I was intrigued by the premise for this show and tuned in. I'm surprised no one started a thread. Anyone catch this?
Really enjoyed it; little grace notes in the scripting really paid off, I think. Amsterdam has lived for 400 years so that's quite a breadth of knowledge he brings to his detective work. Little details like knowing the specific tobacco he was smoking, knowing about the specific paint under the dead girl's fingernails, having a past identity as a famous wordworker. Little details that really make the story come alive. (And naming his dog "36." Cute.)
Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (that name's a mouthful) really does have one of those faces, the kind of guy you swear you've seen before. Nice bit of casting. He's sexy, wistful, thoughtful. A lot behind those eyes, I thought.
Nice support work from Stephen Henderson as the bar owner-best friend. Love how when Amsterdam repeated the show's premise--"I can't die until I meet the one" or whatever--Henderson said, "What the hell does that MEAN?!" Nice grace note.
Another new episode airs Thursday.
Posts: 2180 | Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA | Registered: November 04, 2001
The only thing worse than an immortal who won't stop bitching and brooding about being an immortal is an immortal who broods and then makes smirking remarks for the benefit of the viewing audience about his immortality. "New Amsterdam" is an annoying drama, and this without even addressing how the show borrows its entire premise from "Angel," except substituting New York for Los Angeles. 400-year-old John Amsterdam is partnered with Eva Marquez, who's played by Zuleikha Robinson, who I've liked in "Rome" and "'The Namesake," but whose role is limited to a been-there-done-that clashing partners dynamic. They rub each other the wrong way, but let me guess, they'll quickly develop a bond despite their differences.
On Amsterdam's irritating hit list of self-satisfied quips:
- Telling his partner that she reminds him of her last 609 girlfriends. (If he's really kept count, he's an even bigger tool.)
- Asked how many wives he's had, he answers, "Only one at a time."
- Pointing out that he used to drink at a speakeasy and lost his hearing on Normandy Beach. (Plus, he romanced an aged artist pertinent to his case. He's stumbled through a lot of history, like an undying Forrest Gump.)
At one point, he whines about his immortal life and says that vampires don't have reflections because it would be too painful to see themselves unchanged while the world around them ages. He's lives four centuries and he can't even get that right. Vampires don't have reflections from lack of a soul. What's funny is that his immortality was supposed to be a gift, not a curse, as it was for Angel. He became enchanted after saving the life of a tribeswoman. Was it the gypsies? I don't know, I wasn't paying attention. It may as well be the gypsies.
Grade: C-
"A movie is not good because it arrives at conclusions you share, or bad because it does not. A movie is not about what it is about. It is about how it is about it: about the way it considers its subject matter, and about how its real subject may be quite different from the one it seems to provide." - Roger Ebert, from the introduction to "Awake in the Dark" (2006)
Posts: 5832 | Location: New York City | Registered: March 26, 2005
I'm a big fan of "Angel" and I recognize the similarities. It's not hugely original, and yeah, it was quippy. But it didn't bother me. I thought Waldau was soulful and I liked his relationship with the bartender guy, plus other smaller descriptive details.
Posts: 2180 | Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA | Registered: November 04, 2001
I've got nothing against the bartender, though I wonder how long he's been made to listen to John whine and why they're still friends. Waldau is fine, I suppose, I can't fault his performance. My problem with the quips is that, assuming John doesn't know there's a television audience for his exploits, he's making in-jokes that only he gets. After four hundred years, he hasn't gotten sick of cracking wise about his immortality? Maybe that's why he has the bartender friend who knows his secret. Someone who he can go to at the end of the day and say, "Hey guess what I said to my partner about fighting in World War II!"
"A movie is not good because it arrives at conclusions you share, or bad because it does not. A movie is not about what it is about. It is about how it is about it: about the way it considers its subject matter, and about how its real subject may be quite different from the one it seems to provide." - Roger Ebert, from the introduction to "Awake in the Dark" (2006)
Posts: 5832 | Location: New York City | Registered: March 26, 2005
Originally posted by 742: I've got nothing against the bartender, though I wonder how long he's been made to listen to John whine and why they're still friends. Waldau is fine, I suppose, I can't fault his performance. My problem with the quips is that, assuming John doesn't know there's a television audience for his exploits, he's making in-jokes that only he gets. After four hundred years, he hasn't gotten sick of cracking wise about his immortality? Maybe that's why he has the bartender friend who knows his secret. Someone who he can go to at the end of the day and say, "Hey guess what I said to my partner about fighting in World War II!"
You have a point, and I don't really disagree. Chalk it up to pilot-itis. I liked enough other things about it to give it another try.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Turtle,
Posts: 2180 | Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA | Registered: November 04, 2001
I loved "Angel" and I sometimes watch "Bones" and am happy David B. got another good part.
So I'm okay with another go-round of the Immortal plot line. I've seen Nicholaj Coster-Waldau (you're right, that is a mouthful) as a supporting actor in other things, and felt regretful that he wasn't lead in something where I could really watch him. So this is kind of like an answer to a wish. After one episode, he's already on my Top Ten list of hottest guys on TV.
And all those quips - who are they for? They're for me. So far, I'm okay with it, but I expect some retooling from the pilot, as they figure out what works and what gets old fast. I missed the 2nd quarter of the show, so I missed some things.
