Was GRACEPOINT Worth It?

Article first published as Was 'Gracepoint' Worth It? on Blogcritics.



WARNING: If you intend to, but have not yet, watched the full first seasons of Broadchurch and Gracepoint, you’ll probably want to bookmark this column and come back after you’ve seen them. Major spoilers are contained within. You’ve been warned!

When FOX decided to remake the British series Broadchurch, starring the same lead actor no less, my first thought was, “Why?” The original is in English and was produced recently, a second season not even out yet. It’s also brilliant, a compelling, twisty drama with terrific acting and a gripping story. Now that all of Gracepoint has aired and a second season is a pipe dream, we are left with the question, was this project worth viewers’ time? Spoiler alert: my answer is no, definitely not.

The first thing that strikes me about Gracepoint‘s pilot is just how similar it is to Broadchurch. The producers deviated very minimally from the source material. The problem with that is, every time an element goes head-to-head in an obvious comparison, Broadchurch wins. Every single time. Why try to copy a successful series if you can’t do it better or offer a fresh viewpoint?

A large part of the inferiority stems from the cast. I’m not talking about David Tennant, who overcomes bad hair coloring and being forced to speak in an American accent to give us a performance that is essentially as good as when he played the role the first time. He’s a reliable, consistent, impressive actor. I’m also not talking about Anna Gunn. I love Olivia Colman and I wouldn’t say Gunn is better, but she’s as good and Gunn proves here that her Breaking Bad gig will be followed by a long, respectable career. Pretty much everyone else, though, especially the victim’s family, just do not stack up to the originals.

Had I not seen Broadchurch, I would likely have loved Gracepoint from the start. It’s a solidly-written story, and as I mentioned, the leads are terrific. The case has lots of mystery surrounding it, and it’s like an East Coast version of The Killing, a series I adore. Any cringe worthy moments in the early installments are purely colored by my memory of the first edition.

As the season unfolds, I do get drawn into Gracepoint. It doesn’t make many major changes, but it does have a couple of extra hours (being ten episodes instead of eight) to fill, so a bit of layering is added in. Around the mid-point, it starts to look like it may veer off entirely and be it’s own beast, and that gets me excited. I enthusiastically told a friend who was holding out to give it a chance. This experiment may end up being a good one to watch after all.

Then I arrive at this week’s season finale. From the start of the series, we had been promised a killer different than the one in Broadchurch. There is foreshadowing in earlier episodes that this will not be the case, but I assume the writers are being misleading, not truly setting up the reveal. Halfway through the finale, Gracepoint had returned to a nearly carbon-copy of Broadchurch and the same perpetrator is arrested.

After that, there is a big twist in that the person who is charged didn’t actually kill the boy. But he’s still guilty of criminal acts and deserves to rot in jail. I guess this is how Gracepoint gets around the “same killer” charge, but it feels like a technicality more than an actual change, just broadening the circumstances surrounding the death a little more, rather than making it drastically different.

I do believe that if Gracepoint were to get a second season, there is the possibility to overcome the comparison issue. The fact that Danny’s best friend accidentally does the deed, his child molester father is (nobly?) taking the blame, and his mother is covering up the true crime are all rich veins to tap. Danny’s mother’s partner clearly grows suspicious of the outcome at the end, threatening to put fixing his life on hold, though he definitely should not, to further pursue the case. But since the running time of the season is almost out at this point, there’s no time to really explore any of that, and Gracepoint ends on a semi-cliffhanger that will most likely never be resolved because the ratings are pretty bad.

Without this further exploration, most interestingly Ellie (Gunn) hiding things from Carver (Tennant), Gracepoint doesn’t have a lot to set it apart from Broadchurch. If the original had been subtitled, one may argue Americans are too lazy to read them. If the shows went completely separate ways in their second years, a case could be made that they really are different stories. If we lived in a pre-Internet age and Americans didn’t have easy access to the original version, it would be somewhat, flimsily arguable to make our own, homegrown, series. As it stands now, though, Gracepoint is an inferior copy of an easily obtainable show with very few significant differences. So what was the point?

No official word on Gracepoint‘s renewal has been released, but I’m pretty sure it’s not coming back, and it does not really deserve to do so.

Broadchurch season two premieres in February on BBC America. Please check it out.

THE KILLING Returns From the Dead... Again

Article first published as THE KILLING Review Season 4 on Seat42F.

THE KILLING, which ran for three seasons on AMC and has been canceled twice before, returns for an abbreviated fourth, and most likely (though one can never say for sure with this show) final, season this week on Netflix. Picking up moments after season three left off, the six hour-long episodes remaining seek to both solve a new case and deal with the aftermath of the previous year’s cliffhanger.

Lest you have forgotten, as year three concludes, Linden (Mireille Enos) shoots her boss and former lover / partner, James Skinner (Elias Koteas), who ends up being the serial killer she is hunting, twice, despite the fact that he is unarmed and kneeling before her. Holder (Joel Kinnaman), a witness to at least the second bullet, freaks out, knowing there is no way for Linden to claim self-defense. Fearing she is about to be locked up, season four’s premiere has Holder scrambling to cover for Linden, who is still in shock, and thus not protecting herself as she should be.

This begins with our characters in a precarious position. As the day after unfolds, it becomes clear very quickly that there are loose ends the detectives might miss. Try as they might to hide the truth, it seems likely that Skinner’s murder will eventually come out. We’re left wondering if both Linden and Holder will go down, as well as what punishment they might face. Could their actions be justified, given the circumstances, or could fate intervene and protect them, even as the body surfaces?

 

My instinct is to say that yes, things will work out all right. THE KILLING is a dark, depressing show, and not everyone makes it out alive. However, Linden and Holder are the glue between the seasons. They are also the good guys who give up everything in order to find justice. They deserve to get away with this. Fans will root for them to stay hidden.

That being said, I could see a twist at the end of the series where Linden dies in a blaze of glory, her son living far away, and she really having nothing left to lose. She’s always had a bit of a martyr complex, so why not make it official? I suspect a better prediction can be made after meeting Linden’s mother (Frances Fisher, Resurrection), though, whom abandoned her as a child, as that will surely help set Linden’s momentum.

Holder, on the other hand, has plenty to live for. He has his romance with Caroline (Jewel Staite). He also gets some surprising news in the season four premiere that will make it even harder to see him go down. Plus, now that the air has been cleared between them, on even footing since both got a punch in, Holder’s friendship with Reddick (Gregg Henry, promoted to full-time) seems to be sticking. So I think Holder is safe, successfully having turned his life around and found his purpose, even without Linden around. But we’ll see.

I don’t think Holder and Linden will end THE KILLING as a romantic couple. There is a moment in season three where it could happen between them and it doesn’t. There really hasn’t been anything else to point them in that direction since, nor is there in the first episode back, so it would feel forced to go there at this point. That’s fine. Too many shows led by an opposite sex pairing feel obligated to turn the emotional bond into something involving sex. Sometimes, it’s fine if it doesn’t, especially if one or the other can find happiness with someone else.

Now, despite all the character development and furthering of existing arcs, season four has its own case to investigate. Our duo are led to a crime scene where a family has been brutally slaughtered and the evidence points to the surviving son (Tyler Ross, Zombieland), whom a bullet grazed in the head, and who is suffering memory loss. There are a number of pieces of evidence that don’t add up, including some strangely severed piano wires, so it’s uncertain if the kid is guilty, making for another juicy mystery.

