This look back at movies in 2006 is a personal favorite among the pieces I've actually had published somewhere.
I had a good deal of freedom with this but it's a general, not really a personal, look back. I had to acknowledge a few movies I haven't even seen, but the opinions are about 90% mine. And I'm happy with how it turned out.
I'll post a personal top 10 movies of 2006 later in the week.
And also, a quick mention of a worthwhile section of Entertainment Weekly's year end issue. Their "Great Performances" are well chosen, as usual. Already having covered Helen Mirren (The Queen, Elizabeth I, Prime Suspect), Sacha Baron Cohen (Borat, Talladega Nights), Kiefer Sutherland (24, no mention of The Sentinel—heh), Beyoncé (Dreamgirls but really more for B'Day and its single Irreplaceable and music video Ring the Alarm), Daniel Craig (Casino Royale), Stephen Colbert (The Colbert Report, White House Correspondents' Dinner), Justin Timberlake (FutureSex/LoveSounds) and Spike Lee (Inside Man, When the Levees Broke) in their "Entertainers of the Year" section, the Great Performances include:
Jennifer Hudson and Eddie Murphy in Dreamgirls
Penélope Cruz in Volver
Kate Winslet in Little Children
Forest Whitaker and James McAvoy in The Last King of Scotland
Rufus Wainwright's Live At Carnegie Hall concert
James Callis on Battlestar Galactica
Alec Baldwin on 30 Rock
Martin Scorsese for The Departed
Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Ryan Gosling in Half Nelson
Rinko Kikuchi in Babel
The Women of Big Love (Jeanne Tripplehorn, Chloe Sëvigny, Ginnifer Goodwin)
And also Bill Nighy for the play The Vertical Hour, the guys from the Mac ads and OK Go at the MTV Video Music Awards.
And their "Breakouts" section finds room for America Ferrera (Ugly Betty), Abigail Breslin (Little Miss Sunshine), Emily Blunt (The Devil Wears Prada, who has better stuff ahead of her I'm sure), Masi Oka (Heroes) and kicks off with the cast of High School Musical.
It's a big miss to not mention the dual achievement of Leonardo DiCaprio (The Departed and Blood Diamond). Michael Sheen's standout support in The Queen and 24's hypeworthy couple Gregory Itzin and Jean Smart are also notable absences. But you have to draw the line somewhere, and EW did a fine job.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Latest reviews
I'll have end of the year stuff coming soon but for now my latest reviews...
Dreamgirls
The History Boys
We Are Marshall
Charlotte's Web
Sometimes editing hurts.
Dreamgirls
The History Boys
We Are Marshall
Charlotte's Web
Sometimes editing hurts.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Globe reactions
Late, as usual, but here we go.
Nominees are here if you want to follow along.
It's a fairly blah list overall, despite some very deserving (but mostly expected) nominees. Babel leading the field in the film categories pretty much sums it up. I wasn't excited by that movie and I'm not excited by these nominations.
Bobby's semi-surprising nomination as best drama film stands out as particularly bad. The Globes often make lousy choices but as I noted in my previous post I give them credit for skipping over Crash last year (although it's likely they would've nominated it if the voters knew it was headed for its Oscar victory, Globe voters always want to beat Oscar and Emmy to the punch). But Bobby, a sloppy drama that merits zero award consideration, is a far worse film than Crash.
Another poor choice worth singling out: Evangeline Lilly's lead actress nomination for Lost. Yeah, that's right, Kate is the only acting nominee from Lost. It would be hard to justify in any year, but it's especially moronic when Sally Field in Brothers and Sisters (how'd she miss out?), Jeanne Tripplehorn in Big Love and Mary McDonnell in Battlestar Galactica go unnominated.
And yet they nominated Ellen Pompeo for Grey's Anatomy. Lame.
TV was pretty much as expected, but it was a respectable surprise to see Masi Oka actually get a nom as Heroes' favorite Hiro.
It's par for the course these days to undervalue The Sopranos (Edie Falco got a nom but not Gandolfini or the series) and skip over Battlestar Galactica, Deadwood and The Shield. The Globes had a chance to right Emmy's wrong and recognize Forest Whitaker's work in The Shield, but they didn't. It's even weirder since one of the year's biggest Globe trends was double nominations and Whitaker is unsurprisingly nominated for his work in The Last King of Scotland.
Among the actual double nominees: Toni Collette, Emily Blunt, Chiwetel Ejiofor (a real surprise nominee in film's lead actor comedy category for Kinky Boots) and Annette Bening.
Clint Eastwood and Leonardo DiCaprio scored two nominations in the same category (directing and lead actor drama respectively). Clint can be a double nominee come Oscar time but, due to category rules, Leo can't. That causes concern that his two great performances this year may divide his support and he could wind up without an Oscar nomination. That would be a shame, since he truly is the year's Best Actor thanks to his career-best work in The Departed.
Helen Mirren also competes with herself in the telefilm lead actress category (for PBS' Prime Suspect and HBO's Elizabeth I, neither of which I've seen) and she trumps all multiple Globe nominees with a third mention for The Queen. Unless her TV work splits votes it's hard to imagine her not winning two awards. (If she does split votes maybe Annette Bening will make up for her Emmy loss, or Bleak House's very deserving Gillian Anderson.)
One of the biggest Globe surprises (besides Chiwetel Ejiofor): Maggie Gyllenhaal's best actress nomination for Sherrybaby, a movie which hasn't even made $300,000 in the U.S. Love Maggie, haven't seen the movie yet.
However, World Trade Center, another, much more successful, film featuring Maggie Gyllenhaal was shut out. Ditto fellow 9/11 drama United 93.
On the other hand arty suburban nightmare Little Children fared a little better than expected (a good thing). Nominations for best drama film, best actress and best screenplay might finally convince New Line to open the movie in more than a handful of cities.
The inaugural Animated film category was just as expected with Cars, Happy Feet and Monster House getting nominations. Go penguins!
Foreign language film also was predictable but satisfying with U.S. productions Apocalypto and Letters From Iwo Jima nominated with Germany's The Lives of Others and Spanish language Pan's Labyrinth and Volver. I haven't seen the American ones yet but the other three are easily among the year's best films.
Is it a good thing or a bad thing when foreign film is a much more exciting race than the main best picture categories?
Nominees are here if you want to follow along.
It's a fairly blah list overall, despite some very deserving (but mostly expected) nominees. Babel leading the field in the film categories pretty much sums it up. I wasn't excited by that movie and I'm not excited by these nominations.
Bobby's semi-surprising nomination as best drama film stands out as particularly bad. The Globes often make lousy choices but as I noted in my previous post I give them credit for skipping over Crash last year (although it's likely they would've nominated it if the voters knew it was headed for its Oscar victory, Globe voters always want to beat Oscar and Emmy to the punch). But Bobby, a sloppy drama that merits zero award consideration, is a far worse film than Crash.
Another poor choice worth singling out: Evangeline Lilly's lead actress nomination for Lost. Yeah, that's right, Kate is the only acting nominee from Lost. It would be hard to justify in any year, but it's especially moronic when Sally Field in Brothers and Sisters (how'd she miss out?), Jeanne Tripplehorn in Big Love and Mary McDonnell in Battlestar Galactica go unnominated.
And yet they nominated Ellen Pompeo for Grey's Anatomy. Lame.
TV was pretty much as expected, but it was a respectable surprise to see Masi Oka actually get a nom as Heroes' favorite Hiro.
It's par for the course these days to undervalue The Sopranos (Edie Falco got a nom but not Gandolfini or the series) and skip over Battlestar Galactica, Deadwood and The Shield. The Globes had a chance to right Emmy's wrong and recognize Forest Whitaker's work in The Shield, but they didn't. It's even weirder since one of the year's biggest Globe trends was double nominations and Whitaker is unsurprisingly nominated for his work in The Last King of Scotland.
Among the actual double nominees: Toni Collette, Emily Blunt, Chiwetel Ejiofor (a real surprise nominee in film's lead actor comedy category for Kinky Boots) and Annette Bening.
Clint Eastwood and Leonardo DiCaprio scored two nominations in the same category (directing and lead actor drama respectively). Clint can be a double nominee come Oscar time but, due to category rules, Leo can't. That causes concern that his two great performances this year may divide his support and he could wind up without an Oscar nomination. That would be a shame, since he truly is the year's Best Actor thanks to his career-best work in The Departed.
Helen Mirren also competes with herself in the telefilm lead actress category (for PBS' Prime Suspect and HBO's Elizabeth I, neither of which I've seen) and she trumps all multiple Globe nominees with a third mention for The Queen. Unless her TV work splits votes it's hard to imagine her not winning two awards. (If she does split votes maybe Annette Bening will make up for her Emmy loss, or Bleak House's very deserving Gillian Anderson.)
One of the biggest Globe surprises (besides Chiwetel Ejiofor): Maggie Gyllenhaal's best actress nomination for Sherrybaby, a movie which hasn't even made $300,000 in the U.S. Love Maggie, haven't seen the movie yet.
However, World Trade Center, another, much more successful, film featuring Maggie Gyllenhaal was shut out. Ditto fellow 9/11 drama United 93.
On the other hand arty suburban nightmare Little Children fared a little better than expected (a good thing). Nominations for best drama film, best actress and best screenplay might finally convince New Line to open the movie in more than a handful of cities.
The inaugural Animated film category was just as expected with Cars, Happy Feet and Monster House getting nominations. Go penguins!
Foreign language film also was predictable but satisfying with U.S. productions Apocalypto and Letters From Iwo Jima nominated with Germany's The Lives of Others and Spanish language Pan's Labyrinth and Volver. I haven't seen the American ones yet but the other three are easily among the year's best films.
Is it a good thing or a bad thing when foreign film is a much more exciting race than the main best picture categories?
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Critics awards and Globes preview
The Golden Globe nominations will be announced in just a few hours but before the film award focus shifts to those I should acknowledge several critics groups that have announced awards in the past week or so.
The Los Angeles film critics and the National Board of Review both selected Clint Eastwood's Letters From Iwo Jima as the best film of 2006. I haven't seen the film yet but I look forward to it, especially since I immensely enjoyed Eastwood's WWII companion piece Flags of our Fathers.
The New York film critics went with United 93, a critical favorite earlier this year.
All three of these groups selected The Last King of Scotland's Forest Whitaker and The Queen's Helen Mirren as the year's best actor and actress (although Whitaker tied with Borat's Sacha Baron Cohen in Los Angeles).
Other key critics groups to announce awards include Boston film critics (who selected The Departed as the year's best film), Washington D.C. critics (United 93), New York online critics (The Queen) and San Francisco critics (Little Children). (And if you're dying to see their choices in other categories check out Movie City News.)
The Broadcast Film Critics also announced their nominations in a number of categories (they seem to pride themselves on trying to predict Oscar nominations, which makes their selections less interesting than other organizations) and AFI announced its annual top ten list of American films (and also TV shows).
2006 has developed into a pretty respectable year for films and the diversity in these awards demonstrates that to at least some degree. But the Globes will be the first awards of the year to really catch the general public's interest (and the only until Oscar nominations come out).
This year's presumed Oscar frontrunners will be scattered across three categories at the Globes making for a very broad race. Expect to see The Departed and The Queen nominated for best drama film, Dreamgirls and Little Miss Sunshine competing in best comedy/musical and Letters From Iwo Jima regulated to the foreign film category (per Globe rules). (And yes those five films are the top Oscar contenders for Best Picture.)
Babel has deservedly seen its Oscar hopes fade (due mostly to poor box office) but it should be up for drama film here along with some combination of Flags of our Fathers, United 93, World Trade Center, Notes on a Scandal, The Pursuit of Happyness and The Painted Veil. While Borat, The Devil Wears Prada, For Your Consideration and Stranger Than Fiction will be angling to join in the comedy/musical fight. Happy Feet, one of the year's best films, would have a stronger shot at a comedy/musical nomination if the Globes hadn't recently introduced an animated film category.
Of course we could be in for a repeat of last year's unexpected Globe nominations, where smaller, more unlikely, films like Match Point and A History of Violence made the cut. Films as varied as Bobby, Children of Men, Half Nelson, Little Children, Miss Potter and A Prairie Home Companion would fit the bill this year.
It's worth noting that last year's "Best" Picture come Oscar time wasn't even nominated by the Globes. They'll always have that working in their favor.
On the TV side I'm most interested in how several new series will fare. I expect noms for Heroes (drama series), Ugly Betty (comedy series, lead actress and maybe supporting actress for Vanessa Williams), 30 Rock (lead actor and possibly comedy series), Brothers and Sisters (lead actress for Sally Field, longer shot Calista Flockhart, even longer shot Rachel Griffiths and fairly long shot for drama series) and probably Studio 60 (maybe drama series, maybe lead actor/actress, maybe Sarah Paulson in supporting). Showtime's Dexter also likely has a shot at drama series and lead actor nominations.
Other key comedy contenders include Entourage, The Office, My Name is Earl, Scrubs, Desperate Housewives, Weeds and presumably Arrested Development (which aired five episodes in 2006). There's also Two and a Half Men if they want to be boring, or It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia if they want to be adventurous. Curb Your Enthusiasm sits this year out.
Dramas eligible include 24, The Sopranos, Deadwood, Big Love, Lost, Grey's Anatomy, House, The Shield, Battlestar Galactica and Rescue Me. Nominating any series outside of this list or the new contenders mentioned above would be a real surprise (even the critically acclaimed Friday Night Lights, given the competition).
By the time anyone reads this nominations will probably have been announced and you'll know how right or wrong I am.
The Los Angeles film critics and the National Board of Review both selected Clint Eastwood's Letters From Iwo Jima as the best film of 2006. I haven't seen the film yet but I look forward to it, especially since I immensely enjoyed Eastwood's WWII companion piece Flags of our Fathers.
The New York film critics went with United 93, a critical favorite earlier this year.
All three of these groups selected The Last King of Scotland's Forest Whitaker and The Queen's Helen Mirren as the year's best actor and actress (although Whitaker tied with Borat's Sacha Baron Cohen in Los Angeles).
Other key critics groups to announce awards include Boston film critics (who selected The Departed as the year's best film), Washington D.C. critics (United 93), New York online critics (The Queen) and San Francisco critics (Little Children). (And if you're dying to see their choices in other categories check out Movie City News.)
The Broadcast Film Critics also announced their nominations in a number of categories (they seem to pride themselves on trying to predict Oscar nominations, which makes their selections less interesting than other organizations) and AFI announced its annual top ten list of American films (and also TV shows).
2006 has developed into a pretty respectable year for films and the diversity in these awards demonstrates that to at least some degree. But the Globes will be the first awards of the year to really catch the general public's interest (and the only until Oscar nominations come out).
This year's presumed Oscar frontrunners will be scattered across three categories at the Globes making for a very broad race. Expect to see The Departed and The Queen nominated for best drama film, Dreamgirls and Little Miss Sunshine competing in best comedy/musical and Letters From Iwo Jima regulated to the foreign film category (per Globe rules). (And yes those five films are the top Oscar contenders for Best Picture.)
Babel has deservedly seen its Oscar hopes fade (due mostly to poor box office) but it should be up for drama film here along with some combination of Flags of our Fathers, United 93, World Trade Center, Notes on a Scandal, The Pursuit of Happyness and The Painted Veil. While Borat, The Devil Wears Prada, For Your Consideration and Stranger Than Fiction will be angling to join in the comedy/musical fight. Happy Feet, one of the year's best films, would have a stronger shot at a comedy/musical nomination if the Globes hadn't recently introduced an animated film category.
