www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
The IMDbTV Blog
Header

Review: “Bent” Not Broken, But…

March 21st, 2012 | Posted by Melanie McFarland in Commentary | Review | TV Review - (Comments Off)

 

Lately it seems that a number TV comedies have coasted farther on charm and chemistry that they would have in the past.

Charm and chemistry aren’t sins, mind you. Many producers and their casts strain to bring them into their work. But when a comedy’s cast has more charm and chemistry than the show has scenes that effortlessly induce laughter…well,  what you get is a show like NBC’s “Bent,” which premieres tonight with back-to-back episodes at 9pm and 9:30pm.

“Bent’s” premise is cozily familiar, with Amanda Peet playing the no-nonsense woman, a recently divorced lawyer named Alex, and the adorably puckish David Walton playing the scruffy-faced contractor guy she’s trying oh-so-hard not to fall for.

Having recently ended her marriage to a white-collar criminal, Alex is starting over in a smaller house near the beach with her adorable 10-year-old daughter Charlie (Joey King). The house needs a lot of work — for that matter, so does Alex’s desert of a love life — and luckily the cure for at least one of those ills appears to be Pete.

Pete adopts a rather lackadaisical approach to his existence and his work. He’s always there to make a wisecrack or interfere in Alex’s personal life, and yet appears to get just as much work done as it takes to not get fired. The resulting physical gags and banter are the mortar that holds the  first couple of episodes together. Pete, a recovering gambling addict,  is nursing his own deep-seated wounds and has his own failed love story to tell, although his womanizing ways and good-natured grin cover the pain fairly well.

Alex and Pete are supported by a group of oddball characters who fill in the cracks with enough humor and shenanigans to keep each half-hour moving along. Foremost is Pete’s dad Walt (Jeffrey Tambor) who, late in life, is still struggling to launch an acting career and steeped too deeply in his bloated but easily bruised ego to give up.

JB Smoove, one of those actors who has the odd ability to be entertaining simply by opening his mouth, also adds a welcome dose of levity as Clem, Pete’s right-hand man on his construction squad. “Friday Night Lights” fans will be pleasantly surprised to see Jesse Plemons play the heavily-hazed newbie on the squad, Gary — although this show doesn’t give his acting range nearly as much of a workout as his previous job.

The main draw, though, are Peet and Walton and the subtle electricity arcing between them. Their onscreen presence is kind that other comedy leads wish they had. Perhaps that isn’t surprising; Peet’s girl-next-door likability is her career’s foundation, and Walton is one of guys that you know that you’ve seen before, and you like, even if you can’t remember where you’ve seen him or why you like him. (Was it his role in “The Loop“? “Cracking Up,” maybe? Or “Quarterlife“?)

The thing is, you’ve seen this kind of romantic comedy before. If “Bent” were a movie, it would be directed by Garry Marshall and probably would star Ginnifer Goodwin. This is not a derogatory statement; there are good, bankable reasons all of those films got made in the first place, and we can count on seeing many more like them in the future.  People love light-as-air romances and welcome  gently digestible escapism.

But they’re also more forgettable in the long-run, too.

Thus “Bent’s” great challenge as it debuts this late point in the season is to be something more than charming: to be memorable. Lots of luck to the cast in that department.  Not only are tonight’s premiere episodes facing off against  ABC’s “Modern Family” and “Happy Endings,” but NBC is burning through “Bent’s” six episodes in three weeks.

But who knows? Maybe Peet and Walton’s chemistry and charm are enough to launch “Bent.” Maybe a super-dose of the series over the next few weeks is just what it needs to take off.  Goodness knows that there are a number of comedies airing in  their second and even third seasons that are working with far weaker material than this show.

Our best advice? Just watch, and try not to forget.

 

 

 

 

Time to Submit to “Spartacus”!

February 24th, 2012 | Posted by Melanie McFarland in Commentary | Review | Tune In Info | TV News - (Comments Off)

 

One great episode.

That’s really all it takes for a veteran TV series to convert a non-believer — one  solidly constructed, brilliantly executed episode that illuminates everything that makes it extraordinary. Every television lover has such a TV chapter in his or her back pocket, ready to share with anyone who questions whether the show they adore is worth watching.

