PilotWatch: LIFE'S TOO SHORT

HBO Sundays @ 10:30

What's it about?
A faux documentary starring actor Warwick Davis as a fictionalized version of himself desperately trying to hustle and connive his way back into the spotlight.  Written, directed and executive produced by Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant, the show features cameos by top stars, including Liam Neeson, Johnny Deep, and Sting along with Gervais and Merchant playing themselves.

You should watch if...
• you liked the original British version of THE OFFICE or EXTRAS.
• you enjoy self-deprecating celebrity cameos.
• 30 straight minutes of "dwarf" jokes sounds like your kind of comedy.

So, how was it?
The first episode of this British series (re-airing for American audiences on HBO) started the show with an incredibly uneven start.  The comedy was wildly hit-or-miss, at least for me.  I spent most of the thirty minutes in silence, but absolutely cracked up a couple of times.  There was hardly anything in the mid-range; say, chuckles or soft guffaws.

It's been over a decade since THE OFFICE premiered in England in 2001.  If LIFE'S TOO SHORT had also premiered back then with its dry humor and faux-documentary style, it probably would have been a certified hit.  But eleven years, an American remake, and countless sitcom clones later, the formula is starting to feel stale.  There's nothing new about watching a show where a film crew is following someone around, documenting their every misstep, embarrassment and hijink.  The biggest thing the show has going for it is taking the format back to its Britishly-inappropriate roots after its been co-opted by such American-family-friendly fare as MODERN FAMILY and PARKS AND RECREATION.  But that's not enough to make the show a hit.  It also needs a likable lead, a comedically compelling story, and a solid supporting cast.

Unfortunately, LIFE'S TOO SHORT only succeeds on one of those three fronts.  Warwick Davis (the character) does not even come close to being a likable lead character.  It's disappointing because Warwick Davis (the person) seems like actually a great, funny guy, and he's doing his best with what Ricky Gervais is writing for him.  But the fictional Warwick Davis is so abrasive, so crass, and so offensive, that it's impossible to identify with him.  He demeans his ex-wife, spouts sexual innuendos, demeans other little people, and generally seems incredibly full of himself.  It's hard to find it amusing when misfortune befalls him -- like when he falls out of his giant SUV -- I more feel like he just really deserves it.  We laugh at comedies like BRIDESMAIDS because we're watching a genuinely good person get crapped on by life and do their best to power through horrific situation after horrific situation.  We laugh at them but we also hope for them to come out the other side relatively unscathed.  In LIFE'S TOO SHORT, I just want to see Warwick Davis get punched in the face.  (And honestly, how many "dwarf" jokes can we fit into one half-hour comedy?  I suppose the fact that they're coming from a member of that specific minority group means it's okay, but there's gotta be a limit.  So much for a comedically compelling story.)

The one thing this show does have going for it are the celebrity cameos.  Liam Neeson swoops onto the scene in the last ten minutes of the pilot with his brooding glare, his giant manliness and general aura of awesomeness and completely saves the day.  Honestly, his bit with Davis, Gervais and Merchant about wanting to become a standup comedian and demanding an impromptu improv rehearsal is one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time.  I would recommend this show to anyone just for that scene alone (although honestly I would probably tell them to look up the scene on YouTube).  In the previews for next episode, we're shown glimpses of Davis interacting with Johnny Depp, which should be at least interesting to watch.  If I ever happen to tune in again, it will be to see which celebrity is making a fool of themselves that particular week.

Rating:
** Okay. I may give it another episode or two to see if it gets better.
As you can probably tell, I wasn't all that impressed by the premiere.  But I'm not the world's biggest Ricky Gervais fan (I found his stint on the Golden Globes last year unapologetically rude and his stint on the Golden Globes this year unapologetically boring), so this show probably isn't geared toward me anyway.  I'd be interested to see what a fan of the original OFFICE thinks about this show -- whether it's as good eleven years after that show started it all, or if the format just seems derivative after all this time.

What did you think, Fellow Addicts?  Were you amused by the offensive antics of Warwick Davis (the character)?  Or were you bored by the been-there-done-that format of the show?  Is it humanly possible to argue that Liam Neeson WASN'T the best part of the episode?  What other celebrities would you like to see made fun of on the show?  Vote in the poll 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 LIFE'S TOO SHORT?

