7 Reasons to Watch Hannibal

I'll admit it; Hannibal sounded like a terrible idea for a TV show. A prequel to Silence of the Lambs?  Really? Upon hearing the premise, I rolled my eyes and prepared myself for some snark upon its premiere. Then I read that Bryan Fuller was the creator. And it was starring Hugh Dancy. And then an intriguing trailer was released. And then positive reviews started rolling in.

So I entered the pilot with pretty positive expectations, but even so, I've been blown away by how good Hannibal is. Not only is it absorbingly entertaining, but it's also a really high quality show. Rather than just focusing on Hannibal the cannibal (Mads Mikkelsen), the show also pushes Will Graham (Hugh Dancy) to the forefront as a special agent to the FBI who uses his ability to empathize with murders to help solve their crimes. Hannibal serves as Will's unofficial psychologist, helping him deal with the emotional toll of the job. The dual leads provide variety to the show and have led to a far more interesting story arc than I'd expected.

Unfortunately Hannibal's ratings haven't correlated with its quality. For some reason, a lot of people just aren't watching. If you're one of these people, I'm here to convince you why you should start watching.

However, I will give one caveat; if you can't handle gore, don't watch Hannibal. It's such an excellent show that I don't mind a little bit of cringing, but if you're easily grossed out, Hannibal probably isn't the show for you. That being said, if you can handle some gore, Hannibal is excellent and well worth your time for many reasons including these seven.

1) It's visually beautiful.

I've said before that Pushing Daisies is the cutest show about murder ever. If Pushing Daisies is the cutest, Hannibal has to be the most gorgeously filmed. There's something very intriguing about the juxtaposition of disgusting body parts filmed in a beautiful way or a lush but cannibalistic feast. As gross as its content may be at times, visually Hannibal is an absolute treat.

2) The acting is top notch.

As mentioned earlier, I was a Hugh Dancy fan before watching Hannibal, but having only seen him in movies such as Ella Enchanted and Confessions of a Shopaholic, I had little indication as to how strong his dramatic acting chops are. However, they're on full display in Hannibal as he plays vulnerable, mentally unstable Will Graham. Mads Mikkelsen is also fantastic in his role as Hannibal. He plays a different, more sophisticated Hannibal than Anthony Hopkins that allows his work to stand on its own rather than suffer from comparisons of quality. The supporting cast is great as well with no real weak links.

3) Hugh Dancy

Hugh Dancy's acting in Hannibal is fantastic, but I also just like to look at his face. If you tune into Hannibal, you can too. Plus isn't his name just fun to say? If you start watching, you'll have plenty of opportunities to say "Hugh Dancy" as you tell your friends how much you love the show.

4) There are familiar names and faces for Bryan Fuller fans.

If you're a fan of Bryan Fuller's previous shows (Dead Like Me, Pushing Daisies, Wonderfalls or possibly even the short-lived Mockingbird Lane) and aren't averse to the aforementioned gore, you definitely should give Hannibal a try. Caroline Dhavernas (aka Jaye Tyler from Wonderfalls) is a series regular, and several actors from Fullers' other shows have made briefer appearances, including Ellen Greene (Pushing Daisies) and Eddie Izzard (Mockingbird Lane). Additionally, Dead Like Me's Ellen Muth is set to appear in an upcoming episode. Even more, an actual character has crossed over between worlds. Wonderfall's Gretchen Speck-Horowitz appears in an episode of Hannibal as a diabetic picking up a prescription. In another episode, a Miriam Regina Lass appears, a name that should ring some bells for Dead Like Me fans.

5) The fun community

For such a dark show, Hannibal's crew, cast and fans have a lot of fun with the show online. Bryan Fuller shares tons of tidbits and jokes on Twitter and is very interactive with fans. Aaron Abrams, who plays one of the crime scene investigators on Hannibal, made me laugh with a tweet about his method of positively reinforcing Hugh Dancy. A quick search for Hannibal on Tumblr or Twitter will also reveal a trove of fun comments and gifs from the show's fans. In particular, the dark humor of the "blank is people" jokes seldom fails to amuse me.

