Once again, I find myself in the position of reviewing a show that has, by the time of review, already been cancelled. In the case of Six Degrees, at least, I don't feel too bad about delaying, mostly because it took me months to sort out my opinions on the show.

For starters, the premise of the show is really pretty trite and annoying. Follow a handful of characters and, over time, show how they are all connected because, even in a giant city like New York, this is a small world and we're all neighbors and so on and so forth. Still, you have to figure that after a half season, they'd have pretty much exhausted that premise and we'd just end up with a drama about a variety of people who kind of know each other, but with a somewhat inexplicable title. That's fine with me. I don't need a hook for a show, provided the characters are well-acted and well-written.

And, I guess that's sort of the problem. The acting is really quite excellent. Most of the cast are people who were highly acclaimed for their first high-profile role, then sort of fell off the map a bit (in the case of this cast, they were the much-remarked upon actors from Dying Young, crazy/beautiful,Next Stop, Wonderland, The Sum of All Fears, and Traffic). I'm particularly fond of Hope Davis and will watch her in just about anything, but everyone does a nice job, at least given the material, which is a little subpar. The storylines are rarely original-feeling, to the point that I spent most of the few episodes that aired complaining about the writing.

Then the show went off the air for several months, and I found myself missing it a bit. Sure, quite a lot of that has to do with suddenly losing a weekly opportunity to watch Hope Davis act, but I ended up kind of caring what happened to the characters. I was actually pretty excited (in a very guilty way) to hear that the show was coming back.

When it was back, I was actually able to set aside my complaints about the writing better and just enjoy the performances (though, I should note that I did not stop complaining about the truly bizarre costuming inflicted on the actresses on this show). Of course, given my track record, a whole-hearted endorsement of the show is a certain kiss of death, since Six Degrees only lasted a couple episodes this time before disappearing forever. Ah, well.

Rating: B+ (Will be missed by me, at least)

Topics: dramas, television

It took a couple seasons, but here's the first of the blatant House knockoffs. Take an underutilized character actor, have him play an incredibly skilled, but socially maladjusted professional - instant hit. The only problem with this approach is that it depends almost entirely on the actor. Hugh Laurie is almost good enough to offset whatever other missteps the show makes (note the word "almost" - the back-to-back arcs featuring Chi McBride and Sela Ward were enough to drive me away), but the same cannot be said for, say, Jeff Goldblum (whose House-knockoff we'll review closer to air date).

Fortunately, the producers of Shark had the good sense to cast James Woods. I'm sure there are other who don't like James Woods as much as I do, but I'm willing to watch James Woods in just about anything as long as he's an asshole and berating people. Fortunately, a significant portion of Shark involved an assholic Woods berating his staff.

The premise is kind of flimsy. Woods (whose character is, in fact, named Shark) starts off as a high-priced defense attourney who suffers a crisis of conscience when he gets a very guilty client off on a spousal abuse charge, after which said client kills off his wife. After a little wallowing, he ends up running an elite unit of the Los Angeles' District Attourney's office working with high profile media cases. Which is to say, the legal equivalent of House's elite unit of diagnosticians.

What's really impressive is that this show is virtually the same in its "behind the scenes of high-profile media cases" as Justice, which completely failed to hold my interest in any way. Maybe I'm just easily entertained, but having some James Woods to fall back on makes even a trite legal drama enjoyable.

Topics: dramas, television

I suppose there is something to be said for a TV program that is pretty much exactly as advertised. This is Jerry Bruckheimer's take on a legal drama, and, as expected, it makes heavy use of the CGI-intensive camerawork and effects that he's had a lot of luck with on CSI. Like CSI, the show makes use of the same gruff infallible middle aged guy/young idealist pretty boy/no-nonsense younger woman/black guy character sketches (though they dropped the intelligent middle-aged woman - I suppose she didn't test well).

The question becomes whether this is enough to differentiate this show from any of the other legal dramas out there. I should probably point out at this point that I don't really have any particular interest in the legal drama as an ouvre. I'm pretty sure I've never watched more than a couple episodes of any legal drama (at least not on purpose), so it's safe to say I'm a pretty tough audience for a new legal drama. Justice doesn't come close to overcoming my resistance to the genre, given that, aside from applying to CSI formula to the legal drama, it adds two new elements: the emphasis on media-intensive trials and the epilogue (in which the actual events are revealed).

