Search This Blog

Showing posts with label tv review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tv review. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

QUICK TV REVIEW: The Joy of Sets



Full disclosure: I was a huge fan of Get This, the Triple M program and podcast that originally brought Tony Martin and Ed Kavalee together, along with the much-missed, much-loved Richard Marsland. So I’m a little biased.

Having said that, I got more laughs out of the opening segment of The Joy of Sets than I did out of a whole episode of Good News World. These guys have a natural, easy chemistry that just works, whether it’s on radio or television. That chemistry comes across here, and they mine some fine material out of the weird and wonderful that is the history of television.

Monday, August 15, 2011

TV REVIEW - SUITS

When I sat down to watch Suits, I wasn’t particularly enthralled at the idea. Watching two snappily dressed, rich, white guys banter and do legal things isn’t really my idea of a good time unless its very nicely executed. While I wouldn’t go as far as to say that Suits is ‘very nicely’ executed, there’s a degree of competency at work here that just makes this show fly by.

Reading American critics’ reviews had made me think that ‘Suits’ was going to be a slog, and while you should never think too deeply about what’s going on, a slog it is not. Leads Patrick J. Adams and Gabriel Macht have an easy chemistry and natural charm, although it still baffles me how often in the pilot they aren’t in scenes together, as the show really clicks when they are.

Macht (The Spirit) stars as Harvey Specter, a flashy attorney who is ‘the best closer in town’. This seems to be based more on reputation than actual evidence, as he spends most of his time in the pilot screwing up. Through some contrived plotting he meets Mike Ross, (Adams) a pot-smoking screw-up who also happens to be a genius. He hires Ross to join his legal firm despite the fact he’s never been to law school and they begin to close cases together.

And that’s it, really. There are other people who populate the law firm like Gina Torres (Firefly) as their boss and Rick Hoffman as a lawyer so incredibly prissy and annoying he makes Macht’s character look like a self-deprecating, humble street urchin – and that’s probably the idea – but really this show is about whether you like the two leads and want to see them do the legal equivalent of solve crimes together. The writing is unspectacular, the women are smart, attractive and underwritten, and the cases are nothing to write home about. It’s all down to whether you like the characters.

Personally, I started out not liking either of them but begrudgingly accepted they were a watchable duo in the end – and maybe liking them a little bit. Sure, Gabriel Macht may be playing a played-straight version of Barney Stinson and Adams is like a straighter-laced Aaron Paul from Breaking Bad, but they make decent, inoffensive, frothy viewing.

Just don't think too hard about it.

Thursday, July 28, 2011

TELEVISION: Crownies Review



(This review covers Episode 1-3)

The ABC took a pretty age-old approach to selling Crownies. Sex sells. ‘Sex, lies and magistrates’ was the tagline.

Sure enough, there’s lots of cleavage. There’s a set of lingerie. There are a lot of pretty people.

Unfortunately, it’s like when an Australian Idol contestant tries to be sexy. The ‘sexiness’ is all so forced – dropped into the plot purely because it should be there, not because it rises organically from proceedings. That’s to begin with, at least. Episode three manages to create some chemistry between two of the five leads – and that’s far sexier than randomly putting girls in their bra.

A couple of those girls are among our leads for this show – the five young Crownies whose trials (Ha!) and tribulations will form the basis of this show going forward. They’re all pretty good and immediately distinguishable from each other. The standouts at this stage are the continually flustered Hamish Michael who brings a real humanity to his role and Indiana Evans for her breezy charm and casual intelligence. This is not to denigrate any of the other five leads – they’re all very good.

Oh man, though. Midway through the first episode the primary prosecutor of the DPP absolutely smashes apart a defense team during a negotiation, and you can’t help but cheer for her as she does it. Despite the young cast being front and centre, it’s Marta Dusseldorp as Janet King that absolutely sprints away with the show. Disappointingly, she’s barely in the second part of the season pilot.

The rest of the adult cast is professional and competent though they don’t stand out like Dusseldorp does. Essentially, though, Crownies has an attractive, competent, charismatic cast. All that’s left is to do something worthwhile with it. On that basis, I think the show succeeds. While the first two episodes try to tackle way too much the third episode contains the focus somewhat and that results in a much, much better show. The cases are contemporary without feeling ripped-from-the-headlines and the issues involved generally have enough shades of grey to keep them interesting.

It takes slightly longer for the personal storylines to have as much impact as the legal ones. The young cast mostly make horrifyingly idiotic mistakes and sleep with people that shouldn’t be anywhere near their social circles if they had a shred of decency. Those forced plot developments that populate the first episode do make way for more complex storylines as the episodes progress and the characters begin to intertwine in ways that are more fun to watch.

Overall, do I want to watch a fourth episode? You bet I do. Once the third episode was over I was actively looking forward to the fourth and seeing how the series would progress. In fact, Crownies might be one of the best Australian-produced TV shows I’ve seen this year. No hysteria, not too much attention seeking, just classy, decent Aussie drama.

Monday, July 25, 2011

TELEVISION: UNDERBELLY RAZOR REVIEW


Set in Sydney in the 1920s, Underbelly: Razor follows the razor gangs of the 1920s and the battle for the underworld between vice queens Tilly Devine and Kate Leigh.

I have an ongoing problem with the Underbelly series – how can I enjoy a program where I hate all the characters?

Every Underbelly series has been almost exclusively populated with the most annoyingly stupid and selfish people known to man. We’ve been asked to sympathise with criminals, prostitutes, crooked cops and so much more. Maybe I’m too straight-laced, but you would need some of the most charming actors on the planet to make me care about what happens to anyone in these shows.

This wasn’t such a problem in the first series, which was genuinely explosive drama and had enough charming actors to see it through – while also being fantastically of the time. It was undeniably Australian television at very close to its finest.

Underbelly: A Tale of Two Cities however, was incredibly skeevy – to the point of unwatchability – and descended into completely mad plotting hell in its later episodes.

Underbelly: The Golden Mile was just solid and unspectacular – not as bad as series two but nowhere near as good as series one.

So that brings us to the fourth series of a show with stagnating, if not diminishing returns – Underbelly: Razor. Here we have what is basically the Australian sibling of Boardwalk Empire – a crime series set in the twenties and invoking all the social mores and visual signifiers of that age – flappers, pinstripe suits, hats. So many hats. More importantly, though, this was a chance for a Brand New Underbelly. A chance for the reinvention of the series. A chance to really achieve something.

So what did we get?

We got the same old Underbelly. Just with more hats.

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

WINNERS AND LOSERS WEEK THREE REVIEW



No real time for a full review tonight – so just a hail of hastily assembled spoiler-related bullets on the fourth episode of Winners and Losers:

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

WINNERS AND LOSERS EPISODE TWO REVIEW



Spoiler-related thoughts on episode two of Winners and Losers after the jump...

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

TV REVIEW - WINNERS AND LOSERS


Winners and Losers is a show for women.

That’s not to say it’s a bad show, or an unworthy show – but it’s just not a guy’s show.

This is Sex and the City (there’s even two blondes, a brunette and a redhead) meets Packed to the Rafters – and it’s Channel Seven’s attempt to double down on the Rafters audience, whisking that incredibly popular program off the air to make way for this – and in the process they’ll be hoping that they get two massive dramedy franchises off the ground.

Of course, they might risk alienating the Rafters audience, a casually diehard fan base that has forged a deep connection over the last four years to this particular family.

My question is simply this - by aiming the show squarely at half the country are they not giving it a chance to get out of the blocks?