Of course we could be in for a repeat of last year's unexpected Globe nominations, where smaller, more unlikely, films like Match Point and A History of Violence made the cut. Films as varied as Bobby, Children of Men, Half Nelson, Little Children, Miss Potter and A Prairie Home Companion would fit the bill this year.
It's worth noting that last year's "Best" Picture come Oscar time wasn't even nominated by the Globes. They'll always have that working in their favor.
On the TV side I'm most interested in how several new series will fare. I expect noms for Heroes (drama series), Ugly Betty (comedy series, lead actress and maybe supporting actress for Vanessa Williams), 30 Rock (lead actor and possibly comedy series), Brothers and Sisters (lead actress for Sally Field, longer shot Calista Flockhart, even longer shot Rachel Griffiths and fairly long shot for drama series) and probably Studio 60 (maybe drama series, maybe lead actor/actress, maybe Sarah Paulson in supporting). Showtime's Dexter also likely has a shot at drama series and lead actor nominations.
Other key comedy contenders include Entourage, The Office, My Name is Earl, Scrubs, Desperate Housewives, Weeds and presumably Arrested Development (which aired five episodes in 2006). There's also Two and a Half Men if they want to be boring, or It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia if they want to be adventurous. Curb Your Enthusiasm sits this year out.
Dramas eligible include 24, The Sopranos, Deadwood, Big Love, Lost, Grey's Anatomy, House, The Shield, Battlestar Galactica and Rescue Me. Nominating any series outside of this list or the new contenders mentioned above would be a real surprise (even the critically acclaimed Friday Night Lights, given the competition).
By the time anyone reads this nominations will probably have been announced and you'll know how right or wrong I am.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Catching up
Well if I'm not going to do real updates the least I can do is link to some of my outside reviews.
The latest, just in time to celebrate 5 well deserved Grammy nominations for the Dixie Chicks, is Shut Up and Sing. It's an entertaining and compelling documentary, especially enjoyable if you're a Dixie Chicks fan like myself. But you don't need to be to appreciate their story. It's a wild ride and really underlines how much the political winds have shifted in just a couple of years. (The review probably contains less analysis than any other I've written but I feel the point is really to celebrate and enjoy their story. However, it is definitely a high quality doc, entirely deserving of theatrical release.)
Last week brought The Nativity Story and Fur. Neither of them particularly good. Fur is slightly interesting in a quirky way but it's also one of the year's biggest disappointments, considering how good director Steven Shainberg's previous film, Secretary, was.
But there are a lot of good movies out. My recommended films sidebar hasn't been so large in quite some time, and there are several good movies still awaiting release. This year started off horribly and suffered through an unbearable summer, but things started rolling in late July/early August and 2006 is finishing with an exceptional fall season.
Happy Feet and Casino Royale have ruled the box office charts for the last three weeks and deservedly so. There's a wide mix in the marketplace right now of highly worthwhile mainstream and art films.
Stranger Than Fiction is a film that falls somewhere inbetween and is unfortunately getting a little lost in a crowded environment. Audiences are sure to find it in time (and appreciate what is easily Will Ferrell's best performance ever and work from Emma Thompson that equals her career-best) but I recommend seeing it sooner rather than later.
And finally, this weekend's The Holiday is one of the strongest romantic comedies in some time, with an excellent cast and intelligent quality storytelling from writer/director Nancy Meyers. It's unabashedly entertaining and perfect for the season. Hopefully it will join Happy Feet, Casino Royale and Borat as one of fall's big hits that also just happen to be good films.
The latest, just in time to celebrate 5 well deserved Grammy nominations for the Dixie Chicks, is Shut Up and Sing. It's an entertaining and compelling documentary, especially enjoyable if you're a Dixie Chicks fan like myself. But you don't need to be to appreciate their story. It's a wild ride and really underlines how much the political winds have shifted in just a couple of years. (The review probably contains less analysis than any other I've written but I feel the point is really to celebrate and enjoy their story. However, it is definitely a high quality doc, entirely deserving of theatrical release.)
Last week brought The Nativity Story and Fur. Neither of them particularly good. Fur is slightly interesting in a quirky way but it's also one of the year's biggest disappointments, considering how good director Steven Shainberg's previous film, Secretary, was.
But there are a lot of good movies out. My recommended films sidebar hasn't been so large in quite some time, and there are several good movies still awaiting release. This year started off horribly and suffered through an unbearable summer, but things started rolling in late July/early August and 2006 is finishing with an exceptional fall season.
Happy Feet and Casino Royale have ruled the box office charts for the last three weeks and deservedly so. There's a wide mix in the marketplace right now of highly worthwhile mainstream and art films.
Stranger Than Fiction is a film that falls somewhere inbetween and is unfortunately getting a little lost in a crowded environment. Audiences are sure to find it in time (and appreciate what is easily Will Ferrell's best performance ever and work from Emma Thompson that equals her career-best) but I recommend seeing it sooner rather than later.
And finally, this weekend's The Holiday is one of the strongest romantic comedies in some time, with an excellent cast and intelligent quality storytelling from writer/director Nancy Meyers. It's unabashedly entertaining and perfect for the season. Hopefully it will join Happy Feet, Casino Royale and Borat as one of fall's big hits that also just happen to be good films.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Fall TV Update
Don't tune in to CBS tonight expecting to see a new episode of Smith, one of my fall season favorites. Chances are you weren't planning on it anyway.
Smith, rather sadly, appears to have suffered the grand indignity of being the first fall season casualty. Poor ratings on a network that doesn't need to tolerate audience apathy seem to be the cause for the rapid yanking (only three episodes aired).
Meanwhile, over on NBC (which needs to tolerate audience apathy pretty much seven days a week) the classy thriller Kidnapped has been told to wrap it up at 13 episodes. More insulting: the show has been banished from its 10 pm Wednesday timeslot to the TV Siberia of Saturday nights. But at least it appears NBC is giving it a chance to wrap up its storyline (and it's a sure bet for a DVD release).
Fox has made several changes to their schedule as well, banishing Vanished to Friday nights where it can die quietly and promoting Justice to Mondays where the network hopes the lame procedural can pull a House and grow an audience over time. Not that that strategy has worked yet for Bones.
They've also pulled Happy Hour (aka the Worst New Show) from the schedule, saying it will return but keeping the details so vague it's obvious they hope people will simply forget it ever aired. And seriously Fox, why did it air?
Oh and The CW is switching their Monday and Sunday night program blocks. Will anyone even notice?
But back to Smith. I haven't had time to watch the two episodes that aired after the pilot and it's possible the show started to flounder creatively, but this still has to be considered a disappointment for fans of good TV. CBS took a chance with a show that, well, took chances. And it turned out that didn't fit with the network's formulaic schedule.
I'm not sure how many episodes of Smith were produced or if they'll get to complete their order. At this point CBS won't even say the show is dead, but the network has plenty of midseason contenders to fill the holes created by fall flops (both Shark on Thursdays and especially The Class on Mondays are struggling as well).
The medical drama 3 lbs. with Stanley Tucci and Mark Feuerstein has already been pegged a likely replacement for Smith, while David Spade/Patrick Warburton relationship comedy Rules of Engagement is a clear fit for Mondays. There's also the multi-generational soap Waterfront that could work on Thursdays.
Smith falls down. CBS moves on. And so it goes.
Better ratings news for other standout shows: Ugly Betty, Heroes (picked up for a full season), Jericho and Brothers & Sisters, which are all performing well in their timeslots. The Nine's debut was underwhelming but as long as it doesn't bleed viewers the way Invasion did it should survive, and even that show got one full season which is all The Nine needs anyway.
November's right around the corner. Then things get really ugly.
Smith, rather sadly, appears to have suffered the grand indignity of being the first fall season casualty. Poor ratings on a network that doesn't need to tolerate audience apathy seem to be the cause for the rapid yanking (only three episodes aired).
Meanwhile, over on NBC (which needs to tolerate audience apathy pretty much seven days a week) the classy thriller Kidnapped has been told to wrap it up at 13 episodes. More insulting: the show has been banished from its 10 pm Wednesday timeslot to the TV Siberia of Saturday nights. But at least it appears NBC is giving it a chance to wrap up its storyline (and it's a sure bet for a DVD release).
Fox has made several changes to their schedule as well, banishing Vanished to Friday nights where it can die quietly and promoting Justice to Mondays where the network hopes the lame procedural can pull a House and grow an audience over time. Not that that strategy has worked yet for Bones.
They've also pulled Happy Hour (aka the Worst New Show) from the schedule, saying it will return but keeping the details so vague it's obvious they hope people will simply forget it ever aired. And seriously Fox, why did it air?
Oh and The CW is switching their Monday and Sunday night program blocks. Will anyone even notice?
But back to Smith. I haven't had time to watch the two episodes that aired after the pilot and it's possible the show started to flounder creatively, but this still has to be considered a disappointment for fans of good TV. CBS took a chance with a show that, well, took chances. And it turned out that didn't fit with the network's formulaic schedule.
I'm not sure how many episodes of Smith were produced or if they'll get to complete their order. At this point CBS won't even say the show is dead, but the network has plenty of midseason contenders to fill the holes created by fall flops (both Shark on Thursdays and especially The Class on Mondays are struggling as well).
The medical drama 3 lbs. with Stanley Tucci and Mark Feuerstein has already been pegged a likely replacement for Smith, while David Spade/Patrick Warburton relationship comedy Rules of Engagement is a clear fit for Mondays. There's also the multi-generational soap Waterfront that could work on Thursdays.
Smith falls down. CBS moves on. And so it goes.
Better ratings news for other standout shows: Ugly Betty, Heroes (picked up for a full season), Jericho and Brothers & Sisters, which are all performing well in their timeslots. The Nine's debut was underwhelming but as long as it doesn't bleed viewers the way Invasion did it should survive, and even that show got one full season which is all The Nine needs anyway.
November's right around the corner. Then things get really ugly.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Frakkin' toasters
If you know what that subject line means then you probably also know that Battlestar Galactica returns for a third season tonight on Sci Fi Channel (with encores airing Sunday, Monday and Tuesday).
Last season the show was one of my picks for the season's best and having seen rough cuts (without visual effects, sadly) of four new episodes I can happily report that BSG is still great TV. And no not "great sci-fi TV" or "great for Sci Fi TV." Just great TV. One of the best dramas on TV, regardless of genre or network. If you like 24, if you like Lost, if you like the HBO or FX dramas, I can pretty much guarantee you will like this.
Battlestar is full of rich human drama, unexpected and provocative political themes that parallel current events, generally excellent ensemble acting (including Oscar-nominated leads Edward James Olmos and Mary McDonnell, remarkable scene stealer James Callis and surprisingly strong model-turned-actress Tricia Helfer) and a documentary-like visual style worthy of a top notch indie film. It's smart, exciting, addictive.
But here's the thing, I wouldn't recommend that anyone who hasn't already been a regular viewer start watching now. The third season is great, dark, dramatic stuff but it's also different in many ways from what the series has been in the past. Newcomers won't have a sense of the tone of the show up to this point, and the drama won't possess the same weight if you haven't followed the journey.
Go back and check out the DVDs of the miniseries and seasons one and two (which is split into two halves). They're all available on Netflix and should be in most video stores as well. Catch yourself up, you'll be glad you did.
Last season the show was one of my picks for the season's best and having seen rough cuts (without visual effects, sadly) of four new episodes I can happily report that BSG is still great TV. And no not "great sci-fi TV" or "great for Sci Fi TV." Just great TV. One of the best dramas on TV, regardless of genre or network. If you like 24, if you like Lost, if you like the HBO or FX dramas, I can pretty much guarantee you will like this.
Battlestar is full of rich human drama, unexpected and provocative political themes that parallel current events, generally excellent ensemble acting (including Oscar-nominated leads Edward James Olmos and Mary McDonnell, remarkable scene stealer James Callis and surprisingly strong model-turned-actress Tricia Helfer) and a documentary-like visual style worthy of a top notch indie film. It's smart, exciting, addictive.
But here's the thing, I wouldn't recommend that anyone who hasn't already been a regular viewer start watching now. The third season is great, dark, dramatic stuff but it's also different in many ways from what the series has been in the past. Newcomers won't have a sense of the tone of the show up to this point, and the drama won't possess the same weight if you haven't followed the journey.
Go back and check out the DVDs of the miniseries and seasons one and two (which is split into two halves). They're all available on Netflix and should be in most video stores as well. Catch yourself up, you'll be glad you did.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Fall TV Top 5: The Nine
The fourth new show of the season that hooked me with just one episode is The Nine. (And based on recent news, we won't be seeing #5 until midseason now. Which is hopefully good for the show, but means I'm really doing a Fall TV Top 4.)
The Nine is one of the season's heavily hyped elaborate "high concept" shows. Nine people are taken hostage in a bank for 52 hours. We'll see what happened during those 52 hours over the course of the season while also seeing how the event changed their lives and created a unique bond among them.
So yes there are flashbacks that will tell us more about the characters, yes there's a large ensemble cast and yes this directly follows Lost on ABC's schedule. Unlike last season's Invasion, which never really caught on, I think The Nine has a good shot at turning into a hit. And if Lost continues to be as frustrating as it was in its second season, and The Nine keeps up the high quality of its pilot...well we might even see a dramatic change in what ABC's most popular Wednesday series is.
The cast of The Nine is populated with familiar TV faces: Chi McBride (Boston Public), Kim Raver (24, Third Watch), Tim Daly (Wings, Eyes), Scott Wolf (Party of Five, Everwood), Lourdes Benedicto (24, ER, NYPD Blue), John Billingsley (Star Trek: Voyager), Owain Yeoman (Kitchen Confidential) and Camille Guaty (Prison Break). And the pilot does a good job of balancing them all. How these characters develop will be critical, since the hostage situation can only be expected to provide material for a full season (let's hope).
But no matter where it leads The Nine is well worth checking out in the early goings.
The Nine is one of the season's heavily hyped elaborate "high concept" shows. Nine people are taken hostage in a bank for 52 hours. We'll see what happened during those 52 hours over the course of the season while also seeing how the event changed their lives and created a unique bond among them.
So yes there are flashbacks that will tell us more about the characters, yes there's a large ensemble cast and yes this directly follows Lost on ABC's schedule. Unlike last season's Invasion, which never really caught on, I think The Nine has a good shot at turning into a hit. And if Lost continues to be as frustrating as it was in its second season, and The Nine keeps up the high quality of its pilot...well we might even see a dramatic change in what ABC's most popular Wednesday series is.
The cast of The Nine is populated with familiar TV faces: Chi McBride (Boston Public), Kim Raver (24, Third Watch), Tim Daly (Wings, Eyes), Scott Wolf (Party of Five, Everwood), Lourdes Benedicto (24, ER, NYPD Blue), John Billingsley (Star Trek: Voyager), Owain Yeoman (Kitchen Confidential) and Camille Guaty (Prison Break). And the pilot does a good job of balancing them all. How these characters develop will be critical, since the hostage situation can only be expected to provide material for a full season (let's hope).
But no matter where it leads The Nine is well worth checking out in the early goings.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Fall TV Top 5: Ugly Betty
Tonight is the night for the new series premiere I'm most excited for people to see: Ugly Betty on ABC.
There's a style, attitude and energy to this show that's like nothing else on TV. It's light, funny, immediately involving and features the actress who everyone has pegged as the season's breakout star: America Ferrera. And in her case it's not just empty hype.
I wrote a little about the show before (back when it was still called "Betty the Ugly," a literal translation of its original telenovela title) and I'm pleased that's it has received a good amount of pre-season attention. Pairing the show with monster hit Grey's Anatomy will hopefully work in Betty's favor (it's much better than the Friday timeslot the show originally was set for).
