THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX

Article first published as Review: THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX on Seat42F.

The following contains spoilers about The Cloverfield Paradox.

Surprise! Viewers of the Super Bowl were not expecting to learn that a new Cloverfield movie was on its way. But that’s exactly what happened when, with only a trailer played during the football game, Netflix dropped THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX Sunday night.

THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX is the third film in the loosely connected series produced by J.J. Abrams. The first, titled simply Cloverfield, was a found-footage monster movie that put the audience in the perspective of someone running from a Godzilla-like creature. 10 Cloverfield Lane was mostly a bottle suspense thriller set in an underground bunker after a post-apocalyptic event. The third film is set on a space station in the future, and their experiments to find an unlimited energy supply for mankind rip a whole in space-time that unleashes monsters and other strange things across multiple dimensions. So this movie is both a sequel and prequel to the others which are, presumably, set on different Earths.

Connecting them in this way is pretty smart for a franchise that doesn’t want to tell a linear story. We now have the origin of sorts for the very different monsters we see in all three films, an explanation as to why these things are happening, and endless possibilities for future installments. As a connecting thread, THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX works very well. It’s even better that it comes so late in the series, letting the mystery linger for years before solving it.

However, THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX is, by far, the weakest of the three installments.

THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX suffers from being split into too many pieces that fail to form a cohesive narrative. Our international crew of astronauts, comprised of Hamilton (Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Belle), Kiel (David Oyelowo, Selma), Schmidt (Daniel Bruhl, Captain America: Civil War), Monk (John Ortiz, Kong: Skull Island), Mundy (Chris O’Dowd, Bridesmaids), Volkov (Aksel Hennie, The Martian), Tam (Ziyi Chang, Memoirs of a Geisha), and Jensen (Elizabeth Debicki, The Great Gatsby) start off in a somewhat straight-forward, save-the-Earth mission. This morphs into a cross between Alien and Apollo 13 as technology goes wrong and things (oddities, not monsters) haunt the ship. Eventually, as the cast is picked of one-by-one, it feels very familiar.

This in of itself should have been the movie, and it would have been OK if it had a few different elements to keep us guessing where it was going. While parts of it feel like remakes of other films, there’s enough originality to forge its own path, and an interesting story boosted by some terrific performances and spectacular special effects. But there are also very weird things, like an intelligent hand and arm, that just aren’t satisfyingly explained and make the whole thing uneven. There are also characters who act out of character or make ridiculous decisions no one in their right mind would make, sending the plot off course. Inconsistencies plague this work.

Add to this, THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX forces the DNA of the previous two movies into this one by following Hamilton’s husband, Michael (Roger Davies, Family Affairs), back on Earth. Michael first finds himself in a city being actively destroyed by very big creatures, a la the original, and then takes shelter in a creepy bunker, as in the sequel. These comparisons feel forced and unnecessary, distracting and off-tone. It also spoils what could have been a twist ending otherwise.

There’s also a bit of exposition when an apparent conspiracy theory nut (Donal Logue, Gotham) warns a reporter (Suzanne Cryer, Silicon Valley) about what might happen with the space station. He ends up being right, but I couldn’t help but feel this was a bit more hand-holding that viewers needed. Unless Donal is a set up for another film, in which case, I like him enough to overlook this.

I think if the writers wanted to keep all the pieces they force in, THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX would have worked better as a television miniseries or season. That way, it could take its time exploring each of the facets of the tale in a longer narrative arc. Hamilton could even visit herself on the other Earth, and really dig into what the multiple dimensions presented mean. It also would make more sense to keep Michael in it for a potential second season. In this way, nothing would need to be cut out, and it would almost guarantee more forthcoming story (J.J.’s name and a big budget making a two-season order on a streaming service likely). If they wanted to keep this as a movie, they really should have narrowed in on a few choices and ditched much of the material they went with.

I will say, I did enjoy the other J.J. references present. Keep your eyes peeled, and you’ll see homages to 2009’s Star Trek and the television show Alias, as well as hear some regular Abrams cast voices, such as Simon Pegg and Greg Grunberg.