PilotWatch: AWAKE

NBC Thursdays @ 10
(Premiering 3/1)

What's it about?
After Detective Michael Britten wakes up from a car accident with his wife and teenage son, he learns the devastating news that his wife died in the crash.  Trying to put the pieces of his life back together, he wakes up a few days later to realize that his wife is very much alive and his son died in the accident!  Did he lose his wife or his son?  Or neither of them??  What if your life split in two in the face of a situation like this, and you could actually have everything you wanted, just not all at the same time?

You should watch if...
• you enjoy shows/movies about mind-bending alternate realities (see: FRINGE, LOST, SOURCE CODE, the COMMUNITY episode "Remedial Chaos Theory").
• you enjoy a sprinkling of meta-twists in your police procedurals.

So, how is it?
AWAKE has been getting rave reviews for months now from critics lucky enough to catch an advance screening of the pilot episode, so it's been on my hotly-anticipated list for quite a while.  The pilot unexpectedly popped up in my Hulu queue this morning, so I finally got a chance to watch it before its actual premiere date of March 1st.  And the premiere, at least, is just as good as I'd hoped it would be.

With a high concept unlike anything else on television, this show finds its protagonist, Michael, living two alternate realities: one where his wife survived a horrific car crash but his son died, and one where his son is still alive bu this wife passed away.  Both are extremely real, and in both he is seeing therapists who insist that the other reality is merely a dream.  The first episode offers no clues as to what is actually going on, but message boards are already ripe with speculation, with most people making guesses based off the previews alone.  The predictions vary from: He's dead and in purgatory; to He's in a coma and it's all imagined; to They actually both died and this is his coping mechanism.  The fact that there's such rampant, widespread and creative theories before the show has even officially premiered is indicative of its captivating hook.

As if that fascinating hook weren't enough by itself to keep me interested, everything else about the show is incredible as well.  The performances are understatedly realistic to a man.  Jason Isaacs (Lucius Malfoy to you Harry Potter fans) is terrific as Michael, who can't make heads or tails of his unprecedented situation -- but by the end of the first episode, he's come to the realization that he doesn't want to: he's perfectly happy with getting to see both his wife and son and doesn't want either of them to be a dream.  Laura Allen (THE 4400, TERRIERS) is believable as Hannah, the grieving mother struggling haphazardly with ways to move on -- quitting her job, applying to school, painting her house, talking about having another child.  Dylan Minnette reprises his role as the son in a parallel universe after his stint as Jack's sideways-world son on LOST -- he's even better here as Rex, the son coping with the sudden loss of his mother, taking up her favorite sport and bonding almost inappropriately with his new female coach.  The widely varying actions of both Hannah and Rex make them not just sad archetypes but incredibly realistic characters struggling with complex coping mechanisms.

The supporting cast is rounded out by subtle, non-showy performances from Cherry Jones (24) and B.D. Wong (LAW & ORDER: SVU) as the two therapists, Michaela McManus (also of SVU) as Rex's tennis coach, and Steve Harris (THE PRACTICE) and Wilmer Valderrama (THAT 70'S SHOW) as Michael's coworkers on the police force.

Speaking of the police force... As if all the parallel worlds and two therapists and grieving family members weren't enough, AWAKE is also a police procedural.  Michael is a homicide detective who is working on different cases in different timelines.  One of the most intriguing moments of the pilot occurs when Michael realizes that details from the two very different cases are bleeding across realities.  He uses these details to help solve the cases, but the question of how this is possible persists.  I typically don't care for police procedurals, but this meta-twist may be enough to keep me interested this time.

Rating:
**** Certifiably ADDICTive. A must-see.
This show has everything going for it: an over-arching parallel-worlds mystery to intrigue the fans of serialized shows; the case-of-the-week format to hold the attention of procedural fans; consistently solid performances across the board; complex and layered writing of characters and timelines; and incredibly beautiful cinematography.  There is nothing that I didn't like about the pilot, and I'm incredibly excited to see where this show goes next.  By its very nature, AWAKE feels like it would work better as a movie or a miniseries than a multiple-seasons-long TV show.  But the writers must have some idea of what they're doing, or NBC would never have greenlit the show.  So I have faith that there are plenty of twists, turns and surprises in store for those of us patient enough to wait for them.

