Hooksexup blogs
-
scanner-
screengrab-
daily siege-
kate & camilla-
rose & olive-
the prowl-
blog-a-log
Rose & Olive
Scanner
Your daily cup of WTF?
Hooksexup@SXSW 2006.
Blogging the Roman Orgy of Indie-music Festivals.
Coming Soon!
Coming Soon!
Coming Soon!
The Daily Siege
An intimate and provocative look at Siege's life, work and loves.
Kate & Camilla
two best friends pursue business and pleasure in NYC.
Naughty James
The lustful, frantic diary of a young London photographer.
The Hooksexup Blog-a-log
The Prowl, with Ryan Pfluger
ScreenGrab
The Hooksexup Film Blog
Hooksexup @ Cannes Film Festival
May 16 - May 25
ScreenGrab
The Hooksexup Film Blog
|
 |
Reader Feedback on "Sketchy"
You are all wrong. Written very well with refereshing acting. Doesn't anyone give a TV show three or four episodes before they call it bad? Amateurs!
--KeA
10/11 |
I think you're wrong about Friends. It was, at least for a few season, sharp, funny and fast paced. Yes, it was self-indulgent and inconsequential. But not everything has to be brain food. It was a show that captured the moment and that had a lot of laughs. Yes, Studio 60 isn't as thoughtful as the West Wing. And yes, Perry mugs it up. But I spent an entertaining and lively hour with Studio 60 and I think there's nothing wrong with that.
--jkr
10/05 |
There are 2 major flaws with Studio 60: 1. Amanda Peet can't act 2. the show-within-a-show isn't funny. It has a lot of potential and I think it's gotten better every week. But in this reviewer summed up the pilot very well. It's clearly no West Wing. Not yet, anyway.
--as
10/03 |
Guess we watched a different show. I thought the G&S bit was hysterical and loved the way Sorkin keeps you guessing about everyone's back history. We TiVo'd the show and have watched it at least once a day since it came on -- can't wait to see what they do next. I thought that Matt Perry was almost the anti-Chandler on this -- way more serious and deep but I did see a lot of the Josh Lyman stuff in Whitford's talks to the writers and cast. I think this is the best thing to come on since the first couple of season of West Wing
--KPB
10/02 |
uh oh. looks like the aaron sorkin fanboys are out in force. hate to snap you out of denial, but this is not 'the west wing' or 'sports night' - not by a long shot. it's the worst kind of satire: one that purports to skewer but patronizes instead. a takeoff on 'network' might have had bite or relevance ten years ago, but not now. today, movies are lowest common denominator; tv is actually better than ever. i found studio 60 to be ill-conceived, fatally miscast and just not entertaining. looks like most of america agrees: the ratings have dropped week to week, and each successive half-hour has rated lower than the previous one. not a good sign.
--cd
09/26 |
You obviously have absolutely no idea what your talking about and dont get sarcasm at all.
--FU
09/26 |
You say the Gilbert and Sullivan number was to apologize for the previous weeks rant, and that being "the very model of a modern network TV show" is not what either Studio 60 wants to be...you miss the point. Just because your humor is self-depricating, does not mean its an apology. In Judd Hirsch's rant last week he called the networks whorehouses whose content is just this side of snuff films, yet they are controlled to a point by interest groups, particularly evangelicals. "We'll be the very model of a modern network TV show" was a mock apology whose true meaning was closer to "Judd was right, network TV is crap, we arent gonna play to the special interests who drain TV of its life and message in the quest for non-offensive content." The best humor always offends people...they weren't saying I'm Sorry, they were saying We're gonna make people laugh and not care that a minority of people who don't even watch the show are gonna be offended....and by the way, we hope you don't mind our producer got caught doing blow....
