It’s that time of the year again, new series are popping up and I’d like to hear your recommendations and warnings. This does not apply to new seasons of “old” tv shows.
So far, I’ve watched 4 and here is what I think of them:
Whoopi : I hate this kind of comedies. Never going to watch it again. 2/10
The O.C : average teen stuff. I don’t really like it but I’m still going to follow it. “just to see what happens next”. 5/10
The threat matrix : Could have been pretty good if it wasn’t so propaganda-ridden (watch the second episode…). I’m still going to watch it though.5/10
The handler : now we’re talking! Loved the first episode and I like joe pantoliano. Definitely going to watch this one. 9/10
The Wild Rules: Kind of interesting. If I knew more about reality shows, I’d probably be able to tell you which one this is like.
Las Vegas: Glitzy. I hated the camera tricks because, well, I hate camera tricks. Much funnier than I expected, though the previews for the next episode look darker.
Jake 2.0: Meh.
The Brotherhood of Poland, New Hampshire: I did enjoy this one, though I can understand why people might dislike it. I didn’t see the first episode. Very unglamorous stars (which is why I like it), and some actual emotional content. Unfortunately, there’s a show starting this week that will conflict, and hubby and I both love baseball, so this will be hard.
Miss Match: Cute show.
Joan of Arcadia: Quite nice. Smarter than you might be expecting, though if God is going to continue to be snippy, I’m going to find the theological mess a bit hard to take.
The Handler: I don’t think I liked it as much as the OP, but it was tolerable.
Note: I haven’t been a TV watcher in years, so take all of these opinins with a salt block, please.
I have to say this season seems pretty thin. There’s a couple of new shows I plan on checking out but there’s none that I’m really excited about. And from what I’ve read, most TV critics seem to be feeling the same. With the possible exception of Joan of Arcadia, all of the new shows seem to be just new versions of old shows.
I’ll probably catch “Las Vegas” if possible, but the other shows haven’t made a lasting impression. The style of this show reminds me of “CSI” which I enjoy a great deal. Interesting characters and story was enjoyable.
Another vote for Joan of Arcadia. I really liked that one.
If it doesn’t get too maudlin and ham-handed with the religion, and keep the God-angle slightly ambiguous, it’ll be good.
I’m set to watch Cold Case in a few minutes, and The Lyon’s Den later.
The first episode of Cold Case looks like a “ripped-from-the-headlines” of the Martha Moxley/Michael Skakel murder case, but if they can come up with original ideas, I think it will be good.
I watched The Handler, and I totally called that the heavy-set guy and the Russian girl would end up dead. I watched the free CBS preview DVD from Blockbuster, so I knew that Lily was being set by by the so-called drug dealer. They gave away too much of the story on that. You saw the bit where she’s in the bathroom and Joe comes in and saves her.
Otherwise, I guess I liked it. It’s on at the same time as Boomtown, and that’s sort of gone downhill, so I may give The Handler a chance.
I watched Las Vegas and Joan of Arcadia. Las Vegas seems ok. Joan of Arcadia made more of an impression on me though. It is indeed an interesting concept.
Cold Case: The case in question seemed pretty easy, so I can’t predict much about this show, though I think the lead is compelling enough.
The Lyon’s Den: I was rolling my eyes at the beginning, when the Rob Lowe character was being guilted into taking an asylum case. It was very cheesy. But the show improved from there. I really don’t like Rob Lowe, but I think he’s okay in this role. And wow, did this show ever have a whole host of familiar faces, whose names completely escape me.
Man, I watched the Lyon’s Den too, and good God but it sucked. Some questions:
A guy rapes and murders a girl, frames his brain-damaged twin brother for the crime, and then insists the defense lawyer order a DNA test. What the hell was he thinking? That doesn’t make any sense at all – does he think it’s obscure knowledge that identical twins have the same DNA? Idiot.
A woman gets a presidential order keeping her from being deported to a country where she’ll be executed, and she decides to go back home and be executed. What the hell was she thinking?
A lawyer gets a client of hers a presidential order keeping her from being deported; when the client says that, except for not having anyone to care for her infant daughter, she would return home and get executed, the lawyer offers to adopt the daughter so that the client can go get herself killed. What the hell was she thinking?
A corrupt attorney who knows there’s all kinds of corruption in his firm decides, rather than promoting the corrupt young hot-shot to senior partner, to promote the one idealistic lawyer in the firm to the position. What the hell was he thinking?
Two lawyers throw each other into a pile of filled garbage bags. What the hell were they thinking?
Nobody on the show had anything even slightly resembling a plausible motive. The murder mystery (i.e., the two twins) was both completely obvious from its inception and completely unbelievable. The dialogue sucked.
Yet someone greenlighted this show. What the hell were they thinking?
Yeah, I didn’t get that one at all. He killed the girl, framed his brain-damaged twin brother, and insisted on DNA testing to clear his brother. WTF?