Overall, I didn’t hate THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX. Like I said, there are some really good elements, and in terms of defining the franchise, it does its intended job. However, there are enough plot holes and weaknesses to keep it from being a thoroughly enjoyable watch, and certainly makes it the low point of the series so far. The potential is strong enough that I want to see it developed further. But care must be taken to make sure the next installment doesn’t go off the rails like this one did, which would surely kill any future stories any time soon.

THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX is available now on Netlfix.

11.22.63 Blu-ray Review

Article first published as Blu-ray Review: '11.22.63' on Blogcritics.

Recently released on Blu-ray, DVD, and Digital HD is 11.22.63, a Hulu original miniseries in which a man goes back in time to try to prevent the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Based on the novel of the same name by horror master Stephen King, produced by the great J.J. Abrams, and written by the terrific Bridget Carpenter (Friday Night Lights), 11.22.63 touches on a number of moral concepts as the characters struggle with how much they should try to change time, and as time fights back. It’s an intriguing premise, though one surprisingly unevenly executed, given the talent involved.

When I first reviewed Hulu’s 11.22.63 pilot, I had a few problems with it. I thought there were scenes that would be better in book form, lacking the insight audiences need into the thinking process of a character or two. I thought the general scenario was cool, but the actual way in which the adventure was approached was too simplistic, squandering rich, deep ideas, favoring instead immediate actions. I also thought it was a bit of a copy of the Final Destination movies, albeit not nearly as bloody.

Having now watched more of the eight-episode miniseries, I’d say two of the above three complaints hold steady throughout. The last one, comparing it to Final Destination, no longer seems all that fair. There are elements the two works have in common, but the parallels lessen the more you watch of this program.

Instead, my main problem is just how the series skips around and glosses over the issues I really want it to explore. For instance, the pilot finds our protagonist, Jake Epping (James Franco, 127 Hours, This Is the End), pushing against the course of history and he is smacked back for it. But in the second episode, Jake pushes even further, and nothing seemingly of consequence happens any time soon. It’s puzzling what the rules are of the world, and rather than dig into the mythology, the focus is just on Jake’s mission and whatever side trips he briefly makes.

Speaking of side trips, Jake decides not to go things alone. Knowing he will be in the 1960s for several years, he reluctantly takes on a sidekick, Bill Turcotte (George McKay, Pride), and a girlfriend, Sadie Dunhill (Sarah Gadon, Total Drama). It doesn’t quite seem fair to these two, especially the latter, that Jake would involve them in his life. Yet, 11.22.63 doesn’t even attempt to address that, pushing instead ever onward as Jake spies on Lee Harvey Oswald (Daniel Webber, K9) and his possible governmental cohort, George de Mohrenschildt (Jonny Coyne, Alcatraz).

I don’t want to get into the ending at all because if you’re watching 11.22.63, that’s probably what you’re most anticipating, and I hesitate to spoil anything. Overall, though, I think it’s strangely paced, a little random in the parts of the story it tells or doesn’t tell, and Franco is a bit miscast. He’s not a bad actor in the right role, but I don’t think this is the right role for him. That being said, the rest of the ensemble, which also includes the likes of Chris Cooper (The Bourne Identity), Cherry Jones (24), T.R. Knight (Grey’s Anatomy), Nick Searcy (Justified), Josh Duhamel (Las Vegas), Kevin J. O’Connor (Chicago P.D.), and  Lucy Fry (Mako Mermaids), is pretty solid. So I like this miniseries, but don’t love it.

As far as extras go, there is a single featurette entitled “When the Future Fights Back.” Funnily enough, that’s a topic I wanted more of in the series itself, and so it feels a little dissatisfying here, especially because this is a general “Making Of” and not specifically about the query.

11.22.63 is available now.

I Don't BELIEVE

Article first published as BELIEVE Review on Seat42F.

NBC’s new drama BELIEVE, previewing this week, is the story of a man named Tate (Jack McLaughlin, Crash), who looks a bit like the white, European version of Jesus, assigned to protect a young girl named Bo (Johnny Sequoyah, Unicorns), who acts like Jesus. It’s like the short-lived FOX show Touch, but with more action and less scientific grounding.