This week’s episode of “Spartacus: Vengeance,” titled “Libertus,” may be one of those hours. At the very least, it’s great Friday night viewing for a series that most people still have a very hard time taking seriously. Yes,  it is action heavy… bordering on bonkers, even. Everything that made people initially roll their eyes at the period action drama is in full effect, including slo-mo CG-animated blood spurts and gore, fairly explicit soft-core sex, and nudity. Oh, the nudity.  (As if we were expecting anything different. The show is in its second season. No reason to pull back on the reins now!)

But dedicated viewers are much more passionate about the engine that makes “Vengeance” so entrancing: poetic dialogue as grimy and sharp as the edge of a fighter’s blade, multi-layered political machinations and scheming, operatic romance, and of course, brutally acrobatic fight sequences. Tonight’s episode puts a shine on all of that, making it one of the most interesting hours of the series thus far.

The centerpiece of “Libertus” marries the two “Spartacus” series (“Spartacus” and its prequel, “Gods of the Arena“) in one gruesome nail-biter of a battle, one fans likely figured was coming since the prequel’s end: a face-off between Oenomaus (Peter Mensah) and Gannicus (Dustin Clare). The two characters have an agonizing back story, but have earned the viewer’s sympathy…meaning regardless of which gladiator comes out victorious, anyone emotionally tied to this series loses.

That brings us to a point worth acknowledging – “Spartacus” is highly serialized, which means that there will be subplots that new viewers won’t fully understand, and characters whose actions only become clearer upon viewing previous episodes. But that’s the point: “Libertus” make your want to see more episodes in order to understand all of the implications of what happen within its hour, which is what a great slice of television should do.

Should you find yourself hungry for more “Spartacus: Vengeance” after “Libertus” premieres at 10pm, don’t worry. Starz is airing a marathon of the first five season two episodes starting at 9pm ET/PT on Saturday, February 25.  Episodic stills can be viewed here. And for a fantastic distillation of why “Spartacus” is like “Downton Abbey” (you’d be surprised!) read this excellent piece by  Maureen Ryan.

 

Goodbye, Mr. Carmichael: “Chuck” Airs Its Finale

January 27th, 2012 | Posted by Melanie McFarland in Cancellations | Commentary | Nostalgia | Review | TV News - (1 Comments)

Even the most beloved TV series must come to an end. But it’s nearly impossible for a series to end in a way that is universally satisfying. In fact, a number of shows widely considered to be among the best the medium had to offer ended quite badly.

Not “Chuck.”

So what if, quality-wise, “Chuck” isn’t in the same league as the “Losts” and “The Sopranos” of the world? It’s a show about a nerd who gets superpowers overnight, courtesy of a software program known as the Intersect. Only the silly would expect much in the way of profundity here.

But even when “Chuck” wasn’t great, it was usually a good time. By the end of its final two episodes, “Chuck Versus Sarah” and “Chuck Versus the Goodbye,” fans are just as likely to be smiling as crying – or smiling while they cry. It might not please everybody — nothing in life does — but it should come close.

As series creators and executive producers Chris Fedak and Josh Schwartz reminded TV writers in a farewell letter, this is actually the fourth series finale that was written for “Chuck.” With that kind of practice, they had no excuse to do anything but end it well.

The sendoff for Chuck Bartowski (Zachary Levi), his beloved wife Sarah Walker (Yvonne Strahovski), best friend Morgan Grimes (Joshua Gomez), and fellow agent John Casey (Adam Baldwin), ends their story with precisely the right balance of bittersweetness, heartbreak, giggles and optimism. And yes, there’s a lot  jammed into that last episode. It’s essentially the show’s greatest hits parade, delivering a goodbye kiss (with a lot of tongue-in-cheek humor) to all of the elements that made “Chuck” perennially charming.

In the end, the beating heart of the show is still the love story between a beauty and a geek. “Chuck” was far from a perfect show, but Chuck and Sarah’s romance was never one of its questionable qualities. We rooted for Chuck to get the girl as much as we cheered him on when he got his fighting upgrades.

At the start of that penultimate episode, however, it’s no longer clear that he has either of these things. To say any more than that would ruin the experience of watching the finale, which airs across two back-to-back episodes tonight, starting at 8pm ET/PT on NBC.

