|
|
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Great improvement over Season One, December 13, 2008
Warning! The following review of Season Two-in-progress contains spoilers! If you want to remain spoiler free, don't read it.
CHUCK was one of many excellent shows to debut in the fall of 2007 and like show in the same time slot (the even better TERMINATOR: THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES), has gotten even better in Season Two. Frankly, if this wasn't the age of the DVR, I wouldn't be able to watch CHUCK at all. While I like it and always look forward to seeing it, it doesn't quite make the "must see" level that TTCC does. The same holds true for the other Josh Schwartz creation in the same time slot, GOSSIP GIRL. I enjoy both, but I absolutely must see TSCC.
In Season One of CHUCK, one of the central items of interest was Chuck's burgeoning romantic attachment to his handler/guard Sarah Walker (played by the drop-dead gorgeous Aussie Yvonne Strahovski -- absolutely ever show on TV seems to have at least one British or Australian actor on it, from Anna Friel on the tragically cancelled PUSHING DAISIES to Rachel Griffiths and Matthew Rhys on BROTHERS AND SISTERS to Ed Westwick as Chuck Bass on GOSSIP GIRL -- and needless to say, we could go on in this vein for a very, very long time). While Sarah partially reciprocated, in Season Two the burden of interest switches over to Sarah, Chuck having decided that they can't be involved for a variety of reasons. Sarah has to balance her attraction to Chuck with her professional need to safeguard both his life and a CIA asset.
My biggest complaint with Season One was the dominant role that Chuck's best friend Morgan played on the show. Though many fans enjoyed him, I found his presence to be an unceasing source of irritation. Thankfully he is more subdued in Season Two, though he is still very much alive. The entire Buy More staff, where Chuck works as a Nerd Herder, plays a larger role in Season Two. I have to confess that I have enjoyed them more than I would have anticipated in Season Two.
The one area of the show that I think could improve is the use of Adam Baldwin as Casey, the other federal agent assigned to watch over Chuck, and one far more willing to follow orders (at one point it looked as if Casey was going to kill Chuck on orders). My complaint is that Casey is two much of a two-dimensional, cardboardish character. This is not Adam Baldwin's fault, but the failure to write him as a more interesting character. Contrast this with Baldwin's marvelous character on FIREFLY, Jayne Cobb. Though upon seeing one or two episodes of that show you could imagine the relatively dumb but physically effective Jayne was also a flat character, a number of episodes revealed deeper dimensions to him. In the great episode "Ariel," where Mal comes close to killing Jayne, we see far more to Jayne than we previously had. Jayne was, in fact, a rather simple, two dimensional character played with great depth by Baldwin. So far the powers that be on CHUCK have not allowed Baldwin to display the same kind of depth. I enjoy him on the show, but not as much as we all should. Hopefully they'll make Casey a more interesting character in the future. Of course, the writers on CHUCK lack the ability to combine extraordinary humor with great action that Joss Whedon and his marvelous team of writers can achieve (on FIREFLY Jayne had a long string of memorable one-liners, like his response to Mal's instructions that the point of interrogating one prisoner was to scare, not hurt, him: "Pain is scary"; so far while Baldwin is naturally funny and very good at action sequences, he has had few moments as his best on FIREFLY).
I have to confess that I'm amazed on one level that I'm still enjoying the show. When it first debuted I was a tad dubious simply because the premise was, to put is mildly, a tad lame. It was really hard to see how Chuck (and the writers) was going to be able to perpetually exploit the information that had been downloaded into his head. It seemed a plot more geared to a movie rather than a TV series. But amazingly the writers have managed to keep everything really interesting and fun. There is a great deal that one must suspend one's disbelief over (e.g., that they would allow both the Intersect [Chuck] and two top field agents to work menial jobs). Still, if you are willing to make that initial leap, everything else will be enjoyable. It isn't like PRISON BREAK, for instance, which initially makes you swallow a nearly impossible premise, and then assaults you with an uncountable number of additional absurdities.
CHUCK is not a great show, but it is a fun one. If you don't take it too seriously and just allow yourself to have a good time, it can result in one of the most fun hours on TV.