The whole thing starts with a horrific car crash in which Bo loses her parents, murdered post-wreck by an evil assassin named Moore (Sienna Guillory, Luther). Before you worry too much that this will scar Bo for life, we soon learn these are foster parents who have only had Bo for two weeks, and are the latest in a string of guardians that haven’t lasted for the girl. Now, she needs a new protector.

Enter Tate, an inmate sitting on death row. But Winter (Delroy Lindo, The Chicago Code) is coming, and soon Tate is busted out of the pokey. The audience is told he’s innocent, and Winter has complete faith that Tate is the one to look after Bo, despite Tate’s grumblings to the contrary. Soon, BELIEVE has put together a buddy cop duo who are separated by gender and age.

Lest you wonder why Winter chose Tate, it’s a question answered by the end of the pilot, and it does make sense. This is good, because much of the other things that happen do not. Why, for instance, is Tate able to sneak into a hospital undetected, leaping off a gurney in front of many people, and still able to make his way, unmolested, through the halls? And why is Moore able to enter that same building at the same time, also able to move more freely than is believable? Does everyone in this hospital have blinders on?

Of course, this being an hour-long drama on NBC, a character study is not enough, so the writers, led by series co-creator Alfonso Cuaron (Gravity) and producer J.J. Abrams (Star Trek, Person of Interest), among others, build a whole mythology around the players. Bo has supernatural powers, which are barely glimpsed in the pilot. Winter leads a group to protect her, including the jealous Channing (Jamie Chung, Once Upon a Time), who wants to know why she can’t be Bo’s guardian. The villains are headed up by Winter’s former partner, Skouras (Kyle MacLachlan, Portlandia, Desperate Housewives), although why Winter and Skouras had a falling out and ended up on opposite sides of the battle is unknown.

It is fine to have a plot structure such as the one above if it is layered and complex. BELIEVE is not. We know immediately who to trust and who Bo should run from, and there’s little original about the relationships or the set up. It’s an interesting concept taken in too-familiar directions, leeching out any originality to make a bland product.

To make matters even worse, it’s clear BELIEVE will have a procedural component, with Bo taking a quick break from the adventures in the “Pilot” to help a doctor (Rami Malek, The Pacific) find his confidence and purpose. Isn’t it enough to have a great story without forcing in a formula that will repeat from week to week?

It’s these hallmarks of a broadcast network series that drag BELIEVE down. I fully believe the concept could succeed on a cable network that rewards freshness. Instead, it is on one of the Big Four, so the ideas have to be smashed into existing molds. It’s frustrating to watch many shows per year ruined because of such constraints, and BELIEVE seems destined to be yet another victim of the system. Given the minds behind the project, it didn’t have to be this way.

BELIEVE premieres Monday at 10 p.m. ET on NBC.

ALMOST HUMAN But Definitely Good

Article first published as ALMOST HUMAN Review on Seat42F.

FOX’s J.J. Abrams-produced ALMOST HUMAN, which premieres soon, is one of my favorite new shows this fall, right up there with Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and American Horror Story: Coven. It has great, well-developed characters, exciting stories, fantastic special effects, and presents a fully-realized dystopian future based on current trends. What else could one ask for?

As the “Pilot” begins, we are introduced to Detective John Kennex (Karl Urban, Star Trek: Into Darkness). Kennex lost his partner and his entire team in a raid gone wrong against the evil Syndicate, leaving Kennex himself in a coma for nearly a year and a half. Kennex is back to work now, his boss, Captain Maldonado (Lili Taylor, Six Feet Under), convincing him that he is needed to take down the Syndicate once and for all.

But Kennex’s transition back into his career isn’t easy. Cops are now required to work with an android partner, whom Kennex offensively dubs ‘synthetics.’ The MX series androids are logic-based, and one of them coldly calculated that Kennex and his partner’s chances to survive weren’t good during that fateful raid and leaves them, and so Kennex hates and doesn’t trust these machines. Maldonado’s solution is to give Kennex a less stable, older model of android named Dorian (Michael Ealy, The Good Wife), whom shows emotion.

