Chucklehound Entertainment would like to warn our more sensitive reader of some, uh, explicit language below.

Dear NBC,

Fuck you.

Seriously, fuck you.

Ever since Seinfeld went off the air, you have been utterly and completely incapable of creating a decent sitcom. Look at your recent attempts. Good Morning Miami? Whoopi? Coupling? All horrible, horrible shows.

And then, you manage to put Happy Family on the air. Possibly the most mean spirited, misanthropic, spiteful, bitter sitcom on one of the Big 4 networks since... well, since Seinfeld. In short, it was the best sitcom of the season.

Perhaps you've already forgotten the premise of the show. Middle aged couple (played by the wonderfully cynical pair of John Larroquette and Christine Baranski) have three allegedly adult children, none of whom show any interest in actually moving on with their lives. The oldest works for his father and has recently called off his marriage. The middle (played by everyone's favorite Glad spokeswoman and Joyce DeWitt impersonator, Melanie Paxson) insists on coming by the house regularly, while the youngest, having failed out of college, has taken up with the recently divorced, forty-something neighbor. Yeah, I know the setup was a little cumbersome and audiences apparently didn't want to see a movie about a generally creepy April-August relationship, but it allowed for a wonderful wellspring of hostility on the show.

Take the fifth episode, in which Tim, the youngest son, manages to actually get a job scooping frozen yogurt, much to the pride of his parents. His parents question why they are so pleased with Tim's modest success and conclude that, not only do they apparently think their son is an idiot, but that they probably think this because he is, in fact, an idiot. Significantly more hostility than you usually get in a family sitcom.

Of course, the powers that be (which is to say "you") couldn't let this be, presumably because noone was watching the show. Let's get rid of the middle aged love interest, you said. Let's bring in a sassy dental assistant for the oldest son to banter with, you said. Let's generally emasculate the show and hope that what America wants, more than anything, is another bland, forgettable sitcom, you said.

Which is why I feel the need to resort to profanity (as well as sentence fragments). You see, I like to think that my friends and family place some trust in my recommendations. When I take the time to recommend a new show, I like to think that my word means something. If, however, the network decides to undergo a massive retooling of the show in between the time of my recommendation and when people actually get around to watching the show, my word is worthless. My friends and family watch the new, bland Happy Family and say, "Huh?"

I know that you have a hard job as a network programmer. But perhaps you should realize that Happy Family might find a better audience after Frasier instead of after Whoopi. Do you really expect the sass-loving morons who are choosing to watch Whoopi are going to enjoy a relatively subtle comedy? Do you really expect they're going to prefer a remarkably bland pointless show instead?

I guess you do.

So, once again, fuck you.

Rating: C (Was an A prior to retooling)

Topics: sitcoms, television

Now, when Entertainment Weekly goes out and refers to a show as this season's Freaks and Geeks, I pretty much feel obligated to like it. Add in a number of crew members from the late, lamented Undeclared - notably producer Victor Hsu and director Greg Motlolla (whose The Daytrippers is an unheralded 90's indie comedy classic - and you'd think I'd have found a winner. And, just to sweeten the deal, throw in David Cross, who is, for my money, one of the funniest comedians around (despite a willingness to do some horrible material).

I hate this show.

Or, more precisely, I hated the first few episodes. Not remotely funny. Trying so very hard to be "quirky." Just generally annoying. Others continued to heap praises upon it, and I just didn't get it.

And then a funny thing happened. For a couple episodes, David Cross disappeared. And they brought in Liza Minelli. And it got funny. Really funny. Everything sort of fell into place, the writers stopped trying so hard, and it started to feel like a real show. A real show I could actually enjoy.

Which, as an avowed David Cross fan, is a difficult thing to say, but I think I've nailed down the problem. While David Cross is funny, he's always funny in his own way. On a show like this, where they are trying for a very specific and delicate style of humor, throwing in a wrong note completely ruins the whole thing, and, since David Cross can really only do one tone, he threw off the balance they needed. Much like Will Farrell's dismantling of Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back or that episode of Undeclared, introducing the wrong style of comedy can completely ruin a fledgeling TV show. (I would like to go on the record as stating that, unlike Will Farrell, David Cross is at least funny in the context of his stand-up act, or on Mr. Show. Will Farrell is never funny. Ever.)

Rating: C (Needs more Liza, less David)

Topics: sitcoms, television

A while back, I was complaining that new TV shows seem to be ripping off the same shows over and over, shows that I'm really not too wild about to begin with. So I'm pretty pleased to see a show rip off a show I liked the first time around. A Minute with Stan Hooper is pretty much Newhart. Easily flustered uptight guy moves to wacky small town. People drive him nuts. Wackiness ensues. It's a good formula, especially with the right cast, which Stan Hooper certainly has.

Norm MacDonald stars as the title character, who is an Andy Rooney or Charles Kurault type commentator who decides to move to small town America. Norm plays a very slight variation on his usual character, which is to say he gets to do his "what the hell is wrong with you?" shtick but drops the smug comebacks and put-downs. Personally, I have no problem with Norm's usual persona, but this version of Norm (Norm 2.0?) may be palatable for viewers with lower levels of smugness tolerance than I have.

