Take Me To The Pilots '07: The CW

[As I mentioned with my glimpses at the NBC pilots, these aren't intended as reviews. Heck, they're *not* reviews. Far from it. That wouldn't be fair. The networks have four months to reshoot, recast, reedit, reconceive and perhaps totally scrap (Sorry, "The Wedding Album") these pilots. Thus, I'm just giving some initial gut reactions.]

[Author's Note: If you don't understand the Eric Balfour thing by now, I may not be able to help you. That being said, I'm having a hard time casting Balfour in the pilots I've seen so far. I'm not sure why not. Apologies in advance.]

Also be sure to check out Sepinwall's similarly not-reviews of these same shows. We may have the exact same opinions on everything, but we totally use different adjectives and occasionally adverbs (all nouns, however, are duplicated).

Click through for a first glance at "Reaper," "Gossip Girl," "Running Wild" and "Aliens in America."



Show: "Reaper" (The CW dramedy)
Pitch: You know those episodes of "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy" where Homer or Peter briefly took over for the Grim Reaper? How 'bout a whole series like that, only with an attractive 20-something male lead. Alternatively: "The Loop" only with less Mimi Rogers and more Satan.
Quick Response: If you liked Bret Harrison on "The Loop," you'll like him here. The premise of a Gen Y slacker suddenly having to do The Devil's dirty work seems versatile and the pilot is a breezy hoot, well-directed by Kevin Smith (words you don't usually utter), who packs the screen with deadpan details. The casting of Ray Wise as Satan is a treat. The only way Tyler Labine's gregariously lazy sidekick could be more obviously Jack Black inspired would be to have the character be the frontman of the greatest rock duo in the world and he may be trying a bit too hard. I like the casting of Nikki Reed as the lead's dreamgirl, conveying both intelligence and off-kilter charm rather than the more obvious attributes of a typical CW bimbo (rumor has it that the network may be contemplating recasting the part with a typical CW bimbo... hope not). If The CW people are smart, they'll give some thought to where they can move "Reaper." This is a show that deserves the chance to succeed, but going up against "House" and the markedly similar "Chuck" on NBC, it'll have a tough go of it.
Desire to Watch Again: Strong.
Possible Role For Eric Balfour: Nothing, really. If he isn't already, he could be a minion of the Devil.



Show: "Gossip Girl" (The CW drama)
The Pitch: Remember that "Cruel Intentions" pilot ["Manchester Prep"] that FOX didn't pick up but that became the really bad "Cruel Intentions" sequel? Make it a little less trashy and a bit smarter.
Quick Response: I'm always happy to welcome a decent high school soap into my life and with "The O.C." gone and "Hairy Palms" due for near-instant death, this should fit the bill. And how nice that it just happens to come from Josh Schwartz and Stephanie Savage of "The O.C." fame. I'm told that it comes from a series of books and that the teenage girls are ga-ga over 'em, but I don't have a Sidekick or a MySpace page, so I'm probably not in tune with them anyway. Since we're dealing with snotty New York private school kids, it's important that the leads not be insufferable. Here, the main characters look to have been well-cast, particularly Penn Badgely (who I've never previously liked on any of his WB shows), Leighton Meester (memorable as the doc's Lolita-esque stalker on "House") and Blake Lively (who has the disadvantage of photographing at least five years older than the rest of the cast, even if she's actually younger). A bit more disturbing is Cindy Lou Who (Taylor Momsen), whose character is in danger of being sexually assaulted in the pilot. Will Schwartz and Savage be able to keep the parents (represented mostly by Kelly Rutherford and Matthew Settle in the pilot) involved in the story? And is there a line they can't cross with representations of teenage drinking and sexuality?
Desire to Watch Again: Relatively strong. I'm not the target demo, but I'll tune in provided the show remains smart enough.
Possible Role For Eric Balfour: Geez. Out of luck again.



Show: "Life Is Wild" (The CW Drama)
The Pitch: It's "7th Heaven" if you replace Jesus with Nelson Mandela and Beverly Mitchell with a dingo (All together now... "Who'd know the difference?).
First Impression: A show that the entire family can watch together that teaches important lessons about South African culture and nature? Nice. I feel bad making fun of that. Unfortunately, "Life Is Wild" (my screener reads "Running Wild") is shot on digital video and all of the pleasures of the location shooting and Real Live Animals are undone by how low the production values are. Sepinwall liked the scenery and wildlife, but for the visual cheapness, they might as well have shot at the San Diego Zoo. Also, I'm a bit sad that Rutger Hauer bailed on playing the crotchety South African grandfather, because the guy who replaced him is no Rutger Hauer. Since I came into the pilot with a healthy distrust of poachers, money-driven lodge owners and wounded feral lions, I'm not sure I'll need to tune in again.
Desire to Watch Again: Minimal, but if "7th Heaven" fans want to gather around to watch on Sunday nights, I'll try to only mock a little.
Possible Role For Eric Balfour: Can you see Eric Balfour as an evil poacher? I can. No part in the pilot, though, is ready made for him.



Show: "Aliens in America" (The CW comedy)
The Pitch: A Muslim in Wisconsin?!?!? How can something so crazy not be hilarious? [My own personal sitcom about being a Jewish teen in Mississippi has many of the same punchlines.]
First Impression: Dan Byrd was one of the few cast members of "The Hills Have Eyes" that I didn't want to see get eaten by mutant cannibals and he's a good Everykid entry point into the series. The pilot, which has been sitting on the shelf for a year, is laced with a bizarre vein of humor and I may need to tune in for a couple weeks just to see if they explain the story of the clown who died in the main family's living room. People concerned that "Aliens" mocks Muslims or people of Middle Eastern lineage need not be concerned. Nope. It just mocks ignorant small town Midwestern white folks, which is totally kosher I guess. The outcast kid narrating his adventures being picked on in school may be played out by this point, but at least "Aliens" is compatible with "Everybody Hates Chris."
Desire to Watch Again: Low. If The CW sends out screeners, I might check out another episode or two.
Possible Role For Eric Balfour: Sorry. This just isn't your year at The C-Dub, Balfour.

Tweet

Take Me To The Pilots '07: NBC Dramas

[As was the case when I did this last year, these aren't intended as reviews. Over the next four months, the networks will recast, reshoot and otherwise doctor many or most of these pilots. Some will be shorter, some longer. Some will be better, one or two worse. These are, however, my first impressions.]

[Author's note: In reviewing last season's pilots, I made it my quest to get work Eric Balfour, due to my appreciation for his status as one of TV's most frequently cancelled leading men. Balfour didn't get added to a pilot, but he returned to "24." Then he got cast in a pilot and killed off "24" and his pilot didn't get picked up. With more genuine "Fien Print" favorite Kathleen Robertson doing a Sci Fi miniseries and another season of "The Business," it looks like we'll be back on the Balfour Beat this spring.]

Click through for an early glimpse at "Chuck," "The Bionic Woman," "Life" and "Journeyman."


Show: "Chuck" (NBC dramedy)
Pitch: "Office Space" meets "Mission: Impossible"
Quick Response: "Chuck" is the only pilot on NBC's roster that I would categorize as "likeable." Written by Josh Schwartz and directed by McG, is a nice blend of action and comedy and it zips along effortlessly. As everybody will doubtlessly mention, leading man Zachary Levi is cut from the Adam Brody cloth and delivers Schwartz's dialogue with the same charm (he's also bigger than Brody, which will pay off if he has to travel the world fighting terrorism). I don't know what genetic experiment gave a nice Jewish boy like Chuck a button-nosed sister like Sarah Lancaster, but it's all good. Sepinwall's already noted the similarities between co-star Yvonne Strzechowski and former "O.C." lesbian love interest Olivia Wilde, which I think is reductive. Strzechowski is more like a cross between Olivia Wilde and Erika Christensen, with Wilde's metabolism. She spends much of the pilot in her underwear. Far more dressed, but perfectly cast, is Adam Baldwin, who was born to play dead-pan G-men. I'm a little unsure where the show goes in subsequent episodes.
Desire to Watch Again: High.
Possible Role For Eric Balfour: I'm just relieved he won't be playing Chuck. Nothing else really matters.



Show: "Bionic Woman" (NBC Drama)
The Pitch: "There's this woman and she's bionic." "Oh, like 'The Bionic Woman'?" "Yes. Exactly."
Quick Response: The camera likes leading lady Michelle Ryan a lot and of all of NBC's Brits-playing-American, her accent is the least distracting. I'm struck, and probably surprised, by just how seriously producer David Eick and writer Jason Smilovic are treating this material. I know that you don't want to go full-on camp, but we're dealing with bionic limbs and healing nanobots and other outlandish silliness, but I guess the laughs will have to wait. Now that "Jericho" has officially been cancelled, can we get Shoshannah Stern in to replace Mae Whitman as our hero's deaf sister? And steps will have to be taken to make male lead Chris Bowers less, um, dull. But you know who isn't dull? Katee Sackhoff, whose ridiculously charismatic turn as the rogue original Bionic Woman will have many viewers (and not just "Battlestar" fans) wishing the show was about her.
Desire to Watch Again: Surprisingly high. The pilot may have been a bit self-serious, but it zipped by and the action scenes were superior.
Possible Role For Eric Balfour: Nothing in the pilot jumps out, particularly since I like the race-blind casting of Will Yun Lee as designated Bionic Woman wrangler. Future episodes, though, are bound to require a tech-savvy guy to check our heroine's vital signs, if you know what I mean...