The first is tedious. Like everyone else I know, I have no interest in media circus trials, so the behind the scenes machinations involed hold no interest for me whatsoever. The second aspect is possibly an interesting twist, but, really, there are only a limited number of permutations that could occur (guilty verdict/innocent client, innocent verdict/innocent client, guilty verdict/guilty client, innocent verdict/guilty client), so it seems like it'll get old quickly.

Rating: C-

Topics: dramas, television

For those of you out there who are as overly committed (as I am)to watching every possible new fall show, you will have noticed that NBC, in an attempt to juice as much viewership as possible out of the Olympics, is flooding the airwaves with their new shows well in advance of the competition. While the numbers are good, NBC may have wanted to realize that getting a huge market share might not be beneficial when you really have nothing good to offer.

Aside from the exceedingly horrible Father of the Pride, NBC seems intent in wallowing in mediocrity this year - LAX being the latest example. Most of the show feels lifted from other, (arguably) better shows - lots of walking-and-talking shots (West Wing, ER), endless musical montages (Cold Case), assorted sexual tension among coworkers and pervasive wackiness among incidental characters (altogether too many to mention, let's go with Moonlighting, though that implies significantly too much quality) The show's grab-bag approach to tone applies to content, as the pilot contains about 5 or 6 plotlines, which seems a tad overambitious for a pilot episode.

I'm not sure if the overstuffed feeling of the episode is the reason I am complete disinterested in any of the characters here. Certainly, I would not consider myself a fan of either Heather Locklear or Blair Underwood. I'm not sure I've ever regularly watched a series of which Ms. Locklear was a cast member (aside from some occasional viewing of T.J. Hooker as a very young kid), so I don't bring the same baggage (negative or positive) that others might bring to the series. Without the trans-textual context, I find her to be barely acceptable as a protagonist of a series, particularly one who's supposed to be overly professional and competitive, since she aggressively exudes the air of a moron. Blair Underwood is fine, I guess, though utterly devoid of any personality or charisma (for all I know, he's a lively, likeable fellow in person, and his on-screen persona is a carefully crafted piece of acting) The supporting cast was, again, vaguely tolerable, but completely forgettable.

The really alarming aspect of all of this is that this is probably the third best new show NBC has aired so far this year.

Rating: C (Frantic, yet dull)

Topics: dramas, television

As you may have heard, ABC recently announced that, despite previous announcements to the contrary, they have pulled Karen Sisco off the air. As a result, I almost decided not to review any more ABC shows. However, that's not a very mature thing to do, so instead I am only reviewing their show once it's off the air. Take that, Disney!

Anyway, Line of Fire is yet another hour long network drama that tries to replicate the success of HBO. Fortunately, unlike Kingpin, the producers of Line of Fire decided not to rip off The Sopranos and went instead for it's critically acclaimed, but largely unwatched cousin The Wire.

Like The Wire, Line of Fire concerns itself with a group of law enforcement officers (in this case the FBI) in a medium sized Southern city (in this case Richmond) and their ongoing attempts to bring down a local crime boss (played, in a truly inexplicable cast choice, by David Paymer).

Let's take a minute to look at that last parenthetical statement. David Paymer. As a crime boss.

It's such an odd casting choice that it really takes multiple episodes of the show before you can even begin to accept him in the role. David Paymer may be the least threatening actor in Hollywood. He's made a career of playing nebbishes with such success that it's pretty much impossible to accept him in any other role. I mean, from his perspective, this was probably a good move. It's always good, as far as the actor is concerned, to be given a chance to stretch one's dramatic chops. I just don't understand why a TV production company would feel the same. More than the movies, TV seems to be all about playing into your type. And yet, here we are with David Paymer as a crime boss. A crime boss with a horrible, horrible catch phrase as well. It's so bad I can't even repeat it.

So, once you've accepted Paymer in his wildly inappropriate role, the rest of the cast isn't bad, with the exception of Leslie Bibb as a young FBI agent. After the pilot, though, her screentime is cut down considerably, much to the benefit of the show.

Aside from those two dubious casting choices, the show only has one real problem. Instead of having the confidence to really just lay out the incredible detail of working to take out a large criminal operation over the course of multiple episodes, the show falls back into easy-to-digest one hour stories. If you're going to knock off The Wire, knock it off properly, or just knock it off in general.

Rating: B- (At least it's ripping off a good show)

Topics: dramas, television

This year's winner of the "Greatest Post-Pilot Decay Award," given in memory of the late, unlamented John Doe, has got to be Tarzan. In fact, Tarzan suffers from almost the exact same problem that killed John Doe - after creating an initially interesting premise, the producers are unable to come up with any sort of plot that doesn't involve the main character becoming an honorary police officer.

