Janine-The-Barefoot Reviews

Aftermath (2016)

Supernatural meets Walking Dead?

[7/10 · 28 September 2016]

Because the title of my review draws comparisons from two very well-known other shows, checking *spoilers* becomes a prerequisite regardless of what I end up telling you and what I leave out. I'm inclined to think that between the title of the show itself and the promos for it, the public in general is already aware of the premise of Aftermath. So inferring the question: Is this show just a combination of elements that are already present on shows that are heavily watched and regularly commented on doesn't feel like I'm crossing that line too egregiously.

I'm also very aware that it's difficult at best to write an "informed" review of a new show when all you've seen is one episode. That being said, we live in a world that bases any number of responses to a variety of things based solely on the notion of "first impressions". This review is an example of that practice in action. Although I'll work at not giving too much away, I'll still be including some observations I've made about that single episode which might be helpful in your choice to watch it or not and a bit of what to expect if you do.

First and foremost Aftermath is a show focused on the experiences and responses of a single, nuclear family as the world seems to be coming apart all around them. They're not "hunters" and it doesn't appear that they will be facing just one single threat. So in those aspects the show is nothing like my title might lead you to believe. I like the family, they are reasonably well cast and the pilot devotes time to both character development and a series of increasingly disturbing action sequences related to the ongoing effects and "aftermath" of the events which appear on the surface to be working together to change the world as we know it and the way in which we live our lives.

However, there is no denying that the script/story has been drawn from a number of other sources that the average viewer will already be completely familiar with... so, not so many points for originality. On the other hand, the shows debuting this Fall are littered with "been there done that" stories. One in particular focusing on a character from a show that has already earned it's own verb in the dictionary as a direct result of the original show and it's pop-culture influence. So being unoriginal and lazy, yet again, shouldn't be surprising to anyone who's spent any amount of time watching reruns of shows dating back over 20 years or more. Like I said, no points for originality.

The pacing is good as is the camera work and there is enough in the pilot to make a second look worthwhile IMO. Because I like their take on the "events" that lead to the "aftermath" and because I'm reasonably invested enough in this family and what they'll be facing, I'll be going back to the show for at least some few to several episodes more to see where TPTB are going to take this story. But it's nothing I'll be gushing over or that I'll end up needing a self-help support group to get me through during it's down time or the wait for another week to go by NOW because I want to know what's going to happen next so desperately I can hardly function (shout-out to "Luci" fans!).

Is this a great show? Probably not. It's going to take a lot of heat from people who find it too familiar and/or those who find it too cliché ridden to be worth watching. But to each his own. I can see both the good and the bad in how Aftermath has been put together. And truthfully, there are very few genuinely great, groundbreaking shows out there anymore. Style, verve and originality are as hard to come by as drama so compelling that you end up in awe of what's been put up on the screen. But for all it's flaws Aftermath appears to also be a show with some heart and some characters you can get behind and root for even if you've seen it done before. So I'll be coming back because the pilot and it's "first impression" has hooked me just enough to give them the benefit of the doubt for as long as they can hold onto it.

The Exorcist (2016–2018)

Because good storytelling is a worthy addiction.

[8/10 · 27 September 2016]

I'm not going to start with comparisons to either the book or the movie. I read the book, watched the film and did that over 40 years ago. Enough has been said about both in prior reviews that it just doesn't seem necessary for me to go over ground that's already been covered be it good or be it bad. So I'll start as I mean to go on and address THIS story in THIS TIME.

Good storytelling is a rare and beautiful thing. Using effects to define your characters instead of characters to be there while you show off the effects is becoming as rare as really good storytelling. So letting a plot play itself out in it's own time instead of at a breakneck pace designed to please horror/action fans who want action and gore to define a story instead of characters and the events that have shaped them is becoming equally rare. As the implosion of Penny Dreadful made many of us aware, good storytelling, incredible characters & actors, beautiful sets and costumes, combined with action in service of the story still wasn't enough to save it from destruction. One that many of us are still hurting over.

