Watch Dexter and Californication

ZACH THAT:

Showtime is great. Not only do they host two of my favorite shows, Dexter and Californication, they are allowing everyone to watch them free online. On top of that, you can watch it right now instead of waiting until Sept 28th when they actually premiere. Enjoy.

VIP INSIDER

*the password is Lady Killer

True Blood Review

KRISTIN PARKER-STONE:

I admit it.

That show about the liar/murderer/drug-dealer/mob boss/total douche-monkey who is inexplicably likable?

I love that shit. I eat that shit up. I like my male protagonists felonious and cruel, like the escapist version of that asshole boyfriend you know better then to have in real life, even though he's dangerous and manipulative and exciting.

And Alan Ball's True Blood promised a world full of people who by their very nature (undead) are the types your psychiatrist strongly suggests keeping a safe distance from.

So it's really too bad that most of them are unlikable.

True Blood takes place in an alternative version of New Orleans, two years after the world's Vampires have decided to "come out of the coffin" and just start hanging out in bars and shit like it’s no big thing. The action mostly revolves around Sookie Stackhouse (Anna Paquin), an unfortunately named waitress who also happens to be telepathic, and the events surrounding her first encounter with a Vampire, Bill Compton (Stephan Moyer, of Fuck, Where Do I Know That Guy From? Fame). The series is based on The Southern Vampire Mysteries by Charlaine Harris, and while I respect Alan Ball's intention to remain true to the source material, I respectfully assert that that was a big fucking mistake.

For a few months prior to True Blood's premiere, HBO aired a clever little advertising segment: a fictional broadcast news investigation of the events surrounding the initial emergence of the Vampires into the Human World. And it was a fascinating cross section: a Dana Perino-type Vampire rights lobbyist who remains reasonable, charming, and logic-bound in the face of her monstrous condition, a misguided young woman who expounds on the joys of sex with the undead, as well as the Japanese scientist responsible for accidentally inventing “TruBlood”, the blood replacement beverage responsible for bringing Vampires out of the shadows. And while these personalities were interesting, it was the tone that strung them together cohesively: This is the world we live in. Everything is the same, except that now, we have vampires. The Call Is Coming From Inside the House!

And I strongly believe that would have been the magic formula: give us interesting people from various places within the world we know, and make them potentially horrifically dangerous sometime in the near future. And they were so close.

Instead, none of the characters from this promo are significantly used, if used at all. True to the source material, we are stuck in a bayou world so insular, you wonder which door at the bar where Sookie works might turn out to be one of the sound stage’s exits. Anna Paquin’s accent is about as subtle as being fisted by a panda, and she is one of the better performances. The gay people are really gay. The red necks are racist and ignorant. Even Sookie’s sweet elderly grandmother, Adele, (Lois Smith) while charming in an ‘Oh, Old People!’ kind of way, seems detached from the vampire situation in a way that makes me wonder if she’s doing double duty on the Oxycontin.

As a result, what we have is a very limited and truly inaccessible view of this world. We have mountains of bad character behavior (including one successful murder, and another decent attempt), but it's random and thoughtless; the antagonists have all the depth of a Koopa Trooper. And the clincher is that Vampires are not responsible for ANY of violence that occurs in the pilot.

Despite all this, I’ll give it another shot on Sunday. There’s enough camp here where it makes me think they might just take the plunge and go for the humor, full out Ann Rice style, and True Blood could benefit from not taking itself so seriously. Anna Paquin, despite not being very good as Sookie, is strangely interesting playing herself. And despite dialogue that makes me close my eyes in embarrassment at points, I’m very interested to see where they take Stephen Moyer’s vampire, who is, despite a very crowded cast, the only vampire we have yet to meet. Albeit underused, he’s darkly charming in a way that makes me not want to blame him for the source material just yet. 

And also, it’s Alan Ball. There’s something to be said for brand loyalty, even if it means sitting through vampires randomly moving in double-time for no apparent reason.

Provisional Grade: C

True Blood airs on HBO on Sunday at 9/8 CST, and re-run throughout the week. Did not premiere as well as John from Cincinnati, and we all know how that went, so catch it now while you can.