I credit Lasse Hallestrom with the quality of the production. It's like an HBO could-have-been-a-movie production. I especially loved the photographs of the changing New York Street corner. Nice research, beautifully done.
Ratings update: 13.655 million viewers, and a 4.6 in A18-49.
Nice boost from "American Idol," which ran over a minute or two. Minus that artificial boost, it was fairly steady from first half-hour to the second. Thursday it gets another "AI" boost and then Monday they're on their own.
Posts: 2180 | Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA | Registered: November 04, 2001
I can't wait to watch this show - i've been anticipating it since i first saw the previews back in like may/june. I had to record it though, but i can't wait to watch it!
2009 Oscars FYC:
Lead Actor - Richard Jenkins, The Visitor Lead Actress - Sally Hawkins, Happy Go Lucky Supporting Actor - Haaz Sleiman, The Visitor Supporting Actress - Amy Adams, Doubt Original Screenplay - Thomas McCarthy, The Visitor
Posts: 2224 | Location: Why Do You Want To Know? | Registered: November 21, 2006
So on my local station, they've already showed Episode 2, the night after Episode 1. I only caught the last half of this (I can see I'm going to have to get the DVD set when it comes out, I keep missing background points).
So Omar is the bartender? Ep2 tells us how he connects to Amsterdam (What's his first name? John?). And yes, now I see why the dog is named "36". In this episode's flashback, the dog is "29". It actually helps me get a sense of how muc time has passed (at least in dogyears...).
Amsterdam's dogs have numbers rather than names. (my 29th dog, my 30th dog, etc). I'd hope that would have only started after about a dozen dogs, though. Otherwise it shows too much prescience, and would be too cold.
Ok, so I finally saw the show. It is a really cool show. I really liked how (in the pilot) they had the change of times square and then the change of NYC at the end. I can see the pilot getting a directing nod at the emmys. And hopefully a writing nod (for the creativity!). And I have to say, they casted the lead perfectly! The lead for the show is a great actor! But his partner that he works with in the show, well, she could have been casted differently. I'm not too crazy about her.
2009 Oscars FYC:
Lead Actor - Richard Jenkins, The Visitor Lead Actress - Sally Hawkins, Happy Go Lucky Supporting Actor - Haaz Sleiman, The Visitor Supporting Actress - Amy Adams, Doubt Original Screenplay - Thomas McCarthy, The Visitor
Posts: 2224 | Location: Why Do You Want To Know? | Registered: November 21, 2006
Okay, I've seen Episode 3. I like the way they're not holding back on their ideas (as if they have 5 years of episodes they have to fill up, so they're saving something for later). But it does seem as if we're just skimming the surface of some ideas in passing. But at least there's ideas there.
So if this is habitual structure - I like the parallels they have in each episode between how they looked at something in another era of his life and how it's looked at now. The "soldier's heart" and "shellshock", etc. And I liked Walt Whitman. I didn't realize he'd served as a medical attendant.
The "recovered memory" was less successful for me. A little too cursory, used as a plot device. And hey, was that Orlando Jones?
I also like that they're right into finding "the one" that's his true love. I wasn't that keen on the doctor - she has a now unfashionable look- sharp edges and skinny lips. But it made me think that he must have seen so many fashions in what is called beauty that he must like other era's standards of beauty just as well.
I like that there's things to think about (in a pleasantly entertaining way) in this show. If nothing else, it's a great calling card for the lead actor, Coster-Waldau.
Again, I missed another part of this episode (#4?), the first 15 minutes. I guess I'm just not good at following network television anymore.
This is a good show, and interesting every time. They really pack a lot into each episode, which I like. Why not? The show might not even be around for very long, so why not use everything now?
I'm still not sold on the doctor, that she might be "The One". She just isn't special enough. And in one of those parts I missed, did it explain what happened to her spouse? Isn't she supposed to be married?
It's starting to be a better showcase for Amsterdam's partner (Zuleikha Robinson) as well. She's developing as a strong character, and not as an Amsterdam love interest.
Originally posted by MmeDeMontespan: Again, I missed another part of this episode (#4?), the first 15 minutes. I guess I'm just not good at following network television anymore.
This is a good show, and interesting every time. They really pack a lot into each episode, which I like. Why not? The show might not even be around for very long, so why not use everything now?
I'm still not sold on the doctor, that she might be "The One". She just isn't special enough. And in one of those parts I missed, did it explain what happened to her spouse? Isn't she supposed to be married?
It's starting to be a better showcase for Amsterdam's partner (Zuleikha Robinson) as well. She's developing as a strong character, and not as an Amsterdam love interest.
Well, this episode was slow-paced and a bit of a slog, not to mention depressing, so I don't blame you for falling behind.
The doctor is married, but separated. And that all seemed to fall by the wayside right away. Why bother with that in the first place?
Agreed with you on two points: The relationship with the doctor just doesn't have sparkle at all. The actress playing the doctor is fine, but if she and Amsterdam are supposed to be embarking on a great romance, it sure as hell doesn't feel like it.
Also agreed about Zuleikha Robinson as Amsterdam's partner. Her character is coming into focus and I like that she's not under Amsterdam's sexual thrall, which would have been a cliche.
After 400 years of living, Amsterdam is probably good at a LOT of things, and I wish the show would have a bit more fun with that. It gets awfully dreary.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Turtle,
Posts: 2180 | Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA | Registered: November 04, 2001
