Reviews

Talking heads. Am I the only one who is approaching boredom from talking heads? It seems that one-half of the dialog for this show consists of the characters spouting quotations from forensic textbooks. Barely making eye-contact, each chips in data that everyone else on the team must surely know by rote. The camera merely shifts, hops around, from mouth to mouth as the audience sits enthralled by the technical arcana. CSI seems to have begun this trend, though its use has diminished in the Bruckheimer family of crime busters.

This is an odd show, even as American crime dramas go. Severe, unsmiling Thomas Gibson leads this merry team. His acting range seems to hover between grim and sturdily determined. Mandy Patinkin's come a long way from his glory days on Broadway. Fatherly, somewhat reclusive, a more accessible profiler for the 21st. Shemar Moore provides - what? Another gun? Matthew Gubler brings the required geekoid element of genius, youth and lots of hair. Think Eric Millegan's Zack on Bones (Fox). You've cast these things before, so you know what to expect. Kirsten Vangsness is blatantly an attempt to rival Pauley Perrette's Abby in NCIS (CBS).

Are we so dependent on familiarity of character and device today? We seem to be treated, as an audience, as merely cattle. Easily hooked, easily entertained. Oh, I admit that I watch this show too often. There's a dearth of alternatives on the few channels I receive. But this doesn't stop me from giving it 5 stars out of 10.

A highly regarded series from our friends at BBC. Good reviews, good numbers. And it tries very, very hard. A better written 'Cold Case' (CBS, USA, 2003 - present), each plot is developed over two hour-long episodes. And though it falls into the police procedure genre, the characters don't spout passages from text books, ala CSI (in its various incarnations) and Criminal Minds.

On the plus side, the more leisurely pace allows for greater character complexity and nuanced plots. On the down side, this doesn't actually happen. I find myself wishing that things would simply move along. And further on the down side, I either dislike, as with Trevor Eve's Superintendent Peter Boyd, am ambivalent, as with Sue Johnston's Dr. Grace Foley, or simply uninterested in the regular cast.

It's one of those shows that I feel I should like. And feel a bit guilty that I don't. Intelligence abounds, or at least seems to. Edgy, quick to anger CID Boyd should fill a gap in our television pantheon of detectives. I find myself merely grateful that I will probably never face such a man in an unscripted life. Dr. Foley plays the voice of reason. She brings a calm, analytical mind to the proceedings but is too evidently there as a foil to Boyd.

I cast, then, a dissenting vote. 5 out of 10.

There are series that exist outside the usual purview of critical reviews. And they spring up on both sides of the Atlantic. Just as we have Angela Lansbury's Jessica Fletcher in 'Murder She Wrote', and Peter Falk as 'Columbo' in the States, we have Tom Barnaby serving and protecting in the villages of Midsomer. And these villages are rife with adultery, greed, psychosis and blackmail ultimately concluding in that most photogenic of crimes - murder.

But one murder is a rarity in these villages. They often arrive in 2's or 3's. Their manner occurring in endlessly creative settings with diverse and colorful weaponry. The episode titles may be lurid, 'Written in Blood', or pulp fiction-ish, 'Death's Shadow'. But now that we've spent 10 years walking the greens and woods, drinking in the pubs, delving into family haunts and shames, we're quite unable to give them up. The sergeants may come and go, but we, the faithful fans, remain.

All too little is dependable in television. Many series seem caught up in the vagaries of fads, or all too eager to introduce cutting edge issues. Not so with 'Murders'. At least, not to the extent that we no longer are willing to tune in. And for this, let's give our lads and lasses 7 stars out of 10.

Interesting premise - 'anomalies' popping up in diverse parts of London. These anomalies are naturally (one supposes) occurring portals to the past. The perfect plot devices - they remain for a limited time only. Just long enough for creatures to arrive and create a bit of mayhem. To date these have been prehistoric eras that ensure dinosaurs and other rabid fauna can come through and wreak havoc. We've had a diverse array of battling creatures that include giant centipedes, spiders and dodos. Yes, dodos. But, if you're looking for originality, you can stop reading and look elsewhere. Everything is game for these writers. Episode 4, with our rambunctious dodos, included hilarious thievery from Stargate, SG1.

The cast is adequate with stock characters. The suited bureaucrat who thrives on secrecy and SWAT teams; tousle haired professor who touts various theories; goofy geekoid student who insinuates himself into the proceedings. Et al. All moving under the premise, as with SG1, that all of this can be kept secret from a public sure to panic and riot if revealed. A rather more interesting character is the professor's long lost wife - found to be jumping among timelines and having the ability to predict where and when one will open.

But the bottom line is this: it's fun. It's not great, and it's not replete with originality. But you will probably go back each week for more. After all, what competition is there? Under these criteria I give it 6 out of 10.

Hugh Grant. Ah, Hugh. The closeups are not kind. As an 80's pop singer now crooning to fairs and minor festivals, he's not for one minute believable. But as Hugh portraying another rather quirky, self-effacing and well-rehearsed character, he's fine. Few of us look to Mr. Grant to expand his film repertoire. We're perfectly happy to see him gingerly step into film after film with the same delivery, same expressions and same good comic timing. He is himself an art form. Lately I've seen comparisons to Cary Grant (by other published writers). Hmm.

Drew Barrymore. Again, more of the same. But this time she's showing uncomfortable lapses of charm. Or is it that I'm growing weary of her roles more quickly than with Mr. Grant? She has lapses into annoying stretches that may continue an amazing 5-10 minutes. And that's uncomfortable indeed in a film. Writer? Director? Or boredom on the part of the actor? But as for plot, this is one film for which a spoiler is not possible. We all know going in what will happen. How it happens is irrelevant. One look at a poster and one scan of the title - we know it all. Haley Bennett as Cora, the pop mega-star, nearly pulls the rug out from under our stars in several scenes. She, anyway, has some modicum of unrecycled life.

I will acknowledge that many fans of these two actors might be tempted to rate this higher, perhaps 6 or 7. So if you're incorrigible, go for it. The ending may make you forget tedious moments in between. Enjoy.