Hopefully there will be a backwards halo effect since Grey's didn't help lead-out Six Degrees much last week. Betty is a significantly better show and if it becomes a ratings success like the network's Lost and Desperate Housewives were in their first seasons it would be another victory for that all too rare breed: quality network television.
Hopefully it won't face the same sophomore slump as those shows, but I'm way ahead of myself there. Let's just get through the first season and hope we don't get a repeat performance of last season's ABC buzz series.
There's a style, attitude and energy to this show that's like nothing else on TV. It's light, funny, immediately involving and features the actress who everyone has pegged as the season's breakout star: America Ferrera. And in her case it's not just empty hype.
I wrote a little about the show before (back when it was still called "Betty the Ugly," a literal translation of its original telenovela title) and I'm pleased that's it has received a good amount of pre-season attention. Pairing the show with monster hit Grey's Anatomy will hopefully work in Betty's favor (it's much better than the Friday timeslot the show originally was set for).
Hopefully there will be a backwards halo effect since Grey's didn't help lead-out Six Degrees much last week. Betty is a significantly better show and if it becomes a ratings success like the network's Lost and Desperate Housewives were in their first seasons it would be another victory for that all too rare breed: quality network television.
Hopefully it won't face the same sophomore slump as those shows, but I'm way ahead of myself there. Let's just get through the first season and hope we don't get a repeat performance of last season's ABC buzz series.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Fall TV Top 5: Heroes
The concept of NBC's Heroes—"ordinary" people discover they have extraordinary superpowers, but don't know why or what for—sounds like it could be a perfect TV show, or an incredibly ridiculous one. The first episode of the show falls somewhere in the middle, but it's more on the positive side and there's enough that's intriguing to make me optimistic about where this one is going.
Superheroes aren't very common on TV and when they do turn up it's often cartoony. The most important thing to know about Heroes is that it's not like that at all. It's closer to the first two X-Men films' or Batman Begins' approach to superhero mythology, or Lost's "realistic" take on fantasy/sci-fi story elements. This is a show rooted in characters, necessitated by smaller budgets in TV no doubt but also a clear creative intent to make its world relatable and recognizable first, fantastic second.
The best superhero show I've ever seen was Buffy the Vampire Slayer, one of the best superhero stories in any medium of storytelling. After one episode Heroes can only aspire to that show's masterful blend of comedy, drama, horror, romance and action, but the aspiration is clearly there.
Not every storyline in the premiere works—I found one a little too melodramatic (Ali Larter's single mom stripper) and one a little too self-consciously "funny" (Masi Oka's bored Japanese worker)—but I'm very curious to see where this is all heading. And, unless the episode that airs is different from the one I saw, we won't even meet a key player (a police officer played by Alias vet Greg Grunberg) until the second episode.
Also Airing Tonight:
Runaway is officially the first new show of The CW. It's basically The Fugitive if Richard Kimble had a family. A whole family—dad, mom and three kids—goes on the run when the patriarch (Donnie Wahlberg) is falsely accused of murder. It's not bad but the big question is why get wrapped up in another show with an overarching mystery when there are so many—new and returning—on television right now. And also when this show's timeslot competition is Heroes for the immediate future and the return of 24 come January, if Runaway lasts that long. Still, since this one is on CW it may wind up the beneficiary of lowered network expectations.
After watching the second episode of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip I've decided the thing I hate most about the show is that it's not bad. It would be so much easier to simply ignore. It's still way too much like The West Wing to feel fresh, and I still don't really like any of the characters. But tonight's episode goes by pretty fast anyway. And I give them credit for doing something I really didn't expect they would: actually showing us part of the show, within the show.
Superheroes aren't very common on TV and when they do turn up it's often cartoony. The most important thing to know about Heroes is that it's not like that at all. It's closer to the first two X-Men films' or Batman Begins' approach to superhero mythology, or Lost's "realistic" take on fantasy/sci-fi story elements. This is a show rooted in characters, necessitated by smaller budgets in TV no doubt but also a clear creative intent to make its world relatable and recognizable first, fantastic second.
The best superhero show I've ever seen was Buffy the Vampire Slayer, one of the best superhero stories in any medium of storytelling. After one episode Heroes can only aspire to that show's masterful blend of comedy, drama, horror, romance and action, but the aspiration is clearly there.
Not every storyline in the premiere works—I found one a little too melodramatic (Ali Larter's single mom stripper) and one a little too self-consciously "funny" (Masi Oka's bored Japanese worker)—but I'm very curious to see where this is all heading. And, unless the episode that airs is different from the one I saw, we won't even meet a key player (a police officer played by Alias vet Greg Grunberg) until the second episode.
Also Airing Tonight:
Runaway is officially the first new show of The CW. It's basically The Fugitive if Richard Kimble had a family. A whole family—dad, mom and three kids—goes on the run when the patriarch (Donnie Wahlberg) is falsely accused of murder. It's not bad but the big question is why get wrapped up in another show with an overarching mystery when there are so many—new and returning—on television right now. And also when this show's timeslot competition is Heroes for the immediate future and the return of 24 come January, if Runaway lasts that long. Still, since this one is on CW it may wind up the beneficiary of lowered network expectations.
After watching the second episode of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip I've decided the thing I hate most about the show is that it's not bad. It would be so much easier to simply ignore. It's still way too much like The West Wing to feel fresh, and I still don't really like any of the characters. But tonight's episode goes by pretty fast anyway. And I give them credit for doing something I really didn't expect they would: actually showing us part of the show, within the show.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Fall TV: Brothers and Sisters
Brothers and Sisters starts tonight on ABC. It's not one of my top five picks for new shows but I'll be watching it regularly.
So far, the show has been most notable in the entertainment press as the "troubled one" of the new season. The pilot wasn't included with the rest of ABC's pickups in the Fall Preview DVDs that TV writers received back in May. Supposedly that was due to "recasting" a few key roles and "reconceiving" the tone and story of the first episode. Understandable reasons but not the kind of explanations that generate good buzz. And even before the show was picked up there had been negative buzz about how test audiences were reacting, specifically to series star Calista Flockhart (she's a good actress but can be an alienating screen presence). Then, just as production was ramping up, the show lost an executive producer (Marti Noxon who worked on Buffy the Vampire Slayer) due to "creative differences." (She was ultimately replaced by Everwood creator Greg Berlanti.)
All along those working on the show—including executive producer Ken Olin, playwright/creator Jon Robin Baitz and actors Rachel Griffiths and Ron Rifkin—tried their best to reassure the media that everything was fine. They weren't wrong. The first episode of Brothers and Sisters is really pretty good. Revolving around the relationships of a family with two daughters and three sons, all adults, it has that Zwick/Herskovitz high class, character driven soap vibe. And I've been missing that since Once & Again went off the air several seasons ago.
Plus, the show has what everyone was interested in in the first place: an incredible cast. Yes, you get to see Ally McBeal, Brenda Chenowith and Arvin Sloane back on TV (all playing significantly different characters), as well as the recognizable TV faces of Sally Field, Patricia Wettig and Tom Skerritt.
There are a few too many characters for the first episode to handle (Wettig and Sarah Jane Morris—as the family's only daughter-in-law—are barely even introduced) but in a season where so many shows have people doubting their long-term potential Brothers and Sisters deserves some credit for creating a world with a lot left to explore. And at least there's a built in reason for these characters to be together and for the audience to care about them, unlike ABC's generally limp Six Degrees.
I have my doubts about the show's audience appeal but creatively it's off to an interesting start.
So far, the show has been most notable in the entertainment press as the "troubled one" of the new season. The pilot wasn't included with the rest of ABC's pickups in the Fall Preview DVDs that TV writers received back in May. Supposedly that was due to "recasting" a few key roles and "reconceiving" the tone and story of the first episode. Understandable reasons but not the kind of explanations that generate good buzz. And even before the show was picked up there had been negative buzz about how test audiences were reacting, specifically to series star Calista Flockhart (she's a good actress but can be an alienating screen presence). Then, just as production was ramping up, the show lost an executive producer (Marti Noxon who worked on Buffy the Vampire Slayer) due to "creative differences." (She was ultimately replaced by Everwood creator Greg Berlanti.)
All along those working on the show—including executive producer Ken Olin, playwright/creator Jon Robin Baitz and actors Rachel Griffiths and Ron Rifkin—tried their best to reassure the media that everything was fine. They weren't wrong. The first episode of Brothers and Sisters is really pretty good. Revolving around the relationships of a family with two daughters and three sons, all adults, it has that Zwick/Herskovitz high class, character driven soap vibe. And I've been missing that since Once & Again went off the air several seasons ago.
Plus, the show has what everyone was interested in in the first place: an incredible cast. Yes, you get to see Ally McBeal, Brenda Chenowith and Arvin Sloane back on TV (all playing significantly different characters), as well as the recognizable TV faces of Sally Field, Patricia Wettig and Tom Skerritt.
There are a few too many characters for the first episode to handle (Wettig and Sarah Jane Morris—as the family's only daughter-in-law—are barely even introduced) but in a season where so many shows have people doubting their long-term potential Brothers and Sisters deserves some credit for creating a world with a lot left to explore. And at least there's a built in reason for these characters to be together and for the audience to care about them, unlike ABC's generally limp Six Degrees.
I have my doubts about the show's audience appeal but creatively it's off to an interesting start.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Two weeks of reviews
There should be some good movies coming out soon but they're not here yet...
Last week:
The Black Dahlia
This week:
All the King's Men
Confetti
All bad, but even worse, all disappointing in their own ways.
The one exception to this is Half Nelson, which premiered at Sundance in January and opened back in August in New York and Los Angeles. It's making its way around the country now. It's offbeat in some ways, conventional in others, but definitely one of the most interesting films of the year. And Ryan Gosling delivers one of the year's finest performances.
Last week:
The Black Dahlia
This week:
All the King's Men
Confetti
All bad, but even worse, all disappointing in their own ways.
The one exception to this is Half Nelson, which premiered at Sundance in January and opened back in August in New York and Los Angeles. It's making its way around the country now. It's offbeat in some ways, conventional in others, but definitely one of the most interesting films of the year. And Ryan Gosling delivers one of the year's finest performances.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Fall TV Top 5: Smith
I haven’t said much about the new fall TV season yet. But now that the networks are starting to premiere their new shows I figure I should at least mention my favorites.
This was actually a very good pilot season and with the exception of everything on Fox (and ABC’s horrendous wedding day comedy Big Day) I’d be willing to sample a second episode of all the new shows.
But there are five that I’m already committed to based on the pilot alone. (Last season there was only one: ABC’s Sons and Daughters.) So I'll be sure to point those out here as each is about to premiere.
Of course none of those are on Fox. I deliberately ignored saying anything about their new series as the network started rolling them out a couple weeks ago. They’re all bad. The Thursday night comedy Happy Hour is particularly notable as the worst new show of the season. Thankfully ratings for the shows are in line with their quality.
ABC’s Anne Heche-led relationship “dramedy” Men in Trees has also already started airing. The pilot wasn’t bad but it wasn’t very good either. The show has a Friday night timeslot of death that pretty much guarantees it won’t be around come 2007.
Last night brought the premieres of the perfectly adequate traditional comedy The Class on CBS (after one episode I like it more than the same network’s How I Met Your Mother, but will I bother watching?) and the season’s most overhyped new show NBC’s Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.
But that brings us to tonight’s premiere: Smith on CBS. It’s a heist drama (a genre failed multiple times last season including FX’s Thief and NBC’s Heist) but it has a killer cast, the best production values of any new series and a potential for greatness.
The most surprising thing about Smith is that it feels like a cable show, but it’s on CBS. And it’s entirely possible that that will be an oil-and-water combination that will lead to failure. But I like ambitious TV and it’s rare to find something on network TV that is this ambitious.
That killer cast I mentioned is led by Ray Liotta and Virginia Madsen, welcome additions to series television, and also includes Simon Baker, Jonny Lee Miller, Amy Smart, Franky G and Shoreh Aghdashloo. Not all huge names but put them together and they make a strong TV ensemble. The pilot isn’t heavy on character development for the supporting players but there’s enough to make you believe these people will go in interesting directions in the future.
And the characters and relationship written for Liotta and Madsen are fantastic. He leads the heists, she doesn’t know but she has demons of her own. It’s great to see good actors get good material (they wouldn’t find this kind of stuff on film very easily).
I don’t know if Smith is going to attempt to pull off a heist a week (a “commercial” choice, but also risky), or if it will focus in on the characters and explore their moral ambiguities with an occasional heist on the side (an “artistic” choice, but also wiser).
Either way I’ll be watching.
This was actually a very good pilot season and with the exception of everything on Fox (and ABC’s horrendous wedding day comedy Big Day) I’d be willing to sample a second episode of all the new shows.
But there are five that I’m already committed to based on the pilot alone. (Last season there was only one: ABC’s Sons and Daughters.) So I'll be sure to point those out here as each is about to premiere.
Of course none of those are on Fox. I deliberately ignored saying anything about their new series as the network started rolling them out a couple weeks ago. They’re all bad. The Thursday night comedy Happy Hour is particularly notable as the worst new show of the season. Thankfully ratings for the shows are in line with their quality.
ABC’s Anne Heche-led relationship “dramedy” Men in Trees has also already started airing. The pilot wasn’t bad but it wasn’t very good either. The show has a Friday night timeslot of death that pretty much guarantees it won’t be around come 2007.
Last night brought the premieres of the perfectly adequate traditional comedy The Class on CBS (after one episode I like it more than the same network’s How I Met Your Mother, but will I bother watching?) and the season’s most overhyped new show NBC’s Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip.
But that brings us to tonight’s premiere: Smith on CBS. It’s a heist drama (a genre failed multiple times last season including FX’s Thief and NBC’s Heist) but it has a killer cast, the best production values of any new series and a potential for greatness.
The most surprising thing about Smith is that it feels like a cable show, but it’s on CBS. And it’s entirely possible that that will be an oil-and-water combination that will lead to failure. But I like ambitious TV and it’s rare to find something on network TV that is this ambitious.
That killer cast I mentioned is led by Ray Liotta and Virginia Madsen, welcome additions to series television, and also includes Simon Baker, Jonny Lee Miller, Amy Smart, Franky G and Shoreh Aghdashloo. Not all huge names but put them together and they make a strong TV ensemble. The pilot isn’t heavy on character development for the supporting players but there’s enough to make you believe these people will go in interesting directions in the future.
And the characters and relationship written for Liotta and Madsen are fantastic. He leads the heists, she doesn’t know but she has demons of her own. It’s great to see good actors get good material (they wouldn’t find this kind of stuff on film very easily).
I don’t know if Smith is going to attempt to pull off a heist a week (a “commercial” choice, but also risky), or if it will focus in on the characters and explore their moral ambiguities with an occasional heist on the side (an “artistic” choice, but also wiser).
Either way I’ll be watching.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Where I've Been...
It's been quite awhile since I posted here (my longest break ever in fact, I never went more than a month without posting before) but I've been keeping busy.
My new job has meant a lot of writing and a lot of editing and it's been a great experience so far. But I don't want this blog to die out and hopefully I'll be able to keep it up on a more regular basis now that I've settled into the new job somewhat.
First up I'll just share links to what I've been doing over there, with other "normal" posts to follow.
The biggest project I've done so far is this Fall Movie Guide, which I'm pretty happy with. I wrote just about everything you'll see on the pages, selected all the art and built the pages. It was massive but it was fun. (My colleague helped with the related photo gallery, and did a great job.)
