PilotWatch: LAST RESORT

ABC Thursdays @ 8/7c
(premiering 9/27)

What's it about?
500 feet beneath the ocean's surface, the U.S. ballistic missile submarine Colorado receives their orders.  Over a radio channel, designed only to be used if their homeland has been wiped out, they're told to fire nuclear weapons at Pakistan.  Captain Marcus Chaplin demands confirmation of the orders only to be unceremoniously relieved of duty by the White House.  XO Sam Kendal finds himself suddenly in charge of the submarine and facing the same difficult decision.  When he also refuses to fire without confirmation of the orders, the Colorado is targeted, fired upon, and hit.  The submarine and its crew find themselves crippled on the ocean floor, declared rogue enemies of their own country.  Now, with nowhere left to turn, Chaplin and Kendal take the sub on the run and bring the men and women of the Colorado to an exotic island.  Here they will find refuge, romance and a chance at a new life, even as they try to clear their names and get home.
(from ABC.com)

You should watch if...
• ...you're a fan of non-procedural, high-concept drama.
• ...you're a fan of complex characters making ethically ambiguous decisions.
• ...you're still searching for something other than a medical/cop/lawyer/LOST-ripoff show.

So, how was it?
This early in the season, with only THE MOB DOCTOR and REVOLUTION to compete with in the drama category, it probably doesn't mean much for me to say that LAST RESORT is by far my favorite premiere so far, but I predict it will hold on to that title, or at the very least stay close to the top of my list.  When most shows that premiere are at least similar to (if not outright clones of) other, better shows, it's so refreshing when something truly unique comes along.  And I think we can all agree that a show based around the crew of a rogue submarine taking over a tropical island and founding the world's smallest nuclear country has definitely never been done before.

The show was created by Shawn Ryan, the creator of the critically-acclaimed FX hit THE SHIELD.  He has infused LAST RESORT with the same complex characters, ethically ambiguous situations, relentless tension and impossibly high stakes, while simultaneously keeping the show fresh and exciting.  Major kudos to him. It doesn't hurt that the pilot was also executive-produced and directed by Martin Campbell, the man who directed one of the best action movies of the past couple decades, CASINO ROYALE.  Once the action starts, it's non-stop for the rest of the episode and maintained at an expert level with impressive-for-television special effects, but never at the expense of interesting characters.

It certainly helps that those characters are portrayed by a team of impressive actors.  Andre Braugher (HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREET, MEN OF A CERTAIN AGE) commands the submarine as Captain Marcus Chaplin.  It's a captivating performance of a man you immediately like and root for and assume will be your typical good-guy-in-charge -- however, by the end of the episode, faced with a number of impossible decisions, his true nature becomes less clear and I, at least, began questioning his actual level of sanity.  It's a huge arc for one episode and Braugher's last, captivating monologue left me with chills.  Scott Speedman (UNDERWORLD) is our strapping young hero, which could easily have been a bland role, but he manages (somewhat surprisingly) to imbue it with enough humanity to make you root for and sympathize with him.  His XO Sam Kendal is definitely less of a grey area than Braugher's Chaplin, so he and the writers will have to be careful not to dip into cliché, but so far I like him.  Robert Patrick (the T-1000 himself) is a vaguely menacing presence as Master Chief Joseph Prosser, whose exact allegiances are a bit mysterious.  Daisy Betts (OUT OF THE BLUE, HARRY'S LAW) is reserved but compelling as Lt. Grace Shepard, a woman in a position of authority on a submarine filled with men (and all the complications that entails).  Bruce Davison (X-MEN) and Autumn Reeser (HAWAII FIVE-0) lead the supporting cast on the mainland side of things.

LAST RESORT is not without its flaws.  The pilot is so ambitious, it easily could have been a two-hour episode.  It's jam-packed and, while not overly convoluted in plot, things do move so fast that it's easy to lose track of exactly what's going on.  And anything that doesn't happen on the submarine (back in Washington DC or among the natives on the island) is simply not as interesting by comparison, at least so far.  I understand that the DC storyline especially is important for the deeper mythology of the series, but I kept wanting to get back to Chaplin and Kendal whenever we strayed away, which is as much a testament to the power of their story as anything else.  These small gripes are probably just typical pilot problems that will resolve themselves as the show goes on.  But even if they don't, they're minor enough that I would still be hooked.

And the verdict is:
Certifiably ADDICTive. A must-see.
My first "addictive" rating of the season.  This show instantly earned a place in my weekly schedule, and I can't wait to see what happens next.  My biggest fear is about the longevity of the plot (it almost feels like it should be a miniseries), but I have enough faith in Shawn Ryan and the capable cast to let things play out for the time being.  Hopefully everyone involved can keep up the quality work at a consistent level every week.

Take it away, Fellow Addicts! Are you addicted to LAST RESORT? Or did you find its ambitious plot hard to swallow? Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

What did you think of LAST RESORT?

PilotWatch: REVOLUTION

NBC Mondays @ 10/9c

What's it about?
What would you do without it all?  In this epic adventure from J.J. Abrams' Bad Robot Productions and SUPERNATURAL's Eric Kripke, a family struggles to reunite in an American landscape where every single piece of technology - computers, planes, cars, phones, even lights - has mysteriously blacked out forever.  A drama with sweeping scope and intimate focus, REVOLUTION is also about family - both the family you're born into and the family you choose.  This is a swashbuckling journey of hope and rebirth seen through the eyes of one strong-willed young woman, Charlie Matheson, and her brother Danny.  When Danny is kidnapped by militia leaders for a darker purpose, Charlie must reconnect with her estranged uncle Miles, a former U.S. Marine living a reclusive life.  Together, with a rogue band of survivors, they set out to rescue Danny, overthrow the militia and ultimately re-establish the United States of America.  All the while, they explore the enduring mystery of why the power failed, and if - or how - it will ever return.
(from NBC.com)

You should watch if...
•...you're still on that quest for the next LOST.
•...you're still on that quest for the next HUNGER GAMES.
•...you're still on that quest for the next post-apocalyptic-family-adventure-mystery-action-science-fiction-drama-journey-futuristic-crossbow-wielding-romantic-sword-fight-mythology-show.