Tarzan started off well enough, really. Jungle boy gets rescued by sinister uncle and kept in a cell, from which he escapes and meets an attractive young policewoman. The show looked good - early episodes were directed by X-Files veteran David Nutter and Buffy veteran David Solomon - dark, shady, mysterious. And they did a nice job with the fight scenes, all of which were very reminiscent of Brotherhood of the Wolf. All good signs. And it had Mitch "Shocker" Pilleggi as the evil uncle. And Xena as Tarzan's aunt (who, for reasons I don't entirely understand, decided to play her character in the most lecherous manner possible - yay, incest!)

And then they sort of ran out of steam. I guess Tarzan can't really stop poachers in the city, so he needs to hunt a sniper? It just seems like a waste of perfectly good premise. Like John Doe, the big story arcs seem to be consigned to the last 5 or 10 minutes of each episode.

Fortunately, the show has allegedly been killed already, so I can't complain too much. But wasted potential is always sad.

Rating: C

Topics: dramas, television

Now, this? This is, by all rights, what should be my favorite show of the season, not that damned Joan of Arcadia. It's based on a book and short story by Elmore Leonard, who is one of my favorite writers ever. The book on which it is based was previously adapted as a movie, Out of Sight, which, even with the massive retroactive transtextual baggage Jennifer Lopez bring to the film, is probably on my all-time Top 10 List, maybe even up in the Top 5. The show stars Carla Gugino, towards whom I am favorably inclined for both her recent Robert Rodriguez association as well as her general similarities to Lynda Carter, as the title character, a U.S. Marshall who has remarkably bad luck with men (3 bank robbers to date). As if that wasn't enough, it's got Robert Forrester, who kicks as much ass as ten mortal men, as Karen's dad (taking over from Dennis Farina in the film version). (It's probably worth mentioning that the wife and I spent about a week over the summer talking like Robert Forrester after listening to him narrate a book on tape. We love Robert Forrester.) And I guess the producers must have decided to swipe as much of the cast of Fastlane as they could, since Bill Duke plays basically the same character on this show as he did on Fastlane, which is fine with me, since I miss Fastlane quite a bit.

So, in short, this show is made for me (and, judging by the ratings, me alone).

And yet...

It's not quite there. The show is produced by the usual Elmore Leonard-loving crew of Sonnenfeld and DeVito, who, while they should be praised for their insistence in bring the Florida crime genre to both the big screen (Get Shorty, Big Trouble) and small (Maximum Bob), don't really seem to get the Leonard feel. They're clearly better suited to the more comedic style of Carl Hiaasen or recent James W. Hall. While Leonard's later Floridian novels are a little lighter than his grittier Detroit-set novels, they rarely dip into the near-toxic levels of quirkiness that seem to amuse the Jersey Films crew so much.

So the first few episodes (two of which were directed by Michael Dinner, who presented the most woefully off-base attempt at the Floridian crime genre, The Crew) aren't really right - a little too jokey, a little too precious, a little too overstylized. Subsequent episodes (particularly "Justice") swung too far in the other direction, and lost the humor altogether. I'll admit that Leonard's hard to adapt. As far as I'm concerned, there have been precisely two films that got it right (Out of Sight and Jackie Brown if you're keeping score), which compared to the 15 or so that were failures to one degree or another, indicates a fair degree of difficulty in capturing his mix of humor, grittiness, and, above all, the sense of pre-determination that pervades his stories.

That having been said, the show is certainly picking up steam. The fifth episode, in which a forgotten classmate of Karen's, gets busted for counterfeiting was pretty enjoyable, and the sixth was flat-out great. Karen becomes more of a minor character, and the people's she's chasing (a prisoner who keeps breaking out to be with his true love -- sounds cheesy, but it was really good) get to take over the story. Really, all it needed was maybe two more scenes with Robert Forrester and we would have had a perfect episode of television. Make more...

Read the rest of the review!

Rating: A- (Getting better every week!)

Topics: dramas, television

It's been said by many many people before me that Jerry Bruckheimer may want to lay off the crime dramas for a little while. I guess he's not really a guy to back off a trend prematurely, but 4 crime dramas on one network is a little much. Then again, Cold Case was picked up for the rest of the season, so I guess there's really no reason for him to stop, unless he suddenly develops an aesthetic conscience.

