« December 2007 | Main | February 2008 »

January 29, 2008

Nooooo!!!!!

As you might recall, last year I ran a poll that allowed Connecticut Post readers to vote on which current TV show they'd most like to see canceled. The winner by an overwhelming margin was NBC's Donald Trump fronted reality show "The Apprentice."
I wrote a letter to NBC telling the network that our readers wanted to pink slip the Donald and his. And, for a while, it looked like "The Apprentice" might actually get the axe. Then, it was saved at the last minute, when it was announced that NBC would produce a "celebrity" version of "The Apprentice."
Ok, I thought. That probably won't last for more than season.
Well, I've been proven wrong yet again. Today, NBC announced that "The Celebrity Apprentice" was picked up for a second season.

The new season would start in January 2009.A release announcing the pick-up said the celebrity format has "revved up" the show. Indeed, ratings for the current version of "The Celebrity Apprentice" are higher than those for the previous, un-star-studded incarnation. And it's apparently winning its timeslot among viewers aged 18 to 49. But is that because people actually like the show? Or is it just because the writer's strike has left viewers with a dearth of programming options? Personally, I've never been able to sit through an entire episode of any version of "The Apprentice." And a huge percentage of TV viewers -- at least the ones who read this paper -- feel the same way. So why won't this thing die?
I don't know. I suppose it's one of those TV mysteries that we'll never solve.

Posted by amanda on 4:23 PM | Comments (0)

January 28, 2008

"Lost" is worth the wait

Some of you might be wondering why the story I wrote on Sunday about the new season of "Lost" didn't contain a review of the new episodes. Well there was a good reason for that -- I hadn't SEEN the new episodes yet. ABC, perhaps wishing to conceal details of the fourth season premiere for as long as possible, delayed sending screener DVDs out to the press. Thankfully, the network posted the episodes to its media site over the weekend, so I finally got a chance to see them yesterday.
First, the bad news: ABC is STRONGLY advising the media to refrain from discussing pretty much anything about the eps. So pretty much all I can reveal is whether the season premiere, which airs Thursday at 9 p.m. is any good.
Here's the revelation: It's awesome, as is the ep that premieres the following week.

Without revealing too much, suffice it to say that the first two episodes build on last season's smashing finale in a truly satisfying way. There are hints that the show is going in a whole new direction, and it looks really intriguing. True, there are the usual "Lost" frustrations: vagueness, too many mysteries, etc., but already this season is off to a better start than last season, mainly because we're already seeing a lot more of the cast. Last season's initial episodes focused mainly on the Jack-Kate-Sawyer trio, with little room for anyone else. This season, the first two episodes have meaty moments for the other characters (though there's been precious little of Jin and Sun so far -- hopefully, they'll get more screen time soon).
There are also some promising new characters -- whom I also can't talk about in any detail. I know I'm being a bit enigmatic and vague (not unlike an episode of "Lost"), but trust me when I say the new episodes are absolutely worth your time.

Posted by amanda on 12:36 PM | Comments (0)

January 17, 2008

"Bad" is good for AMC

Just as an addict must hit rock bottom before recovering, it seems that cable networks hit their lowest point just before they regroup and blossom into important sources for original programming. FX, for example, was once known for little more than reruns of "In Living Color." Now, it's a strong competitor to HBO, with such intelligent, well-made shows as "The Shield," "Damages" and "Rescue Me."
The latest network to experience a renaissance is AMC. Once known for commerical-laden broadcasts of less than classic films, the networks has reinvented itself by airing some truly excelent shows. Its period drama "Mad Men" just won a Golden Globe for best drama and its newest original series "Breaking Bad," which debuts at 10 p.m. Sunday, looks like another winner.