Except for this — don’t be surprised if you are seized by the urge to review the series from the beginning as the final credits roll. The Intersect doesn’t actually exist, but this show’s uncanny ability to flip your nostalgia switch to the “on” position is very real.

, , , , , ,

Third Time’s a Bomb: Ricky Gervais & The 69th Annual Golden Globe Awards Telecast

January 15th, 2012 | Posted by Melanie McFarland in Commentary | Golden Globes | Live Coverage | Review | TV News | Uncategorized - (Comments Off)

In his opening monologue as host of The 69th Annual Golden Globe Awards,  Ricky Gervais joked that the Hollywood Foreign Press Association had warned him that if he insults or offends anyone, “I’ll definitely be invited back next year!”

After tonight, we can’t say he won’t be asked to host again (he was back for his third go-round this year, wasn’t he?) but it became fairly obvious early on in the awards telecast that Gervais would rather be doing something else.  Anything else.

Rather than shocking his way out of a return invitation, Gervais took the route of safety and boredom. Where he landed memorable stinging jabs across the egos of Mel Gibson and Robert Downey Jr. in past Globes shows, Gervais threw slow haymakers wrapped in velveteen cliches at targets including Kim Kardashian (“The Globes are to the Oscars what Kim Kardashian is to Kate Middleton: A bit louder, bit trashier, bit drunker, and more easily bought!”);  Justin Bieber  (“The only way he could have impregnated a woman was by borrowing one of Martha Stewart‘s old turkey basters!”) Eddie Murphy, Ashton and Demi. Everyone’s done jokes about those celebrities, and from what we could see, none of them were in the audience.

If Gervais wanted to show us what he would be like without fangs, then mission accomplished. We vastly prefer you to be rude and unflinching. (See you on HBO in a few weeks!)

The bright spot to a Globes telecast helmed by a harmless and largely absent Gervais, however, was that it inspired a few stars to take up the entertainment banner in his stead.  Thus, Seth Rogen did his best to liven up the night by kicking off his Globes presenting gig with, “Hello, I am Seth Rogen and I am currently trying to conceal a massive erection” before referring to Globe-nominated “My Week with Marilyn” as “a hilarious comedy.”

Madonna smelled weakness and took a (self-serving) swipe at her lame introduction by Gervais, which tried to spin comedy out of her song  “Like a Virgin,” her hit dating back to the Pleistocene epoch.

“If I’m still ‘Like a Virgin,’ Ricky,” Madge cooed, “then why don’t you come over here and do something about it? I haven’t kissed a girl in a few years. On TV.”  The audience applauded, and the blonde braid of sinew and haute couture that gave us W.E. smiled proudly.

In case that didn’t do it for you, George Clooney gamely attempted to entertain the folks at home by calling attention to the size of  Michael Fassbender’s member while accepting his Best Actor Golden Globe for his work in the Golden Globe winner for Best Drama, The Descendants. It was a swing, and a… well.

Despite all of that, there were a few magical moments during The 69th Annual Golden Globe Awards that stood out from the boredom and weirdness.

– It was touching to watch Sidney Poitier present Morgan Freeman with the Cecil B. DeMille Lifetime Achievement Award. Dame Helen Mirren co-presented, and flailed a bit as she attempted to sprinkle her dedication with a touch of comedy. No harm, though; she’s Dame Helen Mirren. But the most winning moment of that presentation was the “this-is-your-life-in-movies” clip reel that included a snippet of Freeman singing “I love to take a bath in a casket” from his stint on “The Electric Company.” It was a nice nostalgic touch, and Twitter went wild for it.

–”Downton Abbey“‘s Golden Globe proves HFPA voters actually do pay attention to quality miniseries and TV movies that aren’t being made by HBO. Even nicer was the acceptance speech by creator Julian Fellowes, who could be experiencing a massive explosion of ego right now but clearly is still grateful, humble and in awe at the culture’s fervent adoration for his work.

–Great to see “Homeland‘s” wins in the categories of Best TV Drama and Best Actress in a TV Drama, for Claire Danes‘s performance. Also nice to see Kelsey Grammer get a Globe for his work in “Boss.”  We have nothing bad to say about Laura Dern and Matt LeBlanc‘s wins for “Enlightened” and “Episodes,” but only because it’s a waste of energy to complain about the insanity of the Globes’s notoriously odd choices in individual comedy winners. (Except to say that Amy Poehler was robbed. Again.)