--BAW
09/26 |
From your review, I'm guessing you were the head of LemonLyman.com, and will never be happy with anything on TV...bad acting my Matthew Perry? Have you ever been on painkillers? you don't talk like a normal person (or even a normal tv character). "Crazy Christians" is a bad sketch title? How does the title of a 2 minute sketch have anything to do with how funny it is? You think they finish the sketch and then sit there trying to think of a good title? Its not a movie, whose title has to grab people...its sketch comedy, people are watching already. Let Sorkin develop these characters before you start saying how unbelievable they are. The show is good, and showtunes might not be your cup of tea but I laughed harder during that opening sketch than I have at SNL in years.
--AMG
09/26 |
i have not seen the second episode (time warner problems) and i am hopeful that it will deliver. I think the show's strength / greatest intrigue lies in the narrative -- it's certainly intereting subject matter and I am looking forward to episode 2, but not with the degree of anticipation that i await the best of the HBO shows -- 6 feet under and Deadwood in my opinion, which deliver on all fronts -- or west wing, for that matter. of course to be fair its a different animal because it is written and cast for a larger audience --smells like a big head product rather than a long tail one -- and therefore there is a higher priority on characters' *likeability*. Amanda Peet makes sense because she is endearing in that position -- she is eminently likeable -- but she is as believable as a studio head as a 9th grader reading old english. my read is that Sorkin made a conscious decision to cast a more likeable collection of characters in order to make the show more commercially viable, much as Cormac McCarthy chose to create his first likeable protagonist in All the Pretty Horses, which sure enough busted him out of obscurity (albeit Macarthur genius grant obscurity). compared with the West Wing cast, the studio 60 cast has a higher ratio of sugar to nutrition ... west wing was a bit more of an acquired taste. but there is no doubt that this good television on a fascinating subject.
--ruf
09/26 |
Timothy Busfield is more often remembered for his role as Elliot on ABC's "Thirtysomething", which was also run on Lifetime for several years.
--WDL
09/24 |
You seem sidetracked by the SNL phenomenon itself. Studio 60 cannot be a documentary about SNL, it only uses the SNL-idea to set up it's own fictional glitz and to expose what is behind the glitz... If the show within the show gets too interesting then behind the scenes may be unnecessary, or if the show within the show is really bad, then we have no more interest in the people who are putting on the show. This built-in ambiguity may be more than some viewers will be able to tolerate. It also may be more than the writers of Studio 60 are able to handle themselves, but time will show - as well as expose what they are really trying for - if anything..
--pek
09/23 |
SNL has been so bad for so long, and Studio 60 helps explain why, I guess. M Perry needs better writing, just like you said. Here's the big question.... WHY is SNL so unfunny? I know funny people all over the place. Is SNL dooming funny people? I think more likely the answer is Lorne just doesn't know funny.
--JW
09/23 |
By the way, Timothy Busfield was on the West Wing (for that matter so was Matthew Perry) and his character dated that Press Secretary/Chief of Staff lady (Allison Janey)They eventually got married and had a baby.......I saw the preview version of Studio 60 and thought it wasn't perfect, but not bad. Like West wing it will tighten upo and find it's legs. Even at it's worst, it is better than most of the rest of TV. The thing I absolutely hated was that they cut the moment when Tim Busfield's character cut to the Studio 60 opening credits. The preview played the great jazz tune and let the credits of the show roll, but the tv version, cut to the next scene way to soon and they lost the set up for the next scene.....in cutting the music they lost the rythm and that is something that the show itself will have to find. I just hope NBC gives it the chance.....
--DBP
09/23 |
Your objection for "Studio 60" seems to stem from the fact that you didn't know everything and see everything in the first two episodes -- or however many you may have screened. Your's is basically a form of t.v. gluttony, wanting instant comsumption and stereotypes for the mold. Real stories -- and really good writing -- unravel characters, not vomit out information than attempt to collect it all back for presentation. And within your critique you seem to have stumbled into thinking that by providing you with two personality traits for two characters, you have some how reached the end of their depth. To that I would say that Sorkin will probably demonstrate that they are more than two simple assumptions as "likeable" and "talented." But mostly I think your true objection is that the writing is such that you can't get your arms around it, leaving the illogical assumption that the writer is the one at fault for this. I'd say it's probably you.