What about you, Fellow Addicts?  If you're a procedural fan, did you enjoy the serialized nature of the parallel worlds story?  And if you're a fan of serials, were you captivated by the meta-nature of the murder cases?  What are your predictions for where this show will go next?  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 AWAKE?

THE BOURNE LEGACY gets a trailer!

For those who are still confused over how there can be a Bourne movie without Matt Damon, we finally have a trailer and tagline to help start explaining it.  (Although to those people I would simply say...do you even know the meaning of the word legacy?)  The tagline:

THERE WAS NEVER JUST ONE.

Jeremy Renner stars as Aaron Cross, a newly-introduced CIA operative who exist in the same world established in the first three Bourne movies.  Albert Finney, Joan Allen and David Strathairn all reprise their roles, and are joined by franchise newcomers Edward Norton and Rachel Weisz.  The film was cowritten by writer/director Tony Gilroy and Robert Ludlum, the author of the Bourne novels the first three movies were based on.  With the actual architect of the source material behind this new film, I'm optimistic that it will be an exciting outing, and not an unnecessary cash-in on an pre-established name.

Check it out for yourselves here and then vote in the poll below:

How do you feel about THE BOURNE LEGACY?

HOUSE to end after current season

Say goodbye to TV's crankiest doctor.

The executive producers of HOUSE announced today that they had decided to end the show's run after eight seasons on the air.  (Note: this is different than FOX canceling a show because of poor ratings.  The EPs don't work for FOX, which is only the network that airs the show -- they work for Universal TV, which is the production company that produces it.  The EPs made a decision autonomous of FOX to stop writing the show after the end of its current season.)  EPs David Shore, Katie Jacobs and star Hugh Laurie released a statement saying: "The producers have always imagined HOUSE as an enigmatic creature; he should never be the last one to leave the party.  How much better to disappear before the music stops, while there is still some promise and mystique in the air."

Now, I've only seen a few episodes from the first season, and found House's signature bad attitude wearisome and hard to watch for prolonged periods of time.  However, I've heard from even the most die hard fans of HOUSE that the show hasn't been that great for quite a while now.  (The top comments on two separate articles I read consist of variations on: "About time." "Thank god!" and "Finally.") So saying they're ending the show "while there is still some promise" sounds a little disingenuous, but what else are you gonna say?  "Sorry our show got bad, better quit now before it reaches HEROES-levels of atrocity?"

Regardless of whether you still love the show or think it's past its prime, there's no denying millions of people will be sad to see Hugh Laurie leaving their television.  But eight years is a great run for any show, so fans should be thankful for the 177 episodes they will have had by the time the show signs off this spring.

How do you feel about HOUSE ending?

PilotWatch: THE RIVER

ABC Tuesdays @ 9

What's it about?
Dr. Emmet Cole is missing.  The beloved host of The Undiscovered Country, which brought the wonder and magic of the natural world into our homes for so many years, has disappeared in the wilds of the Amazon.  Gone for six months now - and believed by many to be dead - his emergency beacon went off two weeks ago.  Now Dr. Cole's wife and frequent co-host, Tess, has begun the search for her husband.  With the help of her son, Lincoln, Tess is looking to be reunited with her husband and save the rest of his missing crew.  But the search for Dr. Cole may provide more questions than answers.



You should watch if...
• you like the PARANORMAL ACTIVITY franchise.
• you enjoy supernatural scares.
• you're still searching for the next LOST...could this be it?

So, how was it?
I've been eagerly anticipating this show ever since I caught the first promo way back before the start of the fall TV season.  I was frustrated to find out that it wouldn't premiere until midseason, but I never forgot about it.  And now it's finally here.  So did it live up to my expectations?  Mostly.

