Reviews

6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Shark (2006–2008)
7/10
Great character, great setup... great show?
17 August 2006
The pilot for "Shark" was directed by Spike Lee. I honestly couldn't tell. There's nothing about it that is particularly cinematic or edgy.

But the premise is pretty neat. A highly paid, highly successful defense lawyer - James Woods - is forced into service on the other side of the barrister. He is now a district attorney for the state of California. Plus, he's asked to go after the same celebrities he used to defend.

So the episode plots of "Shark" could have it both ways - indulge in the scintillating glitz and seedy glamour of Hollywood while simultaneously bringing those sinners down every week. All with a great, snarky, brash anti-hero.

Unfortunately, the last third of the pilot started to get a little sappy and predictable (the main character begins to soften a little too quickly for my taste, no doubt helped by his unrealistically wise and aware daughter), but I still have hope.
31 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Newsflash: Paul Haggis not complete hack
17 August 2006
I disagree with the other poster's subject heading. This is definitely not the best pilot for 06-07 season. That would be "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip." Still, I should confess that I hate Paul Haggis with an irrational fire. "Crash" was a ridiculous film and just thinking about it and the fact that it won Best Picture still gets me angry.

But I have to admit, his television show ain't half bad. The pilot builds slowly - too slowly - but ends on an absolutely terrific high note. I don't care that the high note is completely cribbed from "The Godfather" - it still gave me chills.

And the main character in "The Black Donnelly's" (one of four Irish brothers living in Hell's Kitchen) is instantly engaging. You will completely empathize with him, which makes the ending that much more effective.

The pilot also has a nice twist. I would at least give this one a chance.
33 out of 112 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Kidnapped (2006–2007)
6/10
Intriguing format, but what about story?
17 August 2006
This show mixes the missing persons angle of "Without A Trace" with the season-long plot of "24." The hero - played by Jeremy Sisto - is somewhat appealing, but definitely no Jack Bauer... yet the show seems to be built around him in the same way "24" is built around Jack. By pilot's end, I didn't really know that much about him, except for the fact that he hates cops and doesn't think they do a good job of finding people. There is an interesting line in there about how the cops have two objectives when seeking a missing child - to find the kid but also to catch the bad guy, which can sometimes get in the way of the first goal. Jeremy Sisto - Cain - only concentrates on getting the kid back.

Anyway, this show would be sufficiently entertaining if Cain found a new kid every episode, but he's only finding one kid over the course of an entire season. The pilot didn't leave me confident that this particular case is complex and dramatic enough to sustain interest that long. Kind of like the first season of "Murder One." I might give the second episode a chance, but I'm not too excited about it.
33 out of 81 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Heroes (II) (2006–2010)
4/10
Nothing extraordinary about "Heroes"
17 August 2006
A bunch of people around the world - though mostly in America - start developing superpowers at the same time. I don't think the coincidence of them developing at the same time is part of the plot, either... it's just lazy writing. Also lazy - that a generic Indian professor just happens to start giving lectures about human mutations around this time. How convenient for exposition.

Dull and derivative, with too many characters to focus on at once, none of them particularly compelling or likable. One or two of them are actively annoying. The powers are unoriginal or incomprehensible and the only cool thing about the first episode - the twist ending - is ruined by awful special effects. Don't let the commercials pull you in - it's nothing special. I will not be watching the second episode.
73 out of 365 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Friday Night Lights (2006–2011)
7/10
Exactly like the movie... is this good or bad?
17 August 2006
They've captured the gritty look and small-town-suffocation feel of the movie really well. Except for a slight downgrade in talent (you get the guy from "Early Edition" instead of Billy Bob Thornton, for example), it's almost the exact same experience. Which is impressive for a TV show, but I'm not sure what they plan to do differently. The pilot hits all the same story beats as the film. I'm concerned with how they plan to stretch the drama of a two-hour movie out over an entire season, especially when anyone who has seen the film could predict what story turns to expect. I feel like I already know what's going to happen to every character.

Hopefully, the show will prove me wrong. I'll give it a chance this fall.
26 out of 85 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The best new show this fall
16 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Any fan of any decade of "Saturday Night Live" should immediately be able to imagine a thousand possibilities for a show like this. A thousand possible story lines – drugs, addiction, rock and roll, lip-syncing, ad-libs, difficult divas, competition for stage time, backstage brawls, plagiarism, sabotage, romance, flings, sex, network politics, censorship, rising stars, fading stars, unexpected disease and tragic death.