Does season four need this sort of murder to look into? After all, the show has always been best when dwelling on the pathos of the players, and this could be done with Linden’s deed. But instead, the writers decide to squeeze one more bit of police work out of our leads. On one hand, they do have a job to do so it makes sense for them to keep doing it. On the other, with a scant six hours left (granted, all six installments are likely to be ten to fifteen minutes longer than in previous seasons), one might wish for a focus on the principals more than new stars, with Joan Allen (Luck), Sterling Beaumon (Red Widow), and Levi Meaden (The 100) joining Ross among the fresh cast. Ah, well. The decision has been made, so no sense dwelling on it now.

In all, THE KILLING delivers a relatively intense, very compelling fourth season premiere. It’ll be interesting to see how creator Veena Sud chooses to wrap it up.

All six episodes of THE KILLING’s final season will be available on Netflix beginning this Friday, August 1^st.

DVD Review: ‘The Killing – The Complete Third Season’

Article first published as DVD Review: 'The Killing - The Complete Third Season' on Blogcritics.

After initially being cancelled at the conclusion of season two, AMC brought The Killing back for a third season last year. The Killing‘s first two runs, each spanned a single murder case and its effect on the victim’s family and community. The third season, now out as a three-disc DVD set, The Killing: The Complete Third Season, follows a string of serial killings, keeping the focus more on the detectives working the case, with fewer side characters than either of the first two seasons.

At first, it’s a bit startling to get into The Killing‘s third outing. Many of the characters regular viewers have come to know quite well, such as Darren Richmond (Billy Campbell), Mitch Larsen (Michelle Forbes), Stan Larsen (Brent Sexton), Gwen Eaton (Kristin Lehman), and more are gone. This shrinks the world considerably, and I do find myself wondering from time to time, what are they up to? A mention here or there perhaps (which barely happens for a couple of characters) isn’t enough, and no one from the first case returns.

However, the linchpins of The Killing are and always have been Sarah Linden (Mireille Enos) and Stephen Holder (Joel Kinnaman). Although the investigation plot explores other avenues, the narrative always returns to the pair of detectives and how they handle the pressures of the case. Both are back, and while Linden is not working for law enforcement when year three begins, it doesn’t take long for the duo to return to form, chemistry intact.

Which is not to say there’s no one else in the mix this time around. A convicted killer on Death Row, Ray Seward (Peter Sarsgaard, Jarhead), someone Linden had put away, figures prominently when the bodies piling up cast doubt on his guilt. A tough orphan living on the streets named Bullet (Bex Taylor-Klaus, Arrow) tugs our heart strings as we see the depressing world she and her friends inhabit. 

The Complete Third Season feels tighter, which it has to be, by necessity. I am one of the few who didn’t get angry when Rosie Larsen’s murderer wasn’t brought to justice in the first season, thinking The Killing brilliant for bucking expectations. In season three, the story is just as good and the mystery equally compelling, but the writers bend to the will of the people by neatly resolving the plot at the conclusion of the twelve installments. This speeds up the pacing a bit, which should satisfy those ‘fans’ who drifted away.

I like the way in which season three reaches into the backgrounds of the characters, Linden in particular. Even though the case at hand is new, it brings up things referenced in the first two years, and events that happened before the series begins. This gives the arcs a sense of continuity, and allows the show to draw a bigger picture than a simple, self-contained season would produce.

If you’re hesitant to jump in, knowing AMC canceled the show again after viewer numbers stayed low for the revival, know that Netflix ordered an additional six episodes, available now, so that The Killing can complete its tale and end on its own terms. What that means is we now have a complete, four-season saga to enjoy.

Unfortunately, there are no extras at all included on this disc. I don’t understand why the studio would choose to forgo bonus features, other than to possibly save money, and this is in line with other recent Fox DVD releases. But it’s highly disappointing, all the same, as the story of the show’s resurrection should have been told, at the bare minimum.

The Killing – The Complete Third Season is available now.

TRUE DETECTIVE Truly Great

Article first published as TRUE DETECTIVE Review on Seat42F.

By the time you read this, you’ve likely already heard of HBO’s TRUE DETECTIVE, premiering this weekend. And while hearing of it, you’ve probably noticed words like “magnificent,” ”intoxicating,” and “exceptional” tossed around. Yes, no show or movie releases quotes about itself without presenting their work in the best possible light. But in this case, if anything, those words do not do TRUE DETECTIVE enough justice.

TRUE DETECTIVE may be a crime show, it’s true, but it’s on a much higher plane that most of its genre, with a focus on characters and mythology spanning seventeen years, from 1995 to 2012, rather than on a case of the week. In this way, it’s like Broadchurch or The Killing, but I would argue it’s even a step smarter than those in the writing and acting. It’s a phenomenal, memorable program, everything a drama should be.

The biggest pitfall a new series faces when being lauded with such praise is how it will continue to maintain such high standards over time. TRUE DETECTIVE solves this by being an anthology series. Each season will be self-contained, with its own cast and characters. Even if the show does not get a second outing (though it has not aired, a renewal seems a given at this point), everything will be wrapped up at the conclusion of these eight episodes, which should leave viewers very satisfied, indeed.

This tale begins with “The Long Bright Dark.” A young woman is found murdered and posed in a grotesque, artistic fashion, a la NBC’s Hannibal, and Detectives Rust Cohle (Matthew McConaughey, Dallas Buyers Club, Magic Mike) and Martin Hart (Woody Harrelson, No Country For Old Men, Cheers) are assigned the case. Naturally, they immediately face difficulties due to a lack of clues.

As they figure things out, older crimes begin to come into play. A local mystery of a missing girl may very well be tied into this most recent act, and the men are smart enough to see this, following any lead they get. They don’t make it too far in the first hour, but there is definitely lots of depth to plumb over the rest of the run.

In 2012, two other detectives are grilling our heroes, who haven’t seen one another in a decade, on this case. But they questioners actually seem at least as interested in the dynamic of the partnership than the dead girl, which begs the question, why? And what went wrong that split them up?

Not that Hart and Cohle were ever good friends. At the beginning of “The Long, Bright Dark,” they have been working together for three months. However, they’ve yet to have a personal conversation. Perhaps spurred on by the case, or finally accepting Hart’s wife’s (Michelle Monaghan, Gone Baby Gone) dinner invitation, Cohle comes out of his shell. Hart immediately wants to push him back into it.

The performances by Harrelson and McConaughey are nothing short of amazing. McConaughey has been trying to break the “shirtless guy” mold he developed early in his film career, and TRUE DETECTIVE definitely proves his chops as a traumatized alcoholic obsessed with death. Harrelson, meanwhile, has long been respected, and this will be icing on his cake resume, playing the intelligent family man, fair-minded enough to appreciate Cohle’s contributions, even as he despises the guy.

Both men are very different in the past and the present, both in physical appearance and in attitude. All of this comes together in a very visceral, moving way. The makeup and hair choices are flawless, hard to believe the guys could look so different, and the actors in the 2012 stuff draw us in with how their characters have changed, and we wonder what their lives are like now and how they got that way.

The two leads are the reason to tune in, pure and simple. As I said, the story if phenomenal, brilliantly crafted and well executed with a beautiful production, but it’ll be hard to focus on anything other than McConaughey and Harrelson because they have such presence. These are definitely defining roles for them, even though they’ve already had plenty of good parts before.