FOX's Fringe - Unexpect the Expected

RYAN:

Close your eyes for a second, and think back to the beginning of Lost. Sure, it looked cool, and sure, J.J. Abrams had a built-in Alias fan base, but was there really any hype? Did anyone have a clue of what to expect from such a risky, high concept show?

Of course not. ABC was rolling the dice, in desperate need of a new pair of shoes. Lucky for them, Lost came through big time, cleaning up with viewers and critics alike, taking home the Emmy for best drama, and changing the very landscape of television.

Now, fast-forward four years to Fringe. It’s FOX’s turn at the table, only this time, they’re convinced that J.J.’s dice are loaded, that there’s no way they can lose.

This is exactly what Fringe has going against it.

Nobody expected Lost to be the next big thing, but everyone’s expecting Fringe to be the next Lost. Viewers of Lost were set up for a pleasant surprise – viewers of Fringe, for disappointment.

That said, it’s not nearly as disappointing as it should be. In fact, it’s pretty good. Without all of the billboards and buildup, without the ninety-minute spectacle of a premiere, it might have sneaked up on us, and been one of this year’s pleasant surprises. But there’s nothing surprising about J.J. Abrams these days, not even how good he is, or how much he likes surprising us (or trying to, anyway – the show starts off with an in-flight disaster….sound familiar?)

Regardless, the show itself is decent, and certainly worth watching. It dives into the world of the paranormal with just as much spooky, icky glee as The X-Files, but still manages to root the weird stuff in enough psuedo-science and modern technology to keep you from rolling your eyes. The story has a few nice twists, and leaves the door wide open for die-hard fans to start crafting their own elaborate hypotheses as to who’s good, who’s bad, and what the hell "the pattern" is. It’s fun, which is a lot more than 90% of television programming can say.

But fun isn’t everything. The characters aren’t nearly as captivating as they could be, certainly not as much so as on Alias, or Lost. Anna Torv, for instance, who plays our heroine, is a little wooden at first (the material is more to blame than her performance.) Thankfully, by the end of the episode, with a couple of twists under her belt, we get the sense that she has enough to work with to take her character to new, more interesting levels. I only wish I could say the same for Joshua Jackson, who has all of the subtlety and nuance of, well, Joshua Jackson.

On the other side of the coin, though, there’s Lance Reddick, who fans of The Wire will be happy to watch in any role, as well as a near perfect turn by John Noble as a brilliant, mumbling, quite likely insane fringe scientist, a character who serves as the show’s much-needed sci-fi anchor.

All in all, Fringe is well-crafted entertainment, a dark, glossy, sci-fi serial that will leave you curious about where the hell it’s headed, which, in science fiction, is way more than half the battle. Try not to hold all of the hype against it, and you’ll enjoy it.

Grade: B

Fringe airs Tuesday nights at 8/7c on FOX, with an encore presentation of the pilot scheduled for this Sunday, September 14th at 8/7c.

2008 EMMY PICKS (DRAMA)

With the Emmys just a couple of weeks away (Sunday September 21st, 8/7c on ABC), I thought I'd offer my thoughts on each of the big races. This week: the contenders for drama. Who will win, who should win, and who was overlooked?

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTOR, DRAMA

William Shatner, Boston Legal

Ted Danson, Damages

Zeljko Ivanek, Damages

Michael Emerson, Lost

John Slattery, Mad Men

This is one of the closer races of the night. Danson and Ivanek were both big stand-outs this year for their critically-acclaimed roles on Damages, but many would argue that a win for Emerson has been long overdue considering his dependably spine-chilling work as Benjamin Linus on Lost. Then again, John Slattery could ride to victory in a potential avalanche of Mad Men wins, and don’t ever rule out William Shatner, who’s been an Emmy darling ever since reviving his career as Denny Crane on Boston Legal.

Who will win: As much as it pains me to say it, I’m going with the Shat. This wouldn’t be the first time he’s beaten out a more deserving field, and the fact that the category is so crowded with talent means that there’s no clear front-runner to challenge him.

Who should win: There’s a strong case for any of the other four, but my vote would go to Ted Danson, who went toe to toe with Glenn Close in some of the most gripping television of the year.

