Reviews: This is Us and MacGyver
Sep. 24th, 2016 12:29 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatFinished watching the new television series This is Us (which premiered on Tuesday night) and McGyver (which premiered on Thursday night.)
1. MacGyver -- it should be noted that I never quite got sucked into the original version (which aired between 1985-1992), oh I watched it off and on, but not regularly. With that caveat? I did not like the new version at all and rather missed the old version. The old version, while episodic in character and at times rather dull plot and acting wise, had charm and was a bit innovative in places. You learned stuff and it was a quirky adventure procedural. Also Dean Anderson coined stoic dead-pan humor.
The new version? Doesn't have any of that. Well, except for maybe the action. MacGyver and his team work for a covert agency, DXS, that not even the CIA knows about. They solve domestic and international high risk cases that require a specific skill set. MacGyver, at 26, has served in the military defusing bombs, gotten a degree from MIT and aced a few science contests. With him is an top level computer expert/analyst, and a sharp-shooter who keeps him safe. Unfortunately in an attempt to acquire a tube of something or other, things go awry, the top level computer analyst gets killed, MacGyver shot, and the tube taken. Turns out the tube is a biological weapon. The analyst who MacGyver was in love with (or so we're told in a few sexy flashbacks and some brooding looks) faked her death and stole the weapon to sell it or for some other cause, it's not all that clear.
They break a hot female computer hacker out of prison (because apparently there aren't any other qualified computer analysts out there) to locate the weapon. In the midst of all of this, MacGyver does a few cool things with science, but nothing you haven't seen before a million times on a million other television series. (The problem is since MacGyver aired in the 1980s, we've had CSI, NCSI, Law and Order, Hawaii 5-0 reboot, and various other procedurals who like to go into graphic detail in similar fashion. Not to mention various superhero and spy thrillers. And they did it a heck of a lot better than MacGyver is doing it.)
Instead of building the characters, like Lethal Weapon did, we're thrust into the action from the get-go. And unfortunately, they haven't cast this well. The only interesting and charismatic actor in the series is George Eds (last seen on CSI), which is saying something. Lucas Till who plays McGyver is boyishly pretty, but no Richard Dean Anderson who originated the role. Katy Sparikadis, who plays the femme fatal, is model stiff. I kept wishing they'd just kill her off, but alas they didn't - it's not a spoiler, the whole thing was rather predictable. She shows little emotion throughout. And the bad girl with a heart of gold hacker is a television cliche.
Throughout the episode, I kept thinking there are so many things you could have done to make this interesting, you stupid writers. For one? Flip the genders. Make either MacGyver or George Eds characters female, and the femme fatal hacker, a cute guy. Or have MacGyver be older, not a young kid, and the sharp-shooter the kid keeping him alive. Maybe, have MacGyver be the one they sprung from prison not the hacker, and introduce him halfway through.
Also, ditch the whole covert agency bit. Been there done that. It would have been more interesting if MacGyver had been an agent for hire that they wanted to work for them, but couldn't get - which I thought from various previews was the direction they were going. Unfortunately not. The first fifteen minutes of the episode felt like a replay of the first fifteen minutes of the Arnold Schwarzenegger spy thriller True Lies, except that was better done.
But alas this mess is what we got. Cancelled from the DVR. I'll be surprised if it survives more than five episodes.
2. This is Us -- this is a surprisingly controversial series with the television critics. They either love it to pieces or really hate it. There doesn't appear to be any in between. People either love this show or hate this show. Mind-boggling. So glad, I'm not a professional television, film or book critic - dodged that bullet.
For the record? I loved it. I found it funny and touching in places. I laughed throughout, and related to the characters. Also the narrative format worked for me and felt rather unique and innovative.
The story is told more from an emotional perspective than an informational one, and is more "character" driven than "plot" driven. If you are anal about nitty gritty details, plot oriented and not a fan of character emotional arcs or navel gazing, this show is not for you -- it will most likely drive you crazy. If however, you love emotional character arcs, navel gazing, philosophizing, and are more character oriented than plot oriented, you'll adore it. Then again maybe not. I don't really know at this point. I hated GIRLS - found it unwatchable, which is a character-oriented series. I just depised the characters - who reminded me far too much of a few people I knew and despised in real life. So there's that. When comes right down to it? I never really know for certain why certain things appeal to people and other's don't, but hey it's fun to try and figure it out, right?