So as we start out buddy cop drama we have an unusual, but pleasing, pairing. There’s Kennex, who has cut himself off from everyone in a very inhuman way, making him only part of a man, even though he’s still very good at his job. And then there’s Dorian, who seems more human than Kennex at the start, but we know others look down on him because of the emotional element, fully expected to be exhibited by people, but making many uncomfortable when it’s coming from an android.

The two have great chemistry, but there’s also a little more than the typical relationship present. It could be because of the science fiction aspect of the show. We might always be waiting for another shoe to drop concerning Dorian, as his line was retired for a reason. Or it could be because we’re never sure if Kennex might snap at any given moment, as his behavior is very irrational in the “Pilot,” destroying an MX that annoys him and visiting The Recollectionist (Hiro Kanagawa, Caprica) to relive memories that might help his work, even though it hurts his health. Both could be considered the loose cannon of the partnership.

What happens when you’ve got two wild card cops paired together? I guess we’ll find out!

The rest of the cast includes Valerie Stahl (Minka Kelly, Friday Night Lights) and Richard Paul (Michael Irby, The Unit) as fellow detectives, the latter of which doesn’t think Kennex is fit for duty, and the former of whom defends Kennex, as well as Rudy Lom (Mackenzie Crook, Pirate of the Caribbean) as the tech guy. These seems a pretty predictable lineup from a crime procedural.

The way the roles are played, though, is anything about standard. One is not used to seeing Lili Taylor in such a take-charge position, but she handles it well. Ealy is known for playing hotheads, and now he’s the calm one. Urban’s Kennex is nothing like the sometimes-bumbling Bones McCoy, other than his phobia of tech. This is a group of talented actors taking on something different, and clearly enjoying the chance to show us their range, of which they universally have plenty.

Hopefully, ALMOST HUMAN will avoid the pratfalls of a crime procedural. Admittedly, the “Pilot” has a lot of set up by necessity, and so doesn’t really have a case-of-the-week. But the beginning also points to many larger arcs, with plenty of fodder to do a more serial story telling. If it can stick to those guns, at least as much as Fringe, which had a similar tone, did, then it should be a pretty good series, indeed.

In fact, the “Pilot” only scratches the surface of what ALMOST HUMAN could be. We are introduced to players and the situation, and then a lot happens, not closing the story, nor even a chapter in it. It’s very much a hit-the-ground running show with a quick pace. Hopefully by the time they conclude the initial premise, either in a few months or a couple of years, tops, they keep going into something else, as the possibilities in this world are nearly endless.

ALMOST HUMAN premieres this Sunday and Monday on FOX.

Trek Vs. Wars: A Conflict of Interest?

Article first published as Trek Vs. Wars: A Conflict of Interest? on Blogcritics.

The news came out recently that J.J. Abrams will be directing the next Star Wars film. Given the fact that he is already heading up the Star Trek franchise, the announcement sparked a negative emotional reaction in me. What if this becomes a conflict of interest?

J.J. Abrams is one of the most respected television producers around. Despite recent flops such as Undercovers and Alcatraz, he has a slew of great deeds to his name, including Lost, Alias, Felicity, and Fringe. Revolution has potential, even if it mostly remains untapped.

Thus, as a fan of J.J.'s work, I was excited to see him make the transition into film (as long as he doesn't leave television behind completely, which, so far, he hasn't). I was even more enthusiastic when he took over the Star Trek franchise, having been a big fan of the TV series and movies since childhood. I knew, based on his previous work,  J.J. could bring a level of complexity and excitement to the new reboot, and his casting would be impeccable.

Star Trek 2009 did almost everything I wanted it to. The new actors were almost all perfect matches for the original cast. The story honored everything that had come before it, but also began an entirely new, awesome adventure. While it did favor action a bit over message, the story was still pretty good. And while it is darker than most other Trek offerings, that trend had already become apparent for the franchise before the movie.

