I’ve grown rather fond of this new ABC sitcom, which has been jumping all over the schedule like a pea on a hot griddle—not a good omen for its future.
It’s by no means brilliant, it’s no Futurama or Burns & Allen. Just a pleasant half-hour with an attractive, not untalented cast, and writing a notch above the usual sitcom dreck. Just one notch, but still . . . I wouldn’t tape it if I were going to be away, but I do make a point of turning it on if I’ve nothing better to do, and I have gotten one or two actual laughs per episode. They don’t over-do the “high concept,” and seem to be trying to flesh out the characters.
Actually, I find the show quite charming as well (although every episode I’ve seen has been Tues @ 8:30 on ABC --maybe it’s an EST thing?). They have used the Notting Hill premise (movie star dates normal guy) better and more inventively than I expected, and keeping the cast uncluttered (two leads, two “wacky” sidekicks, that’s it) allows the dynamics to grow naturally without feeling the need to indulge or shoehorn a huge ensemble. Plus, it makes some mild-but-funny potshots at celebrity lifestyles without it feeling hypocritical (since none of the cast are really superstars IRL).
Mercifully, they seem to be dropping a lot of the “name-dropping” that was more abundant in early episodes. Last night’s was yet another solid (but typically non-exemplary) episode, with some very funny references to how most action movies are just teeming with gay subtexts. The one where Teri Polo couldn’t sing was also quite good.
There are certainly a lot worse sitcoms that have been around for a while, so I hope this one makes it (although one wonders where they can actually go with the story).
Is it just me, or are the second bananas this season waaaay more interesting than the stars? (I saw this show once, and it was ok enough…but it conflicts with something…I forget what).
Kalhoun, that’s a common perception in SitcomLand. Often, networks and producers feel that their show’s stars must be “likable” to the exclusion of nearly everything else, and they end up with somehwat bland, whitewashed main characters, while all the really funny stuff, like neurosis and spite and weakness, ends up in the secondary characters, who seem to get all the good lines and become audience favorites. It’s not a TV law or anything, but it happens quite a lot.
I like this show too. It’s not incredible, but squarely above average. And the writing and acting is just charming enough that I miss it when it’s not on. I agree with RealityChuck that the sister is especially good.
ArchiveGuy is not the only person to think this show is a steal from Notting Hill. In actuality, it’s based on another piece called “real life”. Chris Henchy, the show’s head writer, has openly admitted the show is based on his own marriage to Brooke Shields.
So I watch it tonight, eager for a little sitcom mind candy. Alex sneaks into Patrick’s high-school reunion in a dark wig and “Rene Costerman”'s name tag, and of course it turns out Rene was a guy, so everyone thinks she’s post-op. Actually, I thought that was a kinda funny little twist, especially as I went to my high school reunion and caused quite a commotion.
Then, they had to have people refer to her as a guy and a dude and a “she-male” (!!) and have one character sigh in relief when he finds out “he” is really a woman: “Thank God–I almost gave my room key to him!”
Crap. Now I’m all pissed-off and depressed, which is not why I watch sitcoms. I certainly don’t mind some good-natured fun-pokin’, I can take a (well-written) joke. Why did they have to take the low road?