TRUE DETECTIVE airs Sundays at 9 p.m. ET on HBO.

Fickle TV Fans

Article first published as Fickle TV Fans on Blogcritics.

I am always baffled by the behavior of fickle fans. I’m talking about those who abandon a series quickly or without logical reason. Sometimes series do go downhill and, in that case, it’s understandable to jump ship. But when the writing and acting remains at a certain standard, and it’s not a procedural that just gets old because it’s the same thing week after week, why do viewers tune out?

The most recent big example of this phenomenon in recent memory involves AMC’s The Killing. After a critically acclaimed freshman run, people were outraged when the murder was not solved at the end of the year. Thousands of watchers, if not more, took to the Internet to pour out their hurt feelings, claiming to have been betrayed or cheated by the series they loved.

Why? The show never promised to tie things up in a year. I believe many jumped to the conclusion that it would be once the case wasn’t closed in the first episode because that’s what made sense and was predictable. But there was never a stated contract that this would be the case.

Taking two seasons to solve the murder was a bold and brilliant move, but The Killing paid dearly for it. Because it didn’t kowtow to an expected formula, viewers punished it with much lower ratings in year two, which resulted in the (thankfully not permanent) cancellation of the series.

As someone who loved both seasons, and was thrilled that The Killing was daring enough to take twenty-six hours to investigate a single murder, I became quite disappointed and baffled with the behavior. Why did anyone feel betrayed? We got more of the same high quality story we were loving! And by really taking its time, The Killing let the story breathe so much more than the typical crime show. It was able to really get inside the heads of those involved in the case and how a family deals with such tragedy.

But that was last year, and The Killing does get to live on, albeit as a slightly neutered version of itself that has to promise to end the latest case by the close of the season.

The more immediate example, which I find even more disturbing, is the way fans have quickly turned on HBO’s Game of Thrones after last week’s penultimate installment, “The Rains of Castamere,” in which several pivotal, main characters were slaughtered at an event known as The Red Wedding. In the past week, people took to facebook and twitter, lamenting their broken relationship with author George R.R. Martin and the series, vowing to be done watching it.

Now, as I write this, the ratings for last night’s season finale have not been released, but already reviews and rankings have not been nearly as positive as before, which worries me. I feel like the negative feedback is part of the backlash from last week, not an actual judgment on the season’s conclusion, which was a very typical episode.

Game of Thrones is one of TV’s biggest series, certainly when compared to other cable networks. This has worked out well because it is such an expensive show to make. Yet, as the three seasons have played out, more and more viewers have gotten on board and sang the show’s praises. A dramatic falling of the numbers could put the future of the show in jeopardy.

Game of Thrones is a little different from The Killing because it is based on a book series, and more or less follows the author’s already-published story. Those who previously read two thick volumes knew of this event before it happened, and I feel like the negativity is coming more from those who have only watched the show, not expecting something so brutal to occur. So it’s the casual “fan,” not the diehard, that is doing the snubbing.

Yet, Game of Thrones has always been nothing if not cruel. Other characters have been taken out without warning, too, and violence and death are routine components of the tale. Ned Stark’s execution in season one’s penultimate offering is a great example of the same type of twist. Why are people so upset now? Yes, they’ve had more time to get to know these characters, so their deaths are harder to deal with than Ned’s, but because death is built into the fabric of the show, it should not be so surprising.

Should Game of Thrones suffer the same drop-off in viewers as The Killing, this could scare away makers of high quality television. Lost weathered the slings and arrows a few years back and still got to finish on its own terms, but with cable stretching into more creative realms, they risk both great reward and great loss. Could this be the beginning of the end for such clever storytelling?

I sincerely hope not. I know things like this, killing off beloved characters in graphic ways, can take people out of their comfort zones, and many people don’t want to be disturbed. However, in an era when so much has already been done before, such bravery should be rewarded, not derided. If you watch Game of Thrones, I urge you to stand against the haters. The fate of the Seven Kingdoms, and great television, could be in jeopardy, and we cannot allow that to happen.

And if you are one of those who have turned your back on the fantasy series, please explain to me why in the comments below. I just don’t understand it, and I’m sure I’m not the only one. Let the world know what you are looking for in a show, and why you would suddenly be against something you once loved. Perhaps through understanding, writers might know better how to serve your interests.

THE KILLING Returns to "The Jungle"

Article first published as THE KILLING Season 3 Premiere Review on Seat42F.

Grade: 93%

About a year after its cancellation, THE KILLING returns to AMC with the two-hour opener of season three. Titled “The Jungle; That You Fear the Most,” the story picks up a year after the events of the Rosie Larsen case, with Holder (Joel Kinnaman) seeking out a reclusive Linden (Mireille Enos) when his current murder investigation seems to tie into her former career.

As someone who loves THE KILLING, I am thrilled that it has been rescued from the TV graveyard for another year. The first two hours of the new season, despite the things that have changed in the main characters’ lives, and the absence of many familiar faces, feels like a return to form. In the same bleary, dark setting, the depressing tone of murder hangs in the air.

Similarly, Linden and Holder are able to pick up right where they leave off. The chemistry between the pair in their first meeting, having not seen each other in quite awhile, immediately reminds me of what was so good about the first two seasons. There is genuine affection there, but also a want to avoid the things that they dislike in themselves when glimpsed in each other. Even a little lie about a dropped smoking habit demonstrates this beautifully, and says a lot about the two.

Like the first two years, season three takes awhile to get started. We see a dead body early in “The Jungle; That You Fear the Most,” but I would not claim that the investigation gets off on the right track. There are plenty of details that will likely eventually be clues, and we are introduced to a great many people who will be suspects. But THE KILLING is a slow burn and will not be rushed into getting the leads to where they need to be.

Unfortunately, they won’t be able to drag their feet too long. Unlike seasons one and two, which spent twenty-six hours solving one murder in a very intriguing fashion, really dwelling on the pain and suffering and toil that goes into such a venture, season three promises to catch the killer in twelve hours. This makes sense to keep eyes glued to the screen, given the legions of so-called “fans” who abandoned ship after season one failed to wrap things up and got THE KILLING canceled in the first place, but it’s disappointing to those who would like the show to take its time and do what it does best.

Unlike the Larsen case, in which a family grieves, the victims (plural because we’re dealing with a serial killer) in season three appear to be homeless teenagers. It’s a very bleak scene, kids living on the street, and a number of them are in the central cast. This contingent includes: Bullet (Bex Taylor-Klaus), a tough, butch lesbian; Kallie (Cate Sproule), Bullet’s best friend who has been kicked out by her mother, Danette (Amy Seimetz, Family Tree); and Lyric (Julia Sarah Stone, Vampire Dog), Bullet’s crush who is with a wannabe model named Twitch (Max Fowler, Mayday), who is just using Lyric. Some of these kids may care about one another, but it’s not the same thing.

Which is good. THE KILLING doesn’t want to repeat itself, and it doesn’t. It moves forward in a new direction that continues the personal journey of the two leads of the show, and introduces another group of people living in Seattle. The homeless kids are not something that has really been explored on a weekly basis in series television before, and they raise awareness of a real-life issue, while creating a rich, fresh tapestry for the story.