Did he kill her and frame his brother so he wouldn’t have to take care of his brother any more? And what was the bit with the football game? How did that figure in?
And what’s with Elizabeth Mitchell? The one sleeping with Kyle Chandler’s character? He’s apparently married, she used to be with Rob Lowe, and the dark-haired paralegal is also chasing after her. And she’s been sober for 8 years but falls off the wagon in the very first episode and decides to go hit on the paralegal? Oh, please.
I might give “The Lyon’s Den” one more chance, but that’s it.
As near as I can tell, here’s how things went down with the twins (Dee and Dum, for convenience’s sake; Dee is the brain-damaged one, for politeness’s sake):
Dum is tired of taking care of Dee, and wants a way to stop caring for him.
“I know!” Dum says. “I’ll rape and kill a girl and frame my brother for it! What a simple, elegant solution to my problem!” So that’s what he does.
Dee gets arrested.
Dum decides to prevent Dee from getting convicted, apparently so that Dum can continue taking care of Dee (he’s forgotten his plan). He therefore tells Dee’s attorney that they were watching a football game that they weren’t really watching, as an alibi.
Dum demands a DNA test be conducted, knowing that it’ll prove that one or the other of them committed the crime. Why? I’ve got no fucking idea. Is he trying for his original plan at this point, hoping to frame his brother, even though HE JUST FURNISHED HIS BROTHER WITH AN ALIBI? Or is he hoping to get caught himself, but is too chickenshit to confess? Who knows? Who cares?
The lawyer, seeing a football game on television, realizes that it’s possible to lie about whether one was watching football, and so he comes up with his ingenious and completely unexpected plan to trap the murderer.
My conclusion?
7) Despite what Dum says during his confession, he was also in the car accident that killed his parents and damaged his brother. Head injuries drove him batshit insane, such that he’s unable to hold onto a coherent motive for more than twenty seconds running.
Well, I didn’t see the show, but wouldn’t he argue that his brother should get a DNA test to give the appearance that he believes his brother to be innocent? Then, when the DNA shockingly comes back positive, the circumstantial evidence (from the frame) plus the forensics would be enough, and then Dee breaks down and says “No, we weren’t watching football, I don’t know where he was”, sealing Dum’s fate.
They were identical twins, so the DNA test would point equally to both of them; and
The poor schlub was already online for being convicted for the crime AND HAD CONFESSED TO IT; without the twin brother’s interference, Dee was going to prison for a long, long time, and
If he wanted to pretend that he believed his brother to be innocent, why would he lie about watching television together? That sounds like someone who believes their brother is guilty, not innocent.
Conceivably, Dum was afraid that Dee’s lawyer would get a plea-bargain, unless the DNA evidence came back positive, and was willing to take the risk that he’d be implicated by the test in order to remove Dee’s chance of a plea bargain. Honestly, though, my theory about Dum being stark raving nutters is more plausible.
This was what I ended up thinking. What’s more amazing is that I completely forgot this aspect of the show. Zippp. This must be a survival mechanism for me or something.
Well, there was some suggestion that Dum was thinking that. It’s still a very stupid plot on his part, for a very stupid goal. If he wanted to get out of caring for his brother,
Raping and murdering a girl wasn’t the easiest way to do it; and
He could have let the brother plea-bargain, and when his brother got out of prison, sent him off to a government facility, claiming to be afraid that his brother would rape and kill someone else.
I had some hopes for the show: while the idealistic young hero taking on a massively corrupt law-firm from the inside and dealing with all sorts of intrigue is a great premise, they completely screwed it up.
Cold Case: Too dark and boring. None of the main characters interested me, and I thought it was badly written. I also can’t figure out how they’re going to have her solving cold cases every week. Is a new witness going to come forward in every episode?
Las Vegas: I love this show! It’s fast-paced, pretty (the cast is yummy, and the rest of the scenery isn’t bad either), and held my attention through two episodes. I’m just afraid it will join “Bull”, “Breaking News”, and “Mr. Sterling” on my list of favorite shows that were instantly cancelled.
Navy NCIS: The pilot wasn’t great, but it reminded me a lot of the JAG pilot which I also didn’t like, and that show improved tremedously over time. I hope they focus more on the criminal investigations and less on the military/national security/spy stuff that doesn’t interest me as much.
The Lyon’s Den: I like Rob Lowe, and I really wanted to like this show, but it’s awfully convoluted. It plays more like an over-the-top nighttime soap than a legal drama. I agree with everyone who says that the actual case in the pilot made no sense at all. I’ll stick with it for another episode or two, but it had better improve quickly.
The Joe Schmo Show: Absolutely the best thing I saw this week. I caught the marathon that SpikeTV[sub][sup]any resemblance to actor/director Spike Lee is purely coincidental[/sub][/sup] ran this weekend, and I could not stop laughing. If I had to recommend one show, this would be it. For anyone who doesn’t know, this is the reality show parody in which all of the contestants but one are actors playing cliched parts.