Show: "Life" (NBC drama)
The Pitch: "It's 'Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer: The Series' only instead of a lawyer, he's a cop and instead of being unfrozen, he's just been released from 12 years in jail for a crime he didn't commit."
Quick Response: Damian Lewis is a great, great actor (check out "Band of Brothers" or "Keane") and he's got the kind of driven, manic lead role that you'd expect to see in a British series. His American accent is clunky, but I can't imagine any actor better underplaying the impossible quirkiness of this character. He's been away from society for 12 years and every bit of technology confuses and amazes him. He's also particularly excited by the easy availability of fresh fruit. He's also read books on Zen. We know these things because they're repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in the pilot. He's not just quirky, he's QUIRKY! Lewis' character is so big, it's actually a relief that he's paired with the petite Sarah Shahi, whose acting abilities remain -- let's just say -- unproven. Her character also is full of obvious writerly tics -- she's recovering addict hanging onto her job by a thread. Melissa Sagemiller and Adam Arkin are in a totally different show, but they pop up here and there.
Desire to Watch Again: Moderate-to-high, completely because of Lewis. I'm going to hope that the myriad redundancies of the pilot were just about laying the foundation and things will be get better. If not? I'll be out soon.
Possible Role For Eric Balfour: Well, Balfour did a CBS LAPD pilot that didn't get picked up, why not bring that character over to this show. He could be a brash young cop who trusts Lewis' character when nobody else does. Or something.



Show: "Journeyman" (NBC drama)
The Pitch: "Early Edition" meets "Quantum Leap"
Quick Response: I've seen "Day Break." I've watched "Day Break" and "Journeyman," it's not that you're no "Day Break," but have I mentioned that I've seen "Day Break"? Kevin McKidd plays a journalist who keeps popping back to different parts of the past, where he's supposed to do something to somebody to either prevent something from happening or to make something else happen. Or something. I stopped caring about anything early on except for the fact that, like "Day Break," it's another TV show about people going back in time to try to save Moon Bloodgood's life, forcing viewers to utilize similar audio clues (musical cliches and sports results) to keep track of the narrative. McKidd has the requisite star presence to carry a show like this (more than Taye Diggs, at least), even if his American accent is downright weird. And I'm happy to watch Bloodgood. But is anybody else in this show? And does anybody have any idea of the mechanism or purpose behind the main character's time travel? It became too much work for me in a hurry.
Desire to Watch Again: Moderate. I'll definitely watch a second episode, but no promises on a third.
Possible Role For Eric Balfour: Since I didn't notice any supporting characters in the pilot, I have no idea what Balfour could do. He could replace all of them, for all I care.

Tweet

FOX Upfronts: Quick Thoughts

Afflicted (except in years featuring the Yankees, Red Sox or Cubs) with baseball coverage in October, FOX makes a point of releasing a minimum of two schedules per year to advertisers at their upfront presentations (one year it was at least three schedules). FOX doesn't do this because they have any intention of using that January/Spring schedule, but they want to remind ad buyers that no matter how bleak the fall may look, "American Idol" and "24" are around the bend.

Look at the schedule FOX presented in May '06 for January '07. It included "Standoff," "Justice," "The Loop," "Happy Hour" and "The Wedding Album," none of which played even a minor role in the spring. It also included the move of "Bones" to Friday, which didn't happen either. In fact, looking at the schedule, it's pretty clear that it was pure hubris, but sometimes you've got to put things out there, even if you know they're lies.

That's why I take FOX's Thursday (May 17) scheduling announcements with several shakers full of salt. You can count on "24" airing at 9 p.m. on Mondays starting in January. You can count on "American Idol" airing on Tuesdays and Wednesdays next year and prompting the inevitable "Is 'American Idol' over-the-hill?" talk until it premieres with 35 million viewers. You can count on "COPS" and "AMW" on Saturdays and that "The Simpsons" will air on Sundays at 8 p.m. Everything else is *pure* conjecture. And despite how up-in-the-air everything else, between "Idol" and "House" and "24" and the Super Bowl, it's hard to imagine a network that isn't FOX winning the key demos next season. That doesn't mean this is a great schedule, but until "American Idol" actually does go in the tank, that's a heck of a thing to top.

A question I'd ponder is whether or not FOX's core is growing. You've got "Idol" and "24" and "House" and... Dunno... "Bones"? To a slightly lesser degree "Prison Break"? It took an "Idol" push for FOX to keep "'Til Death" around, avoiding a total squadoosh for the 2006 development season. So FOX may win 18-49 this season, but where's the evidence that the network's overall strength is improving and that they're properly utilizing what resources they have to develop new resources?

A quick night-by-night review and a glance at the pilots FOX didn't pick up is after the bump, so click on through:


[Warning: This may get confusing...]

MONDAYS
FALL: "Prison Break," "K-Ville"
SPRING: "K-Ville" (January)/ "Prison Break" (Spring), "24"
As long as I have at least three available DVR/TiVo/Slingbox tuners, I'm not about to quit on "Prison Break," though I haven't missed it since March and I only barely remember where we left off. Is it possible that that's a show that has pushed view faith too far and may be ready for a drop? And will "K-Ville" be able to succeed where "Vanished" failed last year? I'd really like for "K-Ville" to be good, but are Anthony Anderson and Cole Hauser big enough stars to sell it?

TUESDAY
FALL: "New Amsterdam," "House"
SPRING: "American Idol," "House"
It's odd that FOX isn't attempting to use "House" as a launching pad and that they're content that the "Idol"-"House" Tuesday is a winning combination and there's no point in using "Idol" to generate, I dunno, another success. Why not try using "House" to lead into "K-Ville"? Why not use "Idol" in the spring to make "Canterbury's Law" work? Obviously, "House" doesn't need "Idol" anymore, so why not spread resources? Why not put "House" at 8 on Thursdays and attack that night? I dunno... This just seems gutless to me.

WEDNESDAY
FALL: "Back To You," "'Til Death," "Bones"
JANUARY: "Back To You," "'Til Death," "American Idol"
SPRING: "Back to You," "The Return of Jezebel James," "American Idol," "'Til Death"
I'm going to be really interested to see how much of an audience comes back to "'Til Death" when it doesn't have the "Idol" lead-in in the fall. And why keep "'Til Death" in that cushy post-"Idol" slot (assuming that the "Idol" producers don't demand an hour for Wednesday results shows from the beginning? The clips from "Jezebel James" worked for me and I wish it were getting that "Idol" bump, though the show does have a halo effect, so who knows?

THURSDAY
FALL: "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?," "Kitchen Nightmares"
SPRING: "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?," "Canterbury's Law"
The fall line-up actually makes sense. It's low-risk, moderate-reward. But in the spring? Hi, Juliana Margulies. Welcome back to primetime. Meet "Grey's Anatomy" and "CSI." Wait... Come back!!!

FRIDAY
FALL: "The Search for the Next Great American Band," "Nashville"
SPRING: "Bones," "New Amsterdam"
Again, the fall seems plausible, though the last time FOX tried going this heavy on reality pre-January, it yielded stuff like "The Complex" and that thing with Richard Branson. As for the spring, hands up if you actually believe that we'll see "Bones" leading into "New Amsterdam" come January or February. I'm waiting. Waiting. Waiting. Yeah. I didn't think so. If "New Amsterdam" is a bomb, it'll be gone and we'll get "Trading Spouses." If it's a hit, FOX won't want to waste it on Friday and we'll get "Trading Spouses." And what did "Bones" ever do to deserve even teasing like this? It's a good show. Be nice to it. Don't kill it.

SATURDAY
FALL/SPRING: "Cops," "Cops," "America Most Wanted"
How sad is it that this line-up makes FOX the leading provider of original Saturday night content on network TV? Very.

SUNDAY
FALL: "Football Overtime," "The Simpsons," "King of the Hill," "Family Guy," "American Dad"
SPRING: "King of the Hill," "American Dad," "The Simpsons," "Family Guy," "The Sarah Connor Chronicles"
The placement of "The Sarah Connor Chronicles" is either brilliant or insanely dumb. I don't know. "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy" will certainly provide an OK number of 18-49 viewers, but the "Terminator" spin-off is bound to be incredibly expensive. It'll need more than that. For me, there's no competition in this slot, so I'm looking forward to it.

INTERESTING PILOTS (BASED ON PLOT AND CAST, NOT ANYTHING I'VE SEEN) THAT DIDN'T GET PICKED UP: You had the "24" team behind "Company Man," but last-second recasting might have doomed its fall hopes. I bet that after "New Amsterdam" tanks, FOX orders it for a midseason failure, a la "Drive" or "Wedding Bells." Mostly FOX's development didn't engage me. The alien sleeper cell drama "Them" might have been cool. And "Me & Lee?" had Lee Majors playing himself (but it also had Jamie Kennedy).

And check out our more exhaustive upfronts coverage over at Zap2it.

Tweet

MovieWatch: "Shrek the Third"

"Shrek the Third"
Director: Chris Miller
Fien Print Rating (Out of 100): 35
In a Nutshell: It's hard for me to exactly put my finger on why "Shrek the Third" is such a very unsatisfying movie. It doesn't suffer from the usual problems that plague sequels, in that it isn't too long and its problem isn't overkill, too much of a good thing turned to bloat. If anything, "Shrek the Third" isn't stuffed enough -- if the first two movies were rewatachable for the inside jokes, I often found myself looking around the frame desperate for amusement and finding none, this on the first viewing.

At the end of the day, I'm left to wonder how much of the franchise's appeal was directly related to Andrew Adamson, who helmed the first two films and is off doing things in Narnia (not very well). The first two movies weren't great, but they were charming and they created a very specific fairy tale universe populated by mostly appealing characters. Where have they gone? Shrek and Fiona are mostly the same, only less funny, less specifically ogre-ish and princess-y. Eddie Murphy's Donkey, a reliable source of somewhat guilty laughs in the first two films (the character's a racial stereotype, but a funny one that kids love!), isn't even vaguely the same here. Has he been hen-pecked into a dullard by his dragon wife and not-the-least-bit-interesting dragon-donkey kids? And what happened to Puss In Boots? Antonio Banderas still gets a chuckle or two, but not many. The writers also have decided that certain tertiary characters -- Larry King's Doris, the Germanic Three Pigs, Pinocchio, the three blind mice -- needed more screentime, but never figured out anything for them to do. So they're just loitering in the frame, actually draining scenes of mirth.