But sometimes to move forward, one must go back. Linden is stuck in a low-wage job, her son, Jack (Liam James, no longer a main character), lives half a country away, and she is still haunted by a previous murder, especially when she learns that the killer she put away, Ray Seward (Peter Sarsgaard, Jarhead), may be innocent of the crime. Jack asks Linden what she’s still doing in Seattle, and this premiere tells us: she has unresolved issues that she must deal with before she can move forward. Newlywed Regi (Annie Corley) may disagree, but from a narrative perspective, Linden needs to get back into the police game.

Holder, on the other hand, seems to be doing well. He’s close to a promotion, dressing in suits, and is definitely the more competent part of his professional partnership with Carl Reddick (Gregg Henry, Scandal). He also seems happily in a relationship. So his tale might just be to realize his calling, which he may have already found, rather than advancing solely for the sake of advancement.

On a side note, Jewel Staite (The L.A. Complex, Firefly, Stargate: Atlantis) plays Holder’s love interest, and is introduced with an instant Serenity reference. Joss Whedon fans owe THE KILLING a debt of gratitude.

Besides Holder and Linden, the most compelling character this year will probably be Ray. Sarsgaard gives us a man who may be innocent, but who sure doesn’t seem like he is, and is not making any friends on Death Row. Does this mentality stem from trauma in his past? A coping mechanism? Is he feeling guilty for something? Is he just a jerk? Sarsgaard makes me want to find out.

Two wonderful hours, and it’s like THE KILLING never left. With a great story, fantastic set up, and a group of new players every bit as interesting as those of the first two seasons, I look forward very much to watching this latest mystery unfold. Even if I’m still hoping for a Mayor Richmond (Billy Campbell) cameo at some point.

THE KILLING premieres Sunday, June 2nd at 8 p.m. ET on AMC.

Lack of Imports

 Article first published as Lack of Imports on Blogcritics.

The United States severely lacks the importation of television programs from other countries. We only like our own fare. Why?

It's extremely common for us to remake shows in the American style. Ugly Betty and Homeland are two examples of successful series from lands far away we've remade in our own studios with our own actors. But how many series can you think of that you watch that do not come from America? I expect that is an extremely short list, if you can think of any at all. Why?

One obstacle may be our country's resistance to subtitles. Sure, there is a certain segment that enjoys an occasional foreign film, and occasionally bad reality TV provides words on the screen for those with thick accents or who mumble a lot. But for the most part, we avoid such things.

Dubbing over the shows with American voice actors is worse. Thankfully, that is trend that never took off here.

It could be because people here are lazy. Books, while still popular among some, are shunned by others. Many people sadly do not equate reading with relaxation, and at the end of a long day, don't want to have to think about their television programming. Even if the content is simple, reading subtitles means some thinking is involved.

For others, television still holds that idiot-box reputation, and subtitles are seen as an uppity thing for the elite or over-educated. They assume they won't like anything with words on the screen because they watch TV for mindless entertainment, and think that anything with subtitles won't appeal to their demographic.

However, I do think that the issue goes much deeper than subtitles. Our entertainment industry has an arrogance that, because the rest of the world gobbles up our content, we are the best. They think they can do it better than anyone else, and so decide they want to do their own version, rather than serve us up a foreign package.

This mindset is not completely unjustified. We do have a thriving entertainment industry which is syndicated around the world, and sometimes we do remake things better than the original. Other times, though, we do not. In this case, I really wish there was more importation.

Another reason for remakes, rather than straight airing of other countries' shows, is social disconnect. This is especially relevant in the arena of humor, which often relies on commentary of a certain society or population.

This occurs even with the country we are arguably most closely related to, England. Some people like the British version of The Office, while others don't get it and prefer the American one because they can relate to it. For every Monty Python's Flying Circus, there are dozens of comedies that foreign audiences will just not understand. We love Ricky Gervais and Simon Pegg, but there are many others who experience obscurity here.

This isn't just an American problem. Shows like Everybody Loves Raymond are recast and remade so that viewers in other countries will get the joke, as illustrated in the excellent documentary, Exporting Raymond.

But they are also offered some American fare, as well, as that's where we suffer, because we get the choice for very little of anyone else's content.

While humor is subjective, one would think drama would translate much better. After all, stories of the heart are universal, right, and don't require a certain frame of reference? It's why Shakespeare remains so relevant, more so for his serious plays, rather than his whimsical ones. Then how come we won't sit for the original version of The Killing? Why won't we expend that little bit of effort, or why do studios think we won't?

There are inroads in the world of sci-fi. I think this is because this is the one genre where we expect to look past the surface to relate to characters who aren't like us. Any well-done alien will seem foreign, so who cares which country developed the creature? From Doctor Who to SyFy's broadcast of Canadian hits like Lost Girl, this is the type of show that gets here and finds a home and viewership in the U.S., even if it's not made here.

However, even if the vast majority of people won't watch programs from other countries, there are plenty of niche channels, so why don't we get import networks, too? IFC has a very narrow viewing audience, as I'm sure does Oprah's network. Yet, they have subscribers and still broadcast their thing. Where are the French and German stations?

One could argue that BBC American is the exception. However, BBC America airs very little British programming. Instead, it reruns American shows with British actors, like The X-Files or Star Trek: The Next Generation incessantly. Sure, it gives us lots of Top Gear, but other than that, the list of fresh programs we get every year is pretty short.

Now, BBC America is even getting into the original content game, making shows just for the U.S. With Copper and Ripper Street, they are stepping away from the BBC series American fans may want to see, and giving us things they think we'll like, based on a certain style. Can't they air the second seasons of Friday Night Dinners or Outnumbered instead? Isn't it cheaper to just show the stuff the BBC already makes, and that some American audiences really want to see? I am increasingly more disappointed with that network.

I can't say for certain if satellite TV offers more opportunity; perhaps it does. And Netflix and Hulu have offered a handful of imported shows, such as Skins and Misfits. But for those of us still using cable (which is all TiVo works with, though it does allow Netflix and some of Hulu), we get very little opportunity to expand our horizons.

Considering how much I've enjoyed the handful of foreign shows I have seen, and given the expanding reach of globalization in arenas outside of the entertainment world, it's a trend that should change, even though there have not yet been signs that it will. At least, I hope so.

Redefining Cancellation

Article first published as Redefining Cancellation on Blogcritics.


This week, Rob Thomas and Kristen Bell posted a call on Kickstarter soliciting donations to produce a Veronica Mars film. Within, 12 hours, they'd raised the minimum $2,000,000 needed for the project, breaking all fundraising records for the site. As I'm writing this article, the total now stands at $3,572,678, and the more they raise, the bigger scale film they can make.

Many are calling this the act that re-defines how cancelled shows can be resurrected. Veronica Mars ran for three seasons on the WB and CW, and was beloved by critics and fans. The new project came together because the studio, which had no intention of making the film itself, agreed to let the show's creator and star handle things themselves. Can other series in a similar situation, like Gilmore Girls, Party Down, Bored to Death, and Jericho follow the same path?

Well, there are a variety of obstacles to such projects. Sometimes, it may too expensive to revive with fan donations, like Dollhouse. Other times, the cast may be so busy that bringing them together would be awfully difficult, like Firefly or Freaks and Geeks.

Some have theorized that fans of other cancelled shows who don't particularly care for Veronica Mars may have donated money just because they want this to succeed. If so, their own beloved favorite might be next. While there could be some truth to this, I can't imagine most of those types would have donated a lot of money, without any guarantee their cash would help towards their own goals, so I assume the majority of the backing (including my own) came from people who actually really enjoyed and miss the series.