I've written film reviews for:
World Trade Center
Quinceañera
Idlewild
The Descent
Crank
Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby
The King
Crossover
And I've also done this Q&A with Crank star Jason Statham and a review for Spike Lee's HBO documentary When the Levees Broke.
I'll supply links on a regular basis here, since some of this might be the kind of stuff I would've done on the blog anyway (though a little more formal, not as "bloggy"). But I'll try not to let this replace regular blogging, since I have fun with that too.
I'd like to revisit my pre-season picks for the summer movie season that was and do my own picks for fall, which will differ quite a bit from what I did for Metromix. But that will come soon.
My new job has meant a lot of writing and a lot of editing and it's been a great experience so far. But I don't want this blog to die out and hopefully I'll be able to keep it up on a more regular basis now that I've settled into the new job somewhat.
First up I'll just share links to what I've been doing over there, with other "normal" posts to follow.
The biggest project I've done so far is this Fall Movie Guide, which I'm pretty happy with. I wrote just about everything you'll see on the pages, selected all the art and built the pages. It was massive but it was fun. (My colleague helped with the related photo gallery, and did a great job.)
I've written film reviews for:
World Trade Center
Quinceañera
Idlewild
The Descent
Crank
Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby
The King
Crossover
And I've also done this Q&A with Crank star Jason Statham and a review for Spike Lee's HBO documentary When the Levees Broke.
I'll supply links on a regular basis here, since some of this might be the kind of stuff I would've done on the blog anyway (though a little more formal, not as "bloggy"). But I'll try not to let this replace regular blogging, since I have fun with that too.
I'd like to revisit my pre-season picks for the summer movie season that was and do my own picks for fall, which will differ quite a bit from what I did for Metromix. But that will come soon.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Top Ten TV Shows of 2005-06
It's become increasingly difficult to properly define a "season" of TV. Not only because the networks continue to test the boundaries of the traditional season and cable has never restricted itself to a "proper" September-May schedule, but also because the rise of TiVos, On Demand and TV on DVD have made it easier than ever for viewers to create their own schedules and watch entire seasons of shows on their own terms.
But I'm gonna stick with tradition and pay tribute to the best of the conventional TV season that ended about a month ago. That means stuff that aired between June 2005 and May 2006. After all, it's still the way the Emmys define their eligibility period (this year's nominations are due out July 6, while I'm on a break from this blog).
I could list out everything that I watched over the past year, and everything I still plan on catching, but instead I'll reserve this space for what I liked most of all. However, there are a few shows that would have made my list of the season's best, if I had more room:
-Big Love, yet another strong effort from HBO which invited viewers into a unique world (and lifestyle) in a credible way
-Curb Your Enthusiasm (HBO) and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia (FX), two cranky comedies that regularly made me laugh out loud
and first place runner-up...
-Wonder Showzen (MTV2), still wonderfully warped, if a little less fresh, in season two
But on to the real deal...
10. Rome (HBO; available on DVD)
But I'm gonna stick with tradition and pay tribute to the best of the conventional TV season that ended about a month ago. That means stuff that aired between June 2005 and May 2006. After all, it's still the way the Emmys define their eligibility period (this year's nominations are due out July 6, while I'm on a break from this blog).
I could list out everything that I watched over the past year, and everything I still plan on catching, but instead I'll reserve this space for what I liked most of all. However, there are a few shows that would have made my list of the season's best, if I had more room:
-Big Love, yet another strong effort from HBO which invited viewers into a unique world (and lifestyle) in a credible way
-Curb Your Enthusiasm (HBO) and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia (FX), two cranky comedies that regularly made me laugh out loud
and first place runner-up...
-Wonder Showzen (MTV2), still wonderfully warped, if a little less fresh, in season two
But on to the real deal...
10. Rome (HBO; available on DVD)
9. Sons and Daughters (ABC)HBO and the BBC teamed up to turn truly ancient history into an addictive soap, equal parts class and trash. The first season of this opulent epic was overflowing with raunchy sex and graphic violence, but it never felt forced thanks to its strong characterizations and extraordinary ensemble cast (with Ray Stevenson and Polly Walker especially relishing their scene-stealing roles). Forget Hollywood's ponderous period pictures, for costume drama that sizzles all roads lead...right here.
Standout episodes: The Stolen Eagle; The Ram Has Touched the Wall; The Spoils; The Kalends of February
8. Six Feet Under (HBO; available on DVD)This could have been the next great family comedy, if only people had bothered to watch. It probably should've aired on cable where the show's sharp, partially improvised dialogue, semi-serialized storylines and extensive ensemble would've been properly viewed as strengths rather than flaws. At least ABC took a chance and let ten episodes air, making network television a more interesting place in the process.
Standout episodes: Anniversary Party; BBQ Therapy; Surprise Party; The Homecoming
7. Extras (HBO; available on DVD)The last season of HBO's signature sex-'n'-death drama started off a little weak, but by the time it hit the home stretch Six Feet Under delivered some of its finest episodes ever, culminating in a remarkable series finale that gave the show the arty/invigorating/absurd/glorious/pretentious/abundantly satisfying ending it deserved. And on a series that always honored its supremely talented cast, Frances Conroy and Rachel Griffiths finished the run as first among equals.
Standout episodes: Rainbow of Her Reasons; All Alone; Static; Everyone's Waiting
6. 24 (Fox; available on DVD)Following up one of the greatest TV shows ever made is a pretty tough challenge. But Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant proved themselves up to the task with this unique portrait of two insecure and self-sabotaging background players in the U.K. film world. Gervais again starred, paired this time with the equally brilliant Ashley Jensen, and the result was a short season of piercing hilarity.
Standout episodes: Kate Winslet; Ben Stiller; Patrick Stewart
5. Bleak House (PBS; available on DVD)It's surprise enough that such a gimmicky concept even made it to a fifth season. But watching this high-wire-act of an action drama deliver its most consistently compelling season yet was downright shocking. Bolstered by the show's strongest ensemble ever, "Day Five" raced breathlessly from one tension-filled situation to the next. Cast members dropped like flies, bold twists divided (and delighted) the audience and the clock kept ticking... making those seven days between new episodes seem like an eternity.
Standout episodes: Difficult choices for a show that's more about moments than episodes but: 7:00 A.M.-8:00 A.M. (season premiere); 4:00 P.M.-5:00 P.M. (motorcade attack); 10:00 P.M.-11:00 P.M. (the big reveal); 11:00 P.M.-12:00 A.M. (season finale)
4. The Sopranos (HBO; available on DVD)Who knew a novel from the 1800s, by Charles Dickens no less, could be turned into something so gripping in 2006? This Masterpiece Theater presentation of a BBC sensation preserves Dickens' serialized storytelling format but shatters PBS' stodgy reputation thanks to an audacious filmmaking style and passionate emotional resonance. Anna Maxwell Martin turned in arguably the best performance of the entire TV season as the radiant and intelligent Jane Austen-esque heroine.
Standout episodes: Parts 1, 4, 6
3. Battlestar Galactica (Sci Fi; first half and second half available on DVD)Continually setting the bar for the level of quality possible on television, the landmark drama had a fascinating sixth season. Complaints about the pace seemingly disregard the peerless filmmaking and performances. Tension mounted as the people we've come to know so well took baby steps forward, and backward, in this introspective season that explored big questions of mortality, heredity, enlightenment and the irresistible lure of a lifestyle that has great rewards but even greater penalties. Only eight more to go.
Standout episodes: The Fleshy Part of the Thigh; Mr. and Mrs. John Sacrimoni Request; Johnny Cakes; Cold Stones
2. The Shield (FX; available on DVD)In case you haven't heard, this is the show that single-handedly made sci-fi (both the channel and the genre) a respectable destination for lovers of quality drama. And over the course of an exhilarating and provocative 20-episode second season, split into two equally riveting halves, this re-imagining of a cheesy 70s space opera blossomed into one of TV's unquestionable best. Despite its cosmic setting, no show has more to say about the way we live now. Episodes make time for kick ass action and challenging portrayals of religious fundamentalism, terrorism, war, civil liberties and other vital topics without pandering or preaching. And damn is it fun.
Standout episodes: Home; Resurrection Ship; Downloaded; Lay Down Your Burdens
1. Arrested Development (Fox; available on DVD)It's a real mystery why The Shield isn't on the tip of everyone's tongue as one of TV's best dramas. This richly complex police drama gets deeper, and better, with each new season and long ago deserved the right to be mentioned in the same breath with The Sopranos, as a true contemporary classic. The problem is you've got to start at the beginning, but by the time you hit season five and see the Strike Team face off with a fiercely committed IA agent, who is determined to expose and end their corruption once and for all, you'll wonder why you ever resisted watching in the first place.
Standout episodes: Trophy; Kavanaugh; Of Mice and Lem; Post Partum
No, putting it on top isn't some statement about a great show that ended too soon. In fact part of me is glad that Arrested Development is done, finished, kaput. Yeah I said it. It's actually heartening to know that this brilliant comedy never lost its mojo. How it survived for three genius seasons without fading, becoming desperate or selling out is for wiser people than me to know. I'm just glad we have 53 episodes of these miserable bastards, and enough in-jokes to last a lifetime. Bob Loblaw. Mr. F. Oh come on. Has anyone in this family ever even seen a chicken? I've made a terrible mistake.
Standout episodes: The Ocean Walker; S.O.B.s; Fakin' It; Development Arrested
Friday, June 23, 2006
Summer heroes
June is almost over and the summer movie season is every bit as uninspiring as I thought it would be. At least Mission: Impossible III delivered the action goods, and I'm still holding out some hope for the I'll-get-to-it-eventually flick Cars (and maybe Over the Hedge will be a decent surprise when I get to it on DVD). But what I want to talk about now is a smaller film now making its way to theaters around the country (before we get to the big movie that everyone already knows about).
Wordplay opened last week to strong limited release box office and solid reviews and I'm confident it will continue to play well throughout the summer.
It's the latest entry in the Lite Documentary subgenre, the kind of crowd-pleasing movies that have helped docs muscle in on precious arthouse screen space in a major way. "Fun" docs reached a quality peak with the spelling bee examination Spellbound, a movie to which Wordplay owes some sort of debt. While Spellbound lovingly scrutinized the quirky personalities of the kids who enter spelling bees before thrusting us into the suspenseful world of the bee itself, Wordplay introduces a range of crossword puzzle fanatics on its way to a climax at the annual American Crossword Puzzle Tournament in Stamford, Connecticut.
In both movies it comes as a surprise that such seemingly cerebral challenges can provide such nail-biting tension on screen, but both films deliver exactly that by building interest in the competitors and helping the audience see, through their eyes, what makes these brainy showdowns worth getting worked up over.
Wordplay is, not unexpectedly, a celebration of both words and puzzles. Its subjects' enthusiasm for crosswords is contagious, helped by filmmaker Patrick Creadon's relaxed, entertaining style. And although the movie lacks Spellbound's depth and range, it has a secret weapon of its own: entertaining interviews with celebrity crossword enthusiasts ranging from documentarian Ken Burns to musicians the Indigo Girls to Major League Baseball player Mike Mussina to comedian Jon Stewart (in hilarious form) to former President Bill Clinton (and his former rival Bob Dole, who both help explain one of the cleverest crosswords ever created).
This is the kind of movie that makes moviegoing refreshing, and fun.
Fun is exactly what, I think, Superman Returns is supposed to be. And exactly what, I unfortunately know, it isn't.
Although it doesn't properly arrive in theaters until next week I have to say I'm a bit baffled by the overly kind early reviews. But at least it can be said that Superman is no X-Men-level fiasco. This one actually delivers something. It has the kind of visual dazzle one would hope for from a massively expensive summer movie: the special effects are truly awesome and director Bryan Singer gets strong technical support from his usual ace director of photography Newton Thomas Sigel, who is undeniably gifted when it comes to unusual angles and showy camera moves.
But the rest of the movie falls strangely flat. Especially critical components like writing (including dialogue, storyline, plotting and characterizations) and casting. Even the movie's timeline is weird. The film pays direct tribute to the earlier Superman films and, in puzzling decision #1, is apparently designed to take place after the events of 1980's Superman II. Yet, in puzzling decision #2, the lead actors are ridiculously young. Who decided on a "mature" take on Superman starring two actors who wouldn't be out of place on a WB soap? (Especially since, um, The WB actually has a youthful Superman soap.)
It wouldn't matter much if Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth delivered inspired performances in their roles (after all, everything about Superman relies on suspension of disbelief) but they don't. Not that they have inspired material to work with, or that they stand out for their failure to elevate it. Everyone in the film either has too little to do (like proven greats Frank Langella as Perry White and Eva Marie Saint as Ma Kent) or is boring doing it (notably Kevin Spacey as a thoroughly unmemorable Lex Luthor and James Marsden in the ill-conceived new role of Lois Lane's fiance). Only Parker Posey adds some spark to her role, as Luthor's lady of the moment (but she might add a bit too much spark, it often seems like she's in a different movie entirely).
Even so Bosworth is asking for a Razzie nom for her entirely unconvincing work as Lois Lane, here a Pulitzer Prize-worthy journalist and young mother (though the actress seems more like a big sister to her onscreen offspring), and Routh leaves little impression at all in the dual roles of Superman and Clark Kent (making it seem doubtful he'll find any more career traction than those who previously portrayed the superhero).
At least the movie delivers the visual goods. And for some that may be enough. There's an epic-ness to the film that is otherwise pretty much absent this summer (with the possible exception of the Pirates of the Caribbean sequel), but at 2 1/2 hours Superman and Singer are really trying the audience's patience, especially when the movie fails to advance these iconic characters in any meaningful way.
And for a movie designed to re-ignite a franchise for its studio it commits an even bigger offense: it doesn't leave you wanting more.
Wordplay opened last week to strong limited release box office and solid reviews and I'm confident it will continue to play well throughout the summer.It's the latest entry in the Lite Documentary subgenre, the kind of crowd-pleasing movies that have helped docs muscle in on precious arthouse screen space in a major way. "Fun" docs reached a quality peak with the spelling bee examination Spellbound, a movie to which Wordplay owes some sort of debt. While Spellbound lovingly scrutinized the quirky personalities of the kids who enter spelling bees before thrusting us into the suspenseful world of the bee itself, Wordplay introduces a range of crossword puzzle fanatics on its way to a climax at the annual American Crossword Puzzle Tournament in Stamford, Connecticut.
In both movies it comes as a surprise that such seemingly cerebral challenges can provide such nail-biting tension on screen, but both films deliver exactly that by building interest in the competitors and helping the audience see, through their eyes, what makes these brainy showdowns worth getting worked up over.
Wordplay is, not unexpectedly, a celebration of both words and puzzles. Its subjects' enthusiasm for crosswords is contagious, helped by filmmaker Patrick Creadon's relaxed, entertaining style. And although the movie lacks Spellbound's depth and range, it has a secret weapon of its own: entertaining interviews with celebrity crossword enthusiasts ranging from documentarian Ken Burns to musicians the Indigo Girls to Major League Baseball player Mike Mussina to comedian Jon Stewart (in hilarious form) to former President Bill Clinton (and his former rival Bob Dole, who both help explain one of the cleverest crosswords ever created).
This is the kind of movie that makes moviegoing refreshing, and fun.
Fun is exactly what, I think, Superman Returns is supposed to be. And exactly what, I unfortunately know, it isn't.Although it doesn't properly arrive in theaters until next week I have to say I'm a bit baffled by the overly kind early reviews. But at least it can be said that Superman is no X-Men-level fiasco. This one actually delivers something. It has the kind of visual dazzle one would hope for from a massively expensive summer movie: the special effects are truly awesome and director Bryan Singer gets strong technical support from his usual ace director of photography Newton Thomas Sigel, who is undeniably gifted when it comes to unusual angles and showy camera moves.