Anyhow...this series reminded me a little of Friday Night Lights, Parenthood, and Brothers and Sisters in how it was told. There are four inter-locking stories, or rather four key points of view.
We don't find out until the very end -- what the connection between the four points is. But it works and tracks throughout. Also the connection does a nice job of subtly reflecting on various themes.
Such as how people are related to each other or connected. How life has a tendency to circle back on itself. How acts of kindness pull us through. And how time has little relevance in the scheme of things - what we wore in the 70s or 80s, hair styles, clothes, current events...is sort of similar today. Only the technology has truly changed.
I found the show oddly comforting in places. It is amongst the few series this season that felt kind.
The people in it were "kind" to one another, and compassionate. The focus was on how to be kind. The humor was not cruel, but absurd. And I think I've grown tired of lackadaisical cruelty or thoughtless cruelty. Our society has become oddly thoughtless - we seem to rip one another apart without thinking about the consequences. Or so I've noticed. It's the age of Donald Trump or the Trumpism -- where people lob insults at each other. This series felt more...mindful somehow and seemed to comment on that tendency, yet in an indirect way.
One of the four story threads concerns an attractive actor in a situation comedy. The situation comedy has him take his shirt off and make fun of being a Dad. True emotional moments are downplayed for laughs. And Alan Thicke plays his Dad in a cameo. He's hot and sexy, but he aches to be an actor and not an eyepiece. It seems that all people see is his body, he himself doesn't exist. This thread pokes fun at and comments on our society's obsession with looks and how shallow so much of our entertainment truly is. The actor blames the audience who tunes in each week, not the writer, not the director, not the studio or network, but the audience -- who wants to watch a shallow series about narcisistic people who are cruel. It's a nice commentary on an audience who tunes into a show like The Bachelor or The Apprentice each week, then wonders why terrorism exists or people are shot in the street or Donald Trump is a viable candidate.
Of the series I've seen this week, this is the only one that seems to have anything to say. And it does it rather humorously and in a gentle sort of way. The funniest thread was his twin sister, who is obese and upset about it. It feels like her whole world has become about her weight. She has a rather wry sense of humor and pokes fun at her obsession. During a weight watchers support group meeting, she meets an equally obese and rather kind man, who asks her out. Their banter is charming and humourous. Both are kind souls. I laughed more during it than during two hours of The Good Place or Atlanta, both critically acclaimed sitcoms, supposed to be comedies, and only succeeded in irritating and depressing me.
In the middle is a thread about a man searching for his birth father. And this too is charming and unexpectedly funny and moving at the same time. He finds his father, fully intending to tell him to screw himself, but instead sits down to chat. His father charms him. He had dreamt of finding him, showing him that he'd done well for himself, that he was successful, etc...in short getting vengeance, but he can't quite go through with it. Reality doesn't play out how he'd planned.
The acting is stellar as is the delivery.
The final thread is about a man who is about to have triplets on his 36 birthday. But the focus is less on him and more on the doctor delivering the babies. We get the doctor's story. Overlaying his.
It's slices of life, here and there. Slices of the characters. Unlike some shows that feel the need to throw all the details at you at once, this one takes its time. I prefer shows that take their time. Queen Sugar also takes its time. We learn a little bit, just enough to intrigue, each episode.
Critics who despised the series -- seemed to be triggered by it in various ways. None could express well why they hated it. Either they felt it was too sentimental? (It's far less sentimental than Grey's Anatomy or Nashville, and more in line with Queen Sugar, Friday Night Lights and Parenthood.) One said, and I found this odd, that there was more honest emotion in "Jane the Virgin" -- a series that I found unwatchable and irritating, not to mention borderline offensive when I attempted it. Gave up after the first two episodes. (Of course this was unsurprising, since I rarely agree with this critic on television series.)
Critics who loved the series - are more expressive, but they too, struggled. It's intuitive series and if you aren't intuitive by nature, you may well hate it. I think in the end, it is much like all things in life -- dependent on mood, where you are at this point in your life, what you are looking for, what you relate to, what your background is, what you are attracted to, and what information you seek. We all seek different things, I think. And as a result, it's almost impossible to know if we'll love or hate something until we try it for ourselves.
At any rate, I loved it. So I gave it a season pass. It's a nice replacement for Parenthood, which I'd missed.