So, how was it?
Every year since LOST vacated the airwaves, it has become a tradition for at least one network to try their hand at the sweeping science-fiction mystery show with a large cast of characters and deep mythology.  First there was FLASHFORWARD.  And then there was THE EVENT.  And then TERRA NOVA happened.  What else do these shows have in common?  Oh that's right.  None of them made it past one season.  (The exception being V, if you include it in this category, which made it a whopping TWO SEASONS.)  The question is: Will this season's FLASHFORWARD TO THE EVENT OF THE LOST TERRA NOVA be the one that survives?  Get your bets in now.

I will go right ahead and say that I did not find REVOLUTION as horrendous as some of those other LOST-wannabes.  That being said, it is definitely still in their category and shares many of their same traits.  Like last season's TERRA NOVA, it wants to be a dark, epic sci-fi adventure while still cultivating a family-friendly audience.  Folks, you can't craft a decent sci-fi story if you're afraid of alienating viewers.  Sci-fi by its definition is a niche genre, and you will only be successful if you embrace that quality and cater to the audience of people who love it.  Look at FRINGE.  It has survived five whole seasons by embracing its weirdness and not being afraid to take risks (and the show is decidedly un-family-friendly in its gross-out sci-fi cases).  Is it the highest-rated show on television?  No, but it is critically-acclaimed, passionately loved by its audience, and survived literally five times longer than TERRA NOVA did.

Anyway, back to REVOLUTION.  At the same time as it tries to capitalize on the audience still looking for the next LOST, it also capitalizes on the audience still rife with HUNGER GAMES fever.  Our heroine, Charlie, is a resourceful young woman who ventures into the woods outside her ramshackle village with a bow to hunt.  Ring any bells?  The character breakdown for casting Charlie was probably lifted word-for-word from Suzanne Collins' description of Katniss.  She is spunky, has a rebellious nature, and is always trying to take care of her family.  She is deeply affected by the death of her father and the absence of her mother, and takes action to protect her younger sibling.  She ventures with a bow through a post-apocalyptic terrain, confronting a ruthless futuristic government to protect her family, which will -- I'm sure -- lead to the sparking of a revolution.  This is not to say the actress, Tracy Spiridakos (BEING HUMAN), is less than capable.  She does a fine job, but her character is such a carbon-copy, it's impossible not to compare her performance to that of Oscar-nominated Jennifer Lawrence.

She's joined by Billy Burke (TWILIGHT, 24) as Charlie's caustic uncle Miles who is hesitant to join his niece on her trek, but is impressively capable with a katana when spurred to action.  Giancarlo Esposito (BREAKING BAD, ONCE UPON A TIME) does a typically fine job as the leader of the militia that kidnaps Charlie's brother, although his character is thus far so blandly eeeeevil that he does all but rub his hands together while chuckling menacingly.  Zak Orth is Aaron, a former Google-billionaire who plays REVOLUTION's version of Hurley's chubby-comedic-relief.  Then there's sci-fi goddess Elizabeth Mitchell (LOST, V) as Charlie's mother.  She's briefly glimpsed in the opening sequence and then assumed dead...but we all know you don't cast Elizabeth Mitchell in your show if she's not going to be important and kick some sci-fi butt.

The big question of the pilot is why technology has stopped working.  It's not just electricity, as society skips anything like steam engines and immediately reverts back to medieval times complete with horses and swords (and yet everyone looks like the just finished shopping at J Crew...interesting...).  I feel like this is a big missed opportunity, as steampunk is such a cool genre that hasn't been effectively portrayed on TV in a while.  But whatever.  The only explanation that is given is this: "Physics went insane."  Well okay then.  I assume we'll get more of an explanation as the show progresses, and that actually worries me.  It was the too-complicated mythology as much as anything that was the downfall of FLASHFORWARD and THE EVENT, and I would almost prefer the blackout remain a mystery than have some uninteresting-techy-gobbledegook thrown at me down the line.

All this probably makes it sound like I hated REVOLUTION.  I didn't.  I found Ms. Spiridakos an appealing lead (even with her stolen character), Mr. Esposito is always a welcome presence on my screen (even though he hasn't been given much to do yet), and the difference between REVOLUTION and other LOST-ripoffs is that REVOLUTION actually has LOST's creator as part of the team.  So I'm hoping that REVOLUTION finds its stride and survives for longer than one season, although I won't be terribly surprised if it doesn't.

And the verdict is:
Okay. I may give it another episode or two to see if it gets better.
It is often difficult to judge an entire show by its pilot alone, and this problem is only compounded when the show is as ambitious as REVOLUTION.  So I'm definitely willing to keep giving it a chance (I did, admittedly, watch every episode of TERRA NOVA last season, continually hoping it would improve).  My love for J.J. Abrams and my hope that this will be the show that finally survives, will keep me tuning in at least for a few weeks.  Maybe this will be the one that breaks the post-LOST sci-fi curse.  Only time will tell.

Your turn, Fellow Addicts!  Are you giving REVOLUTION a chance?  Did you like it better or worse than TERRA NOVA/THE EVENT/FLASHFORWARD?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

What did you think of REVOLUTION?