So now we have Fox's The Exorcist... and after only one episode (which is all it took me for PD by the way) I know enough to be willing to commit myself to whatever amount of time has been given to this series in it's freshman season. Because, for me, the bottom line is that it's a really good example of good storytelling and it's nice to come back to worthy TV after running off to the solace of my bookshelves after the great debacle that was S/3 of PD.

I like the priests. I like that we're seeing signs that their backstories are going to be more fleshed out. I was appreciative of the nod made to the movie out of what was clearly respect and I especially like that the family involved is both diverse and will also have stories of their own to tell. So, in short, it already appears to me that The Exorcist plans to be an actual STORY; played out over a season and that it takes itself, it's characters and it's audience seriously.

Right now, that's more than enough for me. In point of fact, it's enough to guarantee that I'm going to be there throughout it's freshman season hoping against hope that it too has started as it means to go on.

Dead of Summer (2016)

Think of it as a visit to that years old traditional state fair. There might not be anything new but sometimes familiarity can be fun!

[7/10 · 6 July 2016]

OK, so it's not Scream the original movie. It's not smart or sophisticated and it's not a fresh and exciting new take on an old genre. But if you let go of all your preconceptions and expectations, it CAN BE something else. It can be a summertime guilty pleasure; and that's not at bad thing at all. Because it's actually pretty easy to be entertained by something you don't expect much from… and if you do that with this show, you give it the potential to deliver.

First, everybody has something to hide so by the end of episode 2 you know that much of what you've seen isn't what it appears to be. Sure, it's been done before but in some cases, and with these people, the humans are just as scary as the ghosts! If nothing else, trying to figure out who's going to mess with whom and why can actually end up fun. Or, put another way, let the backstabbing begin and just try to follow the knife!

So what if the history of the camp has been seen and done before in any number of ways. We haven't seen it done with Tony Todd, who floats through the show like an avatar of death and destruction without giving the viewer enough knowledge yet to be certain of why he does it or what it actually means. So, bad guy? Yes. In this context? No way to know yet.

And by the end of episode 2 it would also appear that filing this show away in a box marked "guilty pleasures 2016" might not be a half bad idea. So give it two episodes, get out your popcorn and surrender your disbelief, cynicism and critical analysis. Don't try to take it apart, take it for what it is and enjoy the ride. It's not brilliant, surreal or groundbreaking. But neither is a trip to the old state fair and we enjoy going to that every year in spite of it all!

Houdini and Doyle (2016)

Well worth watching to decide if it's for you or not! I checked "spoilers" because I'm going to compare it to existing shows.

[7/10 · 29 March 2016]

First it's important to note that, as I said, I'm going to compare/contrast Houdini & Doyle to other shows that are currently airing or available to watch. I don't believe I'll be giving anything away about the show that isn't in the promos for it; but that doesn't mean others might not interpret it as such so better warned than sorry right?!

Houdini & Doyle is well written. Which is as good a place as any to start because the best actors in the world have a hard time doing their jobs well if they have nothing to work with right from the start. That, thankfully, is not a problem here. It's also quite well cast. An equally important point to the success or failure of any show. You need a good script and a good cast to bring it to life. It is also helpful to have great sets and costumes to make everything else within the story really "pop out of it" so-to-speak. It appears that the producers have been very respectful in capturing the elements of the period in London within which the story takes place and it also seems very respectful about remaining true to what we, the public, already know about these two great men. Both of whom are genuine historical icons and both of whom have specific character traits of which most are aware. I am genuinely pleased that what I've seen coincides with what I know. I also respect that the few surprises they've thrown in are both plausible and serve very well to make the show more interesting. So with all that in mind, here's what you really need to know about Houdini & Doyle the TV show.

First, unlike Jekyll & Hyde, they do not appear to be under the impression that what they are trying to create is "breakout television". This isn't Penny Dreadful and they know it. What's more, while they are creating a beautiful environment, that environment isn't designed to do anything more than be a place in which the events will unfold. Jekyll & Hyde, at least to me, seem to have created a spectacular collection of sets but given their actors very little to do within them. This is definitely not the case with H & D.