Sigh, upstairs neighbors who think they are musicians can't figure out that it is after midnight and time to stop playing music.
1. MacGyver -- it should be noted that I never quite got sucked into the original version (which aired between 1985-1992), oh I watched it off and on, but not regularly. With that caveat? I did not like the new version at all and rather missed the old version. The old version, while episodic in character and at times rather dull plot and acting wise, had charm and was a bit innovative in places. You learned stuff and it was a quirky adventure procedural. Also Dean Anderson coined stoic dead-pan humor.
The new version? Doesn't have any of that. Well, except for maybe the action. MacGyver and his team work for a covert agency, DXS, that not even the CIA knows about. They solve domestic and international high risk cases that require a specific skill set. MacGyver, at 26, has served in the military defusing bombs, gotten a degree from MIT and aced a few science contests. With him is an top level computer expert/analyst, and a sharp-shooter who keeps him safe. Unfortunately in an attempt to acquire a tube of something or other, things go awry, the top level computer analyst gets killed, MacGyver shot, and the tube taken. Turns out the tube is a biological weapon. The analyst who MacGyver was in love with (or so we're told in a few sexy flashbacks and some brooding looks) faked her death and stole the weapon to sell it or for some other cause, it's not all that clear.
They break a hot female computer hacker out of prison (because apparently there aren't any other qualified computer analysts out there) to locate the weapon. In the midst of all of this, MacGyver does a few cool things with science, but nothing you haven't seen before a million times on a million other television series. (The problem is since MacGyver aired in the 1980s, we've had CSI, NCSI, Law and Order, Hawaii 5-0 reboot, and various other procedurals who like to go into graphic detail in similar fashion. Not to mention various superhero and spy thrillers. And they did it a heck of a lot better than MacGyver is doing it.)
Instead of building the characters, like Lethal Weapon did, we're thrust into the action from the get-go. And unfortunately, they haven't cast this well. The only interesting and charismatic actor in the series is George Eds (last seen on CSI), which is saying something. Lucas Till who plays McGyver is boyishly pretty, but no Richard Dean Anderson who originated the role. Katy Sparikadis, who plays the femme fatal, is model stiff. I kept wishing they'd just kill her off, but alas they didn't - it's not a spoiler, the whole thing was rather predictable. She shows little emotion throughout. And the bad girl with a heart of gold hacker is a television cliche.
Throughout the episode, I kept thinking there are so many things you could have done to make this interesting, you stupid writers. For one? Flip the genders. Make either MacGyver or George Eds characters female, and the femme fatal hacker, a cute guy. Or have MacGyver be older, not a young kid, and the sharp-shooter the kid keeping him alive. Maybe, have MacGyver be the one they sprung from prison not the hacker, and introduce him halfway through.
Also, ditch the whole covert agency bit. Been there done that. It would have been more interesting if MacGyver had been an agent for hire that they wanted to work for them, but couldn't get - which I thought from various previews was the direction they were going. Unfortunately not. The first fifteen minutes of the episode felt like a replay of the first fifteen minutes of the Arnold Schwarzenegger spy thriller True Lies, except that was better done.
But alas this mess is what we got. Cancelled from the DVR. I'll be surprised if it survives more than five episodes.
2. This is Us -- this is a surprisingly controversial series with the television critics. They either love it to pieces or really hate it. There doesn't appear to be any in between. People either love this show or hate this show. Mind-boggling. So glad, I'm not a professional television, film or book critic - dodged that bullet.
For the record? I loved it. I found it funny and touching in places. I laughed throughout, and related to the characters. Also the narrative format worked for me and felt rather unique and innovative.
The story is told more from an emotional perspective than an informational one, and is more "character" driven than "plot" driven. If you are anal about nitty gritty details, plot oriented and not a fan of character emotional arcs or navel gazing, this show is not for you -- it will most likely drive you crazy. If however, you love emotional character arcs, navel gazing, philosophizing, and are more character oriented than plot oriented, you'll adore it. Then again maybe not. I don't really know at this point. I hated GIRLS - found it unwatchable, which is a character-oriented series. I just depised the characters - who reminded me far too much of a few people I knew and despised in real life. So there's that. When comes right down to it? I never really know for certain why certain things appeal to people and other's don't, but hey it's fun to try and figure it out, right?