–The same holds truly for the wacky practice of lumping comedy, TV miniseries and movie supporting actors and actresses together in the same categories. However, we commend Peter Dinklage‘s classy mention of assault victim Martin Henderson at the podium. “Google him,” Dinklage advised, subtly using his platform to remind a worldwide audience that as much as he’s achieved, most little people are still struggling for equal treatment.

–Felicity Huffman and William H. Macy singing a duet while presenting the award for Best Supporting Actress in a Series, Miniseries or TV Movie? Adorable.

We invite you to share your thoughts on the Globes telecast in the comments section. As always, you can view the full list of winners, as well as see red carpet photos and read the blow-by-blow recap of the show by visiting our Road to the Oscars section.

 

, , , , , , , ,

ABC’s “Work It”: Guess What? We Hate It Too.

January 3rd, 2012 | Posted by Melanie McFarland in Commentary | Fall TV | Review | Tune In Info - (2 Comments)

Today the Interwebs positively hums with tens upon tens of reviews competing for Top Hater of ABC’s new alleged comedy “Work It.” If you haven’t figured out the reason for that, allow us sum up the near-universal opinion of the premiere in the plainest terms possible.

“Work It” is a steaming pile of hot garbage.

The current year will not even have 72 hours under its belt by the time “Work It” premieres, but those of us who have seen it can say with a strong degree of certitude that it will be at the top of any Worst Shows of 2012 lists published 11 or 12 months from now.  That’s saying a lot, considering that pilot season isn’t even over and some truly terrible misfires are still but a dirty twinkle in some misguided producer’s eye. Descriptors sure to be most associated with “Work It” include idiotic, lazy, insulting, pointless… you can pick up what we’re putting down. Hopefully you got the message at “hot garbage.” If so, good day to you and happy 2012.

In spite of this warning — or this one, or this one, or this one — there are plenty of people who will click over to ABC at 8:30pm ET/PT, thinking “How bad can it be?”  These viewers don’t really give a hoot about how insulting “Work It” is to women, men, the transgender community and any being that can see and/or hear.  They might not even care about its part in this TV season’s manufactured War on Testosterone represented by other comedies (“How to Be a Gentleman,” “Last Man Standing,” “Man Up!”)  that have either been shelved or are waning in popularity.

They may also be convinced that most critics simple don’t GET the joys of stupid comedy. Admittedly, there is some merit to that opinion.

The geyser of bile spewing forth in the name of “Work It” has very little to with critics detesting brainless yuks, trust us. Most have learned to accept that the right brand of stupidity sells in primetime; if that wasn’t the case, our brains would have exploded 20 minutes into the season premiere of “Two and a Half Men.”

But there’s a marked difference between garden variety dumb fun and comedy harvested not from the low-hanging fruit in the joke orchard, but from the decaying stuff at the bottom of the tree. The worm jam that is “Work It” roots its humor in the idea that the reason men can’t find work in this recession is because of some shadowy Great Gynoconspiracy, in which hot chicks are taking over industries like pharmaceutical sales. And why?  Because of their qualifications and abilities? No, because doctors find them more “bangable.”

What’s a laid-off, former top-sales rep for an automaker and an out-of-work ace mechanic to do? The answer, it seems, is to tuck up their pride and their family jewels, stuff a bra and clickety-clack their stilettos in to their next job interview. Amazingly, it works. The duo joins an office filled with salad-eating, book-club organizing, back-stabbing women, and nobody bats an eyelash. Why would they? They’re too obsessed with their salad-eating, book-clubbing and back-stabbing. Also, purses.

In spite of all that, “Work It’s” greatest flaws have almost nothing to do with the fact that the cross-dressing male leads look like they moonlight for the UFC.  Indeed, better writers could have spun some delicious oddity out of that idea. Nope, it’s the central idea of all this noise, that having a large man in a skirt blurt out the word “tampon” as a punchline, or making his Hispanic partner joke about how being Puerto Rican should make him a natural at selling pharmaceuticals, is enough to make audiences come back next week.

