-bit floozy.  Albert Brooks is magnetic as the unexpectedly violent Bernie (I kept closing my eyes and imagining Marlin from FINDING NEMO uttering those vicious threats...the most entertaining part of the movie, for me).  Bryan Cranston is as great as he ever is.  Again, the actors are not the problem.  I just couldn't get on board with the director's decision to sacrifice believable, three-dimensional characters and stimulating dialogue in favor of artificial atmosphere.  This is by no means a seamless film -- it is very crudely stitched together from other, greater films.  (Even the movie's tagline, There Are No Clean Getaways, is stolen word-for-word from NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN.)

Rating:
** Eh. I guess it could've been worse.
In one of the few "Rotten" reviews for the film on RottenTomatoes, William Kostakis from MovieFIX sums it up best in one sentence: "What DRIVE is trying to do is very clear, but clear intent doesn't forgive a film that's mostly flat."  Spot on.

*****

Okay, so that ended up being longer than I meant it to be, but it's still shorter than most of my reviews.

Alright, Fellow Addicts.  I know I'm in a tiny, tiny minority here, so let the flaming begin.  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

What did you think of DRIVE?