OUTSTANDING SUPPORTING ACTRESS, DRAMA

Candice Bergen, Boston Legal

Rachel Griffiths, Brothers & Sisters

Chandra Wilson, Grey’s Anatomy

Sandra Oh, Grey’s Anatomy

Dianne Wiest, In Treatment

Two-time Oscar winner Dianne Wiest is the only “new” nominee here, as Bergen, Griffiths, Wilson, and Oh are all repeat nominees from the last few years. None of the four of them have won, mind you, at least not for these performances (Bergen won five Emmys for Murphy Brown, but has lost twice for Boston Legal). Notably absent: last year’s winner Katherine Heigl of Grey’s Anatomy, who officially pulled herself out of Emmy consideration, publicly citing a lack of good material, a rather ungrateful “fuck you” to the very same writers who helped her get her Emmy in the first place.

Who will win: My pick is Dianne Wiest, the only one of the bunch who hasn’t lost an Emmy race for the role she’s nominated for. None of the other four had a strong enough year to break their Emmy cold streaks.

Who should win: Julie Benz of Dexter, who wasn’t even nominated. Her work as a serial killer’s unsuspecting yet underestimated girlfriend is subtle and brilliant but constantly overlooked.

OUTSTANDING ACTRESS, DRAMA

Sally Field, Brothers & Sisters

Kyra Sedgwick, The Closer

Glenn Close, Damages

Mariska Hargitay, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit

Holly Hunter, Saving Grace

Last year’s winner Sally Field gave us another consistent year as the lovably meddling matron of the Walker clan on Brothers & Sisters, but an unconvincing attempt to revitalize her character’s love life with guest stars like Danny Glover and Chevy Chase will probably hurt her chances of a repeat. Hargitay has proven she can triumph, but is probably a long shot for a second win, while Holly Hunter’s award is probably the nomination itself. The Closer’s Kyra Sedgwick has been a familiar face in this category but has never been able to, um, close the deal.

Who will win: Glenn Close. She was absolutely electrifying on Damages, and without much stiff competition, should have a clear path to Emmy victory.

Who should win: No one else came close to Glenn this year.

OUTSTANDING ACTOR, DRAMA

James Spader, Boston Legal

Bryan Cranston, Breaking Bad

Michael C. Hall, Dexter

Hugh Laurie, House

Gabriel Byrne, In Treatment

Jon Hamm, Mad Men

Take perennial spoiler James Spader out of there, and this is a dream category. Don’t get me wrong - his work on Boston Legal is guilty fun, but the other five are in an entirely different league. Cranston reinvented himself with the wonderfully addicting Breaking Bad, Hall was murder as serial killer/good guy Dexter, Laurie was his fantastic self on House despite a bobbled cast shake-up, Gabriel Byrne was brooding, understated perfection on In Treatment, and Jon Hamm came out of nowhere to breathe life into one of the most interesting characters on television right now, Mad Men’s Don Draper.

Who will win: Jon Hamm. Not even Spader can prevent the Emmy voters from getting this one right – Hamm was simply too good to ignore, ushering in the next great American drama.

Who should win: Jon Hamm. It’s a true testament to how good he is on Mad Men to say that he has a clear path to the Emmy over the likes of the overdue Laurie, the breathtaking Hall, and the ever-surprising Cranston.

OUTSTANDING SERIES, DRAMA

Boston Legal

Damages

Dexter

House

Lost

Mad Men

Glad to see Lost nominated after returning to form with a stellar fourth season. Likewise for Dexter, which accomplished something in its second season that I didn’t think it could: topping the quality of the first season (here’s to hoping they can pull a hat trick with season three, starting up in a few weeks). I’m also happy to see that Damages made the cut, but incredibly bummed (although not surprised) that Boston Legal and House both made it in over The Wire's final season.

What will win: Unless Lost pulls a surprise upset, this should be Mad Men’s night. It’s the only show this year that stepped up to the plate and showed that it could fill the void left by The Sopranos, and Emmy voters will be eager to say thanks.

What should win: Mad Men. Say hello to the newest Emmy dynasty, folks.


Agree? Disagree? Pissed that Friday Night Lights was shut out? Leave your thoughts in the comments, and stay tuned next week for my take on the comedy match-ups.

For a complete list of 2008 Emmy nominees, click here.