My new show

I have loved Glee since I first saw the pilot. It is hands-down one of the greatest shows on television today. It is entertaining, funny at times, poignant at times, and not too serious. Its mass appeal made it 2009's best new show.

Glee, however, is not my favorite new show on TV. Community is far and away my favorite new show on TV. I think it is funny on multiple levels, poignant at times, and not too serious. Joel McHale brings the creative sarcasm, Danny Pudi (a completely underrated Abed, who I want to see more of outside of this show) brings the weird, often with Donald Glover who plays Troy, Chevy Chase is the snotty, clueless character you like to see brought down without feeling guilty, and the other provide ample space for hilarity to ensue. The writing is translucent in that it makes fun of sitcoms and situational drama, which allows for a lot of irony as well as crazy, hilarious twists. I really think you should check out the first 5-7 episodes*.

I don't know anyone else who watches this show and I think that is because they are turned off by Joel McHale. He is the main character, but not the only character, so Community should be given a chance.

The show that I am still trying out is Modern Family. I have had a couple of people tell me that it is funny and that I would like it. It has been called a mixture of "The Office" and "Arrested Development". I have watched the first two episodes with minimal enjoyment, but I will wait until I've seen the next 3 or 4 to make a decision.

*I say 5-7, because I think doesn't really pick a direction until after the first 4 or 6. It has been my experience that shows (sitcoms and dramas) will go in several different directions at the beginning of the season after a pilot in order to see what story lines and characters resonate the best. Not all shows do this, though: The Wire comes to mind.

Mala Hierba Buena

Season 4 of Weeds is completely different. The leave Agrestic/Majestic (or what's left of it) and "transplant" to San Diego. Nancy gets deeper than she ever wanted to and the family grows up a little bit more (Shane and Silas especially).

I'm not sure if I liked it. Nancy's conscience grows but there are not really any new frontiers on her personal troubles. She's still a crappy mom, a crappy friend, and has a messed up love life. The funniest story line of the season is Doug and Andy's coyote-with-a-heart-of-gold business. Because this aired last year, the commentary on the border seems a little stale (the major immigration reform dust up bruhaha was 2006).

Also, it sucked seeing Guillermo (Guillermo Diaz of "Half-Baked" and "Wrap it up B!") go from an affable if not a little scary guy to a complete villain. I like him and his comedy, so seeing a bad side of him was disappointing. Also, no Simon. Although, maybe the commentary on race and class had run its course.

Royal disappointment

On my friend Danielle's recommendation I started watching the six episodes of Kings that they aired this past year. The premise was interesting- it is loosely based on the story of the great Jewish kings- and I'm a sucker for a new TV show so away I went last night and today.

The pilot (Goliath pts 1 and 2) is EPIC. If it were a movie I would've paid to watch it (luckily it is free at NBC.com and Hulu.com until Sept. 20). My crappy internet connection made it take a LONG time to watch, but I had to. It is incredible. So full of promise. The best parts were the character of David Shepherd (as in David vs. Goliath- a name that also makes an appearance) and the romance between David and the King's daughter. Plus they threw a plethora of story lines out there, so it looked like it was going to be an incredible show.

Oh, what could have been! Watching episodes 2-5 was so disappointing. David becomes a naive, impotent boy. The greatest story line- the rise of a smart, daring, passionate man to power based on a sense of fairness- gets thrown in the trash in favor of palace intrigue. All of the power plays that were alluded in the first episode (great and terrible people doing great and terrible things) become cloak and dagger boring minutiae.  Oh, and Macaulay Culkin shows up in the 5th episode. 

The actress who plays the princess is the best, by far. The actor who plays the king es no bueno. He's got no range and his character has some serious issues that need someone to show something besides arrogance.

I'll probably watch this one until they stop making them (a la The Black Donnellys- one of whom plays one of David's brother in Kings) but this show is unsustainable. For some reason I heard that it was cancelled/not picked up for the fall but have not confirmed.

Recommendation: watch the pilot and then wait until you hear some buzz (from me or someone else) about the show. 

UPDATE: The end of Episode 6 is better and more intriguing than the rest...

I forgot to mention that the music is terrible and that the use of the butterfly (a MONARCH naturally) is weird and does not work.

But is such happiness sustainable?