“Work It” blemishes the careers of Ben Koldyke and Amaury Nolasco, two actors who were until now quite memorable for doing decent jobs with supporting roles in better shows.  Then again — dare to dream — “Work It” might be yanked after a few airings, enabling the pair to attach themselves to better projects by the time the 2012-2013 season rolls around… and opening the timeslot it’s polluting for a more worthy and beloved comedy waiting in the wings.

So let’s work together to get rid of the garbage. Ignore “Work It,” and it will go away. Don’t do it for the critics. Do it for the actors… and yourselves.

 

 

, , , , , ,

On Year End Lists, and Our Ten Reasons We Loved TV in 2011

December 14th, 2011 | Posted by Melanie McFarland in Commentary | If You Only Watch One Thing... | Review | Talking TV - (Comments Off)

Among all the seasonal traditions that December brings, the annual parade of “Best of” entertainment lists is something people greet either with tremendous joy or the brand of piping hot loathing reserved for a gaily gift-wrapped tube socks.

“Best of”  lists force viewers to lay their cards on the table for all the world to judge,  agree with or dismiss — sometimes with a heaping helping of vitriol.  When said viewer happens to watch TV for a living, his or her list’s feedback section can get pretty ugly. After all, the pros are supposed to watch everything and therefore have impeccable filters that enable them to confirm that your idea of what shows are the best on television are, indeed, correct. Or, conversely, the pros confirm what you have known all along, that they don’t know what they’re talking about.

Here’s the deal: Year end lists are often subject to the whims of the writer at the time of the list’s creation, as well as said writer’s memory and the amount of time the listmaker has to compile his or her selections. For the most part, they are carefully considered; the best listmakers formulate their  annual round-ups throughout the year.  A couple of not-to-be missed Best of TV lists include Alan Sepinwall‘s and James Poniewozik‘s; I would also stay tuned for Mo Ryan’s and Jace Lacob‘s.

Above all, it is important to remember that every End of Year List reflects one person’s opinion. Critics, like everyone else,  are human beings with individualized experiences that inform which TV shows they’ll gravitate towards.

 

Given that fact, there are going to be some wonderful series that no amount of placements on Year’s Best lists can persuade people to watch. Case in point:  many, many viewers consider the fourth season of “Breaking Bad” to be some of the finest TV drama ever made. But there are just as many (if not more) who would rather have their molars scooped out with a spoon than watch it. Conversely  somebody out there considers “Harry’s Law” to be one of 2011 finest TV products, and you could not convince that person otherwise.  However, you may be able to steer them towards other series they might enjoy just as much.

That idea brings me to my end of 2011 list: Instead of declaring which shows were at their “Best” during the past calendar year, I’m taking a different route and sharing which shows I most enjoyed watching and recommending, because the concepts are not necessarily one in the same.

Mind you, many of the series on my list of Ten Reasons We Loved Watching TV in 2011 are common to a number of Best of lists. Others, however, probably won’t pop up on lists compiled by most critics. Take “Awkward,” for example. During a season in which half-hour comedies have made a comeback, one of the funniest on TV sneaked onto the air in the middle of July without much fanfare. But because it was on MTV, the network still besmirched by “Jersey Shore,” it had to wait to be discovered by the masses. Finding a gem like “Awkward” and telling people about it is one of the great joys of this job. Hence, Jenna Hamilton and her adventures in creating a so-called social life made the list.

To find out which other series made us love TV in 2011, click through to our list. And if my list moves you to do nothing else, please make your own list on IMDb and share the link in the comments section.

 

 

 

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“American Horror Story” Is Awful. Don’t Miss It.

October 5th, 2011 | Posted by Melanie McFarland in Commentary | Fall TV | If You Only Watch One Thing... | Review - (1 Comments)


Ever since viewing the pilot for “American Horror Story“, I’ve had the same conversation about it over and over again. So instead of crafting the observations from those various interactions into a standard review/warning, I’ll just transcribe a version of it for you.

So, the new fall shows. You’ve seen them, right?

Yup.

(At this point, the questioner gets an excited gleam in his/her eye.)

Have you seen “American Horror Story”?

(Long pause.)…..Yes.

And?