Tonight's two-hour premiere is not one two-hour episode, but the first two episodes aired back-to-back.  This means that we receive two self-contained stories in one night.  The first, the pilot, consists mostly of character introduction, establishment of the show's high concept (more on that later), the search for Emmet's missing ship, the Magus, and their confrontation with a supernatural force.  The second hour follows the cast of characters we were introduced to in the first hour as they leave the river behind and trek through the jungle, encountering yet another sinister supernatural force.  Most of the promos advertising the show have focused on the search for Emmet Cole and clips from the pilot, and yet the first hour was surprisingly the less compelling or interesting of the two.  Too much exposition and some suspension of disbelief led to a slightly shaky start -- however, by episode 2, the show had definitely settled into its groove.  So make sure to stick around for the whole premiere, or you'll miss the inspired ad terrifying use of a grove full of creepy, hanging baby dolls.

THE RIVER was created by Oren Peli, the writer/producer of all three PARANORMAL ACTIVITY movies (and director of the first).  The main thing that sets this show apart is that Peli brings his trademark documentary footage format from the movie theater to a weekly television program.  It's a brave choice, and one I'm both excited and nervous about.  The conceit of the show is that Tess and Lincoln can only go searching for Emmet with the funding of the network that aired Emmet's show, and the network will only pay for the search if they allow a documentary film crew to follow them on their journey.  So the entire show consists of footage shot by the film crew's cameras, as well as a sprinkling of security cameras from the Magus in the first episode, and some clips that Emmet himself filmed before his disappearance that Tess and Lincoln find on the Magus.

For the most part, this "found footage" nature lends the show a real-life urgency.  Peli is certainly no stranger to the medium, and some of his trademark moments from the PA franchise can be found here, including a possessed young woman standing silently watching people sleep, and the fastforwarding of cameras during extended periods of stillness.  However, there were other moments that strained the credulity of the concept -- moments I found myself asking "Where did that camera come from?"  "Who's actually filming this moment?"  Some quiet moments of dialogue actually felt like they almost slipped into traditional non-documentary format.  I will be interested to see if the writers/directors can keep this format feeling fresh, or if they will gradually start to transition in and out of it a little more.  It's certainly a gimmicky format, and it's hard to sustain a gimmick effectively for an extended period of time.

The first episode will definitely ring bells for any LOST fans.  It features a group of diverse characters stranded in a mysterious jungle, besieged by a threateningly loud and menacing cloud of black smoke.  However, there are plenty of differences as well.  One of the things that set LOST above other sci-fi shows was its complex characterization.  Every character on LOST was a real person.  Thus far, THE RIVER is full of stereotypes -- the loyal wife, the resentful son, the pretty blonde crush, the snarky British moneyman, the superstitious natives, the burly cameraman.  However, you have to remember that in the pilot of LOST, all the characters fit into easily defined clichés as well -- the take-charge doctor, the southern conman, the domineering/submissive Korean couple, the punk rocker, the pregnant blonde, the overweight funny guy, etc.  It wasn't until later, when we started to get each character's flashbacks, that their characterization was really fleshed out.  I'm hopeful that as we get to know the characters on THE RIVER better, they will start becoming more complex as well.

That's really up to the writers, because the actors are thus far doing a fine job with the material they're given.  Leslie Hope, who you may recognize as Jack Bauer's ill-fated wife, leads the search as Tess.  She brings a grim determination to her role with just the right amount of crazed desperation lurking underneath that at times made me question her mental stability.  Bruce Greenwood (STAR TREK) lends a sense of enthusiasm and energy to the show in his brief appearances as Emmet.  Paul Blackthorne is fun as the snarky and cocky producer in charge of the film crew (he also had a stint on 24 as Season 3 baddie Stephen Saunders).  Joe Anderson (ACROSS THE UNIVERSE) does a fine job, even if his role as the grown son still bitter at his estranged father is thus far the most stereotypical.

Basically, if you enjoy being frightened and can get over the basic conceit of the show (that there always happens to be a camera turned on and conveniently pointed directly at the action), you will probably enjoy this show.  I have hope that the show will settle into its horror roots and continue to deliver effective scares week after week.  So far, for all its similarities to LOST, the show seems destined to be more episodic and monster-of-the-week than serialized.  However, there's still the underlying mystery of Emmet's disappearance driving the action every week, so I'm optimistic that it won't devolve into a supernatural procedural ala GRIMM.