Additional side note: I'm frankly quite concerned about the future of both CHUCK and scripted television in general. For years we've been assaulted either with a string of awful reality shows that no thinking individual could possibly abide. Fortunately for TV execs, most American TV viewers cannot be described as thinking individuals. Therefore, completely awful shows like SURVIVOR and DANCING WITH THE STARS and AMERICAN IDOL (the latter the most persistent promotion of mediocrity ever seen on TV) manage to thrive, while absolutely brilliant shows like MAD MEN, PUSHING DAISIES, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, and FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS struggle to attract viewers. On the other hand, the successful scripted shows that attract viewers are for the most part critical failures, like nearly the entire schedule for CBS, which largely consists of dreadful, barely distinguishable police procedurals. Even the Emmys, which tends to reward the mediocre, refuses to give awards to the terrible CBS shows. So we have fewer and fewer highly successful scripted shows on the one hand and on the other hand the most successful scripted shows largely consisting of terrible procedurals.
There have been two recent developments that have caused me more concern about the short-term fate of television more than any other. First, ABC cancelled PUSHING DAISIES, a series that can only be described as a work of genius and one of the most brilliantly original series in the history of TV. In the 2008 Emmys it got more nominations than any other series on TV. But because of falling viewership in its second season, ABC cancelled it. It instantly joins FIREFLY and FREAKS AND GEEKS as one of the most tragic cancellations in the history of TV. At the same time, ABC cancelled other good series, like ELI STONE, while cutting back the number of episodes they had ordered for potentially interesting series like CASTLE and CUPID. All of this betokens a dying interest in developing scripted television series.
The second recent development is far more pernicious and truly troubling. NBC has just announced that Jay Leno will after his departure from his late night show, will star in a new political humor show scheduled each evening at 10 EST/9 CST. Sadly, this show will be shown Monday through Friday. This means the immediate death of five scripted television series. At one point I was watching more NBC series than any other network. Currently I'm down to only CHUCK, the increasingly disappointing HEROES, and the still brilliant THE OFFICE and 30 ROCK. I won't even get into the absurdity of the politically dim Jay Leno doing a show on political humor. Why watch Leno when you can watch John Stewart and Stephen Colbert instead? I'm praying for the failure of Leno's show. If it succeeds, who can say what horrid idea the networks will create next?
Clearly, network television is looking to cut costs. By eliminating five scripted series and putting a ultra-cheap show in their place, NBC is passionately embracing budget over quality. ABC cancelled its best series in order to save money. CBS already had the worst (though ironically the most widely viewed) schedule of any network. Ironically, some of the best things on TV is taking place on FOX, where Kevin Reilly, formerly head of programming at NBC, has taken over and where he is developing some really interesting scripted TV shows, like DOLLHOUSE and VIRTUOSITY.
But the great hope for fans of TV is probably going to be cable. It is doubtful that TRUE BLOOD would have gotten many viewers on one of the major networks, but it does well enough on HBO to have a safe future. Virtually no one watches MAD MEN, which is one of the finest shows on TV, but on the lightly-watched AMC, it is in no danger whatsoever of cancellation. Now AMC is developing a new series based on Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy, tentatively titled after the first novel in the series, RED MARS. DEXTER is not heavily watched on Showtime, but by cable standards it is a huge hit. I believe that in the future fans of quality television are going to find ABC, NBC, and CBS increasingly hostile. FOX is currently doing well, but probably only because of Kevin Reilly. Should he leave then I'm sure that network's interest in quality television will go away as well. I think the future of quality TV probably lies with HBO, F/X, Showtime, A&E, AMC, and other cable networks. I also wouldn't mind seeing more creators of TV series attempt syndication. LEGEND OF THE SEEKER is currently doing well as one of the few syndicated first-run shows since XENA. But whatever the future of television, I believe that ABC, NBC, and CBS will play an increasingly less important role.
|
Video On Demand ~ Rand Ravich
![Chuck Season 2 [HD]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/413GUYARwQL._SL500_SS90_.jpg)
Video On Demand ~ Jack Coleman
![Chuck Season 1 [HD]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51i-Q43ANaL._SL500_SS90_.jpg)