Also, unlike a wide variety of shows, they are not trying to take themselves too seriously and they're not going for either great depth or tremendous intensity. H & D is not necessarily "edge of your chair" viewing. But it works quite well for them because it's clear that this was something they were never going for in the first place. At it's core H & D is smart and funny with just a dash of intentional "fluffiness". So while it may not be "must-see TV", it is also most assuredly not a "guilty pleasure". H & D, to my way of thinking and seeing, is a show that's fun to watch, includes some great surprises along the way and is a new take on the notion of "English cozy" murder mysteries. The characters are quite human and all have interesting flaws. But they remain highly likable in spite or because of those flaws and it becomes clear in a hurry that while they may never admit it, they also genuinely like each other.

What really sets it apart from other procedural mysteries is that, although they assuredly want to solve each case and determine how each death occurred, they are taking entirely separate but scientific approaches in reasoning. And it is this fact that generates both the fun and the interest in what might otherwise be a fairly ordinary "murder of the week" mystery show. Plus, while Houdini might be sitting on one side of a "see-saw" so to speak, and Doyle sits at the completely opposite end, there is a quite fascinating and unusual third character sitting in the middle of them both. A character that makes everything come together for an entirely different set of motivations.

In the end, I like it! We're only 3 episodes in but I've made the commitment to ride through the first season with them because I'm truly intrigued by what I've seen so far. Remembering that this is a show to watch FOR FUN! They're not hiding anything, there are no secret pasts or agendas to figure out and it's not the story of "the everlasting great struggle between good and evil". If that's what you're looking for, go somewhere else. But if you're tired of waiting for the "agendas" to play out and sick to death of waiting for something important to finally happen on some other show… go watch H & D and relax! It's a little bit of fun, a little bit of mystery with a little bit of surprise thrown in to keep the mundane well out of the picture. It may not be brilliant programming, but since it isn't trying to be, it's able to do it's own thing well and more than satisfactorily!

So watch a few episodes and make up your own mind. In the meanwhile, I'm just going to be sitting here fervently hoping I have given you just enough information to make an informed choice. But not so much as to be blacklisted and thrown into an IMDb "black hole", never to be heard from again! ; - )

Jekyll and Hyde (I) (2015)

I wanted to like it, I really did .

[5/10 · 11 March 2016]

The production values are fantastic. The sets are gorgeous, the costumes spot-on the "Art-Deco"/"Steam Punk (like)" feel of the show all seem well thought out and acted upon. But 6-7 episodes in I still only knew the names of 3 characters: Ravi (the brother), Bella (the bar owner) and Jekyll/Hyde. I refer to the Richard E Grant character as "the richard e grant character" and the secretary of Jekyll's attorney as "Miss Lemon". Seriously! What that says to me is they've done a good job with the world building but haven't really given me characters that I actually CARE about… beyond Bella and Ravi. So given that Bella and Ravi are secondary characters to Jekyll & Hyde I'm pretty sure that's not what they were going for and I don't think it says much about getting me engaged in the story.

I don't have a problem suspending my disbelief. I find the various "monsters" intriguing and interesting but I just don't care enough about any of it to know virtually any of the characters NAMES!… Oh yeah, the "girlfriend scientist"… you get the picture. I know who is involved, I just don't CARE. So the sets, costumes, camera work and so forth, end up on the "cutting room floor" of my mind along with everything else the show is trying to accomplish.

I wanted to like this show. I really did. I love the genre. I just can't get behind all of the characters and I'm not sure that's the fault of the actors involved. The dialog doesn't engage me. The "action sequences" kinda leave me unimpressed and NOT wanting more. I engage for the scenes between Bella and Hyde but that's about it and that, in and of itself, is not enough to make me want to come back for more.

I can see why others may like it and even be excited about it. But for me, I just end up wishing they'd kill them all already and just get it over with. So I won't be coming back. Production values notwithstanding. There just isn't enough humanity in what is supposed to be a STUDY ON HUMANITY for me to give it more than 6-7 hours.

FYI- I only posted because the other reviews are largely supportive and encouraging and of course if those people like it they should say so! But it seems to me that the "other side" deserved just a little representation and hopefully enough anecdotal evidence to support my position. Naturally, everyone should decide for themselves and these boards are for the purpose of expressing those decisions and giving the uninitiated viewer some information on which to base their own decisions.