Also, I do think some of the backers of the Veronica Mars film might be upset if the movie makes a big profit. After all, Warner Brothers still gets to keep the money the movie makes, and Kickstarter investors are not paid back. Is it fair for a studio to force the fans to pay for such things, then keeping the profit? Shouldn't they offer some sort of return on the fans' investment if the end result a profit? Or maybe, if Warner Brothers wants to keep the fans happy, they should go ahead and greenlight a sequel, giving Veronica Mars extended life, and letting us know we've been heard.

Of course, there are some benefits to a Kickstarter campaign. Not only do fans get to take ownership and bragging rights, but the swag offered is also pretty good. For a donation of only $100, fans receive a movie poster, t-shirt, Blu-ray copy of the film, and a downloadable .pdf of the script. They will also receive a finished copy of the movie when it hits theaters. That's quite a bit of stuff thrown in for your support. Bigger donors will even get to name characters and appear on screen. These sorts of premiums and chances to be involved help fans feel even more connected and likely to support the project, though they are sort of unfairly balanced towards those who can afford to give big time.

But even should Kickstarter model not work long-term, there are other ways to resurrect a beloved series from cancellation hell. Sometimes network powers that be can be persuaded to change their minds, like AMC did for The Killing (with a little financial help from another source). Sometimes another producer or netword will come along to save the day, like Netflix did for Arrested Development or Comedy Central for Futurama. Occasionally, DVD sales are strong enough to justify another chance, like FOX did with Family Guy. Comic books can extend the show's life, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Then there are the prequels and sequels. 90210 got five more seasons with a new cast on the CW. Dallas is back on TNT, mixing old and new characters. The Carrie Diaries seeks to tell the beginning of the story for Sex and the City, eventually bringing in many familiar faces.

The point is, never has there been a time when cancelled doesn't necessarily mean cancelled. Sure, The River won't come back in any way, shape, or form. But that doesn't mean that some of those that deserve it aren't finding ways to continue.

This isn't entirely a new phenomenon. The Brady Bunch and The Waltons made TV movies long after they went off the air. Star Trek went to the big screen and produced ten films spun off of two shows, not counting the new reboot with recasts.

However, I think the newer model is more encouraging. Veronica Mars may only live for two more short hours, but many of the other examples I've listed have gotten far more screen time, and some even run for years after their resurrection. This brings them to all new fans, as well as the old ones, extending their lives exponentially.

Are we out of new ideas? Of course not. There will always be a fresh series right around the bend. But that doesn't mean there isn't still life left in those that have been put out to pasture, and for some, getting to fulfill untapped potential, playing out as they should, rather than getting an early grave, this a trend to celebrate.

"What I Know" about The Killing

AMC's The Killing faced a tough road in season two. Shedding impatient fans who are used to getting clear answers at the end of an hour, or at least at the end of the season, American audiences by and large just aren't ready for a series as complex and drawn out as The Killing. But even those who tuned out halfway through probably want to know how it ends. So with that in mind, "What I Know," the 26th and final installment in the Who Killed Rosie Larson? saga, brings it all together.

SPOILER ALERT! Aunt Terry (Jamie Anne Allman) is the killer. She didn't hurt Rosie (Katie Findlay) on purpose, mind you. Yes, she knows there is a body in the trunk, but has no idea that it is her own niece, as Terry lets the car drive into the lake. Instead, she sees an opportunity to be with the man she loves, Michael Ames (Barclay Hope), and takes it. Of course, her plan doesn't work, and Ames breaks it off with her completely.

What goes through Terry's mind these past three and a half weeks, as the police desperately search for Rosie's murderer, and Terry realizes that she is their target? Being as this knowledge comes so late in the series, one suddenly wants to rewatch both seasons and see how Terry plays it from the beginning. Assumedly, the actress isn't even aware that her character is the guilty party while filming those episodes. But still, there is an urge to further explore the character's pain and journey.

The truth is, Terry is only a part of the solution. Besides Ames, who technically didn't do anything other than not report the crime, and may or may not go down for it, there is another person driving the killing. Jamie Wright (Eric Ladin) is the one who attacks Rosie and stuffs her in the trunk in the first place. But Jamie is shot dead by Holder (Joel Kinnaman) during a confrontation with the police, and so he escapes further penalty.

Linden (Mireille Enos) isn't satisfied with this ending. This seems to speak more to her mental state than to any actual evidence. At no point during the investigation, no matter how well things are going, does Linden display a healthy attitude. Viewers know that she has a history of mental problems, and is obsessive about her work. Linden could bring down every criminal in her city and not be happy. It's not really a surprise that she ends "What I Know" uneasily.

Though she will never know how right she is, Linden is sure there is a deeper conspiracy present. Jamie and Ames collude with Chief Jackson (Claudia Ferri) on a shady business deal. Should The Killing see a third season, an unlikely prospect, this will probably come out, and the guilty parties will be stopped. But for now, Richmond (Billy Campbell) proves himself a politician, living up to Jamie's worst views of the office, and continues an arrangement with the skeezy Jackson.

The main point of The Killing's two seasons is finding the person that killed Rosie Larson and bringing them to justice. That is done. Even with a handful of avenues left unexplored, "What I Know" still feels like an ending. After all, in reality, events and people are connected in many ways. The Killing could go on for twenty seasons and still find directions to take things based on everything that has come before it. Life doesn't sort itself out neatly, and crimes aren't easily defined in cases that can be quickly solved. The Killing deserves a ton of praise for its realism, and presenting what feels like a pretty complete story, but not a complete life, in two seasons. It may be depressing as hell, but it sure is authentic!

There is a happy ending portion of "What I Know." Though it feels a little false, coming so soon on the heels of the revelation about Terry, the other Larsons enjoy a family viewing of Rosie's film project. Mitch (Michelle Forbes), Stan (Brent Sexton), and their boys have been through a lot this month. But seeing them happily remembering their lost daughter and sister, gathered together, having persevered through the ordeal, is heartwarming and tear inducing. It is an absolutely wonderful note for them.

Other great scenes, happy and depressing, include Rosie's flashbacks and film footage, Mayor Adams (Tom Butler) passing the torch to Richmond, Stan looking with regret at Belko's locker, and Richmond literally shutting Gwen (Kristin Lehman) out. "What I Know" is a nearly pitch perfect hour that does a fine job wrapping up the various threads, without creating an artificially final finale, as most shows would do, where none is needed.

I would very much like The Killing to continue, tackling the conspiracy, Stan fighting the assault charges, and Linden struggling to get her son back. But if it doesn't, I am extremely grateful that the experiment was allowed to play out, despite the irrational hate and backlash the second season faced. It is a fantastic, unique series that will not be soon forgotten. Awesome job, AMC, Veena Sud, the cast, crew, and everyone else involved! Thank you!

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

Does TV, and CBS in particular, have too many crime dramas? Continue reading on Examiner.com Does TV, and CBS in particular, have too many crime dramas?

Cop shows. Crime dramas. Police procedurals. All of these are terms for a very familiar television trope. Many, many shows on the air feature a bunch of people in law enforcement investigating crimes, which are usually solved by the end of the hour. The people may vary, and different camera techniques and varying levels of humor may be used, but the simple fact remains that busting perps is a very common television series topic.