The movie makes a minimum of a dozen direct references to the first two movies, which also counts as lazy writing, as does the fact that the movie's theme hasn't gotten any more interesting than "Just because people see you as one thing [a geek, a monster, a loser] doesn't mean that you can't be something else if you want to be." Incidentally, that's a good theme. I endorse it. It's just the same as the last two movies and yet people keep having to explain it in long speeches.

None of the new characters are distinctive -- Ian McShane's Captain Hook is sure to be a standout for elementary school "Deadwood" fans. And I'm not sure the young audience I was with enjoyed much more than the scenes with the baby ogres. That's far from the semi-adult humor of the first two movies. Grown-ups will have to be satisfied with on "Six Million Dollar Man" gag, an unexpected Led Zeppelin reference and a closing rendition of "Thank You (Falettinme Be Mice Elf Agin)" leaves at least an iota of the funk of the Sly and the Family Stone original.

Tweet

The CW Upfronts: Quick Thoughts

The CW unveiled a downright odd schedule on Thursday (May 17) morning. Any time your network unveils three new scripted dramas and every single one is secured by a reality series lead-in, that's slightly bizarre. There are some structural risks to The CW's schedule, but they're not high-ceiling risks. Does anybody at The CW believe that "Aliens in America" or "Life Is Wild" could become a network-shaping hit the way they're currently programmed? Only "Gossip Girl" is positioned as an obvious breakout and with one success per season, The CW isn't going to grow competitive very quickly.

Before going into my night-by-night analysis, I have to say that as a "Veronica Mars" fan, I feel some regret about the show's absence on The CW's fall schedule (hope springs eternal for midseason, but I *sure* wouldn't hold my breath). But the outrage on the part of the show's fans is wasted. We're talking about the second lowest-rated original program on all of network TV this season, ahead of only "Runaway." We're talking about a show that had one of The CW's finest possible lead-ins for an entire season and got only the smallest possible ratings bump. After three seasons on the air, "Veronica Mars" wasn't suddenly and magically going to find a huge audience and The CW really couldn't renew a show with those kinds of numbers. It's a business and the show was already floated for three seasons. So cherish the memories, enjoy the DVDs and recognize that The CW didn't do anything wrong and that the past two seasons of renewals were gifts to fans already.

Oh and "One Tree Hill: The Aftermath" is probably The CW's biggest leap, pushing that cheeseball drama forward four years. It's a good idea, because your Hilarie Burtons and Chad Michael Murrays were never believable as high school students for a second and they weren't going to fit in much better as college students. Better to give Chat a decent haircut, get Sophia Bush a more grown-up wardrobe and let the characters deal with the soapy problems of people two or three younger than the actors playing them, rather than seven or eight years younger. But think of all of the tawdry mess we're going to miss from those four years? Lucas could have gone back and forth between Brooke and Peyton 20 times in four years. Haley and Nathan could have divorced and remarried five or six times. They could have at least five more babies.

Anyway...

A quick night-by-night review and a glance at the pilots The CW didn't pick up is after the bump, so click on through:


MONDAYS: "Everybody Hates Chris," "Aliens in America," "Girlfriends," "The Game." Not one of those three returning comedies averaged more than 2.75 million viewers last season. Both "Chris" and "Girlfriends" were done by more than a million viewers apiece. The only interesting thing is that these four comedies, TV's most diverse, are going up against CBS' Monday comedies, TV's least diverse. Since they're corporate siblings, I guess that Les Moonves figures that combined, the 8 CBS/CW Monday comedies will bring in one full audience. But where is the upside in this night for The CW? Is there any chance that ratings will somehow improve? If not, what business are you in?

TUESDAYS: "Beauty and the Geek," "Reaper." Sorry, but "Beauty and the Geek" is a fill-in show, a fantastic fill-in show. It's a great thing to have around and know that if need to fill a couple dead programming months, it's there. But is it a show you want starting your fall? A show you want leading into a potentially fun new show? I don't know. But I like Bret Harrison and I love the idea of Ray Wise as Satan, so I'll find a way to be recording "Reaper." If The CW was smart, though, they'd move "Reaper" out of the way of NBC's "Chuck," because the target demos are identical.

WEDNESDAY: "America's Next Top Model," "Gossip Girl." No complains her at all. The CW obviously liked "Gossip Girl" and I'm looking forward to it myself, at least to checking out the pilot. With "ANTM" as a lead-in, viewers will sample it and it should do fine. That's logical programming.

THURSDAY: "Smallville," "Supernatural." I liked pairing "Supernatural" and "Reaper" in a thematically compatible Sunday block and using "Smallville," surely on its last legs by now, to launch something new in what may be its last season as a functional lead-in. Nope. That's what I mean by "low upside programming." You know what The CW Thursday will deliver, but it won't do any better next season than it did this season.

FRIDAY: "WWE Smackdown!" Fine ratings, no connection to whatever The CW brand is supposed to be.

SATURDAY: The lights are off.

SUNDAY: "CW Now," "Online Nation," "Life Is Wild," "ANTM Encore." If "CW Now" and "Online Nation" aren't next season's two least watched original programs on any network, I'll eat my hat. That bodes ill for "Life Is Wild."

INTERESTING PILOTS (BASED ON PLOT AND CAST, NOT ANYTHING I'VE SEEN) THAT DIDN'T GET PICKED UP: The comedy "Eight Days a Week" co-starred Anna Chlumsky, Christina Milian and Mario Lopez and it was written by my friend Marcie. I wanted that sucker on air. I'm also disappointed that Autumn Reeser, so important to the 4th season creative rebirth of "The O.C.," wasn't able to swiftly land back on air, since her pilot wasn't picked up either. Mostly, though, The CW seems to only seriously develop a few shows this spring...

And check out our more exhaustive upfronts coverage over at Zap2it.

Tweet

'Idol' Voters Do Little to Improve the Finale

What to say about this week's "American Idol" results?

Hmmm...

Well, I guess the first think that must be said is "Gee, I hope the 'American Idol' Songwriting Contest yielded at least one entry that includes beatboxing."

And the second thing that everybody'll be saying is "Oh, it's totally better that she didn't win, because now she can make the album she wants to... blah... blah... blah."

It's what we always say when somebody we think is particularly talented goes home on "American Idol." It was the case for Chris Daughtry, so it's got to be true of everybody, eh?

I don't think it's going to be true for Melinda. This year's Top 24 and Top 12 was so middling that it became clear early on that there was no obvious slam-dunk wire-to-wire winner, no Carrie Underwood or Fantasia Barrino. That standard line about how all of the people in the Top 12 will get contracts and sell albums because they all have big fan bases ("Just look at Bucky Covington!") may not be true with this group. Stephanie Edwards had the third best voice in the Top 12, but does anybody really remember her and is anybody clamoring for her album? Does anybody truly believe that LaKisha has a commercial breakthrough in her? Haley Scarnato?

This year's winner may truly need the imprimatur of being an "American Idol Winner" to sell albums. Sure, Melinda could somehow find the right songwriters, the right producers and she could record a good CD. She's got the voice for it. But she had the best voice in the competition and it wasn't enough for her to top Blake Lewis, with his half-octave range and decades-old vocal turntablism, or Jordin, who I don't have any major problems with except that she's not as good as Melinda.

Why did America finally tune out Melinda? Because she seemed too old? Because she seemed too falsely humble? Because America has decided that beatboxing is the new black? Because, as several utter morons (vaguely racist morons at that) claimed on the Zap2it blog, she resembles Shrek? America freakin' loves Shrek!

Anyway, though, that's about all I've got to say on this subject. It was the wrong result, but what can you do? Nothing. Melinda was the most talented person the stage tonight and the second most talented wasn't Jordin or Blake or that guy from Maroon 5. It was Elliott Yamin, whose new teeth and new haircut might have turned things around if he'd had them last year.

Oh well. Back to Upfronts.

Tweet

CBS Upfronts: Quick Thoughts

If you're TV's most-watched network, you get to be boring.

That didn't mean that CBS was required to present a boring schedule on Wednesday (May 15) morning, but even with a wacky musical produced by Hugh Jackman, a sitcom based on Kaley Cuoco's breasts and drama about a vampire running a detective agency (an innovative concept in a world in which "Forever Knight" and "Angel" never existed), it mostly looks like business as usual for CBS.

But thank you, CBS, for bringing "How I Met Your Mother" back and thank you for canceling "Jericho," which I probably would have kept at least half-watching as long as it was on.

I'll leave it to the pundits to buzz about the far-reaching implications of the "Shark"/"Without a Trace" swap.

A quick night-by-night review and a glance at the pilots CBS didn't pick up is after the bump, so click on through:


MONDAYS: "How I Met Your Mother," "The Big Bang Theory," "Two and a Half Men," "Rules of Engagement," "CSI: Miami." I haven't seen a single picture from "The Big Bang Theory" that didn't focus exclusively on Kaley Cuoco's cleavage. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Is "HIMYM," as much as I love it, really in any ratings position to serve as a functional lead-in? And boy CBS is probably wishing they could have "King of Queens" back for another few episodes.