PilotWatch: THE MOB DOCTOR

FOX Mondays @ 9/8c

What's it about?
For most physicians, the Hippocratic oath is sacred.  But for one Chicago doctor, who is indebted to the mafia, saving lives isn't her only concern.  THE MOB DOCTOR is a fast-paced medical drama focusing on a young female surgeon caught between two worlds as she juggles her promising medical career with her family's debt to Chicago's Southside mob.
(from FOX.com)

You should watch if...
•...you're a medical procedural junkie.
•...you're a crime procedural junkie.
•...you're a plucky-young-pretty-resourceful-heroine junkie.

So, how was it?
FOX must have pretty high hopes for this show, considering it's the only new drama they're premiering this fall.  So it's really a pity the show isn't any better than it is.  That's not to say it's horrible - I'm sure there will be many fans, as THE MOB DOCTOR is essentially a mash-up of the medical and crime procedural genres.  But for anyone looking for an original drama with three-dimensional characters, this will likely fall short.

Jordana Spiro (MY BOYS) is Grace Devlin, our plucky-young-pretty-resourceful heroine doctor who is dedicated to medicine and loves cute kids but unfortunately has a debt to the mafia that requires her to occasionally pull screwdrivers out of mobster's frontal lobes.  Spiro is likable enough and could easily carry a well-written show, but this character is too one-dimensional to really let her shine.  We're led to believe that Grace is smart and capable, but then she has her mob boss's phone number programmed into her phone UNDER HIS REAL NAME.  What, her boyfriend doesn't think it's weird that infamous mafioso Moretti is calling her up on her cell?  Grace isn't the only one to act uncharacteristically stupid; after Grace is assigned to save a man who is a mob informer, Moretti sends her a flower arrangement complete the utterly un-subtle note: KILL HIM.  You know, because there are no such things as nosy coworkers who might want to know why someone other than the pretty surgeon's doctor boyfriend is sending her a flower arrangement.

The rest of the cast is rounded out by a bunch of character actors in roles that all seem lifted from better shows (and losing at least one dimension in the process).  Zach Gilford (stuck playing a doctor for the second subpar show in a row, after OFF THE MAP) is Grace's handsome-smart-talented-understanding boyfriend.  William Forsythe (BOARDWALK EMPIRE) is Constantine, a mobster straight out of a direct-to-video Goodfellas ripoff.  There's also an arrogant doctor who doesn't give two craps that he's responsible for the death of an eight-year-old boy, a stuck-up coworker who makes life difficult for Grace, a sexy-but-doofy brother who is in deep with the mafia, and a sleazily-charming mobster who's got the hots for Grace.  Even Zeljko Ivanek, one of TV's greatest character actors is utterly wasted as Grace's chief of surgery.

Grace's main conflict in the pilot is whether or not to kill the informer as ordered.  Doesn't this seem like the kind of moral dilemma we should be spending the season leading up to?  Shouldn't we spend some time getting to know Grace and her life and the day-to-day of what she has to do for the mob before jumping right into the highest life-or-death decision?  Isn't killing someone about the worst thing her mob boss could ask her to do?  What else is the season going to build up to?  I'm not sure, but I probably won't be around to find out.

And the verdict is:
** Meh. Not the worst but not for me.
Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised to see this show find an audience -- it's got a cast of solid actors and just the right blend of medical cases, crime drama, and a little action to keep some people hooked.  It just didn't have enough originality or substance to earn a spot in my ever-burgeoning Hulu queue.  But I also wouldn't be surprised to see this show canceled by November/December and replaced midseason by something else.  It's a coin toss.

What did you think, Fellow Addicts?  Were you attracted to the medical/crime blend?  Or turned off by the stock characters and cliché plot twists?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

What did you think of THE MOB DOCTOR?

PilotWatch: GUYS WITH KIDS

NBC Wednesdays @ 8:30/7:30c
(premieres 9/26)

What's it about?
GUYS WITH KIDS is a new comedy from Emmy Award-winning executive producer Jimmy Fallon about three 30-something dads who try to hold on to their youth as they face the responsibilities of having kids.  Thankfully, Gary, Chris and Nick have each other to help navigate the highs and lows of fatherhood - while still trying to remain dudes.
(from NBC.com)

You should watch if...
• you're a 30-something dad trying to hold on to your youth as you face the responsibilities of having kids.
• you're a huuuuuge Jimmy Fallon fan.
• you're feeling nostalgic for the 90s.

So, how was it?
Where to begin?  Anyone who knows me knows that I am in no way a fan of multi-cam sitcoms with live audiences and/or laugh tracks.  Comedy has evolved so much since the era of live studio audiences, I don't understand why every TV season at least one network thinks it's a brilliant idea to try to recapture the magic of that bygone era of clearly fake sets and broad humor.  Usually it's CBS, but this year NBC has decided to branch out of its critically-lauded, low-rated niche comedies like COMMUNITY and PARKS AND RECREATION and aim for a wider audience (read: broader comedy).  Thusly, the network has now given us such gems as ANIMAL PRACTICE and now GUYS WITH KIDS.

Truth be told, GUYS WITH KIDS is nowhere near as awful as that dead-on-arrival atrocity, ANIMAL PRACTICE.  Neither is it as soul-suckingly horrendous as last year's WORK IT! or HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN.  But neither is it worth wasting my time to tune in for again.  It's just not my cup of tea.  But if you are a fan of a studio audience telling you when to laugh, then this is the show for you.

Everyone is serviceable in their roles, though there are no earth-shattering performances or multi-dimensional portraits of complex characters.  Anthony Anderson (TRANSFORMERS) plays Gary, the loud-mouthed stay-at-home dad.  Zach Cregger (THE WHITEST KIDS U'KNOW) is Nick, the goofy oddball of the bunch.  And Jesse Bradford (ROMEO + JULIET, BRING IT ON, SWIMFAN) is the handsome and intelligent yet inexplicably inept Chris.  All three fill their roles fine while not bringing anything particularly special or new or exciting to them.