But the rest of the movie falls strangely flat. Especially critical components like writing (including dialogue, storyline, plotting and characterizations) and casting. Even the movie's timeline is weird. The film pays direct tribute to the earlier Superman films and, in puzzling decision #1, is apparently designed to take place after the events of 1980's Superman II. Yet, in puzzling decision #2, the lead actors are ridiculously young. Who decided on a "mature" take on Superman starring two actors who wouldn't be out of place on a WB soap? (Especially since, um, The WB actually has a youthful Superman soap.)
It wouldn't matter much if Brandon Routh and Kate Bosworth delivered inspired performances in their roles (after all, everything about Superman relies on suspension of disbelief) but they don't. Not that they have inspired material to work with, or that they stand out for their failure to elevate it. Everyone in the film either has too little to do (like proven greats Frank Langella as Perry White and Eva Marie Saint as Ma Kent) or is boring doing it (notably Kevin Spacey as a thoroughly unmemorable Lex Luthor and James Marsden in the ill-conceived new role of Lois Lane's fiance). Only Parker Posey adds some spark to her role, as Luthor's lady of the moment (but she might add a bit too much spark, it often seems like she's in a different movie entirely).
Even so Bosworth is asking for a Razzie nom for her entirely unconvincing work as Lois Lane, here a Pulitzer Prize-worthy journalist and young mother (though the actress seems more like a big sister to her onscreen offspring), and Routh leaves little impression at all in the dual roles of Superman and Clark Kent (making it seem doubtful he'll find any more career traction than those who previously portrayed the superhero).
At least the movie delivers the visual goods. And for some that may be enough. There's an epic-ness to the film that is otherwise pretty much absent this summer (with the possible exception of the Pirates of the Caribbean sequel), but at 2 1/2 hours Superman and Singer are really trying the audience's patience, especially when the movie fails to advance these iconic characters in any meaningful way.
And for a movie designed to re-ignite a franchise for its studio it commits an even bigger offense: it doesn't leave you wanting more.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Looking forward to fall
I don't like writing about pilots for the broadcast networks' new fall shows so early for two reasons: first because the early pilots networks send out aren't always reflective of what will actually air (things can still be recut, reshot, recast or otherwise reworked) and secondly because not that many people have access to them and they won't actually air until September. So I'll save the detailed posts for later, but I've been looking for something good to mention here lately and a couple of the pilots I've seen so far definitely fit the bill.
They're not, however, either of NBC's heavily-hyped-by-entertainment-media Saturday Night Live-inspired "backstage" shows. I like the one by the woman who actually wrote for SNL a little better than the one by the guy who (for some completely unfathomable reason) wishes he had. But they both have strengths and weaknesses. Together they might make for a great show, but separately they're both too TV-focused to actually be interesting and simply not creative enough to stand out beyond their concepts and pedigrees. In other words neither one really leaves me wanting more.
At least that's one problem that another new NBC show, Heroes, doesn't have. The average-Joes-discover-they're-superheroes hour is derivative of Lost in a lot of ways, but unlike last season's glut of convoluted supernatural mystery offerings this one only borrows concepts from Lost that are well suited to a TV drama. If it maintains a strong emphasis on its characters (and improves its writing a bit) Heroes may even turn out to be better (less frustrating) than the hit island saga.
But we have to switch networks to cover the best of what I've seen so far. Three new shows from ABC suggest the network is looking to corner the market on TV's most involving, and best looking, series. According to Jim is going to look even worse on a network where everything else looks like a mini-movie, if the pilots for Betty the Ugly, Let's Rob... and Notes from the Underbelly are any indication. Yes two of them have terrible titles (and a case could be made that Let's Rob... is pretty bad too) but they're all interesting, well done shows that make the whole pilot thing look easy. Even though anyone who's ever watched TV knows it's anything but.
Notes is the least special of the three and suffers from an unfortunate lack of chemistry between its leads, and I don't expect it to be around very long, but it still looks and feels so much better than we have any right to expect from network TV. For most networks it would probably be a standout effort, but not here.
Especially because both Betty and Rob are so extremely good. They could be the best pilots of the season, but it's too soon for me to say (there's nine more shows to watch from ABC alone). Like the best pilots these two immediately place you in their world, establish a strong, distinctive tone and introduce you to characters you want to keep watching. Both have casts that immediately click (with very strong leads in America Ferrera and Donal Logue, respectively) and, very important since both are comedies, both have genuine laugh-out-loud moments (especially Rob).
It's still a long way till September, but in the network TV world it's never too early for hype. And these two deserve it.
So again:
Betty the Ugly
and
Let's Rob...
They're not, however, either of NBC's heavily-hyped-by-entertainment-media Saturday Night Live-inspired "backstage" shows. I like the one by the woman who actually wrote for SNL a little better than the one by the guy who (for some completely unfathomable reason) wishes he had. But they both have strengths and weaknesses. Together they might make for a great show, but separately they're both too TV-focused to actually be interesting and simply not creative enough to stand out beyond their concepts and pedigrees. In other words neither one really leaves me wanting more.
At least that's one problem that another new NBC show, Heroes, doesn't have. The average-Joes-discover-they're-superheroes hour is derivative of Lost in a lot of ways, but unlike last season's glut of convoluted supernatural mystery offerings this one only borrows concepts from Lost that are well suited to a TV drama. If it maintains a strong emphasis on its characters (and improves its writing a bit) Heroes may even turn out to be better (less frustrating) than the hit island saga.
But we have to switch networks to cover the best of what I've seen so far. Three new shows from ABC suggest the network is looking to corner the market on TV's most involving, and best looking, series. According to Jim is going to look even worse on a network where everything else looks like a mini-movie, if the pilots for Betty the Ugly, Let's Rob... and Notes from the Underbelly are any indication. Yes two of them have terrible titles (and a case could be made that Let's Rob... is pretty bad too) but they're all interesting, well done shows that make the whole pilot thing look easy. Even though anyone who's ever watched TV knows it's anything but.
Notes is the least special of the three and suffers from an unfortunate lack of chemistry between its leads, and I don't expect it to be around very long, but it still looks and feels so much better than we have any right to expect from network TV. For most networks it would probably be a standout effort, but not here.
Especially because both Betty and Rob are so extremely good. They could be the best pilots of the season, but it's too soon for me to say (there's nine more shows to watch from ABC alone). Like the best pilots these two immediately place you in their world, establish a strong, distinctive tone and introduce you to characters you want to keep watching. Both have casts that immediately click (with very strong leads in America Ferrera and Donal Logue, respectively) and, very important since both are comedies, both have genuine laugh-out-loud moments (especially Rob).
It's still a long way till September, but in the network TV world it's never too early for hype. And these two deserve it.
So again:
Betty the Ugly
and
Let's Rob...
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Even HBO makes mistakes
HBO's latest original series, the half-hour comedy Lucky Louie, premieres tonight (and repeats throughout the week) and it's a rarity for the network: it's really awful.
Sure HBO has had an occasional trainwreck in its past (Arli$$ and The Mind of the Married Man come to mind), but for the most part even its "failures" (like say K Street or The Comeback or Carnivale) are still interesting in some way. Lucky Louie does have an interesting concept: it's a "traditional" sitcom with a studio audience, laugh track, spare sets and a blue collar family at its center, but since this is HBO the writers are free to use as much "colorful" language and tackle whatever "adult" topics they want without resorting to innuendo or double entendres. Unfortunately the execution is as painful as any other generic network sitcom and the pilot episode plays something like an especially vulgar episode of According to Jim.
There was reason to expect more. Series creator and star Louis C.K. has a resume that includes writing gigs for David Letterman, Conan O'Brien and Chris Rock and this show does air on HBO. But in watching it it's hard to understand why, this show is unreasonably bad for such a high quality network. There's a feeling of desperation here that would be more at home on Showtime. Not only is the writing not funny but the acting is terrible (only Mike Hagerty, as Louie's best friend, displays decent comic delivery) and the look of the show is appallingly bad. To top it all off the first episode runs a painful 31 minutes, an excrutiating amount of time to spend on not being funny (without commercials most network sitcoms are about 23 minutes long). The second episode is shorter at least, if not any funnier.
Several critics have already done an excellent job eviscerating the show (especially Tim Goodman in the San Francisco Chronicle) and I'd rather not spend any more time on it. Instead I'd rather write about something good (maybe the new season of Deadwood, which I haven't started watching yet), so I'll be back with something better soon.
Sure HBO has had an occasional trainwreck in its past (Arli$$ and The Mind of the Married Man come to mind), but for the most part even its "failures" (like say K Street or The Comeback or Carnivale) are still interesting in some way. Lucky Louie does have an interesting concept: it's a "traditional" sitcom with a studio audience, laugh track, spare sets and a blue collar family at its center, but since this is HBO the writers are free to use as much "colorful" language and tackle whatever "adult" topics they want without resorting to innuendo or double entendres. Unfortunately the execution is as painful as any other generic network sitcom and the pilot episode plays something like an especially vulgar episode of According to Jim.
There was reason to expect more. Series creator and star Louis C.K. has a resume that includes writing gigs for David Letterman, Conan O'Brien and Chris Rock and this show does air on HBO. But in watching it it's hard to understand why, this show is unreasonably bad for such a high quality network. There's a feeling of desperation here that would be more at home on Showtime. Not only is the writing not funny but the acting is terrible (only Mike Hagerty, as Louie's best friend, displays decent comic delivery) and the look of the show is appallingly bad. To top it all off the first episode runs a painful 31 minutes, an excrutiating amount of time to spend on not being funny (without commercials most network sitcoms are about 23 minutes long). The second episode is shorter at least, if not any funnier.
Several critics have already done an excellent job eviscerating the show (especially Tim Goodman in the San Francisco Chronicle) and I'd rather not spend any more time on it. Instead I'd rather write about something good (maybe the new season of Deadwood, which I haven't started watching yet), so I'll be back with something better soon.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Criticizing the critics
While we're on the topic of NBC, let's pause to celebrate their strong showing in yesterday's Television Critics Association nominations.
And by "celebrate" I mean get so blasted we can't even remember these things were announced. Because they're best forgotten.
Usually you can count on the TCAs for a pretty solid list with a couple of fun "the-Emmys-would-never!" picks. Yeah, they always lean a little too heavily on the guys in their two performance categories but they'll also do things like nominate Sarah Michelle Gellar or Lauren Graham or The [real] Office or The Shield or other genuinely deserving but often overlooked shows/performers. This year there are no such fun picks (although they did go for Graham again, but considering her show's less than spectacular season even that choice feels rote).
Perennial awards watching irritant Tom O'Neil, in typically hysterical form, posted a Tom-explains-it-all rant about why TCA "snubbed" Desperate Housewives. And his "it's a boy's club" rationale probably isn't that far off base, but it does ignore a couple points: it may or may not make the Emmy list but DH wasn't getting a TCA nom this year no matter what, it simply wasn't good enough (and the real question isn't why it was ignored, but why Lost didn't get the same treatment after a similarly disappointing second season), and, more importantly, Grey's Anatomy got two big TCA nominations. Try to find a bigger chick show than that on all of primetime television at the moment.
The nominations are clearly more about "buzz" than anything else (which makes sense because in TV, critics either create the buzz or become slaves to it to avoid looking irrelevant). But I'll stop dancing around it and get to the point: where the hell are Battlestar Galactica and Arrested Development?
Seriously. This is what I count on the TCA for, recognizing the deserving underdogs. I can forgive them for moving on from The Shield (it's their loss) but must they hold up the absurdly overrated My Name is Earl and the why-isn't-it-dead-yet!?! Scrubs as examples of television's best comedy? And does House really need a drama series nomination? (Correct answers: no and no.)
Seeing the season's best shows overlooked at the Emmys will be unfortunate enough. Seeing them passed over by television critics is just pathetic.
And by "celebrate" I mean get so blasted we can't even remember these things were announced. Because they're best forgotten.
Usually you can count on the TCAs for a pretty solid list with a couple of fun "the-Emmys-would-never!" picks. Yeah, they always lean a little too heavily on the guys in their two performance categories but they'll also do things like nominate Sarah Michelle Gellar or Lauren Graham or The [real] Office or The Shield or other genuinely deserving but often overlooked shows/performers. This year there are no such fun picks (although they did go for Graham again, but considering her show's less than spectacular season even that choice feels rote).
Perennial awards watching irritant Tom O'Neil, in typically hysterical form, posted a Tom-explains-it-all rant about why TCA "snubbed" Desperate Housewives. And his "it's a boy's club" rationale probably isn't that far off base, but it does ignore a couple points: it may or may not make the Emmy list but DH wasn't getting a TCA nom this year no matter what, it simply wasn't good enough (and the real question isn't why it was ignored, but why Lost didn't get the same treatment after a similarly disappointing second season), and, more importantly, Grey's Anatomy got two big TCA nominations. Try to find a bigger chick show than that on all of primetime television at the moment.
The nominations are clearly more about "buzz" than anything else (which makes sense because in TV, critics either create the buzz or become slaves to it to avoid looking irrelevant). But I'll stop dancing around it and get to the point: where the hell are Battlestar Galactica and Arrested Development?
Seriously. This is what I count on the TCA for, recognizing the deserving underdogs. I can forgive them for moving on from The Shield (it's their loss) but must they hold up the absurdly overrated My Name is Earl and the why-isn't-it-dead-yet!?! Scrubs as examples of television's best comedy? And does House really need a drama series nomination? (Correct answers: no and no.)
Seeing the season's best shows overlooked at the Emmys will be unfortunate enough. Seeing them passed over by television critics is just pathetic.
Fall Schedules: NBC (Take Two)
This was announced last week but I didn't really catch it until the weekend (and didn't get around to writing about it until now, obviously): that silly fall schedule NBC announced a couple weeks ago is history. In its place is a brand new schedule, a reaction to what the grown up networks announced after NBC dove headfirst into an empty pool. (Check out the network's spin here.)
Good Move: Obviously something had to be done about sending Aaron Sorkin's Studio 60 to the slaughter opposite CSI and a relocated Grey's Anatomy on Thursday nights, and in the process NBC ditched its lame new-shows-at-9 "strategy." Studio 60 will now air Mondays at 10, following new series Heroes (the only new show that will air at 9). Studio has a better shot here—it was smart to capitalize on ABC's most obvious vulnerability: the returning What About Brian—but it's still doubtful to be a breakout hit, and CSI: Miami won't even have to break a sweat to dominate the hour.
Taking Studio's place in the nobody-wants-it Thursday at 9 slot is NBC's most popular show, Deal or No Deal. It probably won't stay NBC's most popular show in this new time but it should keep the network alive better than anything else would (like, say, The Apprentice, or, lord help us all, an hour of Scrubs). And DoND also airs Mondays at 8, where it should keep doing fine for the time being (and is a lot less embarrassing than previous timeslot occupant Fear Factor).
The other new series relocated before they even air are Kidnapped (moving to Wednesdays at 10 from Tuesdays at 9, which seems smart but could be risky if ABC's Lost helps its new lead-out The Nine become a hit) and the comedy block of Twenty Good Years/30 Rock (from Wednesdays at 9 to Wednesdays at 8; they'd be the only comedies on network TV in either hour but this takes them out of Lost's attack zone and avoids two full hours of new shows on Wednesday).