TUESDAYS: "NCIS," "The Unit," "Cane." I'm not 100% sure how "Cane" will fit with CBS' testosterone-clogged Tuesday slate, but since I don't have a Tuesday 10 p.m. show of my own, I'll give it a shot. That 10 p.m. slot has been a problem for CBS since the cancellation of "Judging Amy." Otherwise, it's just more of the same.

WEDNESDAYS: "Kid Nation," "Criminal Minds," "CSI: NY." Oooh, the "Jericho" fans won't like this. Cancel their culty drama about plucky Kansans rebuilding after a nuclear attack in exchange for a reality show about plucky kids rebuilding a New Mexico ghost town for 40 days? Ugh. Maybe it'll at least be playful and fun, which is more than you can say for the brooding splatterfests that follow.

THURSDAYS: "Survivor," "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation," "Without a Trace." The return of "Without a Trace" will make up for whatever view decline "Survivor" has been experiencing. In addition, it could be enough to totally crush NBC's "E.R."

FRIDAYS: "Ghost Whisperer," "Moonlight," "Numb3rs." Not to nit-pick, but "Close to Home" averaged almost the exact same number of viewers as "Numb3rs" and more viewers than "Ghost Whisperer" and CBS cancels it. This is the kind of thing CBS does -- see "The Guardian" and "Judging Amy." Probably "Moonlight" will prove to be a little more compatible with the "genre" portion of the "Ghost Whisperer" audience, but I would be absolutely astounded if it draws 10.3 million viewers per week, which was what "Close to Home" was doing.

SUNDAYS: "60 Minutes," "Viva Laughlin," "Cold Case," "Shark." I know it's not something TV critics are allowed to say, but I actually didn't like "Viva Blackpool" all that much. I was amused by the premise and entertained for maybe an hour, but -- to use a respected writing professor's favorite phrase -- the game wasn't really worth the candle as far as I was concerned and that was a limited run program in the traditional BBC model. How are they going to stretch it for 13 episodes? Or 22? Or 100? And is the dramatically old-skewing "60 Minutes" audience really the proper lead-in for a show that should, if nothing else, be audacious? Also, the move of "Shark" from Thursday to Sunday would seem to reflect CBS' confidence in ABC's waning Sunday, as if to say "We can boost our Thursday and just put a second-rate procedural on Sunday to hold down the fort."

INTERESTING PILOTS (BASED ON PLOT AND CAST, NOT ANYTHING I'VE SEEN) THAT DIDN'T GET PICKED UP: The obvious miss is "Babylon Fields," a zombie dramedy starring Amber Tamblyn among others. CBS went to the trouble of getting Marisa Tomei for "The Rich Inner Life of Penelope Cloud," Freddie Prize for "Atlanta" and Jay Mohr and Brian Austin Green for some untitled crap from Kohan and Mutchnick, but didn't feel the need to put any of them on air. "Fugly" had a bad title and it was a bad idea, but I liked the idea of Nikki Cox and Marissa Jaret Winokur as twin sisters. Plus, Eric Balfour got himself killed off of "24" to do "Protect and Serve" and then it didn't get picked up. Am I going to have to start a new campaign? Grumble.

And check out our more exhaustive upfronts coverage over at Zap2it.

Tweet

"Idol" Recap 05/15: Why 3-3-3 is half the Mark of the Beast

How should we interpret Clive Davis' absence tonight? Tuesday (May 15) night's American Idol is usually the part of the show where the Top Three perform three songs -- one self-selected, one selected by the judges and one picked by Clive Davis, the man eventually responsible for the winner's first album. Tonight, though, Davis' song has been replaced by a pick from the producers, a nice touch given producer Nigel Lythgoe's long-held contention that he doesn't really care about whether or not the show yields a successful recording artist.

Tonight's performances:

Singer: Jordin Sparks
Song: "Wishing on a Star"
My Take: I get the impression that Simon selected this Rose Royce joint for Jordin because it relies heavily on the kind of lilting high notes that Jordin has occasionally over-warbled on this season. If that's the challenge, she dodges those pitfalls rarely easily and takes advantage of the fact that most of the song is right in her range, with none of those awkward low notes either. It's a simple and pure vocal, but it plays as easy in that way that people often criticize Melinda for.
Kukla, Fran and Simon Say: Randy thinks that this is the point of the season where he looks to see who's in it to win it. Jordin apparently is. Paula impressed with Simon's choice. Simon's impressed with Simon's choice, though he criticizes the jazzy arrangement, saying it was "brilliant," but still not one of her better performances. I like how Jordin admits to Ryan that she'd never heard the song before, even though she'd flapped her hands like a Young Paula when it was announced in Arizona.

Singer: Blake Lewis
Song: "Roxanne"
My Take: Paula's an evil, evil woman, assigning a Police song after the lesson we learned in Gwen Stefani Week. Is Blake about to pull a Chris Sligh? Well, he's rushing every part of the song. Does he not know where the lyric "Roxanne" fits in with the music? He hops in at at least three different points. I'd say his Sting impression falls between Sligh's (on the low end) and Phil Stacey's (on the high end). At least he doesn't beatbox. Blake closes with a wince and a slide, as the mic goes flying off the stand.
Kukla, Fran and Simon Say: Randy thought it was a great, great performance. If he isn't talking about Dice-K's pitching last night, I quit. Paula thought he was fantastic. Seriously? Simon didn't think it was a good Sting impersonation. What were they listening to? I'd agree with the idea that he varied from the original arrangement, except that he varied his rhythm each verse.

Singer: Melinda Doolittle
Song: "I Believe in You and Me"
My Take: Are the producers going to give Melinda a Tina Turner song, because this night shouldn't pass without Melinda doing Tina. It's a sign of confidence on Randy's part that he's given Melinda a song from one of those artists he's often told Idol contestants never to cover. He's also chosen one of the less iconic Whitney tracks, which lets Melinda attempt to make the song her own. For the first time all season, I hear a few pitchy spots from Melinda, the first cracks in that perfect vocal veneer. But if we're judging Melinda versus Blake, just seconds earlier, well it's not a competition at all.
Kukla, Fran and Simon Say: Randy thought it was hot and blew it out da box. Paula thought it was fantastic, amazing and at her best. Simon calls it Melinda's best performance of the past four weeks and gives Round One to Melinda.

Singer: Jordin Sparks
Song: "She Works Hard for the Money"
My Take: Jordin falls into occasional mumbles, not that anybody likes this song for its profound lyrics about the importance of treating heard-working women right, what with all they do for their money. The performance is very similar to her opening performance. These haven't been inspired song selections thus far. I've already forgotten about both of Jordin's songs, which is bad news since she's in the dreaded first slot.
Kukla, Fran and Simon Say: Randy thought it was very nicely done and that the song doesn't matter. Thanks, Randy. That's actually my problem with Jordin tonight -- it doesn't seem to matter what song she sings, the performance is identical. Hopefully she'll chose something a bit more personal and emotional for herself later. Paula enthuses that Jordin worked hard for the money tonight. Simon thought it was very good, but again takes exception to the arrangement.

Singer: Blake Lewis
Song: "This Love"
My Take: Well, if it's a Maroon 5 song, you can count on the judges raving about how contemporary Blake is. We've abandoned the need to ask Blake to sing, which is probably a good thing by now. But the vocal turntablism is back for no reason at all. There's nothing at all wrong with his cover of the song. It's straight-forward, by-the-numbers and fine.
Kukla, Fran and Simon Say: You know what was really cool about that for Randy? Check it out: Yo, that that's the kind of record Blake should make if he makes a record. Paula was hoping he would do that. Simon preferred that to the first one and says it wasn't a copycat performance. Nuts. Nobody called Blake hip, original and contemporary.

But what about those other four performances? Like you're friendly neighborhood crack dealer, I'm gonna have to charge you. Or at least urge you to head over to Zap2it.

Tweet

ABC Upfronts: Quick Thoughts

Anybody remember that wicked cool moment a couple seasons back when ABC had "Desperate Housewives" and "Lost" and "Grey's Anatomy" and the network looked like it had all of the building blocks to be a powerhouse for the next five or six years? At the time, ABC President Steve McPherson said that ABC was just a couple pieces away...

Flash forward to Tuesday (May 15) and ABC announces a schedule at upfronts that includes 8 new shows premiering at the start of the fall, with another set for late fall and two other new shows set for some point at midseason. Then ABC also has "Lost" coming back in the spring and "October Road" and "Notes From the Underbelly" floating around like loose bone chips in the pre-surgical elbow of the network's schedule.

If NBC's schedule yesterday was characterized by a lack of risk-taking (and an inability to take risks), ABC's schedule is characterized by the kind of chaos you don't expect out of a network that seemed to be in strong position just two years ago.

Oh and since nobody else will say it, I'm gonna miss "What About Brian." Not a lot. But a little bit.

A quick night-by-night review and a glance at the pilots ABC didn't pick up is after the bump, so click on through:


MONDAYS: "Dancing with the Stars," "Sam I Am," "The Bachelor." Hi new Christina Applegate comedy wedged between two reality shows! What are you doing there? Wouldn't you be better suited with another comedy or with some of your scripted brethren? Oh well. The comedy-in-a-sea-of-reality strategy can't possibly work, can it? Oh well. ABC doesn't really understand "comedy" anyway.

TUESDAYS: "Cavemen," "Carpoolers," "Dancing Results," "Boston Legal." Why are we restricted to turning contemporary commercials into TV shows? My pitch: Three old ladies travel the world looking for the finest beef, no matter how extreme the situation. Every week, they just end up back at Wendys. It's called "Where's the Beef?" (obviously) and the pitch is "Golden Girls meets National Treasure only with cows." Who's with me? If you start your night with a 30-minute Geico commercial, you lose the right to be taken seriously. Sorry.