On my brother's recommendation I checked out the pilot for Glee. I liked it and will be watching when it comes on again in the fall(?). The action centers around the Glee Club's advisor and the kids in the club itself (focusing on a couple, with the others not receiving much attention). 

The setting is in a stereotypical high school with the standard cliques (jocks, cheerleaders, etc.). Very similar to High School Musical there are stigmas attached to artistic activities and crossing over is taboo. Also similar to HSM one of the main characters is a jock unsatisfied with being just one thing. There are a lot of characters and the pilot sets up many possible story lines within and among characters.

The question is, though, can all of the story lines be original and entertaining? High school has been the setting for many different stories (too many to list) so I can see it getting stale quickly. Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to seeing how it develops.

No time for the Jibba Jabba

From the Presidents- they're just like us! files here is an article about Barack Obama's TV preferences. 

No time for long posts but here is some quick hits:

TV

Lost- loving it, the plot is moving fast.

House- thanks, world, for ruining the major change to the show before I had a chance to watch it.

Movies

Zack and Miri make a Porno- don't see. I was excited to see the movie because I like most of the elements (Kevin Smith, Seth Rogan, Elizabeth Banks, Craig Robinson, etc.) but it was bad. The best part was Jason Mewes (Jay of Jay and Silent Bob) who played a dumb guy instead of his normal character. 

Okay, you've got to see this

A MUCH better clip.

A clip from last week's SNL

Ire Land

As a huge fan of The Daily Show I've seen John Stewart get in a lot of arguments with stupid guests.  During the entire 2006 season everybody with a book pandering to the conservative mindset of the country and the culture war/conservative revolution made a pass through TDS and it got to be a little trite. Since then there have been fewer and fewer of those interviews. But I have come to dislike the interviews when those arguments happen because John will make serious, thought-provoking arguments and the audience will jump in and applaud rather than let the guest respond. Basically, I think it kills the segment. (There is probably some effects from editing too.) The best argument John Stewart has gotten into by far happened NOT on his show but when he was on Crossfire with Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson and basically took them and the news media to task. There was an audience, but it wasn't involuntarily applauding when he made points, it responded to his jokes.

Come to last night's Stewart-Cramer faceoff and it went a little different than normal. First, they were talking about really complex financial stuff for some of the show and I don't think the audience knew when to respond. There was some, especially when John's tone of voice cued them to cheer but it was just not as much as maybe it should've been (not saying the audience is dumb, but...). Second, Cramer was very deferential and did not try and maintain a fight (very smart tactic) so the conversation was not as a tense as when jackasses who don't give a flip come on and just try to play the villain like a WWF bad guy (I'm old school so I don't care 'bout no WWE). Third, it was longer and necessarily so. There was SO much to talk about the normal 6.5-8 minutes wouldn't have cut it. So, the discussion was fuller and the parsing made it more comprehensive. Fourth, there were- at least on the internets- F-bombs that were not deleted. In all, I was bracing myself for the eye-rolling cheers from the audience and I was pleasantly surprised when they did not come to the level I was expecting.

Last night's interview was basically an extension of the "media not doing its job" theme of the Crossfire interview: what CNN et al. weren't doing for the public with regards to real information and discourse on our government and presidential candidates CNBC was not doing for financial instruments, corporations, and the financial system- GOOD REPORTING. I think Cramer was a little more forthright about his show ("Mad Money") being a work of entertainment than smug Carlson and vapid Begala were, to his credit. At the end, though, the level of catharsis that was provided by John going after Cramer about promoting certain financial instruments and stock etc. was more than offset by the fact that the problem is so much bigger than just him. The Daily Show is still on Comedy Central, CNBC is still going to do what it does, and major changes in our country's finances are not impending.

That is a serious review but it was a pretty serious episode. If you want a funny clip watch this:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

The Deer Hunter

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

Goodbye Michael

Note: I started writing this article on Feb. 20 and put it aside to formulate my argument.

The Office is one of my favorite shows. Seasons 2 and 3 are incredible. I have recently re-watched all of those episodes thanks to Netflix's instant watch feature (although I learned that if you don't have an unlimited out package you can be limited to only a few episodes/movies a month). Season 4 and Season 5, though have been significantly less interesting and have some pretty horrific episodes (The Dinner Party, Chair Model, Did I Stutter?, and Job Fair from Season 4; Employee Transfer in Season 5) that are hard to watch. There are funny parts during some of those episodes, but in general the show has been less interesting. 