The show as a whole feels like a throwback to a bygone era of television: the live studio audience, the characters drinking Capri Sun, the Titanic-themed parties, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar guest-starring and, of course, 90s It-guy Jesse Bradford.  Several times I found myself thinking, "Which decade are we in?"  Maybe this show will go down in history as a period piece.   You know, DOWNTON ABBEY, BOARDWALK EMPIRE, GUYS WITH KIDS.  They're all the same, really.

And the verdict is:
** Meh.  Not the worst but not for me.
I actually had to invent a new category for this show because I can't in good conscience give this the same rating as I gave ANIMAL PRACTICE and WORK IT!, but I can also tell you right now that I will never be tuning in again.  So now there's a category between Atrocious and Okay.  If you like 90's nostalgia and laugh tracks, there's no better show out there for you right now.  I would normally predict a quick cancellation for this show, but with Jimmy Fallon on board as executive producer, I can see this one sticking around a bit longer than I would otherwise assume.

What about you, Fellow Addicts?  Were you surprised by how un-atrocious GUYS WITH KIDS was?  Or did you find it just plain awful?  Or did you actually like it?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

What did you think of GUYS WITH KIDS?

Pilotwatch: THE NEW NORMAL

NBC Tuesdays @ 9:30/8:30c
(premieres 9/11)

What's it about?
These days, families come in all forms - single dads, double moms, sperm donors, egg donors, one-night-stand donors... It's 2012 and anything goes.  Bryan and David are a Los Angeles couple, and they have it all.  Well, almost.  With successful careers and a committed, loving partnership, there is one thing that this couple is missing: a baby.  And just when they think the stars will never align, enter Goldie, an extraordinary young woman witha  checkered past.  A Midwestern waitress and single mother looking to escape her dead-end life and small-minded grandmother, Goldie decides to change everything and move to L.A. with her precocious eight-year-old daughter.  Desperate and broke - but also fertile - Goldie quickly becomes the guys' surrogate and quite possibly the girl of their dreams.
(from NBC.com)

You should watch if...
• you're an Ellen Barkin fan.
• you're a Ryan Murphy fan.
• you don't live in Utah (because you can't watch it there...sorry guys!).

So, how was it?
THE NEW NORMAL is one of those shows that gets a lot of flak from people who haven't even seen it before it even premieres.  Some people are offended by the very idea of a sitcom starring two gay men trying to start a family.  It has even been banned from one network in Utah.  Even those who may not be morally offended by it seem offended by the fact that it seems like a rehash of one-third of MODERN FAMILY.  To the former group of people, I would say don't bother watching -- it's obviously not the show for you.  To the latter group I would say, wait until the show premieres and then tell me what you think.

I found that THE NEW NORMAL bears little in common with MODERN FAMILY other than the fact that it's a comedy and there are two gay characters on it and they want to have a kid.  But in execution and tone, the shows are remarkably different.  MODERN FAMILY has a laid-back, faux-documentary feel to it.  THE NEW NORMAL, on the other hand, borrows the fast, quirky tone of one of creator Ryan Murphy's other shows -- a little thing you might have heard of called GLEE.  (GLEE and NEW NORMAL even share a supporting player: Nene Leakes as swim coach Roz Washington on the former and as personal assistant Rocky on the latter.)

Much like the tonally-schizophrenic GLEE, swinging wildly between over-the-top farce to weepy after-school-special, the pilot of THE NEW NORMAL varies wildly between caustic parody and teary-eyed sincerity.  Some viewers may feel turned off by this unevenness, but it is a style familiar to fans of not only GLEE, but of Ryan Murphy's other creations, like NIP/TUCK and AMERICAN HORROR STORY.  In fact, life is rarely just funny or just dramatic, so I find this combination honest, even when it's mentally exhausting.

On the more precious side of the scale, we have our leading lady, Goldie (portrayed by newcomer Georgia King).  Yes, her name is actually Goldie.  The first time someone called her this, I thought it was a nickname.  But nope, her name is Goldie.  She's so innocent and naive (and from Ohio!) that she wears what appears to be a combination of an apron and lederhosen.  On the opposite side of the scale is her grandmother, Jane (played by the redoubtable Ellen Barkin), who is so ignorant and bigoted that as soon as she is in a room with both a gay person and a black person, she nearly has a hysterical panic attack.  Even the gay couple at the center of the show occupy opposite ends of a stereotypical spectrum: Bryan (played by Andrew Rannells of BOOK OF MORMON fame), is the flamboyant, shopping-obsessed partner, while David (Justin Bartha of THE HANGOVER), is the butch, spots-loving partner.  These depictions are far from revolutionary, although the actors both deliver solid performances.  What is revolutionary, however, is the ease with which these two men relate on primetime network television.  The main gay couple on Ryan Murphy's other comedy, GLEE (Blaine and Kurt), took ten whole episodes to lock lips for the first time, and have kissed with alarming rarity since.  Bryan and David, on the other hand, are seen kissing, cuddling, and generally doing things that no one would think twice about a heterosexual couple doing, which I must give NBC props for.

(There's also a precocious young girl in the supporting cast dispensing beyond-her-years wisdom, much like Maddie on FOX's BEN AND KATE, with the one and only difference being that on this show she's eight, as opposed to five.)

There's a lot to love and a lot to be skeptical about with this show.  I love the idea of two gay men being front-and-center on a network comedy; I love the caustic wit of Ellen Barkin; I love the complicated relationships between a couple and a surrogate that haven't often been explored on television.  I'm skeptical about the stereotypical nature of most of the characters; I'm skeptical about the longevity of the plot; I'm skeptical about Ryan Murphy's ability to juggle not one, not two, but THREE major shows at the same time.  The pilot shows plenty of promise, and I am simultaneously optimistic for its success and trepidatious about its potential decline.