WEDNESDAYS: "Pushing Daisies," "Private Practice," "Dirty Sexy Money." We may be intellectually lazy, but neither Sepinwall, my Zap2it colleague Rick nor I can think of a precedent for a network rolling out a night of three new dramas. And you start the night with "Pushing Daisies," which is from Bryan Fuller ("Wonderfalls"), which means critics will love it, stupid viewers will be confused by it and it'll be cancelled within 6 episodes. And then you go to "Grey's Anatomy" spin-off "Private Practice," which very few people actually liked when it was presented (and still frustratingly isn't titled "Montgomery's Ward"). And then you end the night with a drama from Greg Berlanti, one of his three shows at the network. If this night works, I wonder what lesson ABC will learn.

THURSDAYS: "Ugly Betty," "Grey's Anatomy," "Big Shots." The season-long ratings slide for "Ugly Betty" has been under-reported because the media turned the show into a sensation and can't bear to admit if the sensation is fading. Anywho... You get a night that skews towards younger, female viewers and you close it with a show about four Alpha Males? Tiny bit confusing.

FRIDAYS: "Men in Trees," "Women's Murder Club," "20/20." I've always liked Laura Harris, who was fantastic on both "24" and "Dead Like Me," but the odds of my watching "Women's Murder Club" are very very slim.

SATURDAYS: "College Football." Fight on 'SC!

SUNDAYS: "America's Funniest Home Videos," "EM: Home Edition," "Desperate Housewives," "Brothers & Sisters." Ah, sweet stability. ABC had better pray that people are still watching "Desperate Housewives" by next fall. It's no guarantee.

INTERESTING PILOTS (BASED ON PLOT AND CAST, NOT ANYTHING I'VE SEEN) THAT DIDN'T GET PICKED UP: You get Bryan Singer directing a pilot based on a popular British format and you get a cast that includes Lucy Lawless, Gabrielle Union, James Van Der Beek, Eddie Cibrian and several dozen other recognizable actors and you still don't get picked up? How awful must "Football Wives" have been? Ditto with "Mr. & Mrs. Smith," which was doomed from the minute they tried to get Martin Henderson and Jordana Brewster to replace Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. I feel bad about "Marlowe," which got pretty super buzz and featured Fien Print favorite Amanda Righetti. And "The Thick of It" had a good cast and came from Mitch "Arrested Development" Hurwitz, so that's got to be considered a miss. Ditto with the untitled legal comedy from "Freaks & Geeks" vets Gabe Sachs and Jeff Judah. Come to think of it, ABC had a ton of pilots I wanted to see and they picked up some of the ones I wanted to see least.

And check out our more exhaustive upfronts coverage over at Zap2it.

Tweet

NetflixWatch: "Alpha Dog"

"Alpha Dog"
Director: Nick Cassavetes
Fien Print Rating (Out of 100): 47

In the last 15 minutes of "Alpha Dog," the character played by Sharon Stone pops up in an entirely comical fat suit. The purpose of her, um, "shocking" appearance is to illustrate how the unfortunate events of the movie have changed this particular woman, but all I could do was marvel at how despite having let herself go to seed and gained 50-to-100 pounds, Stone's character had continued to get her teeth whitened and her nails done. The movie had already pretty well lost me by there, but I spent the last 10 minutes laughing at Fatty Sharon Stone, which couldn't possibly have been Nick Cassavetes' intention was.

Unfortunately, Cassavetes' general intentions are much too obvious -- He's making just the latest in an endless line of "The kids aren't alright" dramas, following in the footsteps of previous superior films like "River's Edge." There have been so many recent films in this genre -- think "Kids," "Elephant," "Thirteen," "Bully," "Chumscrubber" and "Mean Creak" -- that the fact that "Alpha Dog" is "based on a true story" becomes meaningless. Do I give "Alpha Dog" a qualitative bonus for factual accuracy, even though most of its plotpoints were covered identically and previously in movies both equally semi-true ("Bully") and fictional ("Chumscrubber")?

I don't, because if I did, I'd probably then get frustrated by how many moments in "Alpha Dog" feel so patently false, from the aforementioned fat suit to Ben Foster's mind-bogglingly hilarious kung-fu party showdown to the tawdry and exploitative swimming pool threesome to the badly green screened backdrop in a key final scene. "Alpha Dog" is much too artificial and screenwriter-contrived for a movie that wants to boast about its veracity and its unblinking depiction of youth culture. I'm also not sure if Cassavetes' goal is to indict faulty parenting or hip-hop culture for corrupting America's misdirected youth, but he probably couldn't tell you either. It's one thing for Cassavetes to say, as he has on many occasions, that he doesn't want to be pigeon-holed as just one specific kind of filmmaker, but all of the schizophrenic flitting he's done between "She's So Lovely" and "John Q" and "The Notebook" and this comes through in a lack of consistent vision.

The movie is a mis-edited muddle in large part because the camera can't find anybody it wants to settle on. That's not the same as Cassavetes offering viewers a character to identify with, though, because Anton Yelchin's Zack is supposed to be that character (and he isn't bad). But none of the ostensible leads -- Emile Hirsch or Justin Timberlake or Fernando Vargas or Shawn Hatosy -- has the necessary charisma to carry the picture. The movie's energy level rises or wanes based on Foster's screentime, as he makes every over-the-top twitch and spasm watchable. The women are reduced to dull caricatures, barely defined by their relationships to the various men. In lieu of a character, Olivia Wilde provides a little gratuitous nudity, as if it were something she needed to do to advance her career, never looking back. And eventually somebody will figure out a proper use for Amanda Seyfried, who probably should be a TV star by this point, at the very least.

I'd advise viewers to skip "Alpha Dog" and check out one of those earlier teens-gone-wild films, or just wait for the next one to come along.

Tweet

NBC Upfronts: Quick Thoughts

Network TV wisdom says that you've got to keep going with what works until it stops working. In NBC's case, almost nothing worked this past season, so it's no surprise that the network is hoping to use "Heroes" as something of a blueprint for everything to follow.

That means four new dramas, three of which contain elements of sci-fi or the conventionally unexplainable. Does NBC actually expect "Chuck," "The Bionic Woman" and "Journeyman" to all deliver "Heroes"-type numbers? Probably not. But they're all potentially repurposeable on NBC's corporate sibling the SciFi channel, so they may not need to be hits in the same way we've previously judged success. That, in fact, may be NBC's new motto: "NBC: Since we were losing, we've decided to change the rules of the game."

Anything that brings "Friday Night Lights" and "30 Rock" back is fine by me.

A quick night-by-night review and a glance at the pilots NBC didn't pick up is after the bump, so click on through:

MONDAYS: "Deal or No Deal," "Heroes," "Journeyman." Stable up to 10 p.m., which has become one of three or four Hours of Death on NBC's schedule. Can "Journeyman" succeed where "Studio 60" (R.I.P.), "The Black Donnellys" and "The Real Wedding Crashers" failed? Well, it has Kevin McKidd, who was my third choice for James Bond (after Clive Owen and Daniel Craig), plus the lovely Moon Bloodgood. We'll see.

TUESDAYS: "The Biggest Loser," "Chuck," "Law & Order: SVU." Here's the NBC we all know and love, delivering an evening with absolutely no flow. Well done. I've read the script for "Chuck," which is clever and fun and is going for an audience that has nothing to do with the one supplied by "The Biggest Loser" and very little to do with the one that tunes in to "Law & Order: SVU."

WEDNESDAYS: "Deal or No Deal," "Bionic Woman," "Life." The reboot of "Bionic Woman" became a bit more interesting when Jason Smilovic ("Kidnapped") signed on to bring his brand of sub-Mamet chatter to the the sci-fi remake. I think I could also really warm to leading lady Michelle Ryan. As for "Life," despite a cast pepper by folks I respect -- Damian Lewis, Melissa Sagemiller, Robin Weigert -- I don't have my finger on how it transcends being merely a procedural.

THURSDAYS: "My Name Is Earl," "30 Rock," "The Office," "Scrubs," "E.R." I love "30 Rock" and "The Office." I like "My Name Is Earl" and "Scrubs." But NBC is working backwards. Thursday night always used to be the network's one sure thing, but now the more important advertising evening of the week is being dedicated to shows that guarantee a third place finish at best and likely fourth place if FOX does anything sensible.

FRIDAYS: "Game Show Blob," "Las Vegas," "Friday Night Lights." Depending on how you look at it, this is either the place NBC is sending "FNL" to die, or it's a relatively smart move for a show that they don't expect to suddenly become a massive hit anyway. It's an intuitive time slot (to quote my father, "FNL on FN! Shocking.") and it's a time period with a respectable 18-49 audience. It probably won't have huge audience overlap with anything on any other network. That being said, will the people who watch the show be watching real football on Friday nights instead? Well, since NBC's mantra has always been "The show isn't about football," it makes total sense. Plus, the 10 p.m. slot allows for more time at the Landing Strip, greater exploration of quad sex and a more likely bikini carwash subplot. Huzzah. [Sepinwall notes that Sepinwall deserves credit for the bikini carwash subplot idea. I agree. I'd only mention that he said it as a joke, while I'm TOTALLY serious.]

SATURDAYS: Put fingers in ears and start singing "La, la, la, la."

SUNDAYS: Football in the fall, then "Dateline," "Law & Order," "Medium" and "Lipstick Jungle." You train men to tune in for football and then when football's over, you turn the night over to women. It's a strategy that only occasionally worked on Mondays for ABC. "Medium," already struggling this season, will get crushed by "Desperate Housewives" and whatever CBS programs. That, in turn, will leave "Lipstick Jungle" to get crushed without a lead-in. Good times.