6) It's creative.

I'm not always a fan of procedurals. While there might be a standout episode here and there or a great cast that elevates the writing, I find most of these shows tend to be a little boring and monotonous from week to week. The grotesque yet captivating imagery of Hannibal, however, is far from boring. For instance, a memorable episode features humans used as mushroom fertilizer. Fans of Pushing Daisies should remember, Fuller's flair for creative deaths; it's just that deaths in Hannibal are coated with gritty realism rather than the cartoonish surrealism of Pushing Daisies.

7) Doggies!

I can pinpoint the moment in Hannibal's pilot that Will Graham won me over. He picks up a stray dog, only to take him home and introduce him to a whole pack of strays. Cute dogs are almost always plus. And those like me with lingering memories of the puppy torture chamber from The Following's pilot need not fear; Bryan Fuller has tweeted a guarantee of dog safety.


If you want to check out the creativity, acting and cinematography (or Hugh Dancy) yourself, you can watch Hannibal Thursdays on NBC at 10/9c.

4 of the Worst Wigs on TV This Season

If you've read much of this blog, you've probably come to realize that I love to make fun of things. One of the things I've enjoyed laughing at this television season is bad wigs. I'm definitely no hair expert, so if I've managed to notice someone wearing a wig, it's got to be pretty bad. I've put together a short list of some of the latest fake hairdos I've enjoyed mocking.

1. Carrie Bradshaw from The Carrie Diaries

"What? This one's not that bad," you may say. Don't worry. I thought I'd ease into some of the more horrific hair. Carrie's bouncy curls from The Carrie Diaries pilot looked notably different by the second episode. That's because Carrie's wig first made its appearance then. Admittedly, the wig looks okay enough to me in some scenes (although see my "definitely no hair expert" comment above), but when it's clearly standing apart from her scalp, as in the still above, it's hard to take it seriously.

2. China White from Arrow

I only watched the first several Arrow episodes, but one aspect of the show was burned into my mind: China White's cheap Lady Gaga costume wig. I don't actually know if the wig was cheap or not, but I find it hard to believe it cost more than thirty bucks. Kelly Hu was awesome in The Vampire Diaries as Pearl, but with this travesty of a wig, China seemed more of a joke than a villain.

3. Huck Finn from Scandal

I think it's time I give the CW a break and move on to another network, ABC. I literally burst out laughing when I saw Huck's flashback wig in the episode "A Criminal, a Whore, an Idiot and a Liar" of Scandal. Then I did an instant rewind on the DVR and laughed again. This wig looks more like some sort of dead animal or couch stuffing than a head of hair. I think the guy in the background is supposed to be reacting to Huck's smell, but it could also serve as a reaction to that hideous hair.

4. Kristina Braverman from Parenthood

Perhaps the most notable entry on this list isn't exactly a wig; it's a bald cap. This season of Parenthood has been fantastic. Kristina's breast cancer storyline has been extremely touching and at times tear-jerking. Monica Potter's acting has been fantastic. That being said, Kristina's bald cap is hilariously bad. Monica Potter has a lot of hair, and when put under a bald cap, her head looks ridiculously deformed. I can completely understand Monica Potter not wanting to actually shave her head for the role, but the resulting look is very Conehead.


These are my four choices for the worst wigs of the TV season, but I'm sure I skipped some terrifically terrible ones. If you have another addition to the list, let me know in the comments.

LOL, Okay: A Review of Revolution 1x01, "Pilot"

For the past several years, many shows have tried to fill the television void left by Lost. These shows vary, dealing with everything from aliens (The Event) to dinosaurs (Terra Nova) to worldwide blackouts (FlashForward), but they all try to replicate Lost's complex mysteries and mythology. Even if these shows don't intentionally imitate Lost, the comparisons are inevitable.