Bad Move: NBC clearly has no idea what to do with its Law & Order franchise anymore. Ratings may not be as strong as they once were but by moving the original series to Friday night (in a timeslot that claimed the only L&O spin-off casualty, Trial By Jury, and last season's L&O-variation Conviction) they essentially admit it's no longer anything more than a Crossing Jordan-type utility player. (Not coincidentally Crossing Jordan, which wasn't on NBC's original fall schedule, has been called back into action for the Friday at 8 slot. I think it's the first time the show has ever aired at such an early hour.)
And both L&O spin-offs, Criminal Intent and SVU, will air back-to-back on Tuesday nights. This is a really weird move but I expect one of the two will end up on Sundays after football ends anyway. (That's apparently also where NBC tentatively plans to put Medium, the only show removed from Fall Schedule Version 2.0.)
Good Move: Obviously something had to be done about sending Aaron Sorkin's Studio 60 to the slaughter opposite CSI and a relocated Grey's Anatomy on Thursday nights, and in the process NBC ditched its lame new-shows-at-9 "strategy." Studio 60 will now air Mondays at 10, following new series Heroes (the only new show that will air at 9). Studio has a better shot here—it was smart to capitalize on ABC's most obvious vulnerability: the returning What About Brian—but it's still doubtful to be a breakout hit, and CSI: Miami won't even have to break a sweat to dominate the hour.
Taking Studio's place in the nobody-wants-it Thursday at 9 slot is NBC's most popular show, Deal or No Deal. It probably won't stay NBC's most popular show in this new time but it should keep the network alive better than anything else would (like, say, The Apprentice, or, lord help us all, an hour of Scrubs). And DoND also airs Mondays at 8, where it should keep doing fine for the time being (and is a lot less embarrassing than previous timeslot occupant Fear Factor).
The other new series relocated before they even air are Kidnapped (moving to Wednesdays at 10 from Tuesdays at 9, which seems smart but could be risky if ABC's Lost helps its new lead-out The Nine become a hit) and the comedy block of Twenty Good Years/30 Rock (from Wednesdays at 9 to Wednesdays at 8; they'd be the only comedies on network TV in either hour but this takes them out of Lost's attack zone and avoids two full hours of new shows on Wednesday).
Bad Move: NBC clearly has no idea what to do with its Law & Order franchise anymore. Ratings may not be as strong as they once were but by moving the original series to Friday night (in a timeslot that claimed the only L&O spin-off casualty, Trial By Jury, and last season's L&O-variation Conviction) they essentially admit it's no longer anything more than a Crossing Jordan-type utility player. (Not coincidentally Crossing Jordan, which wasn't on NBC's original fall schedule, has been called back into action for the Friday at 8 slot. I think it's the first time the show has ever aired at such an early hour.)
And both L&O spin-offs, Criminal Intent and SVU, will air back-to-back on Tuesday nights. This is a really weird move but I expect one of the two will end up on Sundays after football ends anyway. (That's apparently also where NBC tentatively plans to put Medium, the only show removed from Fall Schedule Version 2.0.)
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Save the Worst for Last
Yes, it set records in its opening weekend. But there's just no way around it. X-Men: The Last Stand is a bad movie. Or at most, it's not a good one.Hardcore fans have been screaming bloody murder since fauxteur Brett Ratner was given the director's chair on the final film in a planned trilogy after previous X-Men director Bryan Singer moved on and Layer Cake helmer Matthew Vaughn dropped out. I didn't think one person could do that much damage to an already well established franchise. After all, the Singer films weren't high art, they were just fun and kinda smart. It couldn't possibly be that difficult for someone to just follow their blueprints and reap the artistic rewards, right?
Oh boy was I wrong.
As much as I'd love to, I can't lay all the blame with Ratner. Screenwriters Zak Penn and Simon Kinberg deserve just as much scorn for creating this flavorless dud. It's like no one involved actually saw the first two X-Men films and simply watched the trailers instead. The Last Stand is a collection of empty action scenes interrupted by long stretches of mindless dialogue delivered by characters who have been stripped of the inner lives and extra dimensions carefully cultivated in the previous films. Ratner and his team seem to think there's no reason to further the themes or relationships established in previous films, that all the audience wants are heavy effects and fight scenes (not that they go all out on that front either).
It's not like there wasn't any provocative material to deal with. The movie centers around two big ideas: the discovery of a "cure" for mutants that will turn them into "regular" people and the rebirth of X2 casualty Jean Grey as an out-of-control bad girl dubbed Phoenix. But both plotlines are handled with an absolute minimum of thought or care, they simply exist to move the action along. (The Phoenix storyline is especially botched. Anyone who's seen Goldeneye or the second season of Nip/Tuck knows Famke Janssen can play a great villain, but here she just looks confused most of the time. And you can't blame her.)
The film also kills off several key characters, both literally and metaphorically (by stripping them of their mutant powers), and introduces a slew of new ones. But none of that matters when the approach is so uninspired. Unlike the first two films this X-Men is so inept at juggling its ensemble that everyone begins to feel irrelevant. It helps the movie a little to have good actors like Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Halle Berry and Hugh Jackman (joined by solid newcomers like Kelsey Grammer and Ellen Page) but it hurts when they have nothing to work with. And the baffling presence of the new character Angel, played by Ben Foster, in a handful of scenes can only be explained as some sort of symbolic metaphor for the rest of the film. And that's a very generous reading.
The Last Stand actually works as a reminder of how good Hollywood has become at the sequel game. A lame toss-off like this simply isn't acceptable when we've seen so many big budget sequels that are as good as, if not better than, their predecessors.
This one is so far removed from what came before it that you can't help but believe the studio didn't just want the X-Men trilogy to end, they wanted it to die.
Monday, May 22, 2006
Action hour smackdown
So I was all set to write a cutesy (and hopefully at least slightly insightful) post about how Alias and 24 both close out their fifth seasons tonight, and the differences and similarities the two shows have had over their runs. But then I saw this Canadian website has already done a pretty good job of exactly that.
The relevant points I wanted to make are that both shows were introduced to audiences shortly after 9/11 (24's pilot, which featured an airplane explosion, was even re-edited in the aftermath of that tragedy), both were warmly received by critics and Emmy voters (although neither was an instant ratings smash), both have helped prove the value of TV-on-DVD releases and both have had their share of creative highs and lows.
But the important differences are underlined by the fact that Alias is ending its series run with cellar-dwelling ratings and the general sense that its best days are long gone, while 24 is ending its season with enviable viewership and possibly its most buzzed-about season yet.
If anyone ever considered these two shows to be at odds then it's fair to say Alias won an important battle (it's doubtful that 24 will ever have a season with the depth and complexity of human behavior present in Alias' second season, which incorporated near HBO-level character drama into its spy game storylines) but 24 has long since won the war. Firmly establishing itself in season one as a show where no character is safe (or trustworthy), 24 is genuinely thrilling in a way that series TV almost never is. It's been frequently remarked, and impossible to deny, that a season of 24 is better than most action movies.
While each season of 24 pressed the reset button and set up new challenges, fresh characters and legitimate mortal peril for any series regular not named Kiefer, Alias struggled and floundered as the years wore on, unable to build satisfying arcs and at a loss for what to do with much of its ensemble (including Emmy-worthy talents like Jennifer Garner, Michael Vartan, Victor Garber and Ron Rifkin).
And so I'm anxious—and only a bit apprehensive—to see how Jack Bauer's most brilliant/insane (brilliantly insane? insanely brilliant?) day yet will come to a close.
But I'll have to wait a bit longer to see how Sydney Bristow says goodbye to audiences for good (I'm still a few episodes behind on the current season), hoping that things will be wrapped up in a way that this once-great series deserves, but secure in the belief that a bit more risk-taking would've done the show a world of good.
The relevant points I wanted to make are that both shows were introduced to audiences shortly after 9/11 (24's pilot, which featured an airplane explosion, was even re-edited in the aftermath of that tragedy), both were warmly received by critics and Emmy voters (although neither was an instant ratings smash), both have helped prove the value of TV-on-DVD releases and both have had their share of creative highs and lows.
But the important differences are underlined by the fact that Alias is ending its series run with cellar-dwelling ratings and the general sense that its best days are long gone, while 24 is ending its season with enviable viewership and possibly its most buzzed-about season yet.
If anyone ever considered these two shows to be at odds then it's fair to say Alias won an important battle (it's doubtful that 24 will ever have a season with the depth and complexity of human behavior present in Alias' second season, which incorporated near HBO-level character drama into its spy game storylines) but 24 has long since won the war. Firmly establishing itself in season one as a show where no character is safe (or trustworthy), 24 is genuinely thrilling in a way that series TV almost never is. It's been frequently remarked, and impossible to deny, that a season of 24 is better than most action movies.
While each season of 24 pressed the reset button and set up new challenges, fresh characters and legitimate mortal peril for any series regular not named Kiefer, Alias struggled and floundered as the years wore on, unable to build satisfying arcs and at a loss for what to do with much of its ensemble (including Emmy-worthy talents like Jennifer Garner, Michael Vartan, Victor Garber and Ron Rifkin).
And so I'm anxious—and only a bit apprehensive—to see how Jack Bauer's most brilliant/insane (brilliantly insane? insanely brilliant?) day yet will come to a close.
But I'll have to wait a bit longer to see how Sydney Bristow says goodbye to audiences for good (I'm still a few episodes behind on the current season), hoping that things will be wrapped up in a way that this once-great series deserves, but secure in the belief that a bit more risk-taking would've done the show a world of good.
More desperate than ever...
I've been pretty loyal to Desperate Housewives in its troubled second season. Despite the unavoidable wails of "sophomore slump" in the media (delivered with that sickening relish present in most attacks against massive media sensations) I've found the show to be mostly enjoyable, if not up to the high quality of the first season.
While season one came out of nowhere and stunned everyone with its enormous ratings and creative mix of comedy, drama and mystery, season two has been hit with almost nonstop critical brickbats, has seen lead-out Grey's Anatomy overtake it in ratings and buzz and has been notably less nimble in its genre-hopping tendencies. But I felt the show was settling into a nice groove as a light comedy—with occasional well done "serious" moments—driven by four talented actresses and a solid, if a bit bloated, supporting cast. I still preferred Housewives to the more celebrated Lost, which has had its own second season issues, thanks to the performers and storylines that were more fun than frustrating or repetitive.
At least I felt that way until the last few episodes, "sweeps" installments driven more by Big Events than the strong solid moments—comedic and dramatic—that I still appreciated. And then last night, with a two-hour season finale that was generally miserable, the show fell completely off the cliff.
I'm not quite ready to join the Housewives-haters club (we'll see where they go next season) but I'm now about 99% convinced that this show will never be better than it was in season one and its chances for survival beyond a fourth or fifth season are minimal at best (it really and truly is Ally McBeal on a larger scale). (And it doesn't help that current and former cast members are getting so vocal with their criticisms in a series of USA Today articles: James Denton (and others), Mehcad Brooks and Doug Savant.)
Among the weak developments in the season ender:
-Marcia Cross has been treated alternately wonderfully and terribly by the show this season but her performance has been a consistent highlight (she's fully exploded Bree beyond simple "caricature" into an incredibly complex person). However, she's been vocal about the clear differences she sees between Housewives and her previous TV hit, Melrose Place. Those lines are getting increasingly blurrier, especially with last night's mental hospital visit, and she has to realize it.
-The writers took way too long to confirm what we all pretty much knew anyway: Tom isn't having an affair and Carlos is. Wow.
-The revelation of Tom's "second family" is something that's been floating around online since over a year ago, during the whole "Marcia Cross is a lesbian" tabloid frenzy (as was the long gestating idea of Andrew sleeping with one of Bree's boyfriends). The USA Today article on Savant dealt mostly with this point. Considering they had so long to prepare it’s a shame that the execution was so sloppy. Huffman and Savant are two of the strongest cast members but Kiersten Warren's performance as Tom's other baby mama was immediately off-putting and falls into the show's bizarre penchant for writing guest stars in a broad, trashy way. I'm not looking forward to more screen time for her next season. (And I know it's hard to pay attention to other shows when you're working for one but the writers really should check out what a poor idea it was to give Luke a kid on Gilmore Girls...)
-The Applewhite family storyline came to a conclusion as boring as everything that preceded it. What a waste of Alfre Woodard. I imagine she's at least disappointed, if not outright pissed, with what they gave (or didn't give) her to do. The climax even belonged to Marcia Cross.
-Since USA Today said we'd be seeing the last of six cast members, and the Applewhites won't be returning (#1-3), it seems like we're also done with Paul and Zach Young (#4-5). There really wasn't much use for them anyway, outside of a few amusing scenes with Harriet Harris' Felicia Tillman. Especially since...
-Why the show never played out the father/son story between Mike Delfino and Zach Young is beyond me. And now that Mike appears to be dead (#6) and Zach is gone then I guess that is that. Mike's hit-and-run murder at the hands of mysterious dentist Orson (Kyle MacLachlan) likely sets up the Big Mystery for season 3. During the episode I was excited at the prospect of what seemed like a developing love triangle between Susan, Bree and Orson. That could've been fun. But the shocking death ruins that, especially since...
-The show decides to end the season with a threatened reprisal of the Worst Housewives Storyline Ever. Bree is about to become romantically involved with ANOTHER killer?? Sure, at least this one didn't kill her husband, but COME ON. Even if they try to have fun by twisting this story in a very different direction from what they did with wretched pharmacist George, it still seems like they're back in the same unappealing corner Marc Cherry trapped the show in at the end of last season by killing Rex.
Add to this the minor complaints that the finale was completely free of Nicollette Sheridan's Edie and almost completely free of Richard Burgi's Carl—two of the most enjoyable side characters—and that the great idea of flashbacks to the Housewives' move-in days was pretty much for naught (except ironic juxtapositions with their current situations) and you get a massively disappointing finale. Worlds away from last season's tight, satisfying hour.
Right now I'm still coming from a point of love with my criticisms but that love is turning into frustration and there are an awful lot of interesting looking pilots—many even on ABC—next season...
While season one came out of nowhere and stunned everyone with its enormous ratings and creative mix of comedy, drama and mystery, season two has been hit with almost nonstop critical brickbats, has seen lead-out Grey's Anatomy overtake it in ratings and buzz and has been notably less nimble in its genre-hopping tendencies. But I felt the show was settling into a nice groove as a light comedy—with occasional well done "serious" moments—driven by four talented actresses and a solid, if a bit bloated, supporting cast. I still preferred Housewives to the more celebrated Lost, which has had its own second season issues, thanks to the performers and storylines that were more fun than frustrating or repetitive.
At least I felt that way until the last few episodes, "sweeps" installments driven more by Big Events than the strong solid moments—comedic and dramatic—that I still appreciated. And then last night, with a two-hour season finale that was generally miserable, the show fell completely off the cliff.
I'm not quite ready to join the Housewives-haters club (we'll see where they go next season) but I'm now about 99% convinced that this show will never be better than it was in season one and its chances for survival beyond a fourth or fifth season are minimal at best (it really and truly is Ally McBeal on a larger scale). (And it doesn't help that current and former cast members are getting so vocal with their criticisms in a series of USA Today articles: James Denton (and others), Mehcad Brooks and Doug Savant.)
Among the weak developments in the season ender:
-Marcia Cross has been treated alternately wonderfully and terribly by the show this season but her performance has been a consistent highlight (she's fully exploded Bree beyond simple "caricature" into an incredibly complex person). However, she's been vocal about the clear differences she sees between Housewives and her previous TV hit, Melrose Place. Those lines are getting increasingly blurrier, especially with last night's mental hospital visit, and she has to realize it.
-The writers took way too long to confirm what we all pretty much knew anyway: Tom isn't having an affair and Carlos is. Wow.