And the verdict is:
*** Solid. I'm interested and will definitely keep watching for the foreseeable future.
For all of its imperfections, I'm still very interested in THE NEW NORMAL and remain hopeful that the show will grow from its pilot, rather than deteriorate.  It's not my favorite new comedy of the season (that's still THE MINDY PROJECT), but I'm interested to see what Ryan Murphy has in store for these characters, and I fervently hope they outgrow the boxes of the stereotypes they arrived in.

What did you think, Fellow Addicts? Were you drawn in by the unique plot?  Or turned off by the formulaic characters?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

What did you think of THE NEW NORMAL?

Pilotwatch: THE MINDY PROJECT

FOX Tuesdays @ 9:30/8:30c
(premieres 9/25)

What's it about?
THE MINDY PROJECT is a biting new single-camera comedy from Emmy Award-nominated writer/producer and New York Times best-selling author Mindy Kaling (THE OFFICE) that follows a woman who, despite having a successful career, is unlucky in love and desperately needs to get her personal life back on track before her friends and colleagues are forced to stage an intervention.
(from FOX.com)

You should watch if...
• you're a Mindy Kaling fan (duh).
• you don't already have too many doctor shows in your life.
• you're a young professional who desperately needs to get your life back on track before your friends and colleagues are forced to stage an intervention.

So, how was it?
I can easily see THE MINDY PROJECT being the breakout comedy of the this season.  It has a built-in fan base (fans of both THE OFFICE and of Mindy Kaling personally), it follows the mega-successful NEW GIRL on Tuesday nights, and it stars an imperfect young professional trying to get her life together.  Think of her as this year's Zooey Deschanel, with less perky adorkableness and more insecure drunkenness.  Now that I think of it, she perhaps has more in common with another recent multi-hyphenate female comedic breakout -- Lena Dunham, of GIRLS fame.

THE MINDY PROJECT shares a lot in common with GIRLS, from its awkward-realistic tone to its unflinching portrayal of its flawed protagonist.  (Of course, the show also doesn't share a lot with its HBO brethren, such as nudity, sex scenes and heavy profanity...this is network television, people.)  I do wish that Mindy (the character), as the main character and as a representation of a modern professional woman, spent less time obsessing about romantic comedies and finding true love, but I suppose that's going to be a part of the character's growth -- to find out there's more to life than that (at least I hope that's where we're headed). At times I couldn't quite tell whether THE MINDY PROJECT was parodying romcom stereotypes of women or just playing into them.  It's a fine distinction that Mindy (the actor/writer) will have to work hard to make clear.

The rest of the cast is rounded out by a few awesome supporting players: Anna Camp, who keeps proving how great she is at building a crackerjack resume (you may recognize her from a few small things like TRUE BLOOD, MAD MEN, THE GOOD WIFE, THE HELP, and the upcoming PITCH PERFECT), appears as Mindy's best friend Gwen, who has a slightly more mature perspective on life, given that she's already a mother.  Stephen Tobolowsky (steals his one seen as Marc, Mindy's boss at the OB/GYN clinic.  And Chris Messina (DAMAGES, THE NEWSROOM) kills it as Danny, Mindy's sarcastically antagonistic coworker (who you know she's destined to end up with).  His caustic presence helps to dampen (in a good way) what might otherwise be a too-frothy show.  Every time Mindy goes off on one of her romcom fantasies, Danny's always there to bring her back down to earth.

True to Mindy Kaling's style, there are a few off-color jokes that may turn some of the more politically-correct crowd off, but will be fodder for the audience this show is trying to attract.  THE MINDY PROJECT may not be the most inspired comedy of all time (I do wish she had found somewhere else to set her show than a clinic -- I really don't need any more actors in scrubs on my TV screen), but Mindy (the actor)'s biting sense of humor and smart sense of what it means to be a struggling professional in a big city should be enough to keep people from changing their channels after Jess and Co. finish tearing up the screen at 9:30 every Tuesday night.

And the verdict is:
*** Solid. I'm interested and will definitely keep watching for the foreseeable future.
While I can't quite give this show an ADDICTive rating, it is decidedly my favorite new comedy thus far, and I'm excited to see where the show progresses to.  This one definitely has a spot in my Hulu queue for the time being.

Your turn, Fellow Addicts!  Did you find THE MINDY PROJECT awkwardly funny?  Or just awkward?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

What did you think of THE MINDY PROJECT?

Pilotwatch: BEN AND KATE

FOX Tuesdays @ 8:30/7:30c
(premieres 9/25)

What's it about?
What happens when an exuberant dreamer who always says "yes" moves in with his overly responsible little sister to help raise her five-year-old daughter?  BEN AND KATE, a new single-camera ensemble comedy, follows a pair of odd-couple siblings and their friends as they push each other out of their comfort zones and into real life.  (from FOX.com)

You should watch if...
• you're tired of sitcoms centered around will-they-won't-they.
• you're a sucker for precocious five-year-olds.

So, how was it?
Although the pilot episode is available to watch now on Hulu, the show's actual premiere will be sandwiched between two new episodes of last year's biggest comedy breakout, NEW GIRL.  It's hard to think how this show would compete against the adorkable juggernaut that is Zooey Deschanel, so it's a good thing they're on the same network.  BEN AND KATE is far more traditional in format than the zany hijinks that Jess and Co. get up to on NEW GIRL -- B&K is essentially an odd-couple show where the characters spend a lot of time at a bar and every now and then a five-year-old girl says something cute.