I've seen the first three episodes of this smart, scathing and darkly funny drama, and it's as good as anything on HBO or FX (certainly, it's far superior to HBO's botched summer series "John From Cincinnati"). Bryan Cranston (papa Hal on "Malcolm in the Middle") is a former scientist who now leads a fairly demeaning life in Albuquerque, N.M. He holds two jobs -- as a chemistry teacher and as a worker in a car wash. He has a loving, pregnant wife (Anna Gunn -- Mrs. Bullock on "Deadwood") and a teen son with cerebral palsy (RJ Mitte). His family loves him, but Walter's professional life is humiliating. The same kids who ignore his chemistry lectures sometimes end up at the car wash, laughing as Walter buffs their tires.
On top of this, Walter learns he has terminal cancer. With that, he snaps. Through his DEA agent brother-in-law, Walter learns that his former student, Jesse (Aaron Paul) is a crystal meth dealer known as Cap'n Cook. Walter tracks him down and they team up.
This sends the duo on a strange path. How strange? Well, the pilot episode opens with Walter, clad only in a gas mask and some tightie-whities, piloting an RV with two half-dead gangsters in the back.
As we learn who the gangsters are and how Walter ended up half nude in a Winnebago, the show takes on elements of the films of Quentin Tarantino and the Coen brothers. Yet "Breaking Bad" shows more humanity than the works of either of those auteurs. Yes, bloody, nasty things happen, and there's a lot of deadpan humor, but Walt never takes his decisions lightly. Watch the way that, in the show's later episodes, he labors over whether to kill a man who is clearly a threat to him. There's real anguish in his decision, due mainly to creator Vince Gilligan's nimble characterizations and Cranston's subtle work as Walter.
Cranston has always been good and his harried, manic Hal was one of the best things about "Malcolm." But here, he's totally different. His Walter is all quiet desperation. Notice the look on his face as he tells his students that chemistry is "the study of change." He's genuinely excited by his subject. Then, he notices that nearly no one is listening and he's quietly crestfallen. The show's first three episodes are full of moments like that, when volumes are said through a flicker in Cranston's eyes. With any luck, the role will do for him what "Mad Men's" Don Draper did for Jon Hamm or what Tony Soprano did for James Gandolfini.
The rest of the cast is equally good, with Gunn adding sass and sex appeal to the role of Walt's wife, and Mitte bringing a sarcastic glint to his role as Walt's son.
And the writing has a number of nice touches -- the way Jesse still calls his former teacher "Mr. White;" the fixation Walt has with a mustard stain on the shirt of the doctor delivering his fateful diagnosis; the way Walt disrobes before cooking meth because he doesn't want to ruin his good clothes.
It's all fascinating and touching and smartly observed. And it's all part of AMC's evolution into one of the real powerhouses of TV drama.

Posted by amanda on 5:08 PM | Comments (0)

January 15, 2008

"Lost" opinions wanted

Hello all. As you may know, the fourth season of "Lost" is about to premiere, on Jan. 31.
However, due to the ongoing writers strike, the season will be only eight episodes long -- half as long as it was supposed to be.
We're doing a story on the new season, and specifically interested in hearing what your feeling are on this. Are you happy to get at least some episodes this year? Do you wish they'd waited until the writers return, and aired a full season (as those behind "24" have opted to do)? Or are you not sure how you feel?
Let me know, at acuda@ctpost.com, and leave your name and contact information. I may contact you regarding the upcoming story.

Posted by amanda on 3:56 PM | Comments (0)

January 8, 2008

"A Daily Show," indeed

Ok, so, I'd like to discuss the return of the Comedy Central late night shows "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" and "The Colbert Report." As you know, both shows returned to the air last night after a two month absence induced by the recent writers strike. They returned without writers and, since both shows rely heavily on pre-scripted bits, the post-strike versions of their shows were a bit hit or miss.

Stewart seemed particularly at sea without his writers. During his half-hour show, he took jabs at both the Association of Motion Picture and Television Producers and the Writers Guild -- the two entities at odds in the strike. True, his beef was mainly with the producers. Stewart, after all, is a Writers Guild member. It's not like he's backing the man. He made a couple of lame jokes about how the fact that writers weren't paid for online content (a sticking point of the negotiations) was somehow related to how close Internet viewers sit to the screen. Um, Ok. However, he did have a couple of amusing moments, as when he announced that, as long as the strike persisted, his show would be called not "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" but merely "A Daily Show, With Jon Stewart." He also made the rather depressing point that, the last time late night shows were off for a long period of time was following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. During that time, he said, these shows were off for only a few weeks.
But his funniest line occurred during a riff on those "Speechless" ads certain actors are doing to show support for the WGA. One such actor? Notorious activist Sean Penn. "Oh, my God. You got Sean Penn to advocate your cause!" Stewart snarked. "You must have...A CAUSE!"
He also spoke to labor professor Ronald Seeber, and professed his strong desire to make an independent deal with striking writers, a la David Letterman, who returned to the air with his writers last week.
Colbert seemed a bit more relaxed during his show, and returned with ease to his on-air persona of a right-wing blowhard. He expressed dismay that his Teleprompter didn't seem to have any words in it. When told it was because of the writers strike, he acted confused. "My understanding is that this little box reads my thoughts and lays them up on the screen for me to read to the audience!"
Bits like that were mostly a springboard for Colbert to show clips from pre-strike, scripted shows, including a clever montage of moments in which he made fun of unions. He, too, had guests -- writers Andrew Sullivan and Richard B. Freeman.
All in all, it was interesting TV. Not nearly at the level of what this guys usually do, but certainly better than reruns.

Posted by amanda on 12:15 PM | Comments (0)