More exciting is the supporting cast, most notably Penelope Ann Miller. I missed Penelope Ann Miller, so I'm very pleased she's back. Her character (Stan's wife) is a little less loopy than her usual character, but she seems to be fixing that as time goes on. Other notable castings include Fred Willard and Reagan Dale Neis, both of whom were on the unfairly unwatched Maybe It's Me.

Overall, the show's nothing fabulous, eliciting maybe 3 or 4 real laughs in each half hour episode, but that's more than have been induced in the entire runs of Everybody Loves Raymod, Will and Grace, and The King of Queens put together, so I can't really complain.

Rating: B (Nothing groundbreaking, but made me laugh)

Topics: sitcoms, television

As a result of compulsive viewing of America's Next Top Model over the summer, I had waaaay too much awareness of Eve before it aired, since promotional spots for it (along with All of Us and Rock Me Baby)aired continuously. Compared to those two shows, Eve looked, by far, to be the best of the bunch. And, sadly, it is.

Which is not to say Eve remotely resembles a good show. Whatever charisma and acting skills Eve displayed in Barbershop have mysteriously vanished, so either she had some incredibly good direction in Barbershop, or she is getting incredibly bad direction here. Matters are not helped by the additon of Jason George to the cast, who is perhaps the stagiest actor this side of Rebecca Pidgeon. For those of you who missed out on Platinum (which took last year's award for "Show That Comes Closest to Being Good Without Actually Being Good") Jason George played the uptight pair of brothers who run a record label. His incredible stiffness was balanced out by Sticky Fingaz' overly earnest, but incredibly unschooled, performances. It made for a fascinating opportunity to observe the full spectrum of bad acting, which, I guess, counts for something.

Here, Mr. George is up against Eve, who apparently has been told that "nervous" is the only emotion her character can possess. Even when chatting with her girlfriends. More amusing than actually watching the show is to pretend that the director is some greenhorn film school grad who read about WIlliam Friedkin's attempts to enhance the jitteryness of his actors on the set of The Exorcist and has taken to threatening Eve with a handgun throughout shooting. Except instead of firing it into the ceiling at random to make the cast properly twitchy, he keeps the gun perfectly trained at his leading lady at all times, thus explaining her inability to act relaxed.

My rule of thumb is that any time I invent stories to explain what's going on off-camera, the show is probably no good. So, I guess Eve is no good. End of story.

Rating: C- (Barely Passable)

Topics: sitcoms, television

Now that we've had the first official cancellation of the Fall 2003 season, I suppose it's about time that I get on the ball and start reviewing some of them (before they're all gone)

And what better way to kick off the season of reviews than with the very first cancelled show, Luis, starring everyone's favorite Hey, It's That Guy!, Luis Guzmán. Now, I like Luis Guzmán as much as the next guy, and in most cases, significantly more. It certainly doesn't hurt that he tends to show up in the works of Steven Soderbergh and P. T. Anderson, but, even when appearing in lesser works, does an admirable job of improving the situation, which, really, is the sign of a truly impressive character actor.

So I shudder to think what this sitcom would be like if it starred, say, Paul Rodriguez as an irascible doughnut shop/apartment building owner. As it is, it's dreadful. Luis's daughter dates a listless white painter. Luis doesn't like him. Funny! Luis kicks him out of his apartment building. Funny! Luis comes to a reconciliation with his daughter. Touching!

It's pretty apparent that they're going for a tell-it-like-it-is All In The Family style sitcom, which has never been done well. Have you tried watching All In The Family lately? It hasn't aged well. In fact, I would hazard that of all the "beloved" sitcoms of the 70's and 80's it's the hardest to sit through today. If you're going to lift liberally from an old sitcom, make it a good one. Who wouldn't want to see Luis Guzmán find a sexy young djinni in a bottle? Or Luis Guzmán married to a witch? Or Luis Guzmán trapped on an island with Jim Backus (either a Weekend at Bernie's-style romp with Jim Backus' corpse or a digitally reanimated Jim Backus -- your call)? I should totally be a TV executive. Maybe my shows would stay on past October...

Rating: D- (I can't quite bring myself to give Luis Guzmán an 'F')

Topics: sitcoms, television

You call this a John Ritter show? Not once in the pilot episode of 8 Simples Rules for Dating My Teenage Daughter did he trip over a couch! Not once did he overhear someone discussing a plumbing problem and assume they were talking about sex! Not once did he threaten Felipe with a cleaver!

All right, so I wasn't really expecting the last of these, but it really couldn't have hurt the show. Despite what the title implies, this sitcom doesn't involve a father trying to secretly date his own teenage daughters (which at least would have been bizarrely fascinating for at least one episode), but rather about a father who has apparently never talked to his children and now has to supervise them. The whole premise comes across as completely bizarre. The parents are allegedly married, but the parenting arrangement, as they describe it, sounds like the mother has had custody for the past 15 years. I guess in this world parents can't see their children and work at the same time. Fine.

So the show has a blatantly unrealistic premise, is free of physical comedy, and isn't the incest comedy it bills itself as. Is it good enough to overcome these problems?