-The revelation of Tom's "second family" is something that's been floating around online since over a year ago, during the whole "Marcia Cross is a lesbian" tabloid frenzy (as was the long gestating idea of Andrew sleeping with one of Bree's boyfriends). The USA Today article on Savant dealt mostly with this point. Considering they had so long to prepare it’s a shame that the execution was so sloppy. Huffman and Savant are two of the strongest cast members but Kiersten Warren's performance as Tom's other baby mama was immediately off-putting and falls into the show's bizarre penchant for writing guest stars in a broad, trashy way. I'm not looking forward to more screen time for her next season. (And I know it's hard to pay attention to other shows when you're working for one but the writers really should check out what a poor idea it was to give Luke a kid on Gilmore Girls...)
-The Applewhite family storyline came to a conclusion as boring as everything that preceded it. What a waste of Alfre Woodard. I imagine she's at least disappointed, if not outright pissed, with what they gave (or didn't give) her to do. The climax even belonged to Marcia Cross.
-Since USA Today said we'd be seeing the last of six cast members, and the Applewhites won't be returning (#1-3), it seems like we're also done with Paul and Zach Young (#4-5). There really wasn't much use for them anyway, outside of a few amusing scenes with Harriet Harris' Felicia Tillman. Especially since...
-Why the show never played out the father/son story between Mike Delfino and Zach Young is beyond me. And now that Mike appears to be dead (#6) and Zach is gone then I guess that is that. Mike's hit-and-run murder at the hands of mysterious dentist Orson (Kyle MacLachlan) likely sets up the Big Mystery for season 3. During the episode I was excited at the prospect of what seemed like a developing love triangle between Susan, Bree and Orson. That could've been fun. But the shocking death ruins that, especially since...
-The show decides to end the season with a threatened reprisal of the Worst Housewives Storyline Ever. Bree is about to become romantically involved with ANOTHER killer?? Sure, at least this one didn't kill her husband, but COME ON. Even if they try to have fun by twisting this story in a very different direction from what they did with wretched pharmacist George, it still seems like they're back in the same unappealing corner Marc Cherry trapped the show in at the end of last season by killing Rex.
Add to this the minor complaints that the finale was completely free of Nicollette Sheridan's Edie and almost completely free of Richard Burgi's Carl—two of the most enjoyable side characters—and that the great idea of flashbacks to the Housewives' move-in days was pretty much for naught (except ironic juxtapositions with their current situations) and you get a massively disappointing finale. Worlds away from last season's tight, satisfying hour.
Right now I'm still coming from a point of love with my criticisms but that love is turning into frustration and there are an awful lot of interesting looking pilots—many even on ABC—next season...
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Fall Schedules: The CW
And for our final new schedule of the week: the brand new network The CW. It looks a lot like The Brady Bunch starring UPN as Mike and The WB as Carol. Sure they had to kill a few kids on the way but now everyone will be happily coexisting… in mediocrity. (Press release here.)
Good move: Launching a new network is confusing enough so even though the debut schedule is deadly dull I think it’s smart to keep as many established shows in place as possible. People can still get their Heaven on Mondays, Gilmores on Tuesdays, Models on Wednesdays and Superboy on Thursdays.
The only significant shift—creating an "urban comedy block" on Sundays—is smart counter-programming for a tough night. And even though slating Everybody Hates Chris at 7 provides a more limited audience it saves the show from having to battle tough family-audience competition at 8 from The Simpsons, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition and The Amazing Race.
Bad move: It’s tempting to call the renewal of Veronica Mars a poor decision since the show ranks 23rd in the ratings out of all WB/UPN shows (lower than any scripted show that wasn’t an instant disaster like South Beach or Bedford Diaries). But it will give the network some much needed support from TV critics (and pairing it with Gilmore could help expand its audience, although what sort of creative state the Girls will be in next season is anybody’s guess).
What’s really questionable is pairing the network’s one new drama—Runaway, another of those conspiracy thriller hours—with the back-from-the-dead 7th Heaven. The closest The WB ever came to finding a suitable match for Heaven was with Everwood (which The CW has rather improbably cancelled). Other than the fact that they’re both about families I can’t see any thematic or stylistic parallel between Heaven and Runaway. And Runaway will have the added obstacle of trying to find an audience against Fox’s easier-to-promote conspiracy thriller Vanished (and then 24 in January, if by some miracle Runaway lasts that long) and NBC’s new superhero hour. I know there’s nowhere else for a new show on the schedule (with Supernatural staying put Thursday at 9 and Sunday at 9 being an impossible slot), but why is it there at all?
I’m looking forward to…: The CW only ordered three series—Runaway, Girlfriends spinoff The Game and midseason teen soap Hidden Palms—none of them interesting.
…but not: See above.
What they didn’t pick up: The CW did not order a Nick Lachey/Lindsay Sloane/Lacey Chabert relationship comedy, a Wayne Brady workplace comedy, a teen drama from Aaron Spelling and the widely reported-on Smallville spinoff, Aquaman. Nothing else was even ordered to pilot.
Say goodbye to…: Who’s gonna miss UPN’s: Cuts, Eve, Get This Party Started, Half & Half, Love Inc., One on One, Sex Love and Secrets, and South Beach? Raise your hands! Yeah, I didn’t think so…
The WB’s casualties include: nonstarters The Bedford Diaries, Just Legal, Modern Men, Pepper Dennis, Related and Twins, and placeholders Blue Collar TV, Living With Fran and What I Like About You. Plus the leaving-on-its-own-terms Charmed and sacrificial lamb Everwood (sure to inspire much CW hate mail).
…but not: 7th Heaven, which aired a "series finale" over a week ago but will return for an 11th season anyway (apparently it’s still the most watched show on either WB or UPN, how scary is that?). And Reba, which was renewed for season six despite reports that The CW would cancel the show (which would’ve meant paying a penalty in the neighborhood of $20 million due to a two-year contract between The WB and Reba’s studio, 20th Century Fox Television). Now the network will have to find something to pair Reba with (it’s not gonna fit in on Sundays), or maybe they’ll just run back-to-back episodes for six weeks in that soon-to-be-open post-7th Heaven slot.
Good move: Launching a new network is confusing enough so even though the debut schedule is deadly dull I think it’s smart to keep as many established shows in place as possible. People can still get their Heaven on Mondays, Gilmores on Tuesdays, Models on Wednesdays and Superboy on Thursdays.
The only significant shift—creating an "urban comedy block" on Sundays—is smart counter-programming for a tough night. And even though slating Everybody Hates Chris at 7 provides a more limited audience it saves the show from having to battle tough family-audience competition at 8 from The Simpsons, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition and The Amazing Race.
Bad move: It’s tempting to call the renewal of Veronica Mars a poor decision since the show ranks 23rd in the ratings out of all WB/UPN shows (lower than any scripted show that wasn’t an instant disaster like South Beach or Bedford Diaries). But it will give the network some much needed support from TV critics (and pairing it with Gilmore could help expand its audience, although what sort of creative state the Girls will be in next season is anybody’s guess).
What’s really questionable is pairing the network’s one new drama—Runaway, another of those conspiracy thriller hours—with the back-from-the-dead 7th Heaven. The closest The WB ever came to finding a suitable match for Heaven was with Everwood (which The CW has rather improbably cancelled). Other than the fact that they’re both about families I can’t see any thematic or stylistic parallel between Heaven and Runaway. And Runaway will have the added obstacle of trying to find an audience against Fox’s easier-to-promote conspiracy thriller Vanished (and then 24 in January, if by some miracle Runaway lasts that long) and NBC’s new superhero hour. I know there’s nowhere else for a new show on the schedule (with Supernatural staying put Thursday at 9 and Sunday at 9 being an impossible slot), but why is it there at all?
I’m looking forward to…: The CW only ordered three series—Runaway, Girlfriends spinoff The Game and midseason teen soap Hidden Palms—none of them interesting.
…but not: See above.
What they didn’t pick up: The CW did not order a Nick Lachey/Lindsay Sloane/Lacey Chabert relationship comedy, a Wayne Brady workplace comedy, a teen drama from Aaron Spelling and the widely reported-on Smallville spinoff, Aquaman. Nothing else was even ordered to pilot.
Say goodbye to…: Who’s gonna miss UPN’s: Cuts, Eve, Get This Party Started, Half & Half, Love Inc., One on One, Sex Love and Secrets, and South Beach? Raise your hands! Yeah, I didn’t think so…
The WB’s casualties include: nonstarters The Bedford Diaries, Just Legal, Modern Men, Pepper Dennis, Related and Twins, and placeholders Blue Collar TV, Living With Fran and What I Like About You. Plus the leaving-on-its-own-terms Charmed and sacrificial lamb Everwood (sure to inspire much CW hate mail).
…but not: 7th Heaven, which aired a "series finale" over a week ago but will return for an 11th season anyway (apparently it’s still the most watched show on either WB or UPN, how scary is that?). And Reba, which was renewed for season six despite reports that The CW would cancel the show (which would’ve meant paying a penalty in the neighborhood of $20 million due to a two-year contract between The WB and Reba’s studio, 20th Century Fox Television). Now the network will have to find something to pair Reba with (it’s not gonna fit in on Sundays), or maybe they’ll just run back-to-back episodes for six weeks in that soon-to-be-open post-7th Heaven slot.
Fall Schedules: Fox
Fox’s fall schedule attempts to demonstrate stability, but there’s only so much a network can do when they have to hold off two of their biggest guns—American Idol and 24—until January. (Press release here.)
Good move: For fall Fox has to rely primarily on House and its modest but solid performing Sunday schedule (and hope that fans will return to Prison Break when there’s no prison to break out of in second season). The network really isn’t trying to change up its game very much, just build on what it has and hold its breath until January.
That said it’s wise to pair its best looking new series (hostage negotiator drama Standoff) with its biggest hit (House), even if the new show has to lead off the night.
Bad move: Let’s see… renewing The Loop, hoping Bones develops into something that it never will (i.e. the next House), keeping The OC alive in a vegetative state. Fox has very quietly become the most boring network on TV (yes, even more than CBS). It used to be known for edgy, offbeat shows but the development slates for the past few seasons have been so inspiration-free (a law show titled Justice!?! You have to be kidding!) you have to wonder when exactly braindead zombies took over the network that gave us The Simpsons, The X-Files, Ally McBeal, 24, The Bernie Mac Show, Arrested Development and scores of noble failures (Andy Richter Controls the Universe, Profit, Undeclared, etc.). This is all the more puzzling since Fox President Peter Liguori knows good TV from his days running FX. I guess everyone sells out sometime.
I’m looking forward to…: Only one show really, and it may suck. But Standoff at least has a decent cast (including Ron Livingston and Gina Torres) and sells itself as a Mr. & Mrs. Smith-style look at hostage negotiators. As long as it isn’t too bogged down in procedure it may be interesting (although it's too bad Livingston and Torres aren't paired together as the central couple). Midseason comedy The Winner with The Daily Show’s Rob Corddry at least seems like a good Fox concept, but it’s from the Family Guy creators and has the look of desperate, not smart, comedy.
…but not: Everything else. Even the casts don’t inspire much confidence (although we’ll see who they get to replace Bruno Campos as the lead in The Wedding Album…not that I’ll be watching).
What they didn’t pick up: Hmm, I wonder if any of these shows were any good. Probably not. But I’d rather see a single mom bounty hunter comedy (with The L Word’s Erin Daniels and Annie Potts) and Sean Bean in a criminal underworld drama than most of what made the schedule.
Say goodbye to: Some veterans of better times (Malcolm in the Middle, The Bernie Mac Show, That 70s Show), a bunch of crap from recent seasons (Head Cases, Killer Instinct, Stacked, Free Ride, Reunion), a show that never lived up to its promise (Kitchen Confidential) and one of the best comedies TV has ever seen. Ever. Ever.
Good move: For fall Fox has to rely primarily on House and its modest but solid performing Sunday schedule (and hope that fans will return to Prison Break when there’s no prison to break out of in second season). The network really isn’t trying to change up its game very much, just build on what it has and hold its breath until January.
That said it’s wise to pair its best looking new series (hostage negotiator drama Standoff) with its biggest hit (House), even if the new show has to lead off the night.
Bad move: Let’s see… renewing The Loop, hoping Bones develops into something that it never will (i.e. the next House), keeping The OC alive in a vegetative state. Fox has very quietly become the most boring network on TV (yes, even more than CBS). It used to be known for edgy, offbeat shows but the development slates for the past few seasons have been so inspiration-free (a law show titled Justice!?! You have to be kidding!) you have to wonder when exactly braindead zombies took over the network that gave us The Simpsons, The X-Files, Ally McBeal, 24, The Bernie Mac Show, Arrested Development and scores of noble failures (Andy Richter Controls the Universe, Profit, Undeclared, etc.). This is all the more puzzling since Fox President Peter Liguori knows good TV from his days running FX. I guess everyone sells out sometime.
I’m looking forward to…: Only one show really, and it may suck. But Standoff at least has a decent cast (including Ron Livingston and Gina Torres) and sells itself as a Mr. & Mrs. Smith-style look at hostage negotiators. As long as it isn’t too bogged down in procedure it may be interesting (although it's too bad Livingston and Torres aren't paired together as the central couple). Midseason comedy The Winner with The Daily Show’s Rob Corddry at least seems like a good Fox concept, but it’s from the Family Guy creators and has the look of desperate, not smart, comedy.
…but not: Everything else. Even the casts don’t inspire much confidence (although we’ll see who they get to replace Bruno Campos as the lead in The Wedding Album…not that I’ll be watching).
What they didn’t pick up: Hmm, I wonder if any of these shows were any good. Probably not. But I’d rather see a single mom bounty hunter comedy (with The L Word’s Erin Daniels and Annie Potts) and Sean Bean in a criminal underworld drama than most of what made the schedule.
Say goodbye to: Some veterans of better times (Malcolm in the Middle, The Bernie Mac Show, That 70s Show), a bunch of crap from recent seasons (Head Cases, Killer Instinct, Stacked, Free Ride, Reunion), a show that never lived up to its promise (Kitchen Confidential) and one of the best comedies TV has ever seen. Ever. Ever.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Sunny Sundays
With all the announcements of next season's schedules it's easy to forget the broadcast networks will still be up and running this summer (barely). But it's good to know Fox will use some of its valuable airtime to promote cable cousin FX's excellent, but little seen, comedy series It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
Beginning June 11 Fox will air three episodes of the show's first season on Sundays at 9:30, hoping to expose the show to a few more people before it returns for a second season on FX June 29 (with new cast member Danny DeVito). (And if Family Guy ever hopes to justify its existence on the planet—beyond inspiring a couple kickass episodes of South Park and keeping Fox alive opposite Desperate Housewives—leading people to this show just might be the thing to do it.)
I don't know which episodes will air, and it will be interesting to see if they run completely uncut (the show mines "edgy" topics like racism, abortion and child molestation for genuine laughs), but it's pretty much guaranteed that these reruns will be better than anything Fox will be airing come September.
More on that tomorrow...
and more on Sunny, hopefully, later next month.
Beginning June 11 Fox will air three episodes of the show's first season on Sundays at 9:30, hoping to expose the show to a few more people before it returns for a second season on FX June 29 (with new cast member Danny DeVito). (And if Family Guy ever hopes to justify its existence on the planet—beyond inspiring a couple kickass episodes of South Park and keeping Fox alive opposite Desperate Housewives—leading people to this show just might be the thing to do it.)
I don't know which episodes will air, and it will be interesting to see if they run completely uncut (the show mines "edgy" topics like racism, abortion and child molestation for genuine laughs), but it's pretty much guaranteed that these reruns will be better than anything Fox will be airing come September.