However, I do have some concerns now that J.J. has been will also be making the next Star Wars movie. Don't get me wrong; I enjoy the Star Wars movies. But I do think Star Wars is overrated, and I don't hold it up to same level of worship that many fans do. I have always believed that Star Trek has been far superior because of the depth of its stories; in my opinion, Star Wars movies have always been largely melodramatic, action-heavy fluff pieces.

If I have to be honest with myself, some of those complaints can also be made about the most recent Star Trek movie. It lacks the original's larger world-view of a better humanity, trading it off for lots of battles and effects, and even a love story for Spock and Uhura. It does stay pretty faithful to what had happened before in Star Trek, but it updates the whole thing into a modern blockbuster. On the other hand, it does extend the franchise reach to a new audience of potential fans. But, I worry that as it does so, future films might lose sight of what has always made Star Trek special.

The issue is, while Star Trek has always been good at wonderful special effects sequences, the series and movies have always been more about the its commentary on humanity and our society. In Star Trek's futuristic world, we have outgrown the petty squabbles of our present day, and have moved on to become an evolved and resilient race.

The 2009 movie satisfies with great character development, and because of the story it pursues, it doesn't necessarily need to go out of its way to emphasize the franchise's idealistic vision of humanity.  However, I would not like to see that integral part of that original vision diminish in favor of more action, adventure and special effects.

On the other hand, the Star Wars movies have always fit the standard blockbuster framework, so I'm sure that J.J. will do a great job with it. If nothing else, he will definitely put episodes I-III to shame. Of that, I am confident. But with both movie series under his direction, will the vision for the two series converge, making Star Wars and Star Trek feel too similar?

After all, 2009's Star Trek already began to lean towards that Star Wars formula. It was a lot of shoot-'em-up, and it had less complicated, more evil, villains. The pacing was faster than I'm used to from Star Trek, and it lacked much introspection.

I don't want Star Trek and Star Wars to be similar. I admit, I feel a certain superiority when arguing Trek's advanced plot points and messages. Were Star Wars to be that good, assuming J.J. could raise the quality of the new Star Wars to the middle ground that the 2009 Star Trek occupied, balanced between what the masses want and wonderful writing, it removes the advantage Trek has, and gives those smug Wars fans new fodder. If the opposite happens, and Star Trek is dumbed down to the level of Star Wars moving forward, continuing to push it away from its roots, the same thing will happen.

I am concerned that J.J. will, intentionally or not, keep nudging Star Trek from its original vision. Who's to say it won't go further once his time becomes divided between the two, with the worlds merging in his head?

They are both sci-fi adventures full of aliens. Even though one supposedly happened a long time ago in a galaxy far away, to paraphrase, it looks futuristic enough to be confused with our not-too-distant future to the untrained eye. It wouldn't be that hard to make a lot of the same choices when developing the projects, and end up with two very similar film series. I don't think he'll use the same actors or sets, but with the gleaming white new Enterprise reminding me of Star Wars spaceships, there could be a similar color scheme and visual component.

Maybe I'm being too hard on J.J. As I said, I am a fan of his work, and it's not like all of the television series he works on end up the same. He could find ways to differentiate the two, and take them in completely different directions. I am just concerned because of early signs of Star Trek's evolution, and because of his stated preferences, that it might happen in this case.

I also worry that his work on Wars will distract him from Trek. After all, Wars is bound to get more attention. Will that mean he won't give Trek 13 his full efforts, instead focusing on Wars 7? Also, J.J. is reportedly one of those people who favor Wars over Trek, which worries me.

Yes, it is possible to be a fan of both, but most people who are favor one over the other. I hope that J.J. keeps in mind the fundamental differences between both series, and doesn't make them interchangeable. The best way to do that is to deepen the next Star Trek story back to the levels of morality tale it once achieved. This spring, we'll find out if that has happened, as Star Trek Into Darkness is released. Based on what I've seen so far, I'm optimistic.

I guess what this argument boils down to is emotion. Both franchises evoke strong feelings from their fans, and since Star Wars already has the popularity, I want Star Trek to keep the quality superiority. It is a bit petty, to be sure, but I very much hope J.J. takes this into account, keeping in mind what has set the two series apart in the past, and maintaining that divide. Because he is a Wars devotee, I worry he doesn't have the same perspective on Star Trek that trekkies have, and thus won't protect the franchise with the same ferocity a real fan would.

