On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote:
> I watched the first five minutes of Playboy Club, and was all that I > could take. For a certain era (mine), the concept of the Playboy Club > conjures images of a bygone era where class combined with sex combined > with mystery combined with cool. In the series premiere, a bunny gets > nearly raped and ends up killing a fat man by stabbing him in his > throat with the heel of her shoe. I think the series features some > terrific actors, and I'll never watch it again. > > By contrast, I don't like Christina Ricci, but Pan Am was watchable. > Maybe it was Thommie Schlamme's directing, but the script didn't suck. > It runs the risk of turning into a winged Love Boat (with more cruise > directors), but I'll give it a shot. > > I haven't caught Charlie's Angels yet, but both Angels and Am are free > downloads at the iTunes Store this week. > I thought Playboy Club was better than I feared it would be. The guy playing Jon Hamm is pretty good, and it created a pretty good vibe. I am not sure what era Kevin is referring to - I am older than him and I have never associated the Playboy Club with mystery or cool (and even the sex I do associate it with is not of the highest caliber). Perhaps this is why I did not dislike the show as much as Kevin. I will probably watch a few more episodes and see if it is worth recording (for now, just catching it On Demand). Sadly, I did watch Charlie's Angels. It hardly seems fair to dump on a show for which nothing in its pedigree suggests it has any of the ingredients that lead to quality television. The original was camp, and the Barymore films were hack. I guess it was just nostalgia that brought me back (and the hope that finally getting to enjoy Minka Kelly without the guilt of lusting after a high school student might be worth the IQ drain). But here low expectations did not help. This is one really, really, bad show. This is probably the worst hour of television I have watched since I got the mini-dish about 15 years ago. If possible, the dialogue was actually worse than the original - to be fair, the story was probably only just as thin. Charlie sounds more like the voice over on a really bad cartoon than a disembodied suave playboy. Back in the 70s we watched Charlie's Angeles because there were fewer easy ways for sweaty adolescents to see jiggling boobs and tight asses. With the internet, even the sweatiest adolescent can see all of that and more on demand - so a show like this has to try to have a little quality of some kind to justify its existence. I have not seen Pan Am yet - I was getting more of a chick flick type vibe off one of the previews, so did not have it high on my list - maybe I will check it out this weekend. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