(Me, convulsing): GaaaaaaaaAAAAAAugh. It’s not good. Really not good. That’s an understatement. Watching it was like being punched in the face by a crazed gorilla.

Too bad. I was really looking forward to that one.

Understandable. After all, Ryan Murphy and FX are experts at building hype. Those sly, apparently-meaningless clips slowly being released on to the Internet, those shots of eerie dolls and the pregnant figure in an patent-leather S&M get-up… freakadelic, right? It all seemed to hint at something SO unusual and weird and fabulous. Plus, in spite of a few one-season-and-out series (we still love you, “Terriers“!), FX has a fine track record.

But everybody whiffs it at some point and this thing? Hoo wee, what a whiff. P to the U!

Huh. So what you’re saying is, I shouldn’t watch it.

Oh, I’m not saying that. You should definitely check out the first episode.

I…I don’t understand. You said it’s terrible.

Yes. Not “Charlie’s Angels” terrible, mind you. It’s not pointless, vapid drivel. Rather, it’s terrible in the same way a pretty girl ruining a perfectly good outfit by piling on far too many accessories, and a fascinator, and a scarf, and a belt, and rhinestone-encrusted Uggs, is terrible. It hurts to look at the poor dear, but you can’t help staring.

Wow.

Indeed. Tonight, you will meet the Harmon family, which is recovering from father Ben’s infidelity (Dylan McDermott). Dad’s sin has left him saddled with a distrustful wife, Vivien (Connie Britton), and Violet, their grumpy teen daughter (Taissa Farmiga),  all fine ingredients to create high tension.  Jam the family into a murder house. Add one blithely cruel bigot of a next door neighbor, brilliantly played by Jessica Lange…fine. We’re on board.

But then Murphy and his co-creator Brad Falchuk bombard the family with a splatter-shot of garden variety weird, including a limping (but spry when he needs to be!) burn victim, an emotionally disconnected girl with Down Syndrome, a crazed adolescent suitor for the grumpy teen daughter, parts in jars, a creepy basement, a creepy attic, a creepy maid, creepy wallpaper, blahblahblah BLAH. Taking all that in at once is like having a bucket of toxic stew funneled down your throat. And by the way: We didn’t even include the full list of supposed “horrors” here.

There could have been a great show underneath all the cliches force-fed into that opening hour, but I have absolutely zero faith that we’ll ever see it.

Why do you say that?

Well, for one thing, I’ve seen episodes two and three. There’s barely any emotional development for these characters, and the choices that they make are simply ludicrous…and not in a fun “don’t go into the basement” kind of way. Each development is tedious, and only serves bring us to a string of scenes tailored to add TV-MA appropriate splatter injected into largely dull chapters.

In better hands, one gets the sense “American Horror Story” could have worked as something of an anthology series, with the house being the only member of the cast with any job security. That would help the whole enterprise make more sense, especially given that you’re likely to find the Harmons and their problems to be lethally boring by the end of that third episode. It would be nice to get a few new families in there and see what the house does to them. But alas, it doesn’t look like anyone is going anywhere until the finale. Which, admittedly, we’ll probably watch for the glee of seeing this stupid family get what it richly deserves for staying in a murder house for a full season.

Sooooo…..why should I watch again?

Because “American Horror Story” is a failure on a grandly fabulous level – it is uniquely bad,  the best worst television you’ll likely to see in a long time. Oh, and don’t look for any real scares in that first hour; rather, approach it as a work of high camp. It might also help to imagine that began its life as a theatrical production by a comedy troupe like the Upright Citizens Brigade.

Well…maybe you’re just not a horror fan. If you were a horror fan, you might understand what they’re trying to accomplish –

I promise you, that’s not it. I enjoy greatly horror movies. I went through my Lucio Fulci phase; I have spent many a rainy weekend with the likes of Rosemary’s Baby and Don’t Look Now and The Shining – all cited as influences of Murphy’s and Falchuk’s; I even sang the praises of Rob Zombie‘s Woolite commercial to friends of mine. My horror fandom has taken me to high and low places on Netflix’s ratings system, so trust me when I say that this does not do much justice to the horror genre. Or, for that matter, the psychological thriller genre. Even its camp value dies out by week two.