--MAT
09/20 |
Don't quit your day job as a painter/cover band idol. I think this review sucks! I saw the pilot for Studio 60 and it ROCKED! Great writing from Sorkin & Schlamme (as expected - I'm a huge fan of The West Wing) and I thought Matthew Perry and the rest of the ensemble were very well cast. I had my doubts about Mr. Perry, but he really surpised me. He has range. Not for a minute did I think of Chandler Bing. But then again, I tend to like snarky, cleverly written dialouge. If you're looking for loser with a CAPITAL L...try Kidnapped. Oy! there is an hour I wish I could have back. Oh and by the way, there are in fact people who speak with an air of witty sarcasm but i wouldn't expect that you'd know any of them.
--DG
09/20 |
but i will keep watching it ... much as a restaurant with mediocre food but a great atmosphere works for me, if they can deliver interesting narrative and cultural commentary, i will lap up bland humor and overstretched actors.
--ted
09/20 |
here's the problem for me: the show has the predictable -- but reliable -- humor patterns of Friends and their ilk alongside the innovative, irreverent narrative strategies of the west wing ... it feels schizophrenic. Perhaps the biggest single failing, imo, is that amanda peet cannot project the kind of intelligence and gravitas that the woman who plaid the press secretary and then chief of staff projected in the west wing. the one thing an actor cannot fake is intelligence/wisdom, and the west wing worked because the cast genuinely seemed smart enough to be the creators of the words coming out of their mouths. the chief of staff woman in west wing was the ballast of the show ... amanda just doesn't have the weight of personality / believability to provide that ballast.
--ted
09/20 |
Tell, don't show - exactly! This is typical Sorkin. What was the West Wing except bluster about their genius political manuevering and brilliant speeches, that the audience never got to see? And I'm really starting to hate Sorkin's "breathing guts." Though I'd never heard it before, I liked it when Natalie said it about Jeremy in Sports Night. He earned it, and those two had some chemistry, boy. So it sounded like a a Natalie-ism. Then Donna said it to Josh on the West Wing, and she barely meant it. Now we have a character we don't know yet (and probably won't like -- an inspirational CD? the 700 Club? This is a comic? Oh, I get it - this a play on Kristin Chenoweth. Got a little crush, Aaron?) -- saying it about a character who hasn't even been introduced yet. So this is telling me that Sorkin's ladies are pretty much interchangeable, and not the unique, quirky characters I was smitten with on Sports Night. And don't even get me started on Gilbert & Sullivan... Ugh! (But I'll watch it, 'cause there's nothing else on.)
--KR
09/19 |
Few things: I miss the West Wing too. Also, I also remember Timothy Busfield from Revenge of the Nerds. What few people also remember is that Bradley Whitford played antagonist Rog in Revenge of the Nerds II. Also, having seen Matthew Perry in things other than Friends, the question that begs to be asked is: How much of Matthew Perry is in Chandler that maybe he's also bringing to Matt Albie? Having also seen the second episode -- I'm lucky -- He does tone it down a bit, playing a bit more on par with his role opposite Bradley Whitford in the West Wing. Now THAT was a Matthew Perry performance!
--WBB
09/19 |
I'm not saying it was perfect- you're spot-on about Matthew Perry needing to tone down his Chandlerness- but I quite liked the premiere. If I wanted 100% realism, I wouldn't be watching television.
--JLA
09/19 |
Way to review!
--JS
09/18 |
p.s. i miss the west wing.
--stj
09/18 |
discouraging, but i will tune in anyway, and i hope that they read your review.
--stj
09/18 |
Actually, I remember Timothy Busfield from 30-Something and Revenge of the Nerds. But I guess I'm dating myself, huh?
--REM
09/18 |
send feedback on "Sketchy"
back to "Sketchy" |
|
|