More on that tomorrow...
and more on Sunny, hopefully, later next month.
Fall Schedules: CBS
The stable schedule announced today by CBS is worlds apart from what we’ve seen the last two days (full press release here). Four new shows are joining the network’s line-up and only four shows will change timeslots (two of them—How I Met Your Mother and Cold Case—are even staying on the same night). So yes, the C stands for confident.
Good move: The biggest concern for CBS right now is erosion in their current hits, something that may be exacerbated by the same-y feeling of so many of their procedurals. So it’s smart that their new series appear to depart from the CSI formulas but also appear to be good fits with the CBS brand.
And of course the network’s one big move—Without a Trace to Sundays at 10—looks like an excellent call (and gets rid of the unnecessary movie of the week in the process). Even if ABC had left Grey’s Anatomy on the night the appealing, established Trace would’ve been able to make its mark, but with Grey’s out of the picture it’s CBS’ timeslot to lose. Football may win some weeks but Trace should be able to take it on successfully the way CSI: Miami did on Monday nights (and there’s the added benefit that Trace probably won’t even compete with football most weeks on the West coast).
Bad move: Moving an already weakened Amazing Race against Extreme Makeover: Home Edition isn’t encouraging for the globetrotting show’s future but Race should put up some solid demos and contribute to an overall solid lineup.
It’s pretty hard to argue with any of the series CBS ordered, brought back or cancelled. Honestly, we should all be terrified of Les Moonves. First CBS, soon… the world.
I’m looking forward to…: CBS isn’t exactly my network of choice but they’ve actually ordered four pilots I want to see. The Spike Lee-directed, James Woods-starring Shark will have my attention for at least one episode. And I’m very interested in the ensemble heist drama Smith, which brings Ray Liotta and Virginia Madsen to television with a solid supporting cast. The comedy pickup The Class may be no better than How I Met Your Mother but I’ll check it out, ditto disaster drama Jericho (except substitute Invasion for HIMYM).
…but not: Even if they don’t become a part of my schedule I honestly want to see all of these pilots (compared to last season when I only watched a few of the comedies and one of the dramas). Seriously, fear Moonves.
What they didn’t pick up: With only four pickups and three more for midseason there were several shows left out. Among the actors you won’t be seeing on CBS this fall (barring last minute tinkering): Tom Cavanagh, Bobby Cannavale, Johnny Galecki, Sara Rue, Jane Krakowski, Oliver Hudson, Teri Polo and Chris Elliott in their own comedies and dramas starring John Leguizamo, Joshua Jackson, Julia Ormond, Blair Underwood, Mena Suvari and Lena Headey (in a female superhero show that I was hoping would be shipped to The CW, but that doesn’t appear to be happening for the moment).
(And recent Lost victim Cynthia Watros was a co-star in the Cavanagh project, so without that she’ll be free for as many island flashbacks as necessary.)
Say goodbye to: Only four rookies (four is a big number for CBS this year): Courting Alex, Out of Practice, Threshold and Love Monkey. Plus outlasted-their-usefulness comedies Still Standing and Yes Dear.
Good move: The biggest concern for CBS right now is erosion in their current hits, something that may be exacerbated by the same-y feeling of so many of their procedurals. So it’s smart that their new series appear to depart from the CSI formulas but also appear to be good fits with the CBS brand.
And of course the network’s one big move—Without a Trace to Sundays at 10—looks like an excellent call (and gets rid of the unnecessary movie of the week in the process). Even if ABC had left Grey’s Anatomy on the night the appealing, established Trace would’ve been able to make its mark, but with Grey’s out of the picture it’s CBS’ timeslot to lose. Football may win some weeks but Trace should be able to take it on successfully the way CSI: Miami did on Monday nights (and there’s the added benefit that Trace probably won’t even compete with football most weeks on the West coast).
Bad move: Moving an already weakened Amazing Race against Extreme Makeover: Home Edition isn’t encouraging for the globetrotting show’s future but Race should put up some solid demos and contribute to an overall solid lineup.
It’s pretty hard to argue with any of the series CBS ordered, brought back or cancelled. Honestly, we should all be terrified of Les Moonves. First CBS, soon… the world.
I’m looking forward to…: CBS isn’t exactly my network of choice but they’ve actually ordered four pilots I want to see. The Spike Lee-directed, James Woods-starring Shark will have my attention for at least one episode. And I’m very interested in the ensemble heist drama Smith, which brings Ray Liotta and Virginia Madsen to television with a solid supporting cast. The comedy pickup The Class may be no better than How I Met Your Mother but I’ll check it out, ditto disaster drama Jericho (except substitute Invasion for HIMYM).
…but not: Even if they don’t become a part of my schedule I honestly want to see all of these pilots (compared to last season when I only watched a few of the comedies and one of the dramas). Seriously, fear Moonves.
What they didn’t pick up: With only four pickups and three more for midseason there were several shows left out. Among the actors you won’t be seeing on CBS this fall (barring last minute tinkering): Tom Cavanagh, Bobby Cannavale, Johnny Galecki, Sara Rue, Jane Krakowski, Oliver Hudson, Teri Polo and Chris Elliott in their own comedies and dramas starring John Leguizamo, Joshua Jackson, Julia Ormond, Blair Underwood, Mena Suvari and Lena Headey (in a female superhero show that I was hoping would be shipped to The CW, but that doesn’t appear to be happening for the moment).
(And recent Lost victim Cynthia Watros was a co-star in the Cavanagh project, so without that she’ll be free for as many island flashbacks as necessary.)
Say goodbye to: Only four rookies (four is a big number for CBS this year): Courting Alex, Out of Practice, Threshold and Love Monkey. Plus outlasted-their-usefulness comedies Still Standing and Yes Dear.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Fall Schedules: ABC
That A stands for Ambitious as ABC revealed a fall schedule complete with nine spanking new series (five of them scripted hours), plans for another to share a timeslot with an established hit, and a key timeslot change that will probably be the boldest, best scheduling move by any network this year. (Full press release here.)
Good move: Grey's Anatomy. Thursdays. 9 pm. After speculation for what seemed like the entire season that the network would move its biggest gun to Monday nights, ABC decided instead to stake a claim on arguably TV's most important night (and a night they haven't been a player on for years). Unless CBS does something unexpected it appears that Grey's will face off next season with TV's other most successful scripted hour: CSI. It's possible the competition will cause a dent in ratings for both series, but as previous seasons' Friends/Survior and ER/Without a Trace battles have demonstrated there is room on Thursdays for two massive hits. (This move also puts extra pressure on NBC to move its new series Studio 60 out of the 9 pm Thursday crossfire. If the show wasn't dead in the water before....)
Bad move: In a baffling renewal that echoes the mistake of bringing back John Stamos' Jake in Progress last season ABC will stick with the poorly performing What About Brian on Mondays at 10. The network seems to be taking its time in developing a strategy for post-football-era Monday nights, sticking with modest reality shows and a scripted hour that's already failed to entice viewers. Maybe it was a point of pride, because if ABC had cancelled Brian it would've meant death for every single show introduced this season.
Also, an abundance of new series is going to mean big headaches in marketing and promotion, but considering none of this season's new offerings caught on that move was necessary...ABC needs to start building on its blocks ASAP (or else they become a network whose most popular show is hosted by Howie Mandel).
I’m looking forward to…: ABC has had the best crop of pilots for two seasons running but hopefully this year's batch will be closer to the 2004-05 group than last year's (which were generally better pilots than they were series). I’m really looking forward to checking out all of these but the one I want to see first is Six Degrees which has a strong cast (Hope Davis, Campbell Scott, Erika Christensen) and pedigree (producer J.J. Abrams, director Rodrigo Garcia) and gets the plum post-Grey’s slot on Thursday.
…but not: Well I’m looking forward to almost all of ABC’s pilots. I just can’t see Big Day—which follows the events of a single wedding day for an entire season—turning out all that good. In fact one of the more worrisome aspects of most of ABC’s pilots are the "high concepts." There’s a thriller where Taye Diggs wakes up on the same day every episode to try to solve a complex murder case (Day Break, which will occupy Lost's timeslot starting later this year), another conspiracy thriller where two young men are framed as terrorists by a friend (Traveler), a comedy series involving a season long attempt to rob Mick Jagger (Let’s Rob…), a drama following nine strangers united by a bank robbery (The Nine), etc. etc. Maybe it’s about time American television adapted the British model of short seasons and limited runs where these high concepts aren’t stretched beyond their natural lifespans.
What they didn’t pick up: Even with fifteen new series orders there was still quite a bit that ABC rejected, including comedy vehicles for Patricia Heaton, Bonnie Hunt, Kim Cattrall (costarring with Buffy’s Anthony Stewart Head for producer Elton John), Heather Locklear and Alicia Silverstone. Dramas that didn’t make the cut include two more conspiracy thrillers (one with David James Elliott and another with Jesse Bradford) and series with such actors as Dylan McDermott, Kelli Williams, Marcia Gay Harden, Bryan Greenberg, Angie Harmon and Peter Facinelli.
Say goodbye to: Almost everything introduced this season including: Invasion, Freddie, Crumbs, The Evidence, Night Stalker, In Justice, Hot Properties, Emily’s Reasons Why Not, the once promising Commander-in-Chief and the too-good-for-network-TV Sons and Daughters. Also Hope & Faith, Rodney, Jake in Progress, Less Than Perfect… pretty much the only thing leaving ABC’s schedule with some dignity is Alias.
Good move: Grey's Anatomy. Thursdays. 9 pm. After speculation for what seemed like the entire season that the network would move its biggest gun to Monday nights, ABC decided instead to stake a claim on arguably TV's most important night (and a night they haven't been a player on for years). Unless CBS does something unexpected it appears that Grey's will face off next season with TV's other most successful scripted hour: CSI. It's possible the competition will cause a dent in ratings for both series, but as previous seasons' Friends/Survior and ER/Without a Trace battles have demonstrated there is room on Thursdays for two massive hits. (This move also puts extra pressure on NBC to move its new series Studio 60 out of the 9 pm Thursday crossfire. If the show wasn't dead in the water before....)
Bad move: In a baffling renewal that echoes the mistake of bringing back John Stamos' Jake in Progress last season ABC will stick with the poorly performing What About Brian on Mondays at 10. The network seems to be taking its time in developing a strategy for post-football-era Monday nights, sticking with modest reality shows and a scripted hour that's already failed to entice viewers. Maybe it was a point of pride, because if ABC had cancelled Brian it would've meant death for every single show introduced this season.
Also, an abundance of new series is going to mean big headaches in marketing and promotion, but considering none of this season's new offerings caught on that move was necessary...ABC needs to start building on its blocks ASAP (or else they become a network whose most popular show is hosted by Howie Mandel).
I’m looking forward to…: ABC has had the best crop of pilots for two seasons running but hopefully this year's batch will be closer to the 2004-05 group than last year's (which were generally better pilots than they were series). I’m really looking forward to checking out all of these but the one I want to see first is Six Degrees which has a strong cast (Hope Davis, Campbell Scott, Erika Christensen) and pedigree (producer J.J. Abrams, director Rodrigo Garcia) and gets the plum post-Grey’s slot on Thursday.
…but not: Well I’m looking forward to almost all of ABC’s pilots. I just can’t see Big Day—which follows the events of a single wedding day for an entire season—turning out all that good. In fact one of the more worrisome aspects of most of ABC’s pilots are the "high concepts." There’s a thriller where Taye Diggs wakes up on the same day every episode to try to solve a complex murder case (Day Break, which will occupy Lost's timeslot starting later this year), another conspiracy thriller where two young men are framed as terrorists by a friend (Traveler), a comedy series involving a season long attempt to rob Mick Jagger (Let’s Rob…), a drama following nine strangers united by a bank robbery (The Nine), etc. etc. Maybe it’s about time American television adapted the British model of short seasons and limited runs where these high concepts aren’t stretched beyond their natural lifespans.
What they didn’t pick up: Even with fifteen new series orders there was still quite a bit that ABC rejected, including comedy vehicles for Patricia Heaton, Bonnie Hunt, Kim Cattrall (costarring with Buffy’s Anthony Stewart Head for producer Elton John), Heather Locklear and Alicia Silverstone. Dramas that didn’t make the cut include two more conspiracy thrillers (one with David James Elliott and another with Jesse Bradford) and series with such actors as Dylan McDermott, Kelli Williams, Marcia Gay Harden, Bryan Greenberg, Angie Harmon and Peter Facinelli.
Say goodbye to: Almost everything introduced this season including: Invasion, Freddie, Crumbs, The Evidence, Night Stalker, In Justice, Hot Properties, Emily’s Reasons Why Not, the once promising Commander-in-Chief and the too-good-for-network-TV Sons and Daughters. Also Hope & Faith, Rodney, Jake in Progress, Less Than Perfect… pretty much the only thing leaving ABC’s schedule with some dignity is Alias.
Monday, May 15, 2006
They Know What Boys Like?
There's a lot going on in entertainment right now with summer movies (see Mission: Impossible but not Poseidon), May sweeps with plenty of series and season finales, networks announcing their schedules for next fall, several fantastic new cds in stores, Broadway theater award nominations and the major International film festival just about to start.
But leaving all that alone for the moment I'd like to comment briefly on Maxim magazine's "Hot 100" list, which celebrates the most bodacious women in showbiz for a 18-35 year old male audience (read the press release and full list here).
Eva Longoria is #1 on the list for the second year in a row. And good for her. The top ten is filled with even more obvious choices like Scarlett Johansson, Angelina Jolie, Jessica Alba and Keira Knightley.
And yet browsing the list you learn several interesting things like:
-Nicollette Sheridan (#48) is so much hotter than Brooke Burke (#94), Elisha Cuthbert (#92) and hot cylons Grace Park (#93) and Tricia Helfer (#95)
-Fergie's humps (#36) are significantly hotter than Shakira's hips (#60)
-Mariah Carey (#22) is one of the 25 hottest women around, hotter than Charlize Theron (#25), Mandy Moore (#28), Uma Thurman (#30) and Jaime Pressly (#34)
Uh... say what? And huh?
And as the press release points out:
Of course lists like this are ridiculous, but if you're going to do this, do it right.
But leaving all that alone for the moment I'd like to comment briefly on Maxim magazine's "Hot 100" list, which celebrates the most bodacious women in showbiz for a 18-35 year old male audience (read the press release and full list here).
Eva Longoria is #1 on the list for the second year in a row. And good for her. The top ten is filled with even more obvious choices like Scarlett Johansson, Angelina Jolie, Jessica Alba and Keira Knightley.
And yet browsing the list you learn several interesting things like:
-Nicollette Sheridan (#48) is so much hotter than Brooke Burke (#94), Elisha Cuthbert (#92) and hot cylons Grace Park (#93) and Tricia Helfer (#95)
-Fergie's humps (#36) are significantly hotter than Shakira's hips (#60)
-Mariah Carey (#22) is one of the 25 hottest women around, hotter than Charlize Theron (#25), Mandy Moore (#28), Uma Thurman (#30) and Jaime Pressly (#34)
Uh... say what? And huh?
And as the press release points out:
I can understand a dip in the respective Hottie Stocks of Spears and Holmes, and we'll leave Lopez alone, but what's justifiable about leaving off SALMA HAYEK in favor of choices like Teri Hatcher (#73) and the Hilton sisters (#38 and 62)?Notable omissions on this year's list include Britney Spears, new mom Katie Holmes, Jennifer Lopez and Salma Hayek.
Of course lists like this are ridiculous, but if you're going to do this, do it right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)