Not even close. As mentioned previously, ABC is intent this season on producing the most inoffensive pablum they can generate in the name of "family comedy." I'm not sure why they think this is the way to save their network from its ratings coma, and, frankly, I think we as a viewing public should be insulted. I guess the idea is that we're not capable of working a full day at work and still be able to appreciate and enjoy a program that requires us to think at all. The small part of me that remembers that I own something like 2 shares of Disney stock clearly hopes this to be true, but the larger part - the part that enjoys watching televison - would really like to think that the viewing public can certainly handle quality programming, no matter how brain-numbing their daylight activities may be. Of course, the pilot of 8 Simple Rules got great rating, so I guess ABC was right. Great.

Rating: D (The Very Definition of Mediocrity)

Topics: sitcoms, television

The season's just starting, but looks like we alredy have a strong contender for "Worst Individual Scene." The opening "comedy" sequence of Life With Bonnie is horrible. Really horrible. Everyone's overslept! One of the kids is pretending to be sick! Dad can't find his shoes! Mom's sweather is too tight! The wacky maid is nowhere to be found! Mom falls down while having the kids stretch her sweater! Funny!

I've been hearing for months now that ABC's stated policy for the fall season is to produce an unwavering slate of MOR, thoroughly unoffensive, complete familiar programming, but I wasn't really prepared to see it quite yet. This opening segment makes Dharma and Greg or Mad About You seem edgy and avant-garde. It's trite, clichéd, and extraordinarily unfunny.

Which is why I was very surprised when I found myself laughing out loud five minutes later. After the painful family comedy sequences, we get to see Bonnie (yes, this is one of those shows in which everyone seems to use their real first name) hosting her morning talk show. I read that this show was developed around this premise, and it's really a shame they didn't keep to their initial focus better. The talk show bits, from what I've read, are largely improvised and feel like a talk show gone awry. The guests quickly become drunk; Bonnie makes fun of them; the sidekick disappears. All-in-all, it feels like a good talk show segment. Not one of the vaguely interesting celebrity interviews, but one of the "Johnny laughing at a human figure with an axe in its crotch" bits. It's a good premise, and I'd be perfectly happy to just watch that for a half-hour.

But throughout the genuinely entertaining morning show, they cut back to the family comedy bits. One of the children and his friend are forced by the maid to fold clothing. "I think we're going to be late for school," sez one. "That depends on how good we are at ironing," replies the other. Man, this is painful stuff.

And it doesn't get any better. Instead of sticking with the morning show, we get Bonnie on a date with her husband and a boring doctor couple. She doesn't like socializing with them! They fight! Funny. I suppose bickering counts as entertainment these days (at least juding by the success of Everybody Loves Raymond and its ilk), but this is witless, dull, annoying bickering. Then there's some schmaltz. Just what this show needed.

Overall, the show has promise. One can only hope that post-pilot retooling focused on increasing the improv talk show bits. And perhaps they could remove some of the children. Especially the one that looks like Bruce Davison. Seeing a three foot tall Bruce Davison man-child is not something I need to see on a semi-regular basis.

Rating: C- (1/3 Good, 2/3 Aggressively Bad)

Topics: sitcoms, television

I've come to the conclusion that Freaks and Geeks is the best television show ever. Hands down. I've watched every episode a half-dozen times, and it's still perfect. One short season, and they still managed to give all the characters at least one episode where we really got to learn about them. It gave us more characterization in one episode than on the entire run of Law & Order.

That having been said, I'm glad they cancelled it. Sure, at the time it seemed like an insanely bad idea and the ultimate example of network incompetence, but in retrospect, I'm not sure I could ever be satisfied with another season. The first season ends perfectly, and watching Daniel hang out with the geeks as Lyndsey closes her relationship with Nick and becomes a Deadhead with Kim is such a perfect way to leave this world that we were so lucky to watch for eighteen hours of our lives. I'm fairly convince there is simply no way they could have continued with that level of quality for another season.

As if to underscore that point, producer/writer Judd Apatow has assembled many of the crew and a few of the cast of Freaks and Geeksfor a half-hour sitcom about college life, entitled Undeclared. Given that each episode is half as long, he loses the "Freaks" end of the equation and just focuses in on a handful of geeks, which is probably fair, given that everyone is a geek freshman year of college. Jay Baruchel plays Steven, the king of the geeks, who, while admittedly a fine geek, just doesn't have that vulnerability that John Francis Daley, Samm Levine, and Martin Starr were able to project so admirably. Carla Gallo is fine as the girl who is having trouble with her boyfriend at home (played with amazing brilliance by another Freaks and Geeks refugee, Jason Segal), but nothing special.

I don't know. The show's funny. The writing is good. The acting is good (especially Monica Keena as the initially stressed-out, now apparently drug-hazed girl). It's a good show.

But it's not Freaks and Geeks.

I know I should move on, but it's hard, especially with regular appearances by F&G cast members. I'm hoping I'll grow to accept this show as it is, but, until then, it's just kind of disappointing.

Rating: B+ (It Has Some Big Shoes to Fill)

Topics: sitcoms, television