Don’t you worry, though. Like so many “controversial” TV shows, “American Horror Story” will have its diehard fans who will be enthralled by the premiere and intrigued enough by the murder house to see the Harmons through every episode. That’s why you should make it a point to turn to FX tonight at 10pm. You might be one of those people.

If you’re not, well…can’t say I didn’t warn you.

 

Abed! Swanson! The Case for NBC’s Thursday Comedies

September 22nd, 2011 | Posted by Melanie McFarland in Commentary | Episode Recaps | Review | Talking TV | TV News - (Comments Off)


NBC’s Thursday sitcoms get a lot of (mostly digital) ink from critics and fans, in spite of being crushed in the ratings every week.

Yes, we know “Must-See Thursdays” is a long-dead idea. Nowadays there’s a lot of compelling competition, what with CBS’s potent line-up kicking off with a full hour of “The Big Bang Theory” tonight at 8. ABC, meanwhile, has the “Charlie’s Angels” reboot premiering at the same time. But if you’re planning to watch that instead of “Community” and “Parks & Recreation,” well… please keep that to yourself.

Then again we understand why many would choose cheap jigglevision over what’s on NBC in the 8 o’clock hour.  For many years, NBC betrayed viewers with terrible Zucker-fied choices on Thursdays.  We’ll even admit that  “Community” and “Parks and Recreation” were far from being at their best in their first seasons, so if you sampled them back then, coaxing you back to the fold now won’t be easy. Please trust us, though, when we say it’s time to give them another shot.  What follows are two relatively brief arguments as to why you should drop by Greendale Community College tonight, and stick around for a quick visit to Pawnee, IN., at 8:30.

“Community”: The New Version of the Family You Choose.

Although life at Greendale is funniest when it’s at its most unrealistic, creator Dan Harmon has said in many interviews that he plans to ease up on the thematic stunts and explore the motivations of his core characters much more throughout this third season. That pledge is sure to challenge viewers who loved the surreal, lightweight ridiculousness of episodes inspired by action flicks and zombie movies, but if done correctly it will strengthen the main reason we adore this show.

This may seem like a weird point of comparison, but “Community” is loved by its fans for the same reason people loved “Friends“: at the core of its formula is the idea that once you hit a certain age, your closest pals become just as important to you, if not more so, than the family you’re born in to.  You spend more time with them, and their concept of who you are is not informed by who you were during your formative years. “Community” hews to that idea, but adds a little more realism – yes, within those bizarre episodic plots, there is realism – by giving each person barely-tolerable qualities that the gang only overlooks because they genuinely care about each other. Like family, that bond gets strained to its limits,  as it was with Pierce Hawthorne (Chevy Chase), who left the study group at the end of the second season.

If that still doesn’t sell it for you, consider this: Michael K. Williams, better known as “The Wire’s” Omar, has a guest starring role as a biology professor, and John Goodman also guest stars as the nemesis to Greendale’s deeply odd Dean Pelton (Jim Rash).

“Parks and  Recreation”: It’s a Ron (Swanson)’s World, But He Wouldn’t Be Nothing Without His Leslie

“Parks and Rec” is ostensibly about the struggles and triumphs of Pawnee bureaucrat Leslie Knope, thereby making it Amy Poehler‘s series. Right? Well, by the third season, when the writers found the show’s comedic cadence and produced some of the funniest half-hours in primetime, it became clear that Nick Offerman‘s Ron Swanson, a solidly midwestern meat fetishist with deadpan delivery and a soft spot for his succubus ex-wives, was the beefy side dish “Parks” needed to take off.

It would be wrong to think “Parks” could succeed as The Ron Swanson Show, but given his outrageous appearance at the top of tonight’s episode – and subsequent absence for most of the scenes that follow – one realizes how much the show needs Offerman to maintain its magic. The premiere’s best scenes are the ones shared by Leslie and Ron, of course;  as longtime viewers know, Ron’s ex-wives may be his Kryptonite, but its his friendship with Leslie, and her cosmically wacky demonstrations of loyalty, that always pulls him back from the brink.