The aspects of BEN AND KATE that may keep people tuning back in will be in the ways the show departs from that traditional format -- mainly in the fact that the leads are siblings, instantly negating any will-they-won't-they romantic tension (unless they decide to pull a DEXTER circa-Season 6 and reveal that Ben was adopted and Kate discovers she has more than familial feelings for her faux-brother...ick).  It will be interesting to see what the writers do with these two characters without the chemistry and constant push-and-pull.  Say what you will about romantic tension, but there's a reason it's always used: it provides some easy drama.  Where is the tension inherent in a sibling relationship other than Ben's a big doofus and Kate's always exasperated with him?  And will that be enough to keep people tuning in over the long haul?  Only time will tell.  It certainly helps to have an adorable sidekick dispensing precocious wisdom / wisecracks / visual gags (see: Maggie the five-year-old on this show, Nene Leakes in THE NEW NORMAL, the monkey in ANIMAL PRACTICE).

Dakota Johnson is all wide-eyed spunky spirit as the young mother Kate.  She has one of those "where have I seen you before?" kinds of faces that instantly draws you in (and for the record, you saw her as the girl Justin Timberlake slept with in THE SOCIAL NETWORK).  She feels like a real person doing her best to raise her young daughter by herself -- she is definitely the straight man to Ben's clown.  Nat Faxon as Ben is, as yet, a fairly wide-drawn caricature that will take some character development before I can feel any attachment to him.  Between him breaking into his own sister's house in a hockey mask to dragging a full drumset through the middle of her date, it's hard to connect with this buffoon of a man-child.  I share Kate's frustration with him (and would, in fact, probably be far less patient with him if he were my brother).  But Nat Faxon also brings an eager charm to the role that does make it impossible to hate Ben.

Needless to say, Maggie Jones as Kate's daughter Maddie is all sorts of cute.  But so far, the two biggest supporting roles - Lucy Punch as the awkwardly-named BJ, Kate's fellow bartender, and Echo Kellum as bar-rat Tommy - are both rather one-note.  BJ is an inexplicably British floozy who is unbelievably socially unaware (she tries to give Maddie a makeover in an utterly pointless yet still somehow chuckle-inducing scene).  Tommy's only lines so far all have to do with how in love with Kate he is, which in the real world we would call a stalker, but in a sitcom is supposed to be funny.  These two will need some fleshing out pronto -- there's no danger of a Schmitt here (aka a scene-stealing supporting player who quickly becomes the most interesting character on the show).  BEN AND KATE will live or die based on how quickly people connect with...you guessed it, Ben and Kate (shocking, I know).

I don't think BEN AND KATE will be FOX's most successful new comedy (that honor will almost certainly go to THE MINDY PROJECT), and it certainly won't attract the crowd that its nightly follower, NEW GIRL, will draw.  But in a season where industry insiders have already written off the crop of new comedies as even worse than usual, BEN AND KATE might just have the quirky, non-traditional charm to go the distance.

And the verdict is:
** Okay. I may give it another episode or two to see if it gets better.
I wavered between giving this show two or three stars.  It's far from terrible, but in order to secure a weekly spot in my ever-growing television schedule, a show really has to hook my interest right off the bat.  I'm not ready to write off the show just yet, so I will certainly give it another chance, but I can't say for sure right now whether or not it will end up earning a coveted spot in my Hulu queue.

What did you think, Fellow Addicts?  Were you hooked in by the unusual (for television) sibling relationship?  Or were you turned off by the lack of romantic chemistry?  Will you be giving BEN AND KATE another chance?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

What did you think of BEN AND KATE?

Pilotwatch: ANIMAL PRACTICE

NBC Wednesdays @8/7c (premieres 9/26)

What's it about?
ANIMAL PRACTICE is a new comedy centering on Dr. George Coleman, a top veterinarian with an impressive list of famous animal patients at the Crane Animal Hospital - a bustling New York City veterinary practice where it often seems as if the patients are running the place.  Despite his unorthodox style, George has an undeniable gift with animals of all kinds - except the human kind.  Much to his chagrin, George recently learned that his ex-girlfriend, Dorothy Crane, has inherited the family business and is now George's boss.  Whip-smart and ambitious, Dorothy shakes up the hospital as she brings order to the chaos and butts heads with George's animal-friendly administration.  (from NBC.com)

You should watch if...
• you have an urge to watch literal monkey business.
• you get a kick out of sight gags like turtles racing with hamsters on their backs.
• you legitimately have nothing better to do with your time.

You shouldn't watch if...
• you are a Justin Kirk fan, because it will make you hate the world.
• you are a television fan, because it will crush your soul.
• you are a human being, because you MUST have more important things to do with your time...like water your plants...or clip your toenails.

So, how was it?
You know your show's in trouble when the best thing I can say about it is that at least it was commercial-free -- because I only had to sit through it for 22 minutes instead of 30.

I desperately need someone to sit me down and explain to me how Justin Kirk, an incredible actor as evidenced by HBO's ANGELS IN AMERICA and by how he is often the best thing about WEEDS, could have been coerced into participating in this travesty of a show.  Even without commercials, the pilot managed to feel as long as THE DARK KNIGHT RISES (and that's long).

Robert Greenblatt, chairman of NBC, stated earlier this year that his plan for the network this fall involved "broadening the audience," aka steering away from critically-acclaimed shows with relatively small audiences like COMMUNITY and PARKS & RECREATION.  Basically, they want to become CBS.  ANIMAL PRACTICE is their first step down that road.  When one of a show's biggest stars is a capuchin monkey (Crystal, of HANGOVER and COMMUNITY fame), you know they're not exactly aiming for subtlety.  The "humor" (if it can be called that) on this show is as broad as it gets, with widely-drawn caricatures and thinly-sketched relationships.  And for the record, just because you acknowledge that something is cliché doesn't make it any less cliché.