INTERESTING PILOTS (BASED ON PLOT AND CAST, NOT ANYTHING I'VE SEEN) THAT DIDN'T GET PICKED UP: The Spike Lee-directed "M.O.N.Y.," starring Bobby Cannavale, whose pilot track record is fairly dismal. The alien comedy "Area 52" had Paul Rubens as an alien, so I was sold. There was lots of great buzz on "Fort Pitt," produced by Peter Tolan and Dennis Leary (among others), but that apparently waned. The comedy "Business Class" had Mark Valley and Krista Allen (I'm there!), but also Horatio Sanz (Buh-bye).

And check out our more exhaustive upfronts coverage over at Zap2it.

Tweet

MovieWatch: "28 Weeks Later"

"28 Weeks Later"
Director: Juan Carlos Fresnadillo
Fien Print Rating (Out of 100): 66
In a Nutshell: First order of business, before I start talking about this movie at all, the young stars of "28 Weeks Later" are named Mackintosh Muggleton and Imogen Poots. Are those the two greatest British names ever or what? Don't you just want to send Mackintosh and Imogen into battle with Lord Voldemort like tomorrow? I do.

There have been some slightly hyperbolic reviews arguing that Fresnadillo has made a better movie than Danny Boyle's original, which helped introduce the concept of speedy zombies to the world and therefore apparently reinvigorated the genre. I don't buy that. There's no question that "28 Weeks Later" is a nicely compressed rush of a movie, a quarterhorse, if you will. It sprints out of the gate, allows for a brief character establishing lull and then zooms for the rest of its duration in seemingly no time at all. Fresnadillo has the advantage of being able to work with Boyle's initial template, which refined the conventions of the horror film for the digital age, generating terror through jittery hand-held camerawork, strategically used blaring music and even more strategic spells of unexpected silence. He also has the advantage of the very carefully established universe that Boyle and writer Alex Garland created. Fresnadillo and his co-writer Rowan Joffe are at their best when they're refining that universe, establishing the rules of a post-plague London in which the United States military has been entrusted with keeping security in a country to which they feel no emotional attachments. Does that sound familiar? It probably should. The allegory in "28 Weeks Later" may not go deep enough for my tastes, but one thing is made abundantly clear: The United States shouldn't be an occupying force on foreign soil or else bad things will happen.

The movie's flaw for me, unfortunately, is the incredible laziness of its plot mechanics, which are so clumsy as to force me to discuss logic in a genre where clearly that isn't the ideal state of affairs. If you're a writer, you're sitting in a room and you're saying things like "What could we do to make Rage [that plague thing] return to London?" and you go "Well, the kids could somehow sneak across the bridge, avoiding the watchful eyes of the US military and contribute to bringing it back..." and then somebody would say "Well yeah, that could work, but it's a pretty stupid thing to set up... Let's leave it there until we come up with something better." And then nobody did. The movie is just full of things that make no sense, even with the low level of logic required to operate in a Romero-inspired universe. And every time somebody would take a narrative shortcut that didn't make any sense, it would crush the movie for me for a couple minutes.

What else did I like? Robert Carlyle does very fine work as the plausibly cowardly father at the film's center and Poots and Mackintosh are better than your typical expectations for children in the genre. I was also impressed with how effortlessly authoritative and likeable Jeremy Renner was, given that he has no actual character in this movie (American soldier-with-conscience) and that his career arc has included studio bad guys ("SWAT"), serial killers ("Dahmer") and other unsavory types.

I loved the use of London's fin de siecle architecture as a representation of modernist hubris -- billions spent on bridges, domes and buildings that less than a decade later would stand as a mocking memory of 20th century humanity's wastefulness for what remains of 21st century humanity. Honestly, I go see these movies for the images of evacuated London. Zombies or no zombies, I love that city.

Oh and there's one spectacular horizontal wipe in which the encroaching zombies literally push Stringer Bell... er... Idris Elba's face off the screen. It may be the most appropriate and effective use of the editing wipe I've seen since I don't know when.

Once again, before departing: Mackintosh Muggleton and Imogen Poots. Tee-hee.

Tweet

TubeWatch: ABC's "Traveler"

There's a rule of thumb when it comes to drama pilots: If David Nutter is directing your opening hour, your show's going to get picked up. His list of opening hours includes "Without a Trace," "Smallville" and "Roswell." That's on the positive side of the ledger. But -- and this actually *isn't* an insult -- Nutter's gifts obviously lie more with flash than with substance. His pilots are so slick and so professional that he also fooled networks into picking up "Tarzan" and "Dr. Vegas" and "Fearless," shows that probably never would have gotten a second look with a less proficient person at the helm. ABC obviously picked up "Traveler" on the strength of the Nutter-directed pilot, grabbing it for a midseason slot. After a slew of heavily serialized dramas tanked this fall, somebody at ABC probably took a look at "Traveler" and had second thoughts. First its episode order was reduced and then the show was shunted off to a summer home where it's unlikely to cause too much trouble.

True to Nutter's track record, "Traveler" -- getting a friendly one-night sampling post-"Grey's Anatomy" before vanishing for three weeks -- has ample sizzle. Shot on location in New York, the show zips along with high production values across the board. This isn't a cheap show, by any means. My Zap2it colleague Rick saw clips from the show at upfronts last spring and came away properly impressed. Then he saw the pilot and, as he says simply, it "isn't a very good show."

I'd go one step more. "Traveler" is a laughably bad show, though laughter is the best medicine and over burritos with a couple co-workers, guessing the plot twists and character contrivances was a fun game. It would have been more fun if my guesses hadn't been right every single time. "Traveler" is horribly written. The characters are identified in long bursts of expositional dialogue, including awkward getting-to-know-you scenes in which the central males declare their grad school concentrations, their family histories and their baseball rooting affiliation. Hardly a line sounds organic, as these people only talk in declarative sentences revealing exactly what they're thinking and, often, doing (I particularly loved the conversations about the road trip that this main trio is taking, in which they explain the exact symbolic purpose of the trip at least two or three times). That over-articulated dialogue extends to the script's desire to over-explain the implausibilities of its second half -- if you think something isn't believable, somebody will comment that it isn't believable and then explain why it could be possible, which actually makes everything even *less* realistic, rather than more.

The show is written as if the "innocent man caught up in extreme circumstances" story core weren't a staple of big and small screen storytelling. Thanks to everything from "The Fugitive" to a half-dozen Hitchcock films, this is a genre in which not everything needs to be freakin' over-explained. Set up your scenario and run with it!

As Rick observes in his review, there's a disconnect between the bland, interchangeably earnest and pretty white men at the center of the story -- Matthew Bomer, Aaron Stanford and Logan Marshall-Green -- and the more interested and talented character actors (favorites like William Sadler, Viola Davis and Steven Culp) on the fringes. I would much rather be able to root for Davis and Culp to take down the spoiled, snot-nosed punks, but they're currently just generic adversaries for the main eye-candy.

For my money, the only reason to watch the "Traveler" pilot is for the wonderfully unlikely sequence in which Davis -- a magnificent dramatic actress not usually known for her physical prowess -- engages in an on-foot chase through the streets of New York City, including a rooftop pursuit. That's some funny shit.

Sadly, I'd be lying if I claimed I weren't going to tune in for the second episode. I'm a sad man.

Tweet

"American Idol" 05/08 -- It's Hard to Sing Like Barry Gibb

On Tuesday (May 8) night, this season's American Idol contestants prepare to honor the fact that although the Bee-Gees released 20 albums in their acclaimed career, we mostly think of them as being those guys who composed walking music for a young John Travolta. I threw my Saturday Night Fever soundtrack on in the gym, so I'm ready for tonight's show.

The performances:

Singer: Melinda Doolittle
Song: "Love You Inside and Out"
My Take: The fact that the song was, as Barry Gibb points out, written for a falsetto, inherently means that the vocals are more about touch and less about power. As a result, it brings out a different, more 70s-appropriate tone to Melinda's voice. The question is whether, at this point in the competition, people want to see how diverse and flexible Melinda can be (because this is like nothing she's sung before) or if they just want her to show off how big she can sing. This is a song choice that Blake -- who isn't expected to deliver stand-out vocals -- could pull off better than any of the three women. Somewhat unfairly, he's competing with himself tonight, while Jordin, Melinda and LaKisha are going to be compared to each other.
Mizaru, Kikazaru and Simon Say: It was solid for Randy, but he isn't convinced she's in it to win it. Paula's at a loss to critique her, except to say that Melinda didn't make her go "Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa." Simon expected incredible, but he says it was more of a backing vocal performance.

Singer: Blake Lewis
Song: "You Should Be Dancing"
My Take: Is Blake becoming Crispin Glover before our eyes? If Glover had competed on American Idol in 1985, this is the performance he would have given. The performance is fun (funny?) and quirky (freakish?), but it's much more notable for the beatboxing than for the wafer-thin falsetto, which lacks any of the utterly searing passion that Barry Gibb's voice had. I wasn't impressed with Blake's upper register when he tried it our earlier this season and I'm still not. You just know that Clive Davis is terrified about the kind of album he'd have to record with this guy.
Mizaru, Kikazaru and Simon Say: You know what's really interesting for Randy is that the song didn't need the beatboxing. Randy is just being honest and keeping it real in saying that it made the song corny. Paula thought the song was shaky and that the beatboxing made the performance. Simon thought it was absolutely terrible and he gets booed by the crowd before finishing his comments.