Anyhow...this series reminded me a little of Friday Night Lights, Parenthood, and Brothers and Sisters in how it was told. There are four inter-locking stories, or rather four key points of view.
We don't find out until the very end -- what the connection between the four points is. But it works and tracks throughout. Also the connection does a nice job of subtly reflecting on various themes.
Such as how people are related to each other or connected. How life has a tendency to circle back on itself. How acts of kindness pull us through. And how time has little relevance in the scheme of things - what we wore in the 70s or 80s, hair styles, clothes, current events...is sort of similar today. Only the technology has truly changed.
I found the show oddly comforting in places. It is amongst the few series this season that felt kind.
The people in it were "kind" to one another, and compassionate. The focus was on how to be kind. The humor was not cruel, but absurd. And I think I've grown tired of lackadaisical cruelty or thoughtless cruelty. Our society has become oddly thoughtless - we seem to rip one another apart without thinking about the consequences. Or so I've noticed. It's the age of Donald Trump or the Trumpism -- where people lob insults at each other. This series felt more...mindful somehow and seemed to comment on that tendency, yet in an indirect way.
One of the four story threads concerns an attractive actor in a situation comedy. The situation comedy has him take his shirt off and make fun of being a Dad. True emotional moments are downplayed for laughs. And Alan Thicke plays his Dad in a cameo. He's hot and sexy, but he aches to be an actor and not an eyepiece. It seems that all people see is his body, he himself doesn't exist. This thread pokes fun at and comments on our society's obsession with looks and how shallow so much of our entertainment truly is. The actor blames the audience who tunes in each week, not the writer, not the director, not the studio or network, but the audience -- who wants to watch a shallow series about narcisistic people who are cruel. It's a nice commentary on an audience who tunes into a show like The Bachelor or The Apprentice each week, then wonders why terrorism exists or people are shot in the street or Donald Trump is a viable candidate.
Of the series I've seen this week, this is the only one that seems to have anything to say. And it does it rather humorously and in a gentle sort of way. The funniest thread was his twin sister, who is obese and upset about it. It feels like her whole world has become about her weight. She has a rather wry sense of humor and pokes fun at her obsession. During a weight watchers support group meeting, she meets an equally obese and rather kind man, who asks her out. Their banter is charming and humourous. Both are kind souls. I laughed more during it than during two hours of The Good Place or Atlanta, both critically acclaimed sitcoms, supposed to be comedies, and only succeeded in irritating and depressing me.
In the middle is a thread about a man searching for his birth father. And this too is charming and unexpectedly funny and moving at the same time. He finds his father, fully intending to tell him to screw himself, but instead sits down to chat. His father charms him. He had dreamt of finding him, showing him that he'd done well for himself, that he was successful, etc...in short getting vengeance, but he can't quite go through with it. Reality doesn't play out how he'd planned.
The acting is stellar as is the delivery.
The final thread is about a man who is about to have triplets on his 36 birthday. But the focus is less on him and more on the doctor delivering the babies. We get the doctor's story. Overlaying his.
It's slices of life, here and there. Slices of the characters. Unlike some shows that feel the need to throw all the details at you at once, this one takes its time. I prefer shows that take their time. Queen Sugar also takes its time. We learn a little bit, just enough to intrigue, each episode.
Critics who despised the series -- seemed to be triggered by it in various ways. None could express well why they hated it. Either they felt it was too sentimental? (It's far less sentimental than Grey's Anatomy or Nashville, and more in line with Queen Sugar, Friday Night Lights and Parenthood.) One said, and I found this odd, that there was more honest emotion in "Jane the Virgin" -- a series that I found unwatchable and irritating, not to mention borderline offensive when I attempted it. Gave up after the first two episodes. (Of course this was unsurprising, since I rarely agree with this critic on television series.)
Critics who loved the series - are more expressive, but they too, struggled. It's intuitive series and if you aren't intuitive by nature, you may well hate it. I think in the end, it is much like all things in life -- dependent on mood, where you are at this point in your life, what you are looking for, what you relate to, what your background is, what you are attracted to, and what information you seek. We all seek different things, I think. And as a result, it's almost impossible to know if we'll love or hate something until we try it for ourselves.
At any rate, I loved it. So I gave it a season pass. It's a nice replacement for Parenthood, which I'd missed.
Sigh, upstairs neighbors who think they are musicians can't figure out that it is after midnight and time to stop playing music.