Synopsis: House engages in a battle of wits and wills against the attending physician in charge of his detox program. When he starts to lose, House resorts to blackmail to gain the upper hand.
Enjoy!
Posts: 2447 | Location: MA | Registered: June 16, 2005
Obviously, it's a little early to be calling anything about next year's awards, but the two hour run time and subject matter of this episode could be a huge plus for Laurie. I don't doubt that with the right tape and enough buzz, he can finally win.
Posts: 2447 | Location: MA | Registered: June 16, 2005
The reviews on this premier have been excellent. Critics say Hugh Laurie is wonderful in it. I don't know if I am going to stick with the show all year, but I am very excited to see this premier.
From Alan Sepinwall of The Star-Ledger: In a way, I'm glad that Hugh Laurie didn't win the Emmy last night, because he's a lock to win it a year from now for his performance in tonight's House season premiere. … But for one night, this is the best House, and its leading man, have been in a long time. If Laurie's holding an Emmy next year, "Broken" will be why.
There's a few two many Cuckoo's Nest comparisons, but Laurie and Braugher are amazing together. Part 1 was a little too drawn out, but the last 15 minutes were great. This really could be a winning tape for Laurie.
Grade for "Broken (I)": B
Posts: 2447 | Location: MA | Registered: June 16, 2005
As a whole, a little cliched and pulled out at parts, but it ultimately served it's purpose and acted as a terrific vehicle for both Laurie and Braugher. Solid start to the season.
Episode Grade for "Broken (I & II)": B/B+
Posts: 2447 | Location: MA | Registered: June 16, 2005
A good stand-alone premiere. Emotionally manipulative? Kinda. Treacly in places? Yep. Populated with too many mental-hospital stereotypes? You betcha. But still effective, well directed and splendidly acted. Hugh Laurie, though he doesn't get a big fireworks scene, already has a great tape to submit to the Emmys next year: it's two-hours long, basically a standalone movie, he gets to be cranky a-hole House and then sensitive penitent House and goes one flew over the cuckoo's nest while falling in love and learning to open up about his feelings. Yep, this is prime Emmy bait, but in a good way. And I think it makes an even stronger case for Andre Braugher in next year's guest acting category.
What I don't look forward to is next week. The promo for the rest of the season is hardly solid evidence of a creative direction, but it looks a heck of a lot like the same old "House" we've come to know and love, and then love less, and then not even really like anymore. The mental illness angle -- like the arrest, like his shooting, like the exodus of his team, like the death of Amber, like the death of Kutner -- is an opportunity to take this intractable man and and give him some long-awaited character development that will shake up the formula in a way that will matter for more than one "Very Special Episode." The series' best episodes ("House's Head," "Three Stories," "No Reason") demonstrate that the show-runners are capable of shifting the paradigm, but they have stubbornly refused to do it.
Now that House is out of the nuthouse, will it make a difference? I'll believe it when I see it.
Grade: B+
"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)
I very much agree with what 742 wrote and I might even give the episode an A- because "Broken (Parts 1 & 2)" is my favourite episode thus far of this Emmy season.
Though, it reminded me of why this show irritates me so much. Clearly, these producers and writers can produce an interesting show. They have done it in "Three Stories", "No Reason", "House's Head" and now in "