Next week’s episode compensates for the relatively Ron-light season premiere by having him face down a double dose of Tammy, as in his satanic first ex-wife, Tammy One (Patricia Clarkson) – yes, she’s worse than Tammy Two (Megan Mullally) – and Tammy Zero (Paula Pell), his mother. Do yourself a favor and tune in for both because, um, “Charlie’s Angels”?  C’mon.

By the way, you may be wondering why we have not mentioned “The Office” or “Whitney,” the other two entries in NBC’s Thursday comedy block.  That’s because a) “The Office” needs less assistance, given that James Spader‘s addition to the cast is bound to generate higher ratings for the premiere; and b) “Whitney,” um, could be better.

Check out our take on “Whitney” in IMDb’s Fall TV Preview by clicking here.

 

“Revenge”: ABC’s Most Delicious Dish?

September 21st, 2011 | Posted by Melanie McFarland in Commentary | Fall TV | Review | Talking TV | Tune In Info - (Comments Off)


The complicated thing about guilty pleasures is the “guilty” part.

That guilt often prevents you from talking about said pleasure when, in fact, it deserves to be discussed. Celebrated, even. Once you finally work up the courage to cop to your secret shame, you’ll often find that you’re far from alone. The guilt fades, and all you’re left with is the pleasure.

Such is the case with ABC’s primetime soap “Revenge,” premiering tonight at 10pm ET/PT.

In “Revenge,” we meet Emily Thorne (Emily Van Camp) a lovely girl who appears in the Hamptons one summer, renting the beach house adjacent to the stately manor owned by the Grayson family and the exclusive community’s “queen,” Victoria (Madeleine Stowe).

With her looks, the right address and tasteful fashion sense, Emily immediately fits in. But what the social elite does not know is that when Emily was a young girl with a different name,  her father was framed for a horrific crime by many of the people welcoming her into their inner circle as a adult. And she has her sights set on destroying each of them.

Because of our programming  – “Must only praise the BEST shows! Must never reveal our ‘Pretty Little Liars‘ addiction!” – I suspect many critics who actually enjoyed the pilot (including yours truly) kept that opinion to themselves until just recently. Then a few bravely decided to come out of the shadows on Twitter and admit it might just be a show they’re looking forward to watching this season…and, well, here I am writing this review.

Not coincidentally, it seems that the late swell of praise only happened after the second episode was made available for review and proved itself to be just as delectable as the first.

“Revenge” is about as soapy as it sounds, and its setting, scandals and wardrobe might make viewers of a certain generation nostalgic for sweeping primetime soaps such as “Dynasty.” You know, another series many sensible viewers were once ashamed to admit to loving.

As nasty as the Colby and Carringtons could be to each other, it’s hard to recall whether there was a time when either clan was tangibly on the brink of utter financial and emotional ruin. Not so here.

“Revenge” opens with a Confucius quote: “Before you embark on a journey of revenge,  dig two graves”…followed by a murder occurring at a beautiful party, on a gorgeous night that should have been perfect for Emily. Obviously something went very wrong. Or did it?

With her innocent doll face and quiet demeanor, Van Camp is perfectly cast as the angelic girl hiding a knife in her skirt. But really, Stowe is the scene stealer, digging into her villain’s role with a regal relish. There’s a moment in the premiere, right before she destroys someone’s life, where she musters up a smile that could jump-start the next Ice Age. Yep, Stowe’s Victoria Grayson is going to be fun to watch.

Admittedly, “Revenge”  also happens to be imperfect. Both the pilot and second episodes are reliant on flashbacks that provide context for Emily’s vendetta of the week, but teeter towards being emotionally manipulative at times. There’s also a lot of cheesy romantic entanglement powering the plot, but remember what you’re signing up for here. You won’t mind much.

Let it be known: I liked “Revenge” from the first time I saw the pilot. When I watched a second time, I liked it even more.  So now that’s out there, you may be wondering why it isn’t among the Ten Shows to Watch in IMDb’s Fall TV Preview? Blame the guilt thing. (Besides, more people are curious about “American Horror Story,” which is not even half as enjoyable as “Revenge,” so after much contemplation that got the number 10 slot – a decision that I am now deeply regretting.)

Forgive us, or not. Either way, do yourself a favor and watch the premiere. For more information, check out our shorter take on “Revenge” in our Fall TV Preview, or watch a few clips here.

, , , , ,