I think I know why the recent seasons have been less interesting: the Jim and Pam story line is resolved, Jim is no longer apathetic, and the Michael story lines are played out. 

1) The Jim-Pam romance story line was a huge part of why people watched the show during the first two seasons. Since they've started dating, there is no "will they-won't they" aspect, a major part of the buzz and interest in seasons 2 and 3. 

2) Since Jim moved to Stamford he has been increasingly less apathetic and less resistant to the office. When he got the promotion for moving back to Scranton he did some pranks, but since Season 4, he has not pulled any pranks or done any shenanigans like the Office Olympics. Plus, he has assumed more responsibility in the office: leading the office while Michael was out (Survivor Man S4:E7), organizing an after-hours work session to avoid coming in on the weekend (Night Out S4:E11), and co-chairing the Party Planning Committee with Dwight (Lecture Circuit S5:E14 & 15). The funniest prank-y type thing to happen was this exchange during Customer Survey (Season 5, Episode 6). 

3) The Michael story lines are played out: Michael struggling to find love (Lecture Circuit parts 1 and 2) and happiness (Stress Relief S5:E13), Michael as a terrible boss (Stress Relief and all of the episodes, really), Michael as a racist/sexist/idiot (Moroccan Christmas S5:E10)/terrible person (Prince Family Paper S5:E12), etc. 

So, where do I think the office is going? I think Michael is going to be fired or demoted to salesman (or fired, then re-hired, as a salesman).  Getting him out of the boss role would allow him to do new things and possibly grow. It would allow for the introduction of new characters or the development of new aspects of old characters. We've already seen Jim gain more responsibility in the office as mentioned above and in the Survivor Man episode his travail as leader was an important story line. So maybe he is the favorite for that to happen. Also, it would shake up the office and bring a buzz back to the show. We would get some episodes of: Who will be boss? How will that person act as boss (if they promote from within)? There could be conflicts with the new boss (e.g. by bringing back Karen) or old conflicts that re-surface because of the change in power. If Jim were the boss maybe Jim would have to deal with Dwight sucking up to him. 

That is my prediction. What do you think?

(Spoiler Alert! DO NOT READ IF YOU WANT TO BE SURPRISED)

----------

SUPER SPOILER:

I was looking on IMDB.com to see if there was a new episode tonight (3/12) and the episode next week is called "New Boss". Maybe we'll find out if I'm right very soon?!

The Flower(ing) Sawyer

LaFleur: If you've never seen "Hands on a Hard Body", the documentary about a Longview, Texas competition to win a new truck by keeping your hands on it as long as possible, I highly recommend it. It is hilarious. At one point a veteran of the competition is waxing philosophical about the nature of the competition and comes up with this gem (best enjoyed while envisioning a THICK East Texas drawl): "It's a human drama thing."

...And that's how I felt about this episode. No real answers but just a thick layer of complication in the relationships between the Losties. I am, of course, referring to Juliet and Sawyer. Throughout the "3-years ago" parts of the episode we see the two of them align and then, near the end, Sawyer convinces Juliet to "give him two weeks" to allow him to convince her to stay. That alignment turns into three years and romance, just like the blossoming of une fleur. The depth and nature of that relationship is explained in their profession of love (preceded by the giving of an actual fleur) near the end and in the fact that they seem to live together. Horace's fight with Amy brings up the question of what happens if/when Sawyer and Juliet ever meet Kate and Jack. Sawyer basically says he is over Kate. We don't have to wait long, though, to test the validity of that because guess who's back? Kate. Oh and Jack, but I guess Juliet's love for Jack won't be as big of a deal because we never see Juliet's angst or thoughts on the matter. It's a human drama thing, y'all.

The other side of the flowering metaphor is the blossoming  of Sawyer as a leader. In the "3 years later" parts of the episode it seems that Sawyer (aka James LaFleur) is a feared/respected leader of the Dharma initiative folks. At the very beginning of the episode the Dharma guys run to get Sawyer when Horace goes a little nuts. Sawyer may arguably be THE leader because the doctor obeys Sawyer even though he is concerned about what Horace would think/do.