The best I can hope for with this show is that it will be cancelled quickly, so that everyone involved can move on to better endeavors.  ANIMAL PRACTICE was even harder to watch than some of last year's biggest sitcoms flops like HOW TO BE A GENTLEMAN and WORK IT! because of the level of talent involved.  And at least WORK IT! had a legitimate reason to be terrible -- it was a workplace comedy about crossdressing men, for goodness' sake.  ANIMAL PRACTICE, on the other hand, is just stale and boring.  When dozens of new television shows are jockeying for limited airtime, the only thing worse than being talked about for being offensive is not being talked about at all.

And the verdict is:
* Atrocious. I will never watch this show again. Ever.
I don't think anything more needs to be said.

Take it away, Fellow Addicts! Am I being too harsh? Or do you agree that it's doomed? Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

What did you think of ANIMAL PRACTICE?

PilotWatch: GO ON

NBC Tuesdays @ 9/8c (premieres 9/11)

What's it about?
Matthew Perry stars as Ryan King, a recent widower and sports talk radio host ready to get back to work after the loss of his wife.  Ryan's alpha-male boss, Stephen, played by John Cho, has a different plan in store for Ryan, making him attend grief counseling before returning to the air. A reluctant Ryan finds himself in a support group for "life change," where he meets an oddball cast of characters, all with their own backstories filled with varying degrees of loss.  (from NBC.com)

You should watch if...
• you're a COMMUNITY fan.
• you like comedies about sad things.
• you're still hoping that Matthew Perry may eventually find a post-FRIENDS sitcom that actually sticks.

So, how was it?
Well folks, the first premiere of the new season is here!  Granted, GO ON doesn't officially "premiere" until Tues 9/11, but there was a special commercial-less preview of its first episode tonight after NBC's Olympics coverage.  I wasn't quite sure what to expect -- I wasn't a huge fan of Matthew Perry's last attempt at headlining a sitcom (MR. SUNSHINE), and was nervous about a comedy centering around grief counseling (would it be overly offensive or overly schmaltzy?) -- but I ended up being pleasantly surprised.

After watching the pilot, I'm actually shocked that this new show wasn't paired with COMMUNITY, as GO ON seems to have quite a bit in common with that NBC cult fave.  Granted, it doesn't have the rapid-fire pop culture references and will probably never produce an episode completely in stop-motion, but the similarities are there.  Both are about a group of eclectic oddballs led by a cynical yet dashing man who initially doesn't want to be there at all.  And just like COMMUNITY has to be careful to have fun within the context of a community college without making fun OF community colleges, GO ON will have to do the same with grief counseling.  And so far at least (as in a grand total of 23 minutes of screen time), the creators managed to do just that.

I must admit I did find it a bit of a cop-out that the support group is a group for the hyper-vague "life change," but I do understand the necessity.  Matthew Perry can't be going to a group where everyone else lost their wives -- that would make for rather monotonous television.  So instead we are treated to a group of people whose "life changes" vary from the loss of a spouse to a sibling in a coma to being cheated on to a beloved pet dying.  (And a therapy session yields even more possibilities for a rotating cast of supporting actors and stunt guest stars than a community college study group does.)  Julie White (aka Shia LaBeouf's mom from TRANSFORMERS) is the best of the grieving bunch as the constantly angry (and constantly hilarious) Anne, who just lost her longtime partner.  Suzy Nakamura (DODGEBALL) is the perky teacher's pet of the group; Bill Cobbs (NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM) is George, an older man who's been through the wringer (blindness, a broken hip, a stroke); and Tyler James Williams (EVERYBODY HATES CHRIS) is Owen, a quiet young man whose brother just suffered a horrific skiing accident.  They are all led by Laura Benanti (THE PLAYBOY CLUB) as the seemingly put-together counselor Lauren, who may not be as qualified for her position as she seems.

And then, of course, there's Matthew Perry.  He plays Ryan as a man so untethered by his recent loss that he doesn't even know what he wants -- he thinks he just wants to return to work and forget it ever happened, but that yields predictably disastrous results.  In fact, that was my big problem with the pilot -- the plot structure was fairly run-of-the-mill, with very little in the way of surprises (and it's painfully obvious that the main source of drama in the show will be Ryan's feelings for his pretty brunette grief counselor and how those feelings will conflict with the memory of his dead wife and blah blah blah).  Fortunately the somewhat banal plot line was more than saved by such an appealing cast of characters.  And Perry does indeed pull his own weight as the straight man in the group of oddballs, a completely thankless job.  He is able to wield both humor and gravitas with apparent ease.  I was a bit surprised by his performance, to be honest.

And the verdict is:
*** Solid. I'm interested and will definitely keep watching for the foreseeable future.
All in all, I can definitely see myself coming back for more of this show come September.  It has a great blend of humor and heart with a just-quirky-enough (without being annoying) group of characters to get attached to.  I'm a little nervous about the long-term viability of a show taking place at grief counseling, but I'm willing to wait and see what the writers have in store for us before I make any judgment calls on that.

Your turn, Fellow Addicts?  If you caught the special preview, let us know what you thought!  Were you surprised by Matthew Perry's performance?  Did you enjoy March Sadness?  Who was your favorite "life change" victim?  Vote in the poll below and then hit the comments!

What did you think of GO ON?

No Pain No Gain: A Review of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES

Anticipated grade: 10/10
Let me start by honoring the lives lost in the tragedy in Colorado.  I am saddened and sickened by this horrific act: the movies are supposed to be a safe haven where we can go as a community to witness all aspects of human life -- including violence -- and return to the real world afterwards safe and whole.



My expectations could not have been higher going into THE DARK KNIGHT RISES.  With BATMAN BEGINS and THE DARK KNIGHT, Christopher Nolan had already proved that he was crafting not only one of the greatest superhero sagas, but one of the greatest trilogies of all time, and this was it: the grand finale.  So let me get it out of the way early and say that this film does not quite measure up to the epic standard set by THE DARK KNIGHT, but is still one of the most satisfying conclusions to a trilogy outside of LORD OF THE RINGS.  Nolan has effectively sidestepped the dreaded third-film curse made famous by the SPIDER-MAN and X-MEN franchises and has instead delivered a pulse-pounding, grandiose, complex, and satisfying conclusion.