This fall season's Lost-esque contender (which actually has J.J. Abrams attached as a producer) is Revolution, a show about the world 15 years after all electricity has been shut off. More specifically, it focuses on Charlie Matheson (played by relative newcomer Tracy Spiridakos), a plucky young woman trying to find her uncle and obtain his help to get her brother Danny back after he's been taken by the evil "militia."

So is Revolution any good? 

Let's start with the positive. During the 44 minutes I was watching Revolution's pilot, I was never bored. There's some exposition and a few flashbacks, but most of the episode focuses on the show's here and now. The pilot is pretty well-paced and moves along fairly quickly. There's a good bit of action, but there's also some smaller moments that let viewers begin to get to know the characters and understand what they're going through. One of my favorite moments of the pilot was a short scene right after the power goes out where Charlie's parents let her eat as much melting ice cream as she wants and tell her to remember what it tastes like.

The characters themselves are a bit of mixed bag. I'm going to need a few more episodes to decide how I feel about the show's female lead Charlie. I think she could be a likable character, but her can-do spirit and repetition of the "we're family" argument could also become grating. Her gruff uncle Miles (played by Twilight's Billy Burke) serves as a nice foil to Charlie. Miles is probably my favorite character. He's kind enough to be likable, but his pessimism adds a nice element of spice that the show needs. My second favorite character is Aaron (Zak Orth), a semi-dorky ex-Google employee, who provided a not overly over-the-top bit of comic relief.

I loved Giancarlo Esposito's performance as Gus on Breaking Bad, but his performance here as Captain Neville, part of the militia, is decidedly less impressive. His threat to Charlie's dad to "re-educate" his teenaged children so that they wouldn't remember his name is a joke compared to Gus's threatening of Walt's family. Pretty much everyone who plays a bad guy in Revolution is similarly campy and over-the top. Watching them trot around on horses made me laugh rather than fear them. Monroe, presumably at least the show's intial big bad, didn't get enough screen time for me to decide if he suffers from similar campiness. However, his giant tattoo of his own name on his arm points to yes.

It isn't just the villains of Revolution that are campy. The whole show is pretty silly. I admittedly don't know much about what the world would look like if electricity everywhere was shut off (and maybe Revolution is spot on), but I feel like Revolution takes some major liberties with the concept. It explains that many people died from lack of medicine and other complications of the electricity blackout, but the world looks far more deserted (and full of vegetation) than I would expect it to a mere fifteen years after the blackout.

I enjoyed watching Revolution quite a bit, but I managed to do so by saying "LOL, okay" to many of its aspects and embracing the silliness. Here's a sample of those "LOL, okay" moments.

Warning: This section may contain spoilers from Revolution's pilot.

These children's clothes? LOL, okay.

This magical electricity necklace? LOL, okay.

Danny using a crossbow? LOL, okay.

Gus on a horse? LOL, okay.

More 19th century clothing? LOL, okay.

The idea that Danny could even temporarily escape the militia's capture? LOL, okay.

Expecting us to think Elizabeth Mitchell's character is really dead? LOL, okay. (Although I suppose I may have to eat my words on that one if she really is.)

Nate's general existence? LOL, okay.

Danny's general existence? LOL, okay.

Extreme vegetation? LOL, okay.

The fight scene where Miles takes on a hoard of men with only minimal help? LOL, okay.

This tattoo? LOL, Okay.

Vague, covert instant messaging using the handy, dandy electro-pendant? LOL, okay.

Revolution is no Lost. It's silly and will probably end up suffering from some of the same problems that Lost's failed successors have. Still, it's pretty fun, and I'm interested to see where it's going. If you enjoy high-concept, mysterious shows and can accept the absurdities of Revolution with a "LOL, okay," (I promise guys. That's the last time I'm going to use that phrase. Well, it's the last time in this post.) it's worth a shot.