Even though this episode is more about the character interactions and not the island, some subtle island mystery things come up. First, it seems that Sawyer knew to look for the returning Losties. Jin came up to Sawyer early in the episode and said, "We finished grid 1-3 today. No sign of our people." Sawyer says that we'll keep looking for them "as long as it takes." Then, at the end of the episode Jin finds Hurley, Jack, and Kate.  Jin was looking for them on Sawyer's order, but how did Sawyer know to look for them? Did Sawyer talk to Jacob?

Second, 30 years ago (or whenever Sawyer, Juliet, Miles, etc. are) people can have babies on the island. That brings up the old, un-answered question of why the babies/mothers in Ben's camp died. Third, I also wonder if there is something to the fact that it was 3 years after the Oceanic 6 came back and 3 years after the Losties stopped time traveling that they met. Fourth, we still don't really know what the Dharma Initiative is, but I'm not sure that it has some mystical criteria for the people who are living there. Why? Because Horace tells Sawyer "You're not really Dharma material" and then let's him stay after Sawyer talks Richard Alpert into keeping the truce. 

You know how I know you're funny?

I thought Paul Rudd's interview/goof around session on The Daily Show was funny enough. Normally I don't like it when John Stewart's friends come on the show because they try to out-comedy one another and it ends up  being 1/2 watching someone else's inside jokes and 1/2 un-funny improv show. This time it was entertaining enough because of 1) free t-shirts and 2) silly dancing.

In other news Jim Cramer is going to be on TDS tomorrow and it should be interesting. Why?

On March 4- John ripped CNBC. Over that weekend the segment became a thing on the cable news networks and Jim Cramer responded. So all of this week (March 9, March 10, and March 11) TDS has been responding.

Of course, Colbert interviewed him last Thursday (March 5) and it was hysterical.

A week off

School work and a surprise trip to Beantown left me busy last week, so here's what I've seen in a nutshell:

How I Met Your Mother

The Good: It's finally back on.

The Bad: Can we move the plot please? Yes, Barney loves Robin. Can we get some movement there or drop it? Also, Barney seems only to love Robin when its convenient (in Three Days of Snow he pursued the college girl).

House

(Note: I watch this online and Fox puts it up a week after it airs on TV, so this may be doubly old if you watch it on TV.)

The Good: As usual a good episode.

The Bad: It seemed mechanical- reinforcing what is known about the characters, not moving them along except the Thirteen-Foreman relationship.

The Office

The Good: Victory for Kevin! I love to see him win (see Chair Model- Season 4, Episode 10). It is great to see a large part of the office coalesce into a supporting group (for the most part). The stuff with Phyllis-Bob Vance (of Vance Refrigeration) was hilarious.

The Bad: It is kind of a downer that there are a bunch of unhappy people in the office. The stuff with Phyllis-Bob Vance (of Vance Refrigeration) was disgusting.

30 Rock

The Good: The Frank-Jack story line is funny, although, maybe I say that only because I happen to really like the Frank character. I was dying when Jack had to turn Frank away just like Harry.

The Bad: I've seen this episode before- Jenna acting out because she's jealous of Tracy and Liz being crazy about babies and manipulating others to get her way is P-L-A-Y-E-D.

Lost- Separate review to follow.

The Daily Show

The Good: They're keeping the Obama administration's feet to the fire. I thought this interview was brilliant:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

White House Press Corps

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

I really liked the interview with former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (Part 1, Part 2) and think its a must-see. The interview with Billy Crudup got me more excited about seeing The Watchmen (review to come?). 

The Bad: They're still fighting culture wars against Fox News. That is kind of old hat to me.

Saturday Night Live (Yes, I still watch it)

I haven't actually watched it, but I've seen links to clips floating around online, so I'll probably watch this sometime. I just wanted to mention it.

Run, Fat Boy, Run

Running and especially running marathons seems to be a thing now so I'm very happy to review this movie. (Side note: I highly suggest watching this interpretation of marathons from HIMYM.) 