Rating:
*** Solid. I'm interested and will definitely keep watching.
While not quite as addictive as I'd hope it would be, the premiere definitely got me interested and I will be tuning in again to see where this show goes next.  With its horror genre and its documentary format, it's unlike anything else on television at this moment, so THE RIVER has at least that going for it.  I'll be interested to see if it catches onto a mass audience or simply gathers a niche, cult following.  Either way, I'm along for the ride, at least for the foreseeable future.

What about you, Fellow Addicts? Did you find the documentary format engaging? Or distracting? Did it manage to scare you? Will you be tuning in again next week? 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 RIVER?

PilotWatch: I JUST WANT MY PANTS BACK

MTV Thursdays @ 11

What's it about?
Jason Strider and his friends grapple with dating, sex, and surviving as adults.  They care more about hanging with each other, going to bars and hooking up than their entry level jobs, but when a one night stand steals Jason's heart and his pants, he begins a quest to get his beloved jeans back - and hopefully the girl - while growing up along the way.

You should watch if...
• you are a wanna-be hipster.
• you think every twenty-something in the world spends all day every day doing nothing but hanging around corner stores and/or parties chatting with each other in über-hip slang about the cool sex they've been having/alcohol they've been drinking/pot they've been smoking.

So, how was it?
I JUST WANT MY PANTS BACK is one of those shows that thinks it's being so realistic about "real twenty-somethings" in "real-life Brooklyn" that has in actuality fabricated an odd, hyper-active, hyper-hipster, hyper-"cool" fantasy world that's underscored by the edgiest pop music of the moment, inhabited by one-dimensional, stereotypical archetypes of hipsters, losers and stoners.  It would be funny if MTV wasn't trying so hard to pass it off as realism.

Vying simultaneously for the witty, lighting-fast repartee of HAPPY ENDINGS and the shockingly candid sexual exploits of SKINS, I JUST WANT MY PANTS BACK fails miserably at both.  These characters are so shallow and unrecognizable from the mass of hipsters around them that it's impossible to care about their supposedly zingy one-liners.  And the sex by now is so rote in its "shocking" nature (doing it in the refrigerator, really?) that it induces yawns and quizzical eyebrows rather than gasps.  I'm not sure who exactly this show is aimed at.  Its juvenile characters with whiny personalities and no burning desires beyond their next hookup, suggest a young, tweeny demographic.  And yet the profanity and sex is so rampant as to suggest a slightly older, HBO-lite demographic.  I think it will ultimately fail to engage with either.

Behind the sex and the speedy dialogue and the wanna-be coining of new hip phrases (as in, "mime a vagina" instead of "masturbate"), there is absolutely no subtext, no message, no hidden truths about what it really means to be a twentysomething in the big city struggling to find meaning in your life and your work and your relationships.  Maybe the show would garner two stars if it was actually trying to say something through all noise.  But as it is, this soulless schlockfest rates a big fat zero.

Rating:
* Atrocious. I will never watch this show again. Ever.
I think I've said enough.

Your turn, Fellow Addicts! Did the show manage to shock and engage you with its frank sex talk?  Or did it ring completely false for you too? 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 I JUST WANT MY PANTS BACK?

NBC replaces THE FIRM with AWAKE

AWAKE is one of those midseason shows that, for the longest time, was living in scheduling purgatory, with no set release date (along with other shows like ABC's comedy DON'T TRUST THE B---- IN APARTMENT 23).  But now NBC is finally making room for AWAKE, by bumping off one of their own shows -- the brand new John Grisham-based THE FIRM.

I'm particularly conflicted, as THE FIRM is one of the only midseason premieres thus far I've actually enjoyed, and yet AWAKE is one of my most anticipated shows of the year.  I'm sad that THE FIRM had to be sacrificed to make room for AWAKE, but I'm excited that AWAKE will at long last be making an appearance.  For those who don't know, AWAKE is a high-concept drama starring Jason Isaacs (that's Lucius Malfoy for you Potterphiles) as a cop trapped in parallel worlds after a horrific car accident.  Advance reviews have all been glowing.  The show will now premiere on March 1.

THE FIRM has, for the time being, been moved to Saturday nights at 9pm, where the remainder of the episodes will be burnt off before its now all-but-certain cancellation.  This can't really be considered a surprise after last night's episode only managed to rake in 3 million viewers for a weak 0.8 rating.

How do you feel about THE FIRM getting (basically) cancelled?

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?