If you're interested in Revolution, you can check out its pilot now on Hulu or NBC.com. Alternatively, you can wait until its television premiere on NBC on Monday, September 17 at 10/9c.

Have you seen Revolution's pilot yet? What did you think? Who's your favorite (or least favorite) character? What moments, if any, stood out as absurd to you? Do you plan to keep watching? Let me know in the comments.

Go On: 1x01, "Pilot"

I wasn't planning on watching Go On. I love Chandler Bing as much as the next person, but Go On's promotion didn't appeal to me. However, I changed my mind when I saw that NBC was going to air Go On's pilot early. Go On is the first fall pilot I've seen pop up this year, and that was enough for me to give it a shot. What can I say? I'm easily swayed.



Go On isn't completely terrible; I like the show's concept, and I like Matthew Perry. One of the problems with Go On, however, is that it feels second-rate in several ways. Its setup is similar to Community, but I far prefer Community's community college environment and cast of characters (It's been a while since I've seen Community's pilot, but I feel it was much stronger at these aspects even then.). Matthew Perry's Ryan King is definitely Chandler-esque, but he's a muted version saddled with emotional baggage.

In fact, most of Go On has a muted feel to it. I didn't really connect with the show's comedic moments or its dramatic ones. The emotional aspect felt forced and most of its comedy felt stale. I didn't feel like these elements were balanced particularly well either; it was as if the show tried for both and ended up with neither.

I do have to give Go On some credit for its standout scene. The March Sadness bit was pretty funny and a nice way to introduce the therapy group. It was definitely the freshest moment of Go On. It was pretty presumptuous for Ryan to propose such a game after spending only a few minutes in therapy, and I thought the show seemed to overly glorify his methods while treating the group's leader Lauren like a joke. Perhaps future episodes will do a better job with that balance.

For the most part, however, I didn't really enjoy Go On very much. It wasn't particularly bad, but other than the March Sadness scene, it just didn't work for me. With its setup, it could very well turn into a fun show, but without some changes, I'm going to have to give it a pass. I'm probably not going to watch again, but if I hear good things about future episodes, I may give Go On another go.

Masochistic Viewings: Whitney "The Ex Box" 1x19

There's a fair amount of television shows that I love to scorn and mock that I've never actually taken the time to watch. Perhaps it's unfair of me to do so, but I've had a hard time subjecting to myself to these shows that appear to be so atrocious. That changes, at least in part, today. In Masochistic Viewings, I'm going to subject myself to shows that I've ridiculed but never actually watched. Who knows? Maybe I'll prove myself wrong and find a new favorite show, but it's more likely I'll just grow stronger in my hatred.

For my first victim (or I suppose you could say torturer), I've chosen Whitney. I've showered hatred upon Whitney for a while and cringe every time I see the commercials, but I've never actually watched an episode until now.

Source: Screencap

I'm going to assume that the episode I watched, "The Ex Box," was a fair representation of the show because two of the Hulu reviews mentioned that it was much better than the earlier episodes. "The Ex Box" was bad enough that I shudder to think what atrocities would lay in store if I were to turn to the pilot, but before I go further into that, I'll give a quick recap of the storylines.

 The episode featured three storylines. In the A story, Whitney finds a box filled with items that belonged to an ex of her boyfriend Alex and through a confrontation with him, discovers that he had actually been engaged to the aforementioned ex. After realizing that he treated the girl poorly, she forces him to return the box. In the B story, two girls who appear to be Whitney's friends have to learn to live with each other despite one of them's Type A personality. In the C story, some guy worried about seeing his ex after their recent break-up.

I didn't really enjoy any of these storylines. The A story perhaps could have been handled well on a better show, but with these characters it was just obnoxious. The B story never seemed to go much of anywhere, and the C story was hardly there at all.