To many, the premise of this entire column will seem ridiculous or trivial. But for those of us who have always kept a candle burning for Star Trek, please J.J., we beg of you: Keep Trek better. Its fate is in your hands.

Want to read some of my fiction? It's on my website, JeromeWetzel.com! Also, for the latest updates and article links, as well as commentary on episodes I don't fully review, please follow me on Twitter! 

Alcatraz is a mysterious island

     FOX's Alcatraz begins with over three hundred prisoners and prison employees disappearing inexplicably in 1963. In the present day, Detective Rebecca Madsen (Sarah Jones, Sons of Anarchy, Big Love), who lost her partner three months ago, encounters one of those prisoners, who hasn't aged a day. With the help of Alcatraz expert Doctor Diego Soto (Jorge Garcia, Lost, Becker), Rebecca uncovers a secret federal investigation led by one of the guards who found the empty prison fifty years ago, Emerson Hauser (Sam Neill, The Tudors, Jurassic Park). Emerson won't give the unlikely duo hardly any information, but does allow them to work for him, hunting down these reappearing baddies. 

     Alcatraz brings to mind two other series J.J. Abrams had a hand in: Lost and Fringe. Look at the facts. There is a mysterious island. Characters show up with no idea what is going on. Portions of every episode are flashbacks to prior events. It's a procedural where a small team investigates things the public at large can't know about to protect the greater good. Plus, the tone and music match up pretty well with both of those other shows.

     Which is not to say that Alcatraz is a copy cat, because it's far from it. It brings it's own story completely, with a talented cast and some superb writing. It does harken back to early Fringe somewhat in its setup, but is likely to branch out in various ways as it goes on. The concept of some unseen evil putting things into motion isn't unique, and yet, it manages to feel fresh when the questions are laid out in such a neat, intriguing way. Some reviewers have panned it, but that seems odd, because this one has really no beef with the first two hours, which thrill. Even a couple of things that seem odd, like characters not questioning plot points, start to appear more than surface, and so a set up for back story or depth.

     The cast is terrific. One cannot possibly get enough of Sam Neill or Jorge Garcia in one's lifetime. Neill goes for a level of malice he honed in The Tudors, but seems to have a vulnerable, friendly side he is trying to hide. Garcia isn't as much the comic relief that he was in Lost, since he needs to carry this series more squarely. He gets serious, but is still the relatable one, viewers' entry into this world. Jones is good, make no mistake about it, though the role does scream for Battlestar Galactica's Katee Sackhoff, and since there is a physical resemblance, it's hard not to be disappointed that Alcatraz goes for a lesser known thespian. That being said, given how comfortable the actress seems in the part, it likely won't be long before Jones firmly takes Rebecca as her own, and any comparisons drop away.

     Setting part of the series in the past is an interesting choice, made all the more so by the decision of the writers to have the flashback scenes in both the "Pilot" and the second hour, "Ernest Cobb," take place in 1960, three years prior to the disappearance. What is the significance with allowing for a three year build up? Does that mean this trope will be used for three seasons, like in Lost, with a major mystery concluding at that point? Or will it progress more quickly, as a specific story needs to be told in that era, and it will play out in one season.

     Alcatraz is unlikely to stay in the present anytime soon, given the inclusion of two series regulars that only appear in the 1960's timeframe. Jonny Coyne (The Bill) plays Chief Warden Edwin James, a somewhat sadistic, tough man seemingly totally in charge of the island. Jason Butler Harner (Next) is Deputy Warden E.B. Tiller, a character murdered in present day by the first escaped convict in the "Pilot." James is dead before the series begins. So, yeah, they need to stay in the past.

     Part of the mystique of the show centers around Rebecca, obviously a focal point. Not only is she raised by former Alcatraz guard Ray Archer (Robert Forster, Heroes), but the man she is chasing when her partner dies is none other the her grandfather, Tommy Madsen (David Hoflin, Neighbours), whom she is startled to learn was a prisoner on The Rock! What is Tommy doing there, and why is he sneaking around? What's more, Tommy is definitely aware of who Rebecca is, given the way that he looks at her.