So, since Cold Case looks like it'll be with us for a while, let's see if it's worth watching. Short answer (for those who are reading this at 7:59 on a Sunday evening and have to pick their evening's viewing RIGHT NOW) is no. The pilot jumped right in to a "torn from the headlines" story, which, in my opinion, is a pretty alarming way to start your pilot. In fact, I'm opposed to "torn from the headlines" in pretty much all cases. It's the main reason I can't watch Law and Order any more; what's the point in watching a procedural drama if you already know where it's going. If you really need to steal from real-life events, at least try to pick something that not every member of the viewing audience is likely to be aware of.

Ignoring my advice, Cold Case starts off with the Martha Moxley murder. Yawn. I suppose the producers invoked this case when pitching the show to CBS to show the dramatic possibilities of cold cases, so felt compelled to deliver their version as the pilot. Still, it makes for a boring story. The rich guy killed her? What a shock!

Anyway, our main character is a fairly boring blond cop (as opposed to the fairly interesting blond cop played by Poppy Montgomery over on Without a Trace) who solves cold cases with a passion, but only after her boss made her. Boring.

On the plus side, the pilot episode was directed by Mark "The Most Agressive Cut/Fade/Dissolve/Scene Transition Guy Working on the Major Circuit Right Now" Pellington, so the show does look good. They do a really nice job treating the film stock so it looks like it was shot in a period-appropriate time for the flashback sequences, which gives the proceedings a nice visual quality, even if it's solely lacking in, you know, plot and character.

Now, it may well be that the success of Jerry Bruckheimer's assorted crime dramas is the only thing giving him the clout to keep The Amazing Race on the air, in which case I can't really urge you not to watch his shows. But I'd much rather spend my energy convinced you to watch The Amazing Race instead. It's enough to burn off whatever hostilities you might have towards Mr. Bruckheimer and generate enough goodwill that you can't really hate shows like Cold Case as much as you should.

Rating: C (Not especially good. But looks nice.)

Topics: dramas, television

Disgust is easy to write about. As is love. Apathy - not so much.

And nothing really describes my feelings about Skin like "apathy." If you've watched Fox in the last two months, I'm sure you've seen the promos in which they actually use what I'm guessing was the description the producers use to pitch the show - "From Producer Jerry Bruckheimer - The D.A.'s Son and the Pornographer's Daughter" as though it's some sort of racy Romeo and Juliet.

Which is pretty much what it is. A bad, scantily clad version of Romeo and Juliet - one in which the actors are reading their lines with no real understanding of what, exactly, they're saying and one in which a concerned parents' group stripped out all the big, self destructive suicidal bits. Pretty much all the actors are bland and forgettable (some guy that's kinda like the guy from crazy/beautiful, some girl who's kinda reminiscent of Julia Stiles, bleh) with the notable exception of Ron Silver, who chews scenery like crazy, which is at least slightly fun to watch.

Honestly, that's it. I've got nothing to say about this show. It's not good. It's not bad. It's just there.

Rating: C (Eh)

Topics: dramas, television

Most years, something ends up on the fall TV schedule that makes you say "How, exactly, did this end up on TV? Aren't TV execs paid ungodly sums of cash to prevent this sort of thing from entering my living room? What in the hell got into the Burbank water supply?" In most circumstances, 10-8 would elicit these sorts of questions, but I think I've got this one all figured out.

End of last season, ABC was looking at Dragnet and saying to itself, "Man, that was a flop! Can this show be saved?" Two executives (let's call them Bubba and Chip) both came up with brilliant ideas.

Bubba was all pleased with his idea. "How about this?" Bubba said. "Instead of doing a boring police procedural drama, let's do a TV version of the 1987 Dragnet movie."

"The one with Tom Hanks and Dan Ackroyd?" asked the executive.

"The very one."

"But that was a spoof. Of Dragnet."

"Exactly. And people loved it. So, instead of doing a straight remake of the old radio and TV drama, we'll do a parody thereof."

"Thereof?"

"Yeah."

"You went to college, didn'tcha?"

"Yes."

"College boy. Get out of my office."

"Wait, wait. I've got..."

"OUT!"

And so Bubba crawled away, bearing with him the shame of rejection.

Then Chip entered the mighty executive's office.

"So, here's my idea. We do the exact same show, but we call it L.A. Dragnet."

"I'm listening"

"People love Los Angeles. I think people just didn't realize our show was set there."

"Good point."

"And we get rid of Ethan Embry!"

"Who?"

"Exactly."

The executive laughed and Chip knew he had a winner of an idea.