Most networks, especially the broadcast ones, available without a cable subscription, have their own version of this. FOX has "Bones." ABC has "Castle." NBC has "Grimm." But perhaps CBS is most guilty, filling the air waves with "CSI" and its spin-offs, as well as "Blue Bloods," "Hawaii Five-0," "Person of Interest," and now, as of last night, "NYC 22." The number of these programs beg the question: are there no original ideas left?

Television is often used as escapism. Some viewers, tired after a long day at work, wish for a form of mindless entertainment, where the good always triumphs over bad, and most issues are relatively black and white. But with so many options to fulfill this need, why do networks keep churning out program after program, adding more crime dramas to the schedule every year? Enough is enough. This quota has been met. Stop robbing the airwaves of fresh ideas.

Now, that is not an argument against getting rid of all crime shows. "The Killing" is a unique take, spending more than a season solving just one crime. Why not try more experiments like this? This is the polar episode of new series "NYC 22," which has nothing in the first episode that hasn't been done a hundred other times, and is the perfect example of why this needs to stop.

But that's not what the people want. It's the same reason the airwaves are flooded with mindless "reality" shows and singing competitions. Which makes people who care about quality weep, watching great, interesting, original series after great, interesting, original series bite the dust, while yet another one of these same-as-the-last cop shows gets renewed or ordered all of the time. Is this fair? Is this right? No, but that's not the way life is.

So what can be done? Well, stop watching the pulp, and start looking for shows that deserve your attention. Encourage your friends to do the same. Many people want to watch what others are watching so they can keep up with the conversation. Change starts somewhere. Let it be on your television screen.

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

The Killing returns with more mystery

AMC's The Killing returned this past Sunday with two new episodes, "Reflections" and "My Lucky Day." Linden (Mireille Enos) decides to stay in Seattle permanently. Suspicious of Holder (Joel Kinnaman) because of the faked photo, she is soon also betrayed by Lieutenant Oakes (Garry Chalk). So she takes matters into her own hands, and is able to clear Councilman Richmond (Billy Campbell) of any wrong doing. Meanwhile, Holder realizes he has been tricked, but can't get Linden to talk to him, let alone work with him.

Holder and Linden's relationship as partners is such a strong component of season one of The Killing, and they go through so much growth, that it is odd to have them at odds in "Relections" and "My Lucky Day." They are both still investigating Rosie Larsen's (Katie Findlay) murder, but from different angles. While Linden and Holder are quite capable on their own, with all these layers of mystery above them, they need to team up. It's going to take more than one person to blow the lid off of this conspiracy.

Holder is not a bad guy. He cuts corners, and gets a promotion for it. But his part in framing Richmond is not a purposeful action. Holder believes Richmond is guilty at the time. This is not an excuse, of course. He still does something wrong, and it's no wonder that Linden doesn't trust him. But he's not involved in the larger plot, as Linden thinks he is. As soon as she realizes that, the sooner they can get back to working together, and the quicker the case will be solved. But scaring her and busting her door, as he does in "My Lucky Day," is a bad idea, no matter how desperate he is to get Linden back on his side.

But will Holder and Linden, when they inevitably team up again, work within the system, or outside of it? Oakes has been replaced by a new boss (Mark Moses, Desperate Housewives, Mad Men) in "My Lucky Day," who may be even more in the pocket of the bad guys. After all, no shady group would let a key player get knocked out by an honest man. Instead, they likely ask Oakes to step down. Which means, while having access to evidence and witnesses is nice, the two lead detectives may just have to go outside of their jobs to find the truth.

What is The Killing's conspiracy about? How is Rosie Larsen involved? These are questions that still need to be answered. Rosie worked for Richmond, and Richmond is a target of the schemers. But why is Richmond a target? Why do these people hate him so much that they frame him for the murder of a young girl? And is Rosie just a random victim, or someone of importance?

At least Richmond can be knocked off the very full suspect tree. He has an alibi: he was trying to kill himself at the time of Rosie's death. This stems from his grief over his wife, the only major back story that has been revealed about Richmond. Which means that the conspirators' hatred of Richmond could somehow be connected to his romantic history. Too bad he's done cooperating with Linden, making the heart of the matter all the more difficult for her to find.

Richmond spends much of The Killing's premiere recovering in the hospital from a gun shot wound. He is now paralyzed. One has to wonder how this injury and near-death experience will change Richmond. He no longer seems to want to die, and he hasn't said anything about giving up his election. Will he return to work reinvigorated, or is something else going on in his head?

Part of the brilliance of The Killing is that it does not shy away from inner turmoil, nor does it spell everything out for the viewer. Much of Richmond's motivation is murky, at best. Gwen (Kristin Lehman) and Jamie (Eric Ladin) spend much of "Reflections" and "My Luck Day" upset, not doing anything much. It makes their actions, when they do act, more meaningful, and allows fans to try to figure out what is going on in their heads, adding another layer of mystery to this unique crime drama. This makes the structure of The Killing very cool.

Richmond is shot by Belko (Brendan Sexton III) in "Reflections," whose reason for doing so is obvious: he thinks Richmond killed Rosie. Belko then takes his own life while in custody. Belko is a tragic character, to be sure, but he is never a central focus of The Killing. Which means, like Rosie, the impact of his death on the people who love him will be more important to the story than the event itself.

Stan (Brent Sexton) is the one most upset by Belko's passing in "My Lucky Day." Stan has lost his daughter. His wife, Mitch (Michelle Forbes), has gone off by herself. And he is still responsible for raising two boys (Seth Isaac Johnson and Evan Bird), who really need him right now. Between Belko's suicide and Rosie's real killer dropping off her backpack on Stan's stoop, Stan is having a very rough couple of days. He can barely keep himself under control, let alone calm his sons. Sexton is knocking this performance out of the park, with these two hours giving the actor the most meaty material he's had yet.

Which leaves Terry (Jamie Anne Allman), Mitch's sister. She is being a good aunt, staying with Stan to help him take care of her nephews. However, Terry also has a hidden agenda. Why is she really there? Not just out of a desire to help, surely. Every scene she has with Stan is awkward, making things even more intriguing. What is going on?


The Killing has lost none of its suspense or draw. Disappointingly, ratings are down, but hopefully fans will return and get over their silly anger at Rosie's killer not being revealed last season. The show is every bit as good a series as it ever was.

Watch The Killing, Sundays at 9 p.m. ET on AMC.

If you like my reviews, please follow me on Twitter! Please click here to buy The Killing streaming episodes and DVDs. Article first published as TV Review: The Killing - "Reflections; My Lucky Day" on Blogcritics.

The Killing The Complete First Season on Blu-ray

With AMC's The Killing returning this weekend, it is the opportune time to pick up a copy of The Killing The Complete First Season, on sale now from FOX. In the first season of The Killing, Rosie Larsen's (Katie Findlay) body is found in the truck of a car, submerged in a lake. As her family deals with the aftermath of such a loss, Detective Sarah Linden (Mireille Enos) stays in town to solve the case, not trusting her replacement, Holder (Joel Kinnaman), to effectively do the job. What the reluctant partners uncover is surprising, to say the least. 

The Killing is unlike any other crime show on American television. Adapted from a foreign series, this story really dwells on the fall out of a tragic murder, rather than tying up all those loose ends in forty-three minutes, as most crime series do. Instead, viewers are given the chance to really see what a loss does to the people involved, and those suspected of being involved. It's a slow burn, but a unique, intriguing look into the anatomy of such a situation, rather than the breeze-through most shows routinely give a murder.