     The biggest impact so far, though, is the surprise sniping of Hauser's assistant (whom may be a bit more than that), Lucy Banerjee (Parminder Nagra, ER). Even more shocking, she shows up in 1960's Alcatraz! Which means she could be the key to what Hauser knows, and why the whole investigation is set up. She may know almost nothing, like the two prisoners caught so far, who do things that they cannot explain their motivation for, or she may have already figured it out. Or maybe she is partly responsible for what happened. There is no telling at this point, but it's a hell of a set up for what's to come.

     The only fear with Alcatraz is that broadcast networks tend to prefer procedurals. Fringe flirts with that format from time to time, but mostly stays its own thing. But Fringe also suffers from low ratings, despite how wonderfully creative it is. Alcatraz has the potential to be a heck of a serial, one that draws people in week after week, if FOX will allow it to be such. Unfortunately, many viewers, and thus advertisers, prefer mindless crap. Some behind the scenes drama worries that this will be the case, and episodes will start to fall into a familiar formula. If it can avoid that pitfall, Alcatraz will soar. If not, it won't be worth watching for long.

     Watch Alcatraz Mondays at 9 p.m. ET on FOX.

     If you like my reviews, please follow me on Twitter!

Person of Interest has some interesting persons

     CBS's newest drama is Person of Interest, which comes from J.J. Abrams's production company. John Reese (James Caviezel, The Passion of the Christ, The Prisoner), a former special forces soldier, lost the woman he loved, so now he rides the subway and drinks a lot, looking like a bum. After being picked up by Detective Carter (Taraji P. Henson, Boston Legal, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), Reese is recruited by Mr. Finch (Michael Emerson, Lost).

     Finch developed a complex tracking system to determine when crime is going to happen. The government uses it to find terrorists, but Finch builds himself a back door, and gets social security numbers of people about to be involved in something bad, non-terrorist related. These people may be criminals or victims, and Finch would like Reese to help him track them down and stop the bad thing from happening. Reese reluctantly agrees, and convinces a dirty cop with redeeming qualities named Fusco (Kevin Chapman) to be his man on the inside.

     Yes, Person of Interest is a crime procedural, but it's a damn good one, far better than the tons currently polluting the airwaves. One reason is the concept of the super computer that can warn of future events, but many crime shows have unique hooks. Another is the editing that often makes bits appear to come from various cameras, but again, that isn't the whole story. What raises Person of Interest to a whole other level, one that will make it a fantastic series, is the writing and the acting. With a movie-quality cast, and intense sequences that one would expect from film, there is a cinematic quality and weight to the proceedings. Maintained week after week, this could signal a whole new type of procedural.

     The two main characters are both interesting men, with tragic back stories. While Finch remains mostly a mystery, there is a reason he is haunted by the crimes he could prevent, but doesn't. Reese needs a purpose. Though they both understand they will likely die during one of their cases, they don't care. They both need a reason to live, and this gives them one.

     Another positive is that J.J. Abrams is involved. Not all of Abrams's shows run for years, but he's not made a bad one. Remember a unique little procedural called Fringe? It sure didn't stay static for long, and hopefully Person of Interest will not either. Of course, it is on CBS, a network renowned for crappy, same-thing-every-week, crime series. But even if Person of Interest stays in a case of the week format, the talent involved will raise it befor the standard fare.

     In the first episode alone, the show proves its mettle. Reese and Finch follow an assistant district attorney (Natalie Zea, Justified). They assume that she will soon be attacked by a corrupt group based on a case she is working on. Given Zea's usual roles, and the manner in which she plays this part, that seems safe. So when Reese discovers she is the ring leader behind the bad guy gang, it's a shocker. It shouldn't be, given the reminder that the person of interest could be victim or perp, but it is.

     Person of Interest is definitely worth your time. Watch it Thursdays at 9 p.m.ET on CBS.

     If you like my reviews, please follow me on Twitter!