Singer:LaKisha Jones
Song: "Stayin' Alive"
My Take: Guess what? I love the music of the Bee-Gees, but this is just a horrid theme for these particular contestants, particularly at this phase of the show. Blake's falsetto stinks and the women are being forced to readapt songs that don't fit their voices in any way. This is how we're going to find our Top Three? Really? LaKisha mostly barks the first verse of the song, which has been rearranged so that it has almost no melody at all. It becomes a bit more vocally dynamic in its second half, but not much (at least not if people wanted the tune to be recognizable) and there's a vaguely crazed look in her eyes. How is it possible that I preferred the all-star lip-synch from Idol Give Back? I miss Hugh Laurie's eye-brows and Helen Mirren's gravitas.
Mizaru, Kikazaru and Simon Say: Randy wonders where the melody went. Paula thinks that LaKisha wrecked the tempo of the song and harshed her buzz. "Well, LaKisha, no kiss tonight," says Simon, before panning the performance.

Singer: Jordin Sparks
Song: "To Love Somebody"
My Take: Barry Gibb has a hard time imagining anybody else singing his songs, so this is a tough night for him as well. This is, simply put, the evening's first good song choice, a track that had already been previously arranged for and established by non-Gibb singers. I still don't endorse the wobble on Jordin's higher notes, but most of the song has been pitched perfectly for her. I already sense that tonight will be graded on a curve and Jordin looks and sounds good. It's a strong bounce-back after last week, too.
Mizaru, Kikazaru and Simon Say: Randy says it was the best vocal so far, which would be hard to argue with. Unlike Melinda, Jordin's in it to win it. Paula clarifies that it was night's best vocal. Simon agrees and says we're back in the competition.

For my recap of the second half of this week's show (it got better, but not much... Head on over to Zap2it.

Tweet

NetflixWatch: "Because I Said So"

"Because I Said So"
Director: Michael Lehmann
Fien Print Rating (Out of 100): 24
In a Nutshell: If "Because I Said So" ends up being not quite the worst chick flick ever made, it's certainly not for want of trying. That I watched this DVD to review for work doesn't make my 100 minutes any less wasted. The script by Karen Leigh Hopkins and Jessie Nelson recycles a relentless string of genre cliches and Lehmann directs without an ounce of style. As a result, you're left with a movie in which actresses with as much natural charisma as Mandy Moore, Piper Perabo and Lauren Graham are routinely upstaged by elaborate wedding cakes and in which the only way Diane Keaton can avoid befalling the same fate is plunging face-first into said cakes.

"Because I Said So" comes out only a couple years after Diane Keaton earned an Oscar nomination for "Something's Got to Give," a movie that maintained an equal balance between revering and humiliating the "Annie Hall" legend. All reverence is gone in "Because I Said So," a movie that takes pleasure only in making her look ridiculous, regardless of the situation and regardless of the necessity. It's not just that the entire movie is predicated on a stupid thing Keaton's character does and that said complications would be eliminated if anybody in the movie were capable of a human and honest conversation, but it's the extent to which Keaton's character is presented as the most extreme of ancient fuddy-duddies. She can't handle her cell phone or her remote control and even though she has a computer hooked up to the Internet, she keeps landing on adult websites with loud sound effects. Even if part of the film's theme is that it's never too late to try to fall in love, Lehmann choreographs and shoots the budding romance between Keaton's character and her daughter's boyfriend's dad (Stephen Collins) like a nature channel documentary about sheep who have sex with horses.

In a romantic dilemma the writers present as if it's never been seen before, Mandy Moore's character (so clumsy! so incapable in love!) has to choose between -- get this! -- the soulful artist guy (Gabriel Macht) who's perfect for her and the rich, professional guy (Tom Everett Scott) who her mother wants her to be with. Even if we hadn't seen the exact same choice play out in dozens upon dozens of movies, it's made obvious by the end of their first date, a problem that the writers can't get around. Moore's character's inability to make the decision quickly, much less after sleeping with both men for some length of time, caused me to lose any sympathy (or empathy) for her. When you're rooting for a romantic-comedy to end unhappily, that's not a good sign and I'd bet that 99.8% of all men will view the characters the same way.

Last thought: Poor Lauren Graham. I completely salute her decision to move on from "Gilmore Girls," but the idea that films like this and roles like this fifth banana part might be all that's waiting for her out in the world makes me sad. I look on the landscape at roles for women of Graham's age and it's hard to see what her career path is supposed to be. Perhaps an indie film path in which she becomes a slightly softer Parker Posey? Otherwise, I feel like she's just going to be going for the same parts as Bonnie Hunt or Elizabeth Perkins, the barb-tongued sister, ex-girlfriend or long-suffering wife. Male screenwriters aren't good enough to write female roles more interesting than that and if "Because I Said So" is the best she can hope for from distaff scribes... Ugh.

Tweet

NetflixWatch: "Smokin' Aces"

"Smokin' Aces"
Director: Joe Carnahan
Fien Print Rating (out of 100): 25
In a Nutshell: Just as I was at a total loss to explain the career leap that Joe Carnahan took between the 5th generation Tarantino knock-off "Blood, Guts, Bullets and High Octane" to the moody and mature "Narc," it's equally hard to figure the regression between "Narc" and Carnhan's long-delayed third feature "Smokin' Aces."

I'm going to blame Tom Cruise, though I'm not sure why. Perhaps if Carnahan hadn't dropped out of "Mission: Impossible III," he wouldn't have had to waste a movie restretching his creative muscles, which is a kind way of describing "Smokin' Aces." Since Carnahan is attached to a couple projects I'd really like to be good (James Ellroy's "White Jazz," in particular), I'll hope he's ready to get back to business with this out of his system.

There are certain films from this recent 10th or 11th wave of Tarantino knock-offs where I may not have liked them, but I could respect the audacity of their visions. I put Wayne Kramer's "Running Scared" and Tony Scott's "Domino" in this class. As much as I hated it, I'd almost even suggest that there aesthetically interesting things about "Crank." "Smokin' Aces" isn't in that group. It's just a bad movie, a loud, disjointed wreck of a movie that commits the most obvious of cardinal sins for this genre -- it makes mayhem and violence monotonous.

There's around 15 minutes of fun carnage around 2/3rds of the way into the movie. That's followed by a thuddingly stupid 20 minute denouement, which mostly consists of Andy Garcia giving a lengthy monologue that's supposed to be surprising and twisty, but since the reversals and revelations all involve characters I never cared about in the first place, I didn't shockingly start to care.

There are five or 10 or more different films at work here with enough different A-and-B list actors as you could ever possibly want. Very few of them give actual performances (Jeremy Piven does, as does Taraji Henson), but you can see why most of them would sign on. For some it was a chance to pick up a paycheck for wearing funny wigs or fake facial hair without having to actually act (Matthew Fox and Ben Affleck fit in this category). For some it was a chance to spend a day or two playing against type without having to commit to a part for anything longer (put Ryan Reynolds and Jason Bateman here). For some it was a chance to dip their toes in different professional waters knowing that if they screwed up, they'd hardly be noticed (Alicia Keys and Common, who prove no worse or better than most of the "trained" thespians). Heck, some scene to have walked onto the set from a totally different movie, acted a scene or two and vanished (Garcia and Ray Liotta ought to have better things to do with their time). Mostly, everybody probably suspected that worst case scenario, the movie would be cut to bits in post-production so completely that they were being paid to be barely visible blurs.

Word to future filmmakers: If your movie is supposed to end with Ryan Reynolds having a five-minute emotional epiphany, you've already lost the war.

Tweet

About that "Grey's Anatomy" spin-off

As everybody knows, "Grey's Anatomy" went into spin-off mode on Thursday (May 3) night, wedging the back-door pilot for "The Dr. Addison Montgomery Show" (tentatively titled "Private Practice," more amusingly titled in some circles "Montgomery's Ward") into an otherwise subpar "Grey's Anatomy" episode (the killing off of one guest star seemed almost inexcusably rushed).

Since ABC is almost certain to find a home for "Montgomery's Ward" somewhere in its fall schedule, it's worth glancing at what, exactly, the show appears to be.

In short: More of the same, only sunnier. If "Grey's Anatomy" is fundamentally about young doctors trying to balance their professional aspirations with their personal desires, "Montgomery's Ward" pushes the same agenda only to a slightly older age group (kudos to ABC, I guess, for aiming to raise its average viewership age). The characters here -- played by one recognizable TV veteran after another -- are already professionally successful in every way. But wouldn't you know it? Their personal lives are all in shambles. The women are great doctors, but they're in trouble as wives, mothers or girlfriends. The men are great doctors, but they aren't so good with their wives and girlfriends. Part of what keeps "Grey's" from getting too soapy is that the weekly cases are part of a work-based learning curve. I get the feeling that "Montgomery's Ward" wouldn't have as much learning, so more time could be spent on wacky clients and on a daisy chain of hook-ups. Whee.

The writers tried to make sure that you'd know you weren't watching a totally identical show by tossing in meta jokes about elevator fetishes and "Mc"-everything, but doesn't "Grey's Anatomy" already do that to itself?

I know myself too well to pretend that I won't watch, at least at first. I will. The cavalcade of familiar faces is nice and there's little doubt in my mind that Kate Walsh can carry her own show. She's equally capable with comedy and drama, she's easy on the eyes and we all know she can sell Shonda Rhimes and company's cutesy dialogue.

How much more of Shonda's mewlingly self-absorbed characters do viewers crave?

Lest this post get too long and take over the entire screen, more specific comments on the spin-off continue after the bump...



1)Taye Diggs is an attractive man and, if his work in "Rent" is to be trusted, not an untalented man. One thing that Taye Diggs isn't, however, is a TV star. He wasn't a star in "Kevin Hill" and he wasn't a star in "Daybreak" and he's not going to be a TV star here, even if some early ratings indicate that he is. Nothing is compelling about him and he seems to have a maximum of three facial expressions.