Bubba, though, couldn't bear to let his brilliant idea slip away. He forged the executive's signature on a production order, and promptly went into business shooting his version of Dragnet. "It will be shot in Los Angeles! And funny! But also serious! And violent! And they'll talk about sex! And farting! Who doesn't love fart jokes? And it'll be about the Sherriff's Department. Except, they'll have jurisdiction everywhere in the city, not just in unincorporated areas! They'll be above the law! Eagle Rock? Santa Monica? All Sherriff's Dept. territory! I'll show those uppity LAPD boys. Mwuahahahahaa!"

So, if you have the misfortune to find yourself watching 10-8, just remember Bubba. Then it'll all make sense. And if you see Bubba on the street, smack him for me, would you?

Rating: C- (Bonus points for shooting in Northeast Los Angeles)

Topics: dramas, television

The past few months have shown a definate improvement in public awareness of the craft of a character actor. From Fametracker's excellent Hey! It's That Guy! report to bi-weekly columns in the LA Times, there seems to be a growing awareness of that actor who spends his career playing subtle variations on the exact same character. You may not know his name, but you can certainly get out a "Hey! It's that guy from _______"

Clearly the producers of Without A Trace are big fans of the character actor. Without A Trace stars that mobster/cop guy from Betsy's Wedding and Murder One as the head of the FBI's Missing Persons Squad (or MPS, as I will call them out of laziness). Also on his team is that gal from Glory Days, that guy from Now and Again, and the lady from Mr. Jealousy.

In the pilot, the girl from The American Embassy has disappeared, so the MPS has to go interview lots and lots of people to figure out what happenned. Hey, there's Jimmy Bond from The Lone Gunmen! Hey, there's Mr. Wyck from Seinfeld (or possibly Senator Kelly from X-Men or the cheating music critic from Grace of My Heart) And there's that guy from Metropolitan and Barcelona! Why doesn't he get more work? And why isn't Chris Eigemann doing ads for Pacific Bell anymore? Those were much better than the creepy, gloating ads with Tommy Lee Jones bragging about how PacBell is all-powerful.

This is fun! It's like a character actor free association game. Sadly, the second episode tones down the quanity of character actor appearances, but more than compensates by adding David Paymer, who may well be the most ubiqitous actor alive. One can only hope that the entire cast of Company Man makes its way onto this show at some point.

Unfortunately, the great casting seems to be masking a somewhat boring premise. The repetitive nature of missing persons investigations may make this show hard to watch on a regular basis. Still, I'll probably tune in every once in a while, and it certainly doesn't induce the "post-CSI-frantic-remote-control-off-button-mashing" that The Agency did, so I guess that's saying something.

Rating: B

Topics: dramas, television

I guess Providence is a lot more succesful than I realized. I don't watch it, and, until recently, I didn't know anyone who did. But, given that the fall 2001 TV season contains not one, but two, Providence knock-offs, I have to surmise that Providence, like JAG is one of those alternate world smash hits. Earth-2 Superman and his wife Lois Lane (or is it Kent now?) probably sit around and watch nothing but Providence. They are, of course, a Neilsen family, so their super-viewing habits clearly account for the industry perception that the American viewing public needs some more gentle professional dramas about young women balancing careers and dealing with aging parents.

And so we get Crossing Jordan and Philly, two largely interchangable shows with 30-something female protagonists. Both pilot episodes feature the protatgonist woman (both of whom either have or had the surname "Cavanaugh") doing their job (crime scene investigator or defense lawyer), yelling at Kyle Secor, and dealing with parents, all set to a vaguely Irish-sounding score.

Crossing Jordan should be a better show, given the absence of Steven Bochco and his "edgy" style, as well as the slightly less overmined field of forensic science. Unfortunately, Crossing Jordan doesn't seem intent on revelling in the gruesome minutiae of forensic science, which is what makes C.S.I. such a fun show to watch. The plots are, honestly, pretty boring. Last week's episode featured a murder in which we were given three suspects in quick succession with no particular reason to think any of them did it, mostly because the suspects never talked. I suppose they needed to cut those scenes in order to show her talking with her father about his decision to go on a date instead of visiting his dead wife's grave. Bleh.

Surprisingly, Philly isn't quite as bad as it could be. They had the good sense to keep Kyle Secor on in a recurring role, despite the fact that they have him cast as an asshole. They keep the parental interaction to a minimum and, most surprisingly, the plots aren't bad. Granted, I don't watch a lot of courtroom drama shows, but this seems better than my dimly remembered memories of L.A. Law. Not to say I'll go out of my way to watch it, but it will do in a pinch.

Rating: B- (On Average - B for Philly, C+ for Crossing Jordan)

Topics: dramas, television