Knee-jerk review: Fox's "Fringe"

1. Oh how we love this show.
2. It's clearly a descendant of "The X-Files." But one could argue that this show is better in that the overarching mythology still makes sense and the producers aren't afraid to answer questions and keep the plot moving forward. That's in contrast to the frustrating way "The X-Files" was determined to keep everything as murky as possible for as long as possible. (We hated "X-Files" mythology episodes.) For every question that was answered, three new ones were posed and eventually audiences stopped caring and changed the channel. This is the same sort of thing that crippled "Lost."
3. Very clever of the writers, the way so many lines of dialogue had that "Peter is gone and I don't even know it" double-meaning.
4. Agent Lee's horn-rim glasses. Very 1960s chic.
5. It's clear evidence of genre bias the way Emmy ignores this show. John Noble has been doing sterling work since the very beginning and now with Anna Torv playing two very different versions of the same person (the first scene of this episode should go directly to Emmy voters), the oversight is becoming ridiculous. You can't tell us Torv's work last season wasn't better than the hammy theatrics of Kathy Bates on "Harry's Law" (Emmy loves movie stars) or the tired, empathetic retread of Mariska Hargitay on "SVU" (Emmy loves nominating the same people over and over).
6. The first page raises your security clearance, the second page says we'll prosecute you if you talk about what you're about to see.
7. We like Astrid's new haircut.
8. Note to self: erasing someone from time requires a cathode-ray tube.

No comments:

Post a Comment