Probably the worst aspect of the show was the characters. There was not even one character that I remotely liked. In fact, I'm not sure there was a character that I didn't actively hate. The actors didn't do the characters any favors either. Perhaps they just realize how bad the show is and just don't care, but their performances had little life in them. One of the only actors who put energy in her performance was the guest star playing Alex's ex, but that energy was channeled towards putting in a performance so annoying that she beat out Whitney as my least favorite character.

I also really didn't care for the relationship between the two main characters, Whitney and Alex. From what I could tell, their relationship largely consists of Whitney ranting about some minor issue while Alex throws in a few sarcastic comments about her. In their first scene together, the first genuine smile she gives him (she gives plenty of sarcastic ones before that) follows a comment he makes about wanting to dismember her. That totally sounds like a great relationship, right? There was a brief scene at the end where they actually seemed to kind of like each other, but even then, they didn't have a lot of chemistry.

Note the glee in her face upon hearing her boyfriend talking about dismembering her.

 Source: Screencap

In addition to unlikable characters, Whitney also had a lot of stale references. It was almost as if the writers picked up a People magazine from a couple of years ago, picked a few names at random, and then worked them in awkwardly. For example, there was a Heather Graham reference when Whitney finds a box of tube tops and scrunchies (I'm honestly not that knowledgeable about Heather Graham. So I suppose it's possible this joke went beyond critiquing her style, and I just didn't understand it.), and a David Spade reference about being a player or something. Whitney did manage to fit in one relevant remark about someone's life being like a movie that would feature Taylor Swift on its soundtrack. However, one reference that basically just acknowledges something that currently happens is just not that impressive when there are shows like Happy Endings that throw out clever, relevant references at lightning speed every week.

The references weren't the only stale aspect of this episode's writing; most of the jokes felt stale as well. I felt like the majority of the jokes had been stripped from other sitcoms with the humor completely removed. Without good comedic timing or stellar performances to help them out, the stale jokes seemed especially bad.

In addition to bad writing, Whitney also featured bad editing. Several of the scenes seemed to end in an awkward place. The actors would recite a few lines, and then the scene would be over without any real sense of completion. While I don't think it would improve the show, better editing would probably make the show at least look a bit more polished.

So how did the show measure up to my expectations?
Look, I know I've been pretty tough on "The Ex Box," but to be honest, it wasn't quite as bad as I expected it to be. It was, however, probably more not good than I thought it would be. I may have anticipated worse jokes than the show actually contained or more annoying storylines, but I expected that there would be at least some redeeming value to the show. I couldn't come up with one. I didn't enjoy any of the characters, the jokes, the plots, or even the editing. The whole episode was devoid of any charm or likability. Based on this episode, I'd say my unjustified dislike of the show has just been justified.

Battle of the Sci-fi Pilots: Touch Versus Awake

It's that time of year when the mid-season pilots are premiering, and if you've been watching FOX and NBC, you've likely seen promos for Touch and Awake. I was intrigued by these shows because they both feature science fiction premises. While neither of these shows are actually currently airing, both have already previewed their pilots. FOX's Touch aired its pilot at the end of January, but the show is set to actually premiere on March 19. NBC's Awake released its pilot last Thursday and is set to premiere on March 1. While the premises of the show aren't really similar, there are few enough sci-fi shows on network television that I think it's fair to compare the two. Having seen both pilots, I'm going to do just that.

Touch

Premise:

Widower Martin Bohm (Kiefer Sutherland) is having trouble connecting with his mute son Jake (David Mazouz), but he starts to suspect that Jake is using numbers to communicate. These numbers bring about unlikely connections, and it appears that Jake can see things that others can't.

The Good: 

Part of my motivation for watching Touch stemmed from the fact that it comes from Tim Kring, the creator of Heroes. As an avid fan of Heroes' first season, I was hoping for something similar. In that manner, Touch didn't totally disappoint. Much like Heroes, it portrayed a wide variety of people around the world and then began to bring them together. This was an interesting aspect, and I liked the way that the storylines connected.