The acting in The Killing is fantastic. Enos earned both an Emmy nod and a Golden Globe nomination for her role, and Kinnaman matches her beat for beat. Michelle Forbes, playing Rosie's grief-stricken mother, Mitch, also got some awards season recognition, and Brent Sexton expertly embodies the pain of a father teetering on the edge as Rosie's dad, Stan. Billy Campbell excels as Councilman Darren Richmond, one of the prime suspects, who is framed for the crime. And that's just the tip of the iceberg for a cast teeming with superb performances.

By now, reaction to The Killing's shocking season finale is well known. Critics and fans alike raved for twelve episodes over how great the crime drama is, and then rebelled when the thirteenth entry seems to leave the detectives back at square one, the killer unknown and free. This backlash is unjustified and unfair. Somehow, it became a common assumption that The Killing would reveal who killed Rosie Larsen by the end of season one, even though that was never a part of marketing, nor mentioned in interviews for the series. How can one be upset at a broken promise when the promise was never made in the first place? Not unmasking the killer is a brave, bold move that sets The Killing apart from its inferior competition.

Which begs the question, will fans return for a second season? The producers have been quick to promise that the murderer will, in fact, be known sometime in the second season, likely at the end. With the actual pledge of an end to the case this time, will that be enough to heal the wounds? Or will bitter viewers stay away, holding on to their self-invented betrayed? If they know what's good for them, they'll come back, and bring their friends, too. Season one is so amazing, there's no telling what's in store for a second round!

The Blu-ray release brings together all thirteen riveting episodes, but sadly, few special features. The season finale, "Orpheus Descending," is extended by a few minutes, and viewers can choose which version to watch. Commentary is included for the first and last episodes. There are about thirteen minutes of deleted scenes, and a five minute gag reel.

The lone featurette is called "An Autopsy of The Killing." Executive Producer / Writer Veena Sud and others discuss why The Killing is set where it is set, and how the characters developed. Insight is given into the casting of Enos and Kinnaman, and the purpose of Richmond, Mitch, and Stan's characters. Sud also appeala to fans to forget their annoyance and come back for season two, though certainly doesn't apologize, nor should she.

What is missing is some type of recap of the clues and suspects. The Killing is an intricate, elaborate murder mystery, with many twists and turns. Given this, and the fact that it's been off the air for a year, once would expect some kind of neat, put-together package that refreshes fans' memories of the developments so far. One such special has neither aired on TV, nor is included on this Blu-ray. The only true way to refresh one's memory is to watch all thirteen episodes again. Which, if one has time, is not exactly a chore.

Also, at least on the copy I got, there is a cardboard picture attached to the front. Removing it leaves the cover marred, not exactly a good selling point.

The Killing The Complete First Season is definitely worth owning, but is it worth the extra money to buy the Blu-ray version? Probably not. Perfectionists (like this reviewer), who want the best possible picture, will still shell out for the HD version. However, given the rainy, dark setting of The Killing, picture quality is grainy. This is likely done on purpose to set a tone, but it does mean that there isn't a lot of rich detail. Scenes that are heavily black do not play with rich blacks, but rather, allow the objects on screen to blend together. It's hard to imagine that the Blu-ray shows this any better than a standard definition DVD will.

That being said, there are occasionally establishing scenery shots, and those are the scenes that best make use of the clear picture capabilities of Blu-ray. The trees and water look outstanding. There is also 5.1 DTS-HD surround sound, which is well mixed and of a high quality, so that may be enough to urge some buyers to pay extra.

The Killing: Complete First Season is available now on Blu-ray and DVD.

If you like my reviews, please follow me on Twitter! Please click here to buy The Killing streaming episodes and DVDs. Article first published as Blu-ray Review: The Killing The Complete First Season on Blogcritics.

Borgen finds "Decency in the Middle"

     The Danish series Borgen, or Government, as they are subtitling it internationally, begins with "Decency in the Middle." Moderate Party leader Birgitte Nyborg (Sidse Babett Knundsen, Proof, Juletestamentet) is forced to take back her support in the upcoming election from Michael Laugesen (Peter Mygind, 4-stjerners middag, Anna Pihl) of the Labour Party after he makes a racist statement. Birgitte's "spin-doctor," Kasper Juul (Johan Philip Asbæk, R, Worlds Apart) finds dirt on the incumbent, the Liberal Party's Lars Hesselboe (Søren Spanning, Park Road, At the Faber), but Birgitte refuses to use it. So Kasper leaks the info to Laugesen, who doesn't share Birgitte's scruples. Thus, the two major party leaders end up squabbling publicly, opening the door for Birgitte, who after making an impassioned, heartfelt speech, secures her party's control of the government. And that's just episode one! 

     Borgen actually translates as "The Castle," a nickname for Christiansborg Palace, where Denmark's Parliament conducts there business in Copenhagen. Perhaps the producers thought that "Government" would have a broader appeal, but at least in the United States, "The Castle" would have worked just as well. Americans understand how many politicians see themselves as above the people, and rule from their high seat in the center of power. Thus, the nickname would work on many levels here, too.

     Borgen's portrayal of Denmark's political system has much in common with the U.S.'s, making the series immediately and easily accessible for a stateside audience. Well, other than some Americans being lazy about subtitles, necessary for the mostly Danish dialogue, which one should be able to look past, especially for a remarkable, thrilling drama such as this one. While the Danish system has more parties than the U.S., and the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the people there, the fighting between the opposing sides, not to mention the dirty plays of politics, is inherently familiar. In fact, the Danish system seems superior in some ways in "Decency in the Middle" because quite a few Americans wish that the Republicans and Democrats, who constantly argue like children, would self-destruct, making way for a centrist to step up.

     Birgitte Nyborg is a heroic figure. Standing by principal, even when she worries that her party will not appreciate it, she really cares about the average citizen. It is obvious she is into politics for all of the right reasons, wanting to help people, rather than just further her own image and popularity. The press materials for Borgen state that this series is partially about how power can change a person, so it's not certain that Nyborg will stay this idealistic leader. But she's off to a good start, refusing to get down in the muck, and fire off personal attacks. Plus, Borgen gets many comparisons to The West Wing, whose president also strayed from time to time, but always stepped up in the end, so hope is not lost.

     Nyborg seems so strong and brave that viewers will have little worry about whether she can triumph over a very messy political battle. Instead, concern turns towards how her family will adjust. Husband Philip Christensen (Mikael Birkkjær, Aftermath, Sommer) is incredibly supportive and proud of Birgitte, and they have a warm, loving, teasing relationship. However, they also have a deal that they take turns with their careers, and Birgitte's turn is about up. She breaks the news to Philip that she is wanted for the Prime Minister position at the end of "Decency in the Middle," so it's not yet been shown if he will agree to stand aside any longer. After all, he's home taking care of their two children. Instinct says that he will recognize this high opportunity and let Birgitte have a little longer outside of the home, but marriage is complicated. Only those in it truly know how it works, and that's only as it applies to them. So until episode two airs, viewers may not predict how this will turn out.

     Kasper is an intriguing and familiar character. He is unconcerned with the ideals that Birgitte spouts, but instead, relishes the game of politics. He works for her, so he supports her. But he is also willing to leak damaging information to another party, which benefits Birgitte, even when she is against the maneuver. He may be loyal, but that doesn't mean he listens. He is the main reason Birgitte ends up where she is at the end of "Decency in the Middle," but she fires him instead of thanking him. Might she have a change of heart later? He is, after all, a main character. And whatever his faults, he is shrewd and smart, two qualities Birgitte needs in her office to succeed now that she will have real power. She may not like Kapser, but she needs him.

     Kasper also has his own share of personal drama to contend with. He used to be involved with a journalist, Katrine Fønsmark (Birgitte Hjort Sørensen, Julie), who finds herself a rising star as Borgen begins. But she is also having a fling with Hesselboe's right hand man, a serious conflict of interest. Worse, the guy is married, and has a heart attack in their love nest. Katrine turns to Kasper to clean up the mess, which makes sense, given his talents in the political arena. This problem doesn't seem too foreign to what he does on a daily basis. But it also implicates him in scandal, should Katrine's relationship ever be revealed. This could threaten Birgitte's reputation by association, so let's hope this won't be an issue.

     Will Katrine be able to recover from her grief? She misses work, much to the dismay of her boss. Luckily for her, he's desperate enough to give her a second chance, even allowing her to host a big debate. But then she breaks down again backstage following the event, in front of her superior. She needs to pull it together, and hope her emotions don't raise suspicion, or she won't be long in her career.

     The entire scandal surrounding Laugesen is complicated, too. Borgen doesn't go for the easy, two-dimensional play. Instead, viewers see that he is forced to charge expensive items because his crazy wife, Lisbeth (Ida Dwinger, Sommer, Reconstruction), is making a huge scene. The only card he happens to have with him is one whose account is owned by the government. He has every intention of repaying the funds, and making sure the taxpayers don't foot the bill. Yet, because of Katrine's indiscretion, Kasper finds only the credit card receipt, not the truth. One will feel sorry for the political leader, as without knowing all of his body of work, all that is shown in "Decency in the Middle" is him going down for something that he shouldn't be entirely blamed for.

     If you don't like subtitles, NBC is planning a remake of Borgen soon. But considering this original is produced by the same people who created the original, Danish version of The Killing, a very successful series, one might want to sample the real thing before it is changed for "American taste." Trust me; it needs no change. The acting is already brilliant and the writing is smart.


     Borgen's first season is ten episodes long, and it is currently running a second season overseas. This means there is much more intrigue to come, and one shouldn't miss out on it. Borgen airs Saturdays at 9:30 p.m. ET, 6:30 p.m. PT, on Link TV. The episodes are also available at http://LinkTV.org/Borgen for up to two weeks after air date, for those that do not get Link TV.

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

Article first published as TV Review: Borgen - "Decency in the Middle" on Blogcritics.

The Killing spies "Orpheus Descending"

     AMC's The Killing ends their first season with "Orpheus Descending." In the episode, Linden (Mireille Enos) and Holder (Joel Kinnaman) pinpoint Councilman Richmond (Billy Campbell) as the mysterious online personality Orpheus, and then link him as the killer in the Rosie Larsen (Katie Findlay) case. Or do they? Before the credits roll, Holder tells an unseen person that the fake photos of Richmond work, while Linden realizes that the evidence isn't on the up and up. But she's on a plane out of town. Will she get off? To add to the suspense, as Richmond is getting into a car, Larsen family friend Belko (Brendan Sexton III) pulls a gun on him at point blank range.

     Reaction has been mixed on this episode, and most of the negative ones are from loyal viewers upset that there is no real closure to the Rosie Larsen case in this episode. The Killing has already been renewed for season two, but after patiently waiting for three months, assuming the identity of the murderer would be made apparent by this episode, some people feel cheated. All that is certain is there is a lot of grey area, not everything is as it seems, and at least one character considered fairly trustworthy may not be.

     The negative feedback is wrong. It's a brilliant story, and dropping in a few last minute twists at the end only excite the appetite for season two even more. The entire first run is so well written and acted that there is a level of trust in the writers at this point to eventually satisfy the audience beyond reasonable doubt. Or, if that doesn't happen, it's more realistic, as without being a witness to the event, it's never known one hundred percent what happens. But it's more likely the show will finger the real killer, as mentioned in a promo for season two.

     Sadly, not many people have the patience to sit through thirteen slow moving episodes, and it's a testament to The Killing's quality that it hooks as many fans as it does. While it may have lost a few with the vague ending, hopefully even more will be brought into the fold once it gets out that The Killing does not tolerate laziness in its viewers. It makes not only the characters, but also the people watching at home, work for the truth. The story is not an easy one, and a solution is not to be had, even after thirteen episodes.

     One thing relatively predictable is that Belko will not succeed in killing Richmond. Rosie's father, Stan Larsen (Brent Sexton), is already facing charges for nearly beating to death a man wrongfully accused of the evil deed. Richmond is probably not the killer, as evidence against him is not real. It doesn't seem likely that Belko will go through the exact same thing. If there's one thing The Killing doesn't do, it's repeat itself. But I could be wrong. Maybe that's the beauty of going down that path. A similar situation with drastically different circumstances and results.

     For season two, only three main characters have been revealed in the press to have signed on at this time. Holder and Linden will be back, which seems like a no-brainer. Obviously, Linden will not go through with her move to California permenantly, as with the Rosie case still open, her obsession will not be sated. Whether she gets off the plane immediately following the final seconds of "Orpheus Descending," or is haunted by the unsolved mystery for months at her new home, she will return to Seattle to continue to work the case. Given her personality, it's a solid conclusion.

     Holder is still deeply connected with Larsen, too, though his motivations are more murky. Those who have come to adore him as a hero may root for Holder to have the best of intentions in using a fake photograph. Holder and Linden are sure Richmond is their guy, so unable to get the footage he needs, Holder could have forged the shots to put away the man he believes is a bad guy. It's not a smart or noble move, but it's one that may be forgiven by the audience, if not the police department.

     Another option is that Holder is paid off or blackmailed into providing those doctored photos to his boss. While blackmail may fall into the same category as the above theory, bribery definitely would not. Holder is on a strict budget. He may want the money for drugs, which would be a huge disappointment. He may have powerful friends in high places. He may have some personal connection to the real killer, and have a reason to hide the truth. The possibilities are endless, and only season two will uncover which is correct.

     The third character booked to return is Rosie's aunt, Terry Marek (Jamie Anne Allman). What this means is anyone's guess, but it will likely connect to her clan. Stan's story has been emotionally moving, and it will satisfy many to see it continue to play out. As the season ends, Mitch (Michelle Forbes) leaves Stan. Will Stan be with Terry, as their bond seems a little too close for brother- and sister-in-law? If so, sympathy for Stan may fade. Or maybe with Mitch gone and Stan in jail, Terry is the family member the police will work with as they figure out who really killed Rosie.

     "Orpheus Descending" is a brilliant play, with lots of unexpected occurrences and loose ends. While it does not deliver what everyone wants, it continues the series in the same vein it carries with consistency throughout season one. Keep in mind, the original version of The Killing has a twenty episode first season, so there is still material to mine. Toss a second case in to go along with Rosie, and it can be just as dense as the first season. I, for one, cannot wait for the second season, which will likely air spring 2012.


     If you like my reviews, please follow me on Twitter! Click here for all of my Current Season Reviews.

     If you've missed any episodes of The Killing, catch up with Amazon.com's Instant Video, from which all episodes, including this week's, are now available.

Article first published as TV Review: The Killing - "Orpheus Descending" on Blogcritics.