The plot is nothing spectacular, but the charm of the movie is that it is funny and uplifting. The male lead is Simon Pegg, who I liked in Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, and the female lead is Thandie Newton, the woman from MI2 and Crash, and both do what they do fine. The story is basically this: out-of-shape, loserly Dennis Doyle (Pegg) leaves pregnant Libby Odell (Newton) at the alter and then wakes up one day to realize he made a huge mistake. Libby's boyfriend- Hank Azaria as Whit- is a big threat to take both Libby and Dennis' son away from Dennis. The battle for Libby's heart is fought in the arena of a marathon. A group of Dennis' friends get together to help him get in shape- hilarity ensues. Hank Azaria (from the Simpsons and probably some other stuff- but I couldn't stop hearing Simpsons voices whenever he spoke) seemed like an odd choice because he's nerdy but I think it worked in the end. The humor ranges from gross (but never over-the-top) to classic.

I recommend this if you're looking for light fare.

That's it!

No new Office?!

The fact that all my favorite TV shows took a week off is very disappointing. I did find this outtake from last week's episode Lecture Circuit, Part 2. Enjoy!

First Lost Post

[Note: As this blog gets underway I will preface my thoughts on any particular episode by talking about my general opinions about the TV show. But just for the first time I talk about a show. Also, when I talk about TV shows, I'm not going to separate spoilers.]

Preface: I really like Lost. I've seen every episode twice (at least) to keep past events fresh in my mind. It probably goes with out saying that the biggest part of my attraction to the show is trying to figure out what's going on before they reveal it. I like the supernatural aspects of the show. Part of me feels that the island is really (and has been all along) an allegory for purgatory but they did it too obviously so they've been giving other possibilities to throw the viewers off. I also like talking about it, because everyone sees different things in the shows. As much as I like it, I'm not on any of the message boards and I don't obsess over the little things in the episodes. There are contextual consistencies that the production crew maintains, but I'm not sure that they build foreshadowing and hidden information into the episodes.

316: I thought this episode was disappointing. I almost wrote that this episode was boring... but it wasn't. It moves the action from LA back to the island but we didn't learn anything, except five of the six (plus Ben, Locke's body, and Lapidus) get back to the island. We meet Jack's grandfather, but I doubt he will be important. I suspect that maybe Jack's grandfather has been to the island, based on nothing more than, his tone, speculation and the existence of some other generational ties to the island (Charlotte and Miles). The actor who plays the grandfather was well-cast because he had a pretty close "Shepherd" look and voice.

The episode is titled "316" which sounds like John 3:16,

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (From Wikipedia)

By flying on Flight 316 to get back to the island are they getting everlasting life? Does it simply mean that because they believe Ms. Hawking they won't die on Flight 316? This would reinforce the religious allegory (say... purgatory) assertion. 

Which brings me to my current big big-picture question: Is Jack going to be the island's new permanent leader (the position that Ben was in, which Locke took over)? I have always thought that Jack is the center of the show. I mean, the VERY first image you see in the pilot is Jack. Locke is dead (right? maybe he'll come back to life- like Jack's dad- when they reach the island a la purgatory) and Ben left the island so he may not be the central figure when they reach the present day. Plus Jack's dad is Jacob's face/voice (or maybe actually Jacob?!) so he has a tie to the island's spirit (which would be reinforced if Jack's grandfather had been to the island too). Towards the bottom of the resume: Jack was the force behind the Losties and I don't think that was a coincidence. 

Side note: The Jack character bothers me sometimes when the story has him shaped by events, rather than shaping events. He's the leader of the Losties (Jack SHEPHERD, comeon?) and should be kicking ass and taking names. 

Interesting Plot Questions: Where is Aaron? Does his absence affect anything? If you remember way back, the fortune teller implored Claire (where is she btw?) to raise Aaron herself... His absence has to be significant. 

Why would Sun leave her kid? It seems implausible for her to leave her child to look for Jin.

Did Ben kill Penelope? I'm pretty sure the "promise" that Ben went to keep was to kill Widmore's daughter. Since she was there with Desmond, I think that could explain it. This could be a device to get Desmond back to the island (kill Ben, resurrect her because the island is purgatory, etc.).

Other thoughts: 

1) I've gotten into Ken Ken, the Soduku-like game that the NYT puts next to the daily crossword. It's fun.

2) T-Mac ruins my day. For the first few years in the league he was my favorite player. I was ecstatic when he came to the Rockets. But now, I resent him and see him as just another player. I don't want to hear any more about him unless its "T-Mac for ____" until he is dressing for games.