Nolan has been quoted as saying that each film in his trilogy has a specific theme that can be summed up in one word.  In BEGINS, it was "fear."  In DARK KNIGHT, it was "chaos."  Here, the theme is "pain."  For the final chapter, Nolan puts each and every character through the wringer, both emotionally and physically.  The bad guys are bigger, the battles rougher, and the stakes higher than ever.

In RISES, Christian Bale turns in his best performance as the Caped Crusader.  Eight years have passed since the end of THE DARK KNIGHT, and Bruce Wayne is a broken man in both mind and body.  Bale has said that he was attracted to the character because he has three personalities: the angry young man whose parents were taken from him; the playboy billionaire he pretends to be to the rest of the world; and of course, Batman.  At the beginning of RISES, Bruce Wayne is so defeated, he has been stripped of two of his three masks: not only has he hung up his cowl, he has retreated from the public eye, stewing in his own bitterness over Rachel's death and his role in Harvey Dent's downfall.  Bale's characterization of this broken man, and his epic journey through pain is truly remarkable.  Of course, as the title suggests, he is ultimately able to rise above the pain, and is a stronger and better man for it.  It's a compelling arc and a tour-de-force performance.

Bale is joined by an immense cast full of other actors all at the top of their game.  The old standards are all here: Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox gets perhaps the least screen time of all the returning players, but still naturally exudes his reassuring Morgan-Freeman-ian presence; Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon is a man tortured by the truth that he helped cover-up about Harvey Dent and compelled to rectify his mistakes; and Michael Caine as Alfred delivers what is assuredly the most heartbreaking performance of all three films.

Then there's the new additions, which are a veritable who's-who of INCEPTION cast-members: Tom Hardy as Bane, Joseph Gordon-Levitt as John Blake, and Marion Cotillard as Miranda Tate.  Do not expect Hardy's Bane to measure up to the menacingly charismatic turn by Heath Ledger as the Joker.  That performance will undoubtedly go down in history as one of the greatest villains of all time, and lightning that good rarely strikes twice.  But Bane is a much different villain than the Joker, so such comparisons are pointless anyway.  Where the Joker was all about chaos, Bane is all about a master plan.  Where the Joker was a master of mind games, Bane is a master of brute physical force.  Where the Joker reveled in people decaying into their baser instincts, Bane wants to (in his own diabolical way) help the citizens of Gotham return to their natural order (in other words, he wants to abolish the aristocracy -- a very prescient theme in this political climate.)  Hardy's performance is thus appropriately cold and measured, where Ledger's was heated and wild.  Gordon-Levitt and Cotillard both deliver typically solid performances that are at times overshadowed by the more showy characters surrounding them -- but rest assured that both of their characters will become essential before the end of the film's 165-minute running time.

And finally, there's Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle (never once referred to by the name "Catwoman"). Every person out there who doubted her capability should be eating crow right about now.  Not only does she play an effective Catwoman, she steals nearly every scene she's in and will undoubtedly be one of the characters people are talking about most after the credits roll.  She doesn't try to compete with Michelle Pfeiffer's classic portrayal of the same character in Tim Burton's BATMAN RETURNS -- that would be both impossible and fruitless.  But in the way that Bane and the Joker are two completely different villains, these two Catwomans (Catwomen?) are like apples and oranges: where Pfeiffer's was unhinged and bent on revenge, Hathaway's is wholly sane and looking out for her own best interests.  (Both however, are sassy and seductive.)  This is probably a career-best performance for Hathaway, even better than her Oscar-nominated turn in RACHEL GETTING MARRIED, in my opinion, because it is so far out of type for her and she succeeds at it brilliantly.

The film is predictably stunning to look at, especially in IMAX.  Over 50 minutes of the film's footage were shot with IMAX cameras -- the film with the previous record for most minutes of IMAX footage was MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - GHOST PROTOCOL with just under 30.  This makes the film essential to see in a real IMAX theater, if at all possible -- the eye-popping opening sequence, the sweeping shots of Gotham, bone-breaking fights, the battles in the streets, are all rendered on an epic and breathtaking scale.

The one place RISES falters a bit in comparison with DARK KNIGHT is in its plotting.  The plot of THE DARK KNIGHT was so tightly constructed that the whole film unspooled like a well-oiled machine.  In RISES, there are couple moments that will require the viewer to suspend disbelief, something Nolan had been largely successful at avoiding to this point in the franchise.  A piece of technology is converted into a weapon with remarkable ease and speed; characters heal from debilitating injuries with similar ease and speed.  And as plot twists emerge in the final hour, character motivations become a bit murky.  However, these are small flaws in what is otherwise a solid film.

Perhaps the best thing about RISES is the way it brings the entire franchise full circle.  I can't say much without spoiling some significant plot points, but RISES actually has more in common with BATMAN BEGINS than it does with THE DARK KNIGHT.  This reflection of the franchise's first film imbues RISES with the sense that there was always a master plan (whether or not that's true is another matter), and it will give the viewer a nice sense of finality.

While a few elements of what made THE DARK KNIGHT such a mega-success are missing here -- namely the tight plotting, the iconic villain, and the gleeful sense of chaos -- there are just as many elements that work beautifully, including the stellar performances, Nolan's trademark tension and gritty realism, and the stunning cinematography.  All of these combine to make RISES if not the best of the three Dark Knight films, at the least the best closing chapter of a franchise in recent memory, and a film event not to be missed by any lover of cinema.

Actual grade: 9/10

What did you think of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES?