The Walking Dead not safe at "Home"

Article first published as THE WALKING DEAD Recap Season 3 Episode 10 Home at Seat42F.

Grade: 96%

Things are tense at the prison in this week’s episode of AMC’s THE WALKING DEAD, “Home.” Rick (Andrew Lincoln) is out beyond the prison walls, chasing the ghost of his dead wife, Lori (Sarah Wayne Callies). Glenn (Steven Yeun) tries to keep it together, seeing himself as the substitute leader, but with Maggie’s (Lauren Cohan) moping unresolved, he isn’t doing much good.

I like the idea of Glenn as a leader because it gives the character something important to do. Yet, he is not cut out to make the tough decisions, at least not yet. He does OK, with a heaping portion of advice from Hershel (Scott Wilson). But he lacks the quality that leaders must have. I’m very glad that his promotion is temporary, as I don’t want to see him become something he’s not.

Hershel seems to be doing plenty of mentoring in “Home.” He helps Glenn, and he hobbles down to talk to Rick. While before he is an antagonist, whom Rick has to find an understanding with to even get them to stay together, now he has become the wizened advisor, more than proving his worth to the group, even without a leg.

I am not so crazy about Axel (Lew Temple) cozying up to Carol (Melissa McBride). She is spoken for. I know Daryl (Norman Reedus) has left the group, but that will be corrected. He’s too much a part of the rest, cares too much about the others, to stay away for long, even for a brother. For most of the hour, I’m expecting a little conflict between Daryl and Axel when Daryl returns.

I also begin to suspect that Axel may not be as good as he claims to be. The way his story keeps changing as he talks to Carol, adding new bits to his story as he goes that don’t quite match up with what he says previously, makes him seem shifty. I know that the group must trust outsiders periodically to make up for those that are lost, but I’m wondering if they’ve made a bad choice with Axel. Which is why I’m not too upset when he dies, though we’ll get to that scene in a minute.

Wandering the woods, Daryl quickly grows tired of Merle (Michael Rooker). They are clearly kin who did not fully grow up together, and while it’s hard to tell how long they may have been reunited before becoming separated in season one, it seems like it wasn’t for very long. They are two drastically different people.

When the series starts, Merle is a bad influence on Daryl. Now, Daryl has gotten enough good influences to take away the temptation of the evil whisper. Daryl knows another way now, how things can be better with people who look out for each other. It’s why he goes to the rescue of a family being attacked by zombies without expecting anything in return. When Merle tries to take advantage of the situation, it seems like it’s the last straw for Daryl, who isn’t willing to bend to Merle’s will anymore.

I am a little disappointed that Merle follows Daryl back to the prison, but not too much so. I worry about where Merle’s allegiance might lay in a big battle with The Governor (David Morrissey) if he senses that The Governor is going to win. But he also brings a level of conflict to the group, which is always interesting, and I’m curious to see how it all plays out, though I do not expect Merle to live past this season. I just hope Daryl doesn’t have to be the one to kill him.

In Woodbury, Andrea (Laurie Holden) is calmed by The Governor’s contrition. He vows no retribution against the prison group, and, for awhile, it seems like Andrea might be a good influence on him. It also makes it look like the war between The Governor and the prison won’t come until the end of the season, as expected, building up slowly to a large assault.

However, then The Governor goes and talks to Milton Mamet (Dallas Roberts), and mentions asking others about their loyalty. This is a sign that he’s just playing Andrea, the same way he so often plays a part in front of his people. I still don’t see the attack coming, though, until it happens.

For most of “Home,” the pacing is slow, and not a lot is happening. It’s a good episode, but not overly exciting. However, this seems to be THE WALKING DEAD’s new pattern, as it did just before Lori’s death, lulling us into a false sense of peace, especially those who’ve read the comics and think they know what’s coming, and then striking in an unexpected and sudden way.

The attack that The Governor launches on the prison is fantastic television. From Carol using Axel’s body as a shield, to the van releasing zombies into the prison yard, to Hershel’s last minute rescue, and the way that everyone bands together, proving their strength, it’s full of amazing moments. Yes, they are unprepared and scattered this time. But as The Governor rides away, there is little doubt that they’ll be ready when he returns, and once they are, they might just stand a chance.

Why doesn’t The Governor just finish them off now, when he has a prime opportunity to do so? Is it because he needs people to lord over, and scaring, not killing, the group gives him a sense of power? Does he think that Andrea might forgive him for an attack, but not for a slaughter? It’s unclear exactly what his plan is, but this is definitely only the first stage of the showdown.

I do think this will snap Rick out of his delirium. He seems to be doing better after his talk with Hershel, but the urgency of protecting his people against The Governor should be enough to fully right his path again. He needs to fortify their defenses and prepare to take on their greatest foe.

It’s sad that Tyreese (Chad L. Coleman) and his people don’t make an appearance in “Home.” Rick and the group desperately need the help. Will Tyreese come back? He’s important in the comics, but the reasons for his importance don’t seem very present in the series. After being threatened by crazy Rick, he has good reason to want to get as far away as he can, and why should he risk his neck fighting The Governor? Or maybe his absence for the fight in “Home” will keep him in the dark about the true threat Rick’s people face, meaning he can join back up without knowing the danger, which makes more sense for the story.

I admit, I felt a little disappointed for the first almost-two hours of this mid-season, when not a lot of adrenaline-pumping stuff happened. The end of “Home” more than makes up for it, and is a message to fans that they won’t have to wait until the end of the season for more action.

THE WALKING DEAD airs Sundays at 9 p.m. ET on AMC.

Killing Lincoln half dead

Article first published as KILLING LINCOLN Review at Seat42F.

Grade: 78%

The National Geographic Channel has a new docudrama entitled KILLING LINCOLN, airing tonight. It is based on the book by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard, and revolves around the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, looking at what motivates John Wilkes Booth to do the deed, and the immediate aftermath of the act.

The screen version of KILLING LINCOLN unfolds much like a History Channel special. There is narration by Tom Hanks, whom we see from time to time as he speaks, and events are re-enacted. There is some degree of repetition, though not as much as you’d expect from something like this, and suspense is built somewhat artificially, even though just watching things unfold would provide excitement enough.

The difference between KILLING LINCOLN and other history specials is the level of acting presented. While this special does still contain some hammy exaggeration, this is accomplished by well respected performers in their fields, whom have resumes of other television and movie work. As such, it feels a little more authentic and of slightly higher quality than most of its peers.

Billy Campbell (The Killing) plays Lincoln himself. Campbell takes a softer tact, and his version of the POTUS is a kind and gentle man, friend to cabinet members and former slaves alike. He comes across as almost saintly. Similarly, Mary Todd Lincoln (Geraldine Hughes, Gran Torino) is whitewashed into a charming and loving wife and mother, with barely a trace of the mental instability that she is so famous for.

I admit, I am disappointed to see Lincoln so affectionate towards Secretary of State Seward (Ted Johnson, Lincoln), laid up in bed from a carriage accident. If one has studied these two men at all, the animosity between them is infamous. Yes, they get along by the end of Lincoln’s life, but the sort of relationship we see between them here is not at all complicated or reminiscent of their past feuding. Again, like much of KILLING LINCOLN, we are viewing this through biased, rose-colored glasses.

Booth, on the other hand, played by Jesse Johnson (Redline), is the polar opposite of this Lincoln, loud and dramatic. An actor by trade, this may make sense for the character, who has a huge ego and much affection for the South and its way of life. He is dastardly, a criminal mastermind and leader of the hit squad, drawing all focus whenever he is on screen, and seen as the person behind it all.

This makes for a relatively entertaining piece. Yes, the good and evil sides are taken to extremes in such a way that it’s hard to believe it can realistic. But it does an adequate job of outlining what happened, and the narration does admit to being a little unclear about some of the details, such as quotes said or not said. In the end, the story gets told, and though the focus is on Booth, those who don’t realize the killing was supposed to be part of a triple attack will learn something.

The pacing is a little slow, especially after the murder. Not a lot happens as Booth flees, and yet, this is a significant chunk of the running time. Other reviewers have accused KILLING LINCOLN of being boring, and I wouldn’t go that far. But it certainly doesn’t feel like something that would have run in theaters, or even broadcast television.

There are definitely scenes that are likely fictional, added just to prove a point. One such moment is when Lincoln stops to speak to an elderly African American while touring the conquered Southern capital. Something similar may have actually happened, but the way that it plays out in this special leaves little doubt that it’s a parable, meant to teach a lesson about Lincoln, rather than repeating exact dialogue from those involved.

As for historical accuracy, well, that leaves a little something to be desired. The source material which KILLING LINCOLN is based on has been criticized quite severely because of the numerous untruths contained within, and while O’Reilly calls it non-fiction, others consider it a novel. The missteps are mostly details, such as a scene set in the Oval Office that couldn’t have happened since the Oval Office hadn’t been built yet, and Ford’s theater did not have the portrait of Washington on the front of the box. But it’s enough to make one question how much research and care actually went into the book.

In the film, some of the disputed details are present and some aren’t. This worries me, as many will likely see KILLING LINCOLN as fact, given Hanks’ involvement and the cast, even as some will dismiss this because of O’Reilly’s famously conservative bend. Again, it’s more details that are wrong, rather than the broad arc of the actions themselves. But it’s these minor things that could have been corrected that would have made it a more reliable and important work.

Overall, KILLING LINCOLN could be better, but it could be worse. If you are curious about the assassination, it’s not a bad piece to check out. But for those who know the story well, it comes across as hokey, exaggerated, and a little off, so the history buffs may want to skip it.

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.

Glee "I Do"nt

Article first published as TV Review: Glee - "I Do" on Blogcritics.

The latest installment of FOX's Glee, "I Do," finally finds Will (Matthew Morrison) and Emma (Jayma Mays) heading for the altar, prompting all of the recent New Directions alumni to come home for the wedding. But before the bride can utter those two little words, she makes a run for it, ruining the event.

This episode is mostly ridiculous. Yes, we know Emma has issues, and with Will having been out of town for most of the wedding planning, as well as her story about her childhood birthdays, it should be easy to see coming that she doesn't go through with it. However, Glee has strung us out for three and a half seasons, waiting for Will and Emma to be together. To call it off now, likely waiting until May sweeps to fix their relationship, is beyond disappointing.

The wedding itself is also off. The song Will and Emma sing, with a little help from Mercedes (Amber Riley), "Getting Married Today," does not feel like it fits in the show. While Glee has performed a variety of genres, covering a wide range of music, this piece in this moment just doesn't feel right. I don't know that I've ever said that before about a selection.

Sue (Jane Lynch) coming down the aisle in the wedding dress is pushing the boundary of her character too far. Does she care about Emma and Will or not? We've seen that she does before, but this action says otherwise. It seems like a stunt designed purely for misleading commercials leading up to the airing.

And why don't we see Emma's parents in "I Do," whom we've met before? It makes sense for them to be here and to get their reactions to their runaway bride daughter. In fact, after Emma flees, the episode doesn't focus on her or Will pretty much at all, which is weird.

I won't even talk about the Finn (Cory Monteith)-Emma kiss twist from last week that makes little sense, and matters almost not at all to "I Do."

 After the disaster of the wedding, it feels quite false that the students would stay and party so happily at the reception. They care about Will, and they would be affected by his grief. They wouldn't so callously enjoy themselves. Why don't they rally to find Emma and save the day?

Weddings are a prime time to hook up, feelings being plucked by the event, so I guess it's not surprising that so many of the characters run off for sex mid-reception. I'm not sure it is necessary for the writers to screw with quite so many relationships at once, but at least that part makes sense. Sadly, the choice of singing "We've Got Tonite" while it happens is only so-so.

I'm not sure how I feel about Quinn (Dianna Agron) dabbling in lesbianism with Santana (Naya Rivera). Perhaps it's unexpected that it didn't happen before now, but I hope they stick with Quinn's assertion that this is a one-time thing. She may have been wronged by men, but she definitely likes them. As long as she doesn't hurt Santana, this occurrence isn't bad.

Kurt (Chris Colfer), on the other hand, definitely will hurt Blaine (Darren Criss). Blaine is too happy to be back with his beau to notice, especially as they duet in the best peformance in the episode, "Just Can't Get Enough," but Kurt is using him for sex, and nothing more. Blaine insists they're back together, and hopefully that's what will eventually happen. But it's not what's going on here. I wish Kurt would be honest with Blaine. Otherwise, it could be even longer before they are reunited.

Adding Tina (Jenna Ushkowitz) to the Kurt / Blaine story isn't necessary. It seems like Glee is trying to beef up her role lately, and her part in "I Do" makes sense for the arc she has been given, but Tina doesn't need more focus, nor to interfere with the fan favorite gays.

Then there's the other exes who fool around, Rachel (Lea Michele) and Finn. Rachel isn't strictly cheating, as, even though she is living with Brody (Dean Geyer), they are in a "modern, open" relationship. I'm just confused as to why Rachel doesn't see it as cheating, considering her character.

Finn is just happy to have her back. He thinks they are an end game couple, and they may very well be. It feels good to see them together again, and I don't think either of them have their feelings hurt by the other. They aren't at the right places in the lives to be a couple right now, but eventually they could make it work again.

Someone has to be there to pick Rachel up when she gets hurt by Brody. It's not explicit, but it appears that "I Do" exposes Brody as a male prostitute. This Hung-esque plot could explain how he gets money to live on, but will not be a very nice surprise for Ms. Berry, especially when Brody is preaching honesty earlier in the night. Granted, she isn't entirely honest with him, either, but it's not quite the same. They appear to be moving towards a big relationship blow out.

Next up, Artie's (Kevin McHale) romance with Betty Pillsbury (Ali Stroker), Emma's niece. Do they have to try to shove the two people in the chairs together? Emma's attempted hookup of them feels false and vaguely insulting. Plus, I never cared for Stroker during her run on The Glee Project, and even though she did win second place last year, I didn't expect to see her pop up now, especially without being featured in a musical number.

Why does Betty show up at McKinley? She's not a student there. She shouldn't be able to just come and wander the halls, during a school day. Ugh.

Lastly, we get to Marley (Melissa Benoist) and Jake (Jacob Artist). Jake wants to give her a special Valentine's Day, and lacking being a romantic himself, he lets Ryder (Blake Jenner) take the reigns, including a cheesy in-class serenade of "You're All I Need to Get By," which would not be allowed in a real school. Marley sees right through it, but only tells that to Ryder, not Jake, reigniting the love triangle.

This is disappointing because Jake and Ryder's friendship has been a definite positive element of Glee this season. They agreed not to fight over Marley, and put those differences aside months ago. Ryder is allowed to have feelings, of course, but he can't betray Jake by acting on them. With the looks he is exchanging with Marley in the ending number, "Anything Could Happen," it seems like that's where the show is heading.

How can Marley do this to Jake? She pines over him for so long, and then chooses him. Can she really be so heartless as to consider cheating now? If her mind has been changed, and she's a teenage girl, so that's definitely an acceptable and realistic development, then she needs to end things with Jake before taking up with Ryder. No more secretly screwing things up for others, as she did at Sectionals.

Some of these romantic plots aren't bad, but I think they ring hollow because they are couched in the terrible wedding tale. "I Do" is an example of bad storytelling and lackluster musical numbers, with only glimmers of good things sneaking out from beneath the cloud. It's also a very strange time to stage a "couples" episode, especially when the bride and groom are NOT one of the couples featured.

Glee's fourth season has been good, but they have dropped the ball during February sweeps, which is pretty much the worst time to do so. Can they pick it back up for the rest of the year?

Glee airs Thursdays at 9 p.m. ET on FOX.

Grey's Anatomy drives a "Hard Bargain"

Article first published as Grey's Anatomy drives a "Hard Bargain" on TheTVKing.

In ABC's Grey's Anatomy this week, the hospital is ready to be sold to Pegasys, the medical company that runs hospitals like factories. This fact weighs very heavily on Owen (Kevin McKidd), who doesn't believe in what Pegasys is doing, but feels like the deal is the only way to keep Seattle Grace Mercy West running, and protect the jobs of all of the employees.

There is another way, put forth by Callie (Sara Ramirez), but we'll get to that in a moment.

Owen is put in an incredibly difficult position in "Hard Bargain." He has a responsibility, as the boss, to do everything that he can to keep things running. Yet, he knows that the Pegasys buy out would be a bad thing in the long run. It comes down to the classic scenario of how much can one give up and still find reason to go on? Is just keeping the doors to the facility open enough, or if the place is gutted, is it worth it to work there?

This is a debate called into question swiftly in "Hard Bargain," as Dr. Bailey (Chandra Wilson) is denied a treatment that could save her patient. She goes off on a rant, considering quitting. And she's right. What the place is turning into will be a shadow of its former self. If the doctors aren't free to do everything possible to help their patients, how can they be expected to continue to save lives?

I'm curious as to why Pegasys even wants SGMW. The deal is dependent on keeping the current staff, which preserves the reputation and value of the place. But, by tying the employees' hands, that reputation will start to fall. Is Pegasys really so short-sighted? Do they not understand the worth of a long-term investment?

It's worst for Owen because his image will be irrevocably tarnished. The other doctors, in this environment, will fall out of favor in their fields. But Owen will be ruined in the eyes of those that trust him, and whom he cares deeply about, the staff. As he speaks to the nurses, convincing them to give this new approach a try, there's obvious desperation and pain in his eyes. Once the transfer of ownership is complete, though, things won't get better, and those that work for Owen will come to feel betrayed. He may feel guilty about booking the plane that crashed and started this mess, but he doesn't deserve the hatred of everyone.

Which is why Cristina (Sandra Oh) likely agrees to the plan put in place her fellow survivors to wrest control of Seattle Grace Mercy West. She loves Owen, and even though she can't make him privy to the plan, for legal reasons, she is doing it to save him, at least as much as the facility itself.

The fact that Cristina can't tell Owen could irreparably harm their just-renewed relationship. The act that she has to take, quitting her job with the others in order to kill the Pegasys sale, is a direct slap in Owen's face, making all the effort he has been putting in to saving the hospital a waste. She knows how hard he has been working, and for her to do this to him, with no explanation, is nearly unforgiveable.

I hope that Owen eventually understands. Surely he knows Cristina well enough to think there's another play behind her deed. He's a smart man, and when he sees the specific group that quits, he must suspect something, or will when he gets over his shock. Sure, Cristina can't explain to Owen anything specific, but can't she at least just tell him to trust her? I mean, she is part of a far better option that what Owen is pursuing.

The scheme put forth is to buy the hospital themselves. Callie, Arizona (Jessica Capshaw), Meredith (Ellen Pompeo), Derek (Patrick Dempsey), and Cristina, for various reasons, pool their resources and hire a man named Stan Grossberg (Eddie Jemison, Hung, Ocean's Eleven) to install them as the board of directors. It's a crazy, risky move, but it's one that, if it works, will preserve SGMW the way it is now.

Obviously, cost is a huge factor. They have resources, but those probably aren't enough. However, with Pegasys pulling out and Dr. Cahill (Constance Zimmer) pessimistic about locating another buyer, as well as the huge drop in value the hospital suffers by losing these five doctors, who all have to quit their jobs to stop Pegasys from buying, perhaps they can pick up the place at bargain prices.

The risk here is that others will unknowingly interfere. Owen and Cahill will keep working on other options because they have to, seeing themselves as the saviors, since they don't know about the plan. Webber (James Pickens Jr.) could also somehow be a stumbling block, since he is already suspicious of them, but they don't confide him, either.

Will the docs be able to save anyone? And can they do so before Bailey and others, including the new interns, abandon ship? I assume so, as otherwise the series would be dead in the water. But this ride of getting there is fantastic, proving that Grey's Anatomy can still be great, moving, and as surprising as ever, nine seasons in.

Also, I hope that Cahill is inspired by the heroic struggle to save a great institution, and chooses to remain on staff after all this is over. She has an in with Owen, and that should be enough to at least earn her a job offer, even if the five member team isn't a fan of her.

There are also some interesting romantic developments and funny moments this week. However, with all the fantastic drama of the hospital saga going on, it's hard to focus on those. They do help round out the episode, and that's important. They just don't make great topics for a review.

Grey's Anatomy airs Thursdays at 9 p.m. ET on ABC.

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.

High Definition Versus Standard TV

Article first published as High Definition Versus Standard TV on Blogcritics.

It's 2013. Analog television is a thing of the past, and we have all switched over to digital. For years, analog signals could vary in strength based on your location and antenna, but after cable standardized that, all channels mostly looked the same. As high definition (HD) becomes more persistent and prevalent, though, does it put lower definition, known as standard (SD), at a disadvantage?

I think so, for sure. When most of the major networks, like ABC, FOX, CBS, NBC, USA, HBO, Showtime, Comedy Central, TNT, SyFy, FX, and the like are transmitted to my house in crystal clear clarity, why would I want to tune into something that looks fuzzy and old?

I refer, of course, to those channels still not offered in HD. These may vary by location. In my area, IFC is one network I really wish I received with a better quality signal. It's frustrating to watch Portlandia when its fuzzy, especially when I can change the channel and get such a better picture. Ditto for the excellent British series Misfits, which I get on Logo, in SD. I'll just wait for the Blu-rays.

The HBO and Showtime packages I have annoy me because I pay so much for a couple dozen channels, but only three of each are delivered in HD. I can tell you, I don't even bother to record movies that aren't on one of those three channels. Why even get the rest? Because they are part of a "package," the magic word cable companies use to charge us extra money for stations we don't want or need, since the a la carte option isn't available, which could be a whole other column.

I do think this puts the SD channels at a significant disadvantage. I may be one person, but I'm sure it's a trend many are moving towards, especially those casual viewers that don't follow as many shows. If I were a channel surfer, I'd just stay in the 900s, and not go outside of that range.

The Internet has spoiled us, giving us instant access to everything however we want it. Our current generation is used to being able to access everything, and when the cable companies only give us SD versions of certain channels, those get forgotten and overlooked.

It's funny because I still watch older shows and movies. Many of them are on DVD, and may not be in HD. But because they are from a different time, I just accept the difference. Portlandia could be viewed in HD, if I lived in a certain market, so getting a lower quality is annoying. Friends has never been in HD, so I will watch an old installment and accept it.

Even better, though, is how many old shows and movies are being updated and re-released on Blu-ray. This trend means that even things made in the era before the current awesome level of clarity are being converted, making them look better than ever. If I can watch Disney's Peter Pan, made in the 1950s, and it looks superior to the signal coming in from my cable provider on a show filmed in 2012, it makes the comparison even more ridiculous.

How long before all channels are HD? This is the solution, the one that has to, and certainly will, happen. Any network that doesn't convert will be lost to modern television watchers. Cable companies that offer more HD options will gain more subscribers. It's definitely a trend many people want.

Funny enough, as technology improves, our patience shortens. HD has not been around long at all, and yet, SD is already becoming a thing of the past, something many people don't want. While other conversions in history have taken much longer, it seems the lifespan given for switching from SD to HD is a scant few years.

Now, if only screeners of episodes sent out by studios for review could be in HD. Even online viewing sites are all SD. I can't remember the last time any I received were HD, which is why, unless I have an article that needs to be done in a timely fashion, I don't even seek them out anymore. And don't even get me started about releases of seasons of shows that used to be sent out on Blu-ray that were instead provided on DVD this year to save money. But that only affects a small, isolated portion of the population, albeit one that is even more into TV than the normal person.

Does my strong preference for HD, to the point where I go out of my way to avoid SD, make me a TV snob? Or is it just part of how the world of television is evolving? Should I be more patient, waiting for some networks to be delivered in a modern format? Weigh in on the comments below.

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.

Doctor Who cowed by The Reign of Terror

Article first published as DVD Review: Doctor Who - The Reign of Terror on Blogcritics.

The BBC finally released the Doctor Who eason one finale, The Reign of Terror on DVD this month. Besides Marco Polo (which is lost, but has already been released as a condensed reconstruction), this is the last serial of the first year that hadn't yet been available on disc.

The Reign of Terror begins with the Doctor (William Hartnell) attempting to take Ian (William Russell) and Barbara (Jacqueline Hill) home, but instead they land in France in the 18th Century, at the time of the French Revolution. It doesn't take long for our heroes to get involved in events, and instead of getting to relax, Ian and Barbara are drawn into one more predicament.

I have a lot of issues with The Reign of Terror. I understand why the Doctor and his companions would seek period clothing, to blend in, but do they have to choose garb that will incite violence against them? And then not change? Once they realize what is going on, why not just find the TARDIS and leave? Why would they consider messing with history, and tell those living in this time of things yet to come? Are the law enforcement officials so inept that the main characters can skirt around them and escape imprisonment on multiple occasions? And there seems to be a little more overacting than is usual, even for actors of the period, especially from Carole Ann Ford, who plays Susan, the Doctor's granddaughter.

I'm not sure if I just haven't watched enough of the very early episodes of Doctor Who to get a feel for what the series was like back then, or if the show was still finding its footing. Or maybe, in this instance, it's just a misstep of a serial, writing full of plot holes, and execution that doesn't really give viewers much to get invested in, which I find unusual for Doctor Who.

There is definitely a formula to the older Doctor Who serials, in which the Doctor and his friends are invariably separated; some get captured, they escape, others get captured, and this tends to happen several times before they can sort things out. Yet, usually there is a larger arc or a moral issue to ponder. I did not detect that second layer in this particular batch of episodes, only the surface, rote method of storytelling. Not to mention, in the middle of a war, there should be a level of danger and chaos, which is absent here.

I also am not thrilled with the portrayal of France. For exterior shots, we get crude sketches. There aren't any crowd scenes, despite what is going on, and it's hard to keep track of which guest characters are trustworthy or not. I understand, budget was probably a serious consideration, but it makes the tale feel more fake than it needs to be, taking us out of the story. Overall, I am underwhelmed.

That being said, I do give credit for the restoration project. The episodes themselves look dated, to be sure, as it is awfully hard to make something so old have clear picture and sound. This DVD release is grainy, though mostly consistent throughout.

But my compliments go to the animation of the two missing installments. They use the original audio tracks, or so it seems, and the animation style matches the sets, costumes, and performers better than expected. It isn't as good as watching for real, of course, but the effort to fill in the gaps and make the story still flow seamlessly is a resounding success.

I also really enjoy Hartnell in this. While the others actors are mostly forgettable, Hartnell is charming and funny, stealing most scenes, especially the ones in which he is without the other main players.

Even though The Reign of Terror is not a Special Edition, it does contain quite a few extras in the one disc set. There is a twenty-five minute Making Of featurette, in which Russell and Ford, among others, participate. A set tour of the animated recreation is present, as are galleries of both stills and drawn images. Plus, there's the usual PDF materials and audio commentary on all six episodes, the animated ones being a bit different from the originals.

All in all I can recommend this DVD because it does finish out the first season, and because there is something worth admiring in the way that the production team brings us previously lost parts of the story, even if the plot itself leaves a little something to be desired.

Doctor Who - The Reign of Terror is available now.

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. 

Zero Hour holds zero interest

Article first published as ZERO HOUR Series Premiere on Seat42F.

Grade: 71%

This week, ABC will present broadcast television’s latest attempt at a cool genre show in ZERO HOUR. The team who run Modern Skeptic Magazine are thrown into disarray when the editor’s wife is kidnapped. As they search for her, they realize that the plot is much bigger than expected, and that the end of the world is nigh.

ZERO HOUR is a little like The DaVinci Code, but less complex. It begins with a mystery couched in Germany decades ago, which extends into the present day. There is a secret society willing to murder to protect a secret, and whom surely have an agenda to influence world events. The heroes are hopelessly noble and in over their heads, but will surely find a way to triumph in the end, against all odds.

That all sounds like it could work, but I am not super impressed by the first hour. I think the main problem is the lack of a protagonist to get behind. Hank (Anthony Edwards, ER), the editor, is sort of interesting, but he doesn’t immediately draw you in as someone to get behind. I don’t know if it’s because he’s not really relatable, or because he’s a mellow dude without the simmering complexity below the surface of the now-common TV anti-hero, but he just doesn’t provide that hook viewers look for.

Hank is supported by a pair of copy editors, Rachel Lewis (Addison Timlin, Californication) and Arron Martin (Scott Michael Foster, Greek, The River), both personally and professionally. These two lack any distinguishing personality traits in the premiere. They are loyal, sure, but also break the rules, disobeying Hank when they think they can help him another way. But that is exactly the same as every supporting character in a similar capacity in any story like this. So there isn’t anything that stands out about them.

Hank’s wife, Laila (Jacinda Barrett, Suits, Poseidon), meanwhile, is only glimpsed. She’s a beautiful, intelligent woman with an interest in fixing antique clocks and a doting husband. That’s all we know about her, and it makes it a little hard to care too much when she is taken.

The federal agent assigned to Laila’s disappearance is Rebecca Riley (Carmen Ejogo, Chaos, Kidnapped). She knows more than she lets on, having been involved in the investigation of the shady, sinister group for quite some time. But she reveals none of herself to Hank or the viewer in this pilot. She also deeply underestimates the enemy, but I guess if she were good enough to catch the bad guys, she would have done it already during her previous years working the case. so my guess is ZERO HOUR will find Hank being the primary investigator, with Rebecca serving as backup.

Rounding out the cast is White Vincent (Michael Nyqvist, the Swedish version of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo’s Mikael Blomkvist). White Vincent is the mysterious face of the group who is causing the trouble, but again, there isn’t much there to help flesh out his role in the series. We see that he is able to get around Rebecca and Hank’s efforts fairly easily, but there isn’t anything shown that tells us what kind of guy he is.

Basically, my problem with ZERO HOUR is that it is way too bland. None of the characters come fully developed and shaped, and nothing major happens. Sure, there’s a death or two in the first episode, but these are people we’ve just met, and don’t know anything about, so they don’t mean anything. Running around and not accomplishing anything is only enticing if we get to see the pathos the people involved are going through, and get to understand them. In ZERO HOUR, that second layer is absent, which makes the action feel hollow.

I admit the opening is pretty cool, where the priests pull something hidden from the water, and then are slaughtered. But a historic-set beginning that doesn’t translate in an obvious way to the main modern day story is kind of useless. There isn’t a big connecting thread yet.

At the end of the pilot, Hank and Rebecca find a Nazi submarine trapped in the ice. We don’t know how it got there, or what it means, but it’s supposed to be a big question that will drive the story and entice viewers to tune in for a second week. I’m sorry, but it’s too little, too late, and isn’t handled with enough mystique for me to care.

What ZERO HOUR should have done is spread the presented pilot into a two hour drama. That way, it could have taken the time to introduce us to Hank and the others, show us what makes them tick, and begin to build a bond between the viewer and the characters. Lacking this investment, I don’t see large numbers returning on a weekly basis.

The other thing that bothers me is how the Modern Skeptic Magazine is presented. With a title like that, one would assume it is being run by conspiracy nuts. And we get just a small taste of that sort of personality from Arron. But Hank is a level-headed, reasonable guy. How can he get behind a publication like this, and deliver what likely subscribers would want? He doesn’t seem the type.

ZERO HOUR premieres Thursday, February 14th at 8 p.m. I doubt it will run more than thirteen episodes (at the most), not being nearly as clever as ABC’s flop last spring, The River, so if you want to check it out, do it quickly.

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.

House of Cards not just new game

Article first published as House of Cards not just a new game on TheTVKing.
 
As Netflix successfully launches their new House of Cards, the original British version is now available on Blu-ray from the BBC. The premise is basically the same, though set in a different country at a different time. Some may wonder if a twenty year old British miniseries can compare to the premium offering of today. The answer is, yes.

BBC's House of Cards Trilogy isn't just a historical footnote. It is an Emmy-winning political thriller that birthed the genre on television. It holds up incredibly well, with intrigue and twists, and some terrific acting. There are plenty enough differences from the Netflix show that it feels like a different beast, and yet, the basic character profiles are the same, even if the names have changed. If you like the new one, it's definitely worth your time to see where it came from.

In the BBC's incarnation, divided into three four-episode miniseries airing throughout the 1990s, the center of the program is Francis Urquhart (Ian Richardson, Becoming Jane, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy), the whip in Parliament. Francis is denied a cabinet posting by his party's new prime minister, and begins pulling the strings necessary to bring down young upstart Henry Collingridge (David Lyon).

Urquhart is a master manipulator, and he even tries to sway the audience with his soliloquies to the camera, done in the Shakespearean style, as, after all, House of Cards finds its roots in Henry III. He is an expert at getting people to do what he wants them to. Collingridge would like Francis to use this talent on his behalf in the governing body. Francis, feeling snubbed, chooses instead to pit those same skills against Collingridge. It's something Collingridge should see coming and be wary of, but in his arrogance, it's not.

Urquhart has plenty of help from those around him that he has bent to his will. There's Roger O'Neill (Miles Anderson, Holby City), the public servant whose bad habits make him especially vulnerable, so much so that his capable assistant, Penny Guy (Alphonsia Emmanuel) can't help. There's Elizabeth (Diane Fletcher, A.I), Francis' loyal, ambitious, and open-mined wife. And fresh-faced reporter Mattie Storin (Susannah Harker, Pride and Prejudice), who thinks she's playing the game with Francis, but in the end finds herself hopelessly outmatched.

The first four episodes, which are under the House of Cards title, detail Urquhart's struggle against Collingridge for control of the government. By the second series, To Play the King, Francis graduates from such lowly opponents, and, now serving as prime minister, pits himself against the new monarch of the British Empire. Finally, in the conclusion of the trilogy, The Final Cut, Francis not only finds himself reflecting on his past and misdeeds as his career winds to an end, but also embroiled in someone else's version of his own scheme.

All in all, it's a masterful twelve installments included in this three-disc set. House of Cards is uniquely British, and for those of us unfamiliar with their system, it gives us a glimpse into how it all works. And yet, human nature is, at its heart, the same everywhere. The accents and personalities may change a bit, but the driving motivations will seem familiar to fans of similar work, even from the American catalogue.

This Blu-ray set looks very good. The picture and sound have been restored, and while one can still tell it was filmed in the 1990s based on style and setting, the clarity doesn't give away its age. A masterful job has been done in the updating of the work, and viewers will not be distracted by grainy pictures and hissing soundtracks.

As for extras, there is audio commentary on select episodes from star Richardson and the award-winning screenwriter Andrew Davies (Bleak House, Pride and Prejudice). Davies also gives an interview about To Play the King, and the controversy surrounding its release. A featurette takes us inside the walls of Parliament, letting us see the real world of British government. Because of the involvement of Davies and Richardson, probably the two most vital to how well House of Cards works, I am satisfied with the offerings.

House of Cards Trilogy is available now on Blu-ray wherever discs are sold.

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.

No one wins in a Scandal

Article first published as No one wins in a Scandal on TheTVKing.

I admit, I was growing tired of ABC's Scandal last fall. The case-of-the-week format was tedious, and the characters were growing less interesting to me by the minute. I had a hard time motivating myself to watch it.

Then came the voter rigging scandal arc. A vast conspiracy among many of the top people in the presidential administration, steeped in lots of cover up and mystery, information being leaked to us only in tiny bits. As the plot gets thicker and thicker, and the focus moves to the offenders, rather than Pope's team and their regular job, the series gets better and better.

All of this culminates in the most recent episode, "Nobody Likes Babies," as all of the truth is finally revealed, at least to certain parties, and the guilty have to face their sins. This episode is a lot about loss, and not just for those who deserve it. In a situation like this, there is plenty of collateral damage, and the fall out is devastating.

First, there's David Rosen (Joshua Molina). He loses everything: his career, his credibility in his field, a little bit of his sanity, and even the women he loves. Rosen may be a little more zealous than some would like, but his mission is justice, and he is trying to right a wrong. Yet, he makes the mistake of trusting the wrong people, something easily forgiven by viewers, but not by Rosen's peers. The lies of a few are enough to ruin him.

Will Rosen recover during the rest of the season? I hope so. He's a good man, and he deserves a break. Fans are often put in the position to root against him because Rosen's actions could hurt other main characters whom we adore. And yet, at this point, it's hard not to care about him, too. Knowing he is in the right only makes the situation more difficult.

Abby (Darby Stanchfield) loses Rosen. She learns that he really loves her, and while she wants to be with him, her loyalty to her colleagues wins out. Abby could be perfectly happy in a relationship with Rosen, but it would cost others she cares about dearly, and so she betrays him by stealing evidence, then denies it, though he sees through her.

Can Rosen ever forgive her? Abby only did what she thinks she has to to protect those she loves. Can't Rosen understand that? Even if she chooses Olivia (Kerry Washington) over him, Abby's feelings for Rosen are valid, too. If Rosen can find it in himself to take her back, it's likely this conflict of interest wouldn't come up again, and they would never have to be tested this way as a couple. The hard part is getting over this particular instance.

Quinn (Katie Lowes) loses her chance for revenge. She has the option to take out Hollis Doyle (Gregg Henry), but when Huck (Guillermo Diaz) makes her pick between her new life and her old, she chooses the new. After all, murdering Hollis won't undo what has been done to her, and she has come to rely on her current support system. It might feel good temporarily, but what Huck is trying to teach Quinn is that evil has great cost. I think she gets the message.

Huck should know. He has lost just about everything that he possible can. He struggles every day with who he is and what he has done. Huck doesn't suffer a particular loss in "Nobody Likes Babies," but he is far from making up for his past. He wants to spare Quinn the same price, and by doing so, he heals just a little piece of himself.

Olivia gives up the chance at a happy life as a senator's wife when she turns down Edison's (Norm Lewis) proposal. Edison doesn't understand why she would seek pain rather than serenity. Is it really love if it hurts? He has a point, and even though Olivia cannot stop herself, one has to wonder if it's worth it, even in that moment, before what comes after. Is she in a bad cycle she needs to break, or is there really a hope of something more if she can hold out just a little longer?

The best executed plot on this theme, though, belongs to Cyrus (Jeff Perry). He is faced with an impossible choice: his husband, James (Dan Bucatinsky), or his freedom and professional identity. There doesn't seem to be any clear way out for Cyrus, as he can't continue to lie to James and save his marriage, but telling the truth could land him in jail, disgraced.

Perry excels in several scenes, first with a raw confrontation, in wish the nakedness is emotional as well as physical, and then later, as he is forced to decide if he should order James's death to protect himself. Neither is easy, and I'm amazing at the way Perry plays it. Cyrus is a character who starts out as such a cut-and-dry cold SOB, but has quickly grown into a fully fleshed out, sympathetic man, warts and all.

In the end, Cyrus can't kill James. It's a good thing, as I don't think Cyrus would ever recover in the eyes of Scandal fans had James been shot. Somehow, though, I am surprised when Cyrus calls off the hit. I didn't expect to see the depth of his love for his husband, and all of the sudden, I am a huge fan of the actor and the character, much more so than previously, and that's saying something.


All of these situations make us questions ourselves. Everyone wants it all, but no one can have that. These are stories on a screen, to be sure, but the best such ones make us think. When there is no black and white right or wrong, it challenges our preconceived notions and ideals. "Nobody Likes Babies" does this as surely as considering the title of the episode does, over and over again throughout the hour.

One big shocker comes when we learn that Verna Thornton (Debra Mooney) is behind the attempt assassination of President Grant (Tony Goldwyn). Many, including the president himself, assume that the first lady, Mellie (Bellamy Young), is to blame. The evidence points to her, and she's heartless enough to do it. Verna is portrayed as being kind and compassionate.

However, the other thing to take into account is that Verna is dying. Arguments can be made whether her most recent missteps come from a place of guilt or a desire to protect herself. Is she ashamed? Is she arrogant? The fact that she calls Grant and Rosen to her death bed hint that she could be good, but the writing dances around motivating factors enough to leave everyone in doubt.

Then we get the second shocker: Grant murders Verna before she can confess to Rosen. Why does he do this? Is he not stupid, as Verna challenges, and knows about the conspiracy the entire time, even if he struggles to convince himself that he is wrong? Is he furious at her? Is he feeling so betrayed by Olivia that he has to lash out at the person in front of him? Is he complicit in the atrocities committed before?

This levels the playing field. Grant is held up as a noble leader throughout all the mud in this season. Others around him break the law so that he can stay clean. This calls into question if he ever was pure, and makes him more complex. Also, he could never really be in a fully equal romantic relationship with either Mellie or Olivia when still being so much more holier than they are.

It's interesting that Grant chooses Mellie over Olivia in the end. Again, the reason why isn't completely clear. Is he seriously mad at Olivia for lying to him, or for not believing in him? Does he find Mellie's honesty, brutal or not, refreshing, or is he trying to hurt Olivia by choosing Mellie? Except, Mellie isn't always honest, as Grant tells Olivia he knows Mellie induces labor and thinks she is hiding it from him. There are definitely negative emotions in play here, and the truth could well be a little of everything. I am curious as to how this will play out.

This episode, curiously delivered in February, rather than season's end, is huge. It's the best of the series so far, and all of the various twists and reveals make it extremely memorable. Sprinkled with Emmy-worthy performances, "Nobody Likes Babies" delivers everything fans of the show want, and more. This is definitely an A+ installment.

Next week, rumor has it, we get a big time jump, and then mostly go back to case-of-the-week stuff for the rest of the season. This is disappointing news. Yes, it's hard to follow up something so big as these past few months, but does that mean Scandal shouldn't try? Can it really go back to being an average series after such a triumphant story? Or will it surprise me, taking the time to really delve into the emotional fallout of "Nobody Likes Babies," and build into something great slyly, even as the main stories are smaller? Hopefully, the latter.

Scandal doesn't take a breath, picking right back up this Thursday at 10 p.m. ET on ABC.

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.

The Walking Dead "King" of cable television

Article first published as The Walking Dead "King" of cable television on TheTVKing.

AMC's The Walking Dead resumes its third season with "The Suicide King." The episode picks up right where last fall's mid-season finale left off, with the Governor (David Morrissey) forcing Merle (Michael Rooker) to fight his brother, Daryl (Norman Reedus), to the death to prove his loyalty to Woodbury.

As the tussle begins, Merle knocks Daryl to the ground and begins kicking him. At first, I thought this meant that Merle intends to carry about the Governor's wishes. Then, he whispers words of reassurance to Daryl, before fighting back to back with him. If Merle is going to so quickly ditch any charade and defend his sibling, why kick him first? It seems cruel, and I think that Merle takes the opportunity to punish Daryl a little for abandoning him, as Merle sees it, in Atlanta.

Which makes it all the more disappointing when Daryl chooses to leave the group with Merle, after Rick (Andrew Lincoln) and the others break up the fight and rescue them. There is something noble about sticking with your blood, even when they don't deserve it, and I do think it makes Daryl come across as a better person to not abandon Merle. But if anyone ever didn't deserve a thirty-eighth chance, it's sadistic, selfish, evil Merle. Were their positions reversed, Merle wouldn't hesitate to leave Daryl.

Given this, Rick needs to act the hero and allow Merle to come back to the cell block. That doesn't mean Rick and the others should let down their guard around Merle, but they owe Daryl this, after everything that Daryl has done for the group. You stick by your people, and Daryl is one of their people. If he feels the obligation to protect his brother, then you accommodate that.

I thought it was interesting that Carol (Melissa McBride) compares Merle to her departed abusive husband Ed. There is a slightly different dynamic, in that Merle is Daryl's blood, while Carol chose to be with Ed. However, I appreciate the sentiment, with her coming to Daryl's defense about his decision.

It might be easier for Daryl to leave because there is no direct threat to the group at this time. They all realize that the Governor will likely make some play against them in the future, but they don't know enough about him to decide what that offense may look like or when it will come. There is definitely a vague feeling of needing to be prepared for it, but without knowing what that may entail, Daryl is walking away at a time where there isn't an urgency for him to stay.

Before the Governor comes for the prison group, though, amends will have to be made with Daryl, with or without Merle. The others desperately need him. The barbed wire defenses aren't enough to keep out the Governor, and Daryl is one of their best combatants. Not having him puts everyone else at risk.

In this circumstance, one would think that Rick would be glad to accept help from Tyreese (Chad L. Coleman) and his friends. Rick may not have spent much time around them, but others have, and they've observed what a good man Tyreese is. The same cannot be said for everyone in his party, and that will have to be dealt with, probably sooner rather than later. But Tyreese looks like a big, strong, capable man, and they could really use some of that right now.

Ditto for Michonne (Danai Gurira). She may be a little unstable, too, when going for the Governor, and not sharing all her information with Rick, but she is tough and good with her swords. Rick cannot kick her out. They will need her when the fight comes. Thank goodness she's exhausted and sleeping, buying Rick some time to get his head on straight.

Both of these major mistakes are Rick's alone, with his friends disagreeing with him. I think we can chalk some of this up to the fact that Rick is not in a good mental state. During his conversation with Tyreese, he hallucinates Lori (Sarah Wayne Callies), and begins to yell at her. Rick is breaking, and he needs to step back and heal himself, letting someone else make the leadership decisions until such time as he is capable of doing so himself.

It's time for Glenn (Steven Yeun) to step up. It is sort of unexpected, but he has established himself as a person who wants a say in what the group does. He is no longer a sidekick, and with Daryl gone and Hershel (Scott Wilson) no longer displaying the backbone he once possessed, though still being a valuable adviser, Glenn is the only chance the group has of righting their course. He argues with Rick a little in "The Suicide King," but I think there could be a bigger confrontation coming.

One other thing I worry about in regards to the prison group is Beth's (Emily Kinney) feelings towards Rick. She mentions wanting to have a baby, and seems pretty attached to Rick's infant. She also kisses Rick on the cheek in a sort of awkward way, which could mean that she is planning on staking claim to Lori's former position. It will never work, but the kind of emotional devastation such a let down could bring to the young girl could cause larger trouble for the small community.

Back in Woodbury, the town is reeling from the invasion, several of their own dead. There is unrest already, and a few walkers get in and stir up more. The Governor retreats to his apartment, unwilling to come out and set everyone straight, emerging only to kill one of their own who has been bitten, then stalks back off with no explanation.

This isn't going to work for long. The Governor has his armed guards, and they will stay with him, but the rest of the folks aren't going to follow a man anymore who acts like this. If the Governor wants to maintain order, he has to say something inspiring. He may not feel very much like caring for the community right now, but that's exactly what he needs to do.

Eventually, he will. And he will probably do so by gearing them up for a revenge attack against Rick's group. This isn't what should happen, and will definitely ruin Woodbury once and for all, but it's the only way I see the Governor emerging as a leader again. He's done being soft or allowing people to believe life can be the same within his walls as it used to be, and he tells Andrea (Laurie Holden) as much.

Andrea is the wild card. For those who read the comic books, Woodbury was a brutal place. But it did not have Andrea there to try to save the souls of the citizens. Many of them want a person with a positive and compassionate attitude in charge of them. If it won't be the Governor, it could be Andrea. At least until the Governer decides to wrest power back from her.

"The Suicide King" is not a particularly eventful episode. Instead, it begins setting up the end-of-the-season arcs, adjusting the dynamics, and rearranging the groups. There are a few things that must be overcome before a final showdown between Rick and the Governor, and this episode begins going down that road.

The Walking Dead airs at 9 p.m. ET on AMC. Also, Talking Dead, a post-episode talk show from The Nerdist, has expanded to a full hour, and now airs immediately after, beginning at 10 p.m.

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.