|
Review
Sept 18, 2010 3:17:22 GMT -5
Post by Eve Vardell on Sept 18, 2010 3:17:22 GMT -5
I just came across a great online blogger for the "Chicago Tribune" who was writing reviews about her top TV picks, and I love what she said about "Supernatural":
"Supernatural," CW: Shows in their fourth and fifth seasons -- especially genre shows -- usually fold in on themselves, becoming so dense with accumulated layers of mythology that newbies are rebuffed. But "Supernatural" keeps its mythology interesting without letting it become intimidating. And this thoughtfully crafted show got bolder and more creative in 2009, coming up with hilarious and innovative episodes and taking risks with its storytelling (How do you unleash Lucifer without veering into camp? "Supernatural" managed it). Without a lot of fanfare or pretension, this show is asking interesting questions about the presence (or absence) of God while still supplying meaty genre stories, and "Supernatural's" cast features some of the most solidly talented and underrated actors on TV.
~~
And later on, this made me grin: "Supernatural" - I've written a lot about this show recently (check it out), so I won't go on at length. But I will say this: Every single thing that "Heroes" has gotten wrong about character development and storytelling in the last couple of seasons, this underrated show has done right. I'm just sayin'.
|
|
|
Review
Sept 23, 2010 20:03:25 GMT -5
Post by Kasen Rowe on Sept 23, 2010 20:03:25 GMT -5
Ooh, nicely written. I like this writer! Lol, and I like the Heroes bit. Heroes was horrible after season one. That writer knows what she's talking about. There was no character development or plot development -at least nothing consistent. They changed the story and the characters every episode.
|
|