Additionally, I appreciated that there were some likable and familiar faces among the cast. Having never watched 24, I'm not really familiar with Kiefer Sutherland's work. That being said, there's something likable about him (although it may partially be that Kiefer is a super fun name to say). As a recent Doctor Who fan, I was excited to see Gugu Mbatha-Raw who I recognized as Tish Jones, Martha's sister. Although I'm ashamed to admit that I didn't recognize him until I did a quick IMDB search, What I Like About You's David de Lautour had a small role in the pilot of Touch as well.

The Bad:

Probably the biggest issue I had with Touch is that the pilot was cloying sappy. The show was so desperate to make me feel sorry for Sutherland's character and his son that it didn't quite feel genuine. For a show called Touch that's about the connections between people, I really failed to connect with any of the characters. They seemed more like sob stories than actual people.

Another issue I had with the pilot is that it was honestly kind of dull. I think I paused the episode 2 or 3 times before actually finishing it. While the idea of kid who knows things that he shouldn't is somewhat intriguing, it's just not that interesting to watch. I'd take Heroes-esque superpowers over that any day.

Will I Keep Watching:

When I first finished Touch's pilot, I thought that I might watch a couple more episodes to see where the show is going. However, the more I think about the pilot, the less I'm motivated to watch any more of Touch. Even writing this review, I was kind of surprised at how negative I felt towards it. It wasn't completely irredeemable, but it wasn't very interesting either. As I have plenty of shows to watch at the moment, it's doubtful that I'll keep watching.

When It Airs:

You can currently watch Touch's pilot at Hulu or on FOX's website. The show officially premieres on FOX on Monday, March 19 at 9/8c.

Awake

Premise:

After suffering a car accident with his wife and son, police detective Michael Britten (Jason Issacs) finds himself switching between two realities every time he goes to sleep. In one reality, his son is alive and his wife is dead; in the other reality, the reverse is true. Additionally, Michael's different cases in the two realities start to bleed together.

The Good:

I thought Awake's pilot was a solid start to the show. The premise is definitely intriguing and is a large part of what hooked me into watching the show, but it's not the show's only strength. I think Awake's cast was chosen well, and they all, particularly Issacs, put forth good performances. There was some sentimentality in the pilot in dealing with the deaths of Michael's family. However, it felt naturally derived from the plot rather than tacked only solely for the sake of stirring the audience's emotions. I felt connected enough to the main characters that I could feel bad for Michael's and his family's pain.

One of the best aspects of the pilot is simply that it made me excited to see where the show is headed. I want to know what's going to happen; I want to find out why Michael's experiencing two realities. It's a good sign when a pilot stirs curiosity in its viewers.

The Bad:

I don't have many complaints about Awake's pilot. I suppose the two cases that were featured were somewhat generic. As the pilot set up the show's slightly complicated premise in addition to featuring Michael's cases, however, I suspect that future episodes will improve in this aspect. To be honest, I'm just assuming that they're going to keep a crime-of-the-week aspect to show, but I don't know for certain.

My only other issue is that it became slightly confusing to keep the two realities straight. However, it wasn't too difficult, and the fact that Michael has different partners and wears different colored bracelets in each reality helped greatly.

Will I Keep Watching:

I'm going to answer this with a definite yes. I am slightly skeptical of how the concept of Awake will work past the pilot. The show could certainly lose its luster and focus over time, but I'm just going to hope the writers have inventive plans for the rest of the series. I'm certainly interested to see where the show is going, and I feel like I'm going to have some fun speculating about Awake.

When It Airs:

You can currently watch Awake's pilot at Hulu or on NBC's website. The show officially premieres on NBC on Thursday, March 1 at 10/9c.

 Bottom Line

I think Awake is a much superior show to Touch, and it's the only one of the two that I plan to keep watching. I found it to be a much fresher, genuine, and intriguing show. Particularly with sci-fi shows, it can often be hard to tell where the show is headed by simply viewing the pilot. However, judging solely by their pilots, Awake is going to be worth your time far more than Touch is.