Undercovers - Season One

     Though tomorrow is Wednesday, don't expect to see J.J. Abrams's Undercovers. Pulled from the schedule in mid-November, it did air three of the five Wednesdays in December, including the last two weeks. But even though there are two episodes left, no air dates have been set for them. The final two episodes, "Dark Cover" and "The Reason", are said to be more heavy in mythology and wider arcs of the series, which may be why NBC is no hurry to air them, since no more episodes will be made to continue the stories they set up. What is most disappointing is, if those episodes don't see the light of day, we won't know why Steven (Boris Kodjoe) and Samantha (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) Bloom were brought back to the CIA in the first place. Though, given that the final episode is a cliffhanger, perhaps it's better to be left in the dark.

     Sadly, this show was not as good as some of J.J.'s previous efforts. It most closely resembled Alias, which got only five seasons, but Undercovers may only have been half as good as its forefather. However, half as good as Alias is still better than much of what is airing on TV currently. Looking at why exactly the show failed is difficult, given that I don't have a clear idea why. But then again, why does any show fail?

     The leads were wonderful. Mbatha-Raw and Kodjoe have great chemistry. They were very believable as a devoted couple whose life had grown boring after their departure from the CIA. Reactivated in the pilot, the two came alive again, and their romance rekindled. Though they promised to keep their past missions a secret from each other, a few details had leaked out, and surely, over time, more would have followed. Their characters were trying mightily to balance normal careers as caterers and their less-normal careers in espionage. As they spent more and more time away from catering, I knew their staff would grow suspicious, and the whole thing was bound to fall apart. I wish the series had lived to see that. If there was a failure with Undercovers, it was not from these two, in either writing or acting.

     Similarly, strong props go to the mythology that was laid out. Samantha's former mentor was obviously a part of something big. The Blooms' boss, Shaw (Gerald McRaney), knew more than he let on, but his boss, finally revealed to be played by Alan Dale in last week's episode, knew even more. With two such great men playing the keepers of secrets, I was anxious to hear them. They were set up beautifully, but never got a chance to make the serve.

     The supporting cast was also solid. I loved Hoyt (Ben Schwartz) as the hero-worshiping geek, who managed to prove himself in the field on more than one occasion. Sam's sister, Lizzy (Mekia Cox), barely got enough screen time, but her role seemed to grow with each subsequent episode, providing a balance to the show that had nothing to do with secret agents. Leo (Carter MacIntyre) was fun, but sitting out a number of episodes, he hadn't fully gelled into the Blooms' team. I figured that would come with time, and after some plot twist I hadn't yet envisioned, possibly involving Lizzy. I was enjoying the Blooms' staff as well, even if I only knew two of their names, as they provided some quality comic relief.

     Each episode was fairly procedural, but there were some connecting threads, many involving the Blooms' relationship, and how they adjusted to being spouses and partners. Other arcs involved the aforementioned mythology, which was mentioned in most episodes. For some reason, most TV viewers are against a good serial steeped in slowly unfolding story, which is what I prefer. Lost, which J.J. was involved in the creation of, managed to break that rule. Alias did, too, which was part of why it struggled to retain its audience, and frequently moved time slots. This show tried to find a balance by not committing to that format, instead giving viewers an action-laden plot they could tune in to without knowing the background. Yet, that wasn't enough.

     My best guess on why the show was canceled? It didn't have J.J.'s good luck charm, Greg Grunberg, in it (yet). It did have his brother, Brad, but it just wasn't the same.

     Perhaps Undercovers was just missing that undefinable magic that lets shows build a big following. I admit, it didn't capture me as fully as I expected it to. It certainly wasn't bad, though, and I will miss it. Hopefully, NBC will decide to show us those final two hours soon, as if they hold them til summer, even those of us who enjoyed Undercovers probably won't care anymore. And if a cable network would like to try something new, I have a great candidate for you. I'll give you a hint. It stars Boris Kodjoe and Gugu Mbatha-Raw. Given another 13 episodes or so to grow, it could have been something special.


For frequent mini-reviews and occasional TV news, follow Jerome on Twitter.

Article first published as TV Review: Undercovers - Season One on Blogcritics.