2)I don't know if Tim Daly has more than three facial expressions and he's gotten to the point where he delivers every single line (on-screen and off) with the exact same tone of withering scorn. That being said, whatever Diggs doesn't have, Daly certainly has. But that incredibly watchable quality Daly has, it hasn't prompted anybody to watch "Eyes" or "The Nine," both better shows that "Private Practice" will likely turn out to be. Rather than transplanting Addison to Santa Monica, is there any chance we can move Daly's character up to Seattle? He would have very little patience for the soapy doings at Seattle Grace and he'd probably be funny.

3) I'm fundamentally opposed to any show that thinks it's clever by having a slightly withdrawn and socially awkward shrink character named Violet. GET IT?!?!? SHRINKING VIOLET? Ugh. But I like Amy Brenneman just fine.

4)I also like Paul Adelstein, better known as Evil Agent Kellerman from "Prison Break." Now he'll be known as "that guy on the 'Grey's Anatomy' spin-off who likes picking up skanky young women on the Internet." But to those of us who follow such things, he'll always be the guy who was supposed to play Dr. Burke on "Grey's Anatomy." So I spent a good part of the two hours wondering how all of our lives would be different in Isaiah Washington had never been on "Grey's."

5) Actually, there are too many people in "Montgomery's Ward" who I already like. There's almost no potential for discovery. While there were many of the "Grey's" leads were recognizable (P-Demps, Katherine Heigl, Sandra Oh), the show was built around a leading lady who very few people knew and several of its other breakouts (your T.R. Knights and Chandra Wilsons) were similarly obscure. The reason why it was a breakout cast was because they had somewhere to break out from. The cast of "Montgomery's Ward" is already out and that's no fun. Shonda and company, though, must feel like they've found their Ellen Pompeo in...

6) PIZ?!?!?!? Chris Lowell is a perfectly likeable seeming guy and since nobody watches "Veronica Mars" and nobody watched "life as we know it" he's an unknown to most "Grey's Anatomy" viewers. But I'm just not prepared to buy Stosh Piznarski: Super Stud, no matter how diligently he seems to have been performing his abdominal crunches. As my co-worked Hanh observed this morning, it's obvious that if Piz wanted to hook up with Veronica, he should have just whipped off his shirt and flexed in the season's first episode.

7) The cast was so glutted with recognizable faces on Thursday that it was finally painfully meta. All of the stars of "Mongomery's Ward" were guest-starring on "Grey's Anatomy," but the guest stars on "Mongomery's Ward" included former "Everwood" regular Stephanie Niznik, former "Alias" baddie David Anders and was that "Joan of Arcadia" regular Becky Wahlstrom? Too much!

8) What vintage "L.A. Law" repeat did they steal all of those Los Angeles establishing shots from? Did they not have a big enough budget to do better second unit work? Did they think that viewers wouldn't recognize that the show had a slightly different (i.e. warmer) color scheme? Did they think that a few weird shots of Tim Daly and Taye Diggs walking a dog on the cliffs overlooking the beach wouldn't sell the new locations?

9)I was comfortable with the idea that Addison is vaguely insane and that she was actually hearing voices in the elevator. The revelation that it was just Tilly the Security Guard didn't improve matters.

Tweet

Go Figure -- "American Idol" Gets the Right Final Four

If the American People were a beacon of generosity last Wednesday, helping raise Idol Gives Back to $70 million in donations, they looked like paragons of common sense this week. With not one, but two chances to get the "American Idol" vote wrong (and two weeks worth of votes to make predictions all the more complicated, America just got it right this week. No controversy. No nothing. Chris Richardson and Phil Stacey were the two weakest contestants on the show and thus they were eliminated.

What's the fun in that? While I did, indeed, correctly pick Phil and Chris as being this week's bootees, I kidded to Sepinwall this afternoon that Melinda and Jordin would probably be shocking losers. After all, Jordin butchered her song on Jon Bon Jovi Night and people who hate music find Melinda to be boring. Instead, they stayed. And LaKisha stayed, which is especially remarkable. She was *really* bad on Songs of Inspiration night and I'd bet her voting totals weren't good either, which means that she gained ground on Jon Bon Jovi Night, which is a true miracle. Two white guys with allegedly country chops couldn't handle Bon Jovi, but the big-boned (and big-skinned and muscled and fatted) belter survived? Go figure. So much for those silly conspiracy theorists on Internet message boards who accused the producers of scheduling this week's theme to benefit the white men.

We're down to the Top 4 now and guess what? It's close to what most people would have predicted or hoped for after the Top 24 began (making the best of this season's mostly lame lot). Yes, Chris Sligh and Stephanie Edwards and even Gina Glocksen were eliminated a couple weeks ahead of expectations. And yes, Haley Scarnato's Legs and Sanjaya Malakar's Hair did a bit better than some people would have hoped.

The men this season stunk and guess what? They're all gone save one. Not for a second do I fully buy Blake Lewis' alleged brilliance as an arranger, nor do I completely understand his teenybopper appeal, but as an overall entertainer, he was the best the male side of the competition had to offer. Next year the judges will try harder to stack the deck for the men. You can count on plenty of Ace Young and Brandon Rogers-looking men making it to Hollywood next year.

And for the women? Melinda has the best voice. By miles. Even if she's occasionally been boring or robotic or excessively humble at times, she hasn't missed a note in months. The producers want Jordin to win and she's the girl you could see releasing a popular album. She's pretty, bubbly, unobnoxiously humble. She can also sing, though without anywhere near Melinda's polish. And LaKisha? Well, it's odd to have her around still (she and Stephanie *both* had Shocking Premature 6th or 7th place exits written all over them). Although "Idol" has done better than "Top Model" with plus-sized competitors, husky or flat-out-fat men have been more acceptable than ample women. I don't know what LaKisha had that Mandisa didn't except for less competition. Good for LaKisha. She's gone next week.

I already made this joke over on my Zap2it recap, but a true subversive genius would try to interpret next week's Boogie Night as Music of "Boogie Nights." If Blake does "The Touch," even *I* would vote for him.

Tweet

"American Idol" 05/01: The Musical Legacy of Bon Jovi

After spending three hours last week earning roughly $70 million for charity, "American Ido" is sufficiently over its altruism that Ryan Seacrest can start Tuesday (May 1) night's show by referring to the judges as "our three needy children."

The Top Six are "celebrating the music of Bon Jovi," which seems too restrictive to me. Couldn't we have just dedicated a night to '80s Hair Metal? Let's face it, RATT is never going to have a full night to itself and if you think anybody's ever going to sing "Cherry Pie" for another theme, you're fooling yourself. But fine, let's pay tribute to "Moonlight and Valentino" star and Arena Football League icon Jon Bon Jovi.

The night's performances:

Singer: Phil Stacey
Song: "Blaze of Glory"
My Take: Phil says he's been practicing this Young Guns hit in the mirror for 15 years and what he delivers is exactly the kind of enthusiastic shtick you do in the mirror. He has to launch his performance walking by one girl with a "Jordin!" sign and another clutching a picture of Blake. There's too much business to Phil's performance -- he's strutting, point at the camera, bumping fists with Randy. Until he gets onto the stage, he's most drowned out by the band and unnecessarily backing vocals. I'd have taken a "less is more" approach with both the arrangement and performance. Once he's center stage, Phil becomes more animated and passionate, saluting to his wife and her uniformed escort.
Goneril, Regan and Simon Say: Randy's happy for Phil for many reasons, not the least of which being that he helped record the song. He says it's Phil's best besides Country Night. Paula raves that Phil was living his inner kid and that it was the season's best opening. Simon thought it was OK, earning audience boos. He criticizes Phil for overacting and says he hasn't done enough to last. Phil salutes both the judges and viewers at home.

Singer: Jordin Sparks
Song: "Livin' on a Prayer"
My Take: How sweet was it of Ryan to walk up to Gina Glocksen in the audience, commenting about how missing this rockin' week must be killing her? And how sad is it that the visit with the season's lone semi-rocker comes seconds before newly crowned favorite Jordin has her first total flop in weeks? Workin' the big Rock Video Girl hair, Jordin's song isn't a good pick for her voice. As warned in the pre-song clips, the track is simply too low for Jordin and she mumbles through the verses. Also, whoever choreographed her to be penned in-between two anonymous guitarists should be fired. She looks and feels contained, but not in a fun cage-dancing way. Finally at the end Jordin steps away from the guitarists and it isn't surprising that suddenly she sounds better.
Goneril, Regan and Simon Say: Randy thought the verses were rough. Jordin can only nod and smile. This is one of those awful situations where she must have known she was dead before hitting the stage. Paula thinks Jordin's problem was that she had to workshop it with a hot guy. Simon invites the boos by saying Jordin's look was "like something out of The Addams Family" and finally declares that the vocals were shrieky and terrible. Ryan makes a Munsters joke. Dude, they're totally different shows.

Singer:LaKisha Jones
Song: "This Ain't a Love Song"
My Take: If Jordin has become this week's poster girl for poor song selection, LaKisha comes off as an utter genius, particularly since no singer worried me as much this week. It's another song that starts a bit too low, but it becomes bluesy and soulful almost immediately. Finally it's the perfect medium for the misapplied belting she's done the past two weeks and after seemingly losing that inner fire, there's a spark in LaKisha's eyes tonight. I'm not sure I endorse the deep knee bends in those tight black pants, but after two so-so opening performances, the night can finally begin.
Goneril, Regan and Simon Say: Randy thought she was pitchy at first, but that by the end she "blew it out da box." Paula suggest LaKisha gave everybody a little somethin'-somethin'. Simon goes so far as to suggest he could actually kiss her. And, true to her word, he does. It's either a cute moment or a woefully inappropriate moment (i.e. How queasy would we get if Paula asks Blake to make out with her?).

For my full recap and my opinions on the night's two best performances, head on over to Zap2it.

Tweet