Creator Aaron Sorkin treats the world of entertainment just as seriously as he did the world of politics in "The West Wing." He's brought in the same level of acting, the same level of writing, the same level of direction and cinematography and the same level of – for lack of a better word – gravitas… and brought it all to bear in a younger, grittier, hipper setting.

Within the first few minutes of the pilot, you can tell what an impressive job they've done in recreating an SNL-type aura. The stage, the lights, the announcer's voice, the moving set pieces, the audience bleachers, the show's logo, the token black cast member – everything is captured perfectly.

Better yet, "Studio 60" isn't afraid to attack its inspiration. You see, "Studio 60", just like the real "SNL," currently sucks. It's been in decline since losing its top writer and director four years ago and now merely limps along, making predictable George W. Bush jokes and relying on its own fame to keep it on the air. The Lorne Michaels-type producer, played masterfully by Judd Hirsch, makes an occasional attempt to get something controversial on the air, but is repeatedly shot down by the network censor.

On this particular night, however, he loses it and launches into a fiery tirade on live television about the loss of quality and integrity at the networks and in America in general. This gets him fired and puts the future of the show in jeopardy. Enter the excellent Amanda Peet as the new head of programming, Jordan, on her first day at the job. You can see a confident playfulness in her eyes as she goes toe-to-toe with the network president (played by Steven Weber from "Wings" as a ruthless, unemotional yet intelligent shark) but also slight vulnerability such as when she can't find her new office. She's extremely appealing – a fast-talking, idea-slinging new sheriff in a corporate creative town full of pathetic yes-men and tired unoriginality. Like Martin Sheen as the president on "The West Wing," you can't wait to see what she'll manage to accomplish with her fresh perspective.

Her first bold plan is to counteract the negative publicity currently circulating around "Studio 60" by wooing back the show's original writer and director, Matt and Danny – played respectively by Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford. They've grown famous and successful since leaving "Studio 60," but aren't without leftover issues. Matt's just broken up with his girlfriend, who happens to be one of the top three stars of "Studio 60," while Danny is still fighting a cocaine addiction and hiding it from his partner.

So, how does Perry handle the transition from situation comedy to serious drama? Fine. It does help that this serious drama happens to be about a comedy show and Perry happens to be playing a funny writer. But he's not just playing Chandler either. There's more weight to this role. His character's obviously carrying a lot of baggage around, stuff that is hinted at in the pilot but not revealed… yet he has to set that aside temporarily to watch over his best friend, who might actually be more troubled than he is. Perry still does the nervous wise-cracking thing he did on "Friends," but here it comes across as more authentic of who his character is – a neurotic Hollywood writer – but, at the same time, only one dimension of a very three-dimensional person.

Already, I'm dying to see the next episode. What will Matt and Danny, built up as such incredible talents in the pilot, do to energize the lagging show? How will Matt get along with his ex-girlfriend when they have to work together practically 24/7? Will Danny relapse to cocaine under the pressures of directing a live broadcast every week? How will the network react when Matt and Danny, with Jordan's permission, air the controversial sketch that got Judd Hirsch fired? On the very first spot of their very first show? Plus, why did Matt and Danny get fired in the first place? And who really fired them – the network president or their hero, the Judd Hirsch producer? What are the stories of the other cast members, such as D.L. Hughley and the D.J. Qualls look-alike? Which one's going to be the diva? Which one's going to leave the show to be a movie star? Which one will die from a drug overdose? Not to mention the potential for guest star "hosts." Guest stars playing themselves not for cheap laughs, but in honest-to-goodness dramatic situations. The pilot has Felicity Huffman worrying about what dress to wear for her monologue… and fretting about the crappy nature of the monologue itself. The possibilities are endless here as well.

My only concern with "Studio 60" is whether or not it can be funny. It's definitely smart, witty and fascinating, but if it's going to be about a comedy show, it'd better have some actual comedy in it. The only sketches shown in the pilot are intentionally bad (the show's supposed to suck, remember?), but I do hope we'll get to see glimpses of classic SNL brilliance via this fictionalized homage to it.

After watching the pilot, though, I'm pretty confident "Studio 60" can do whatever the hell it pleases. It seems very sure of itself and I can't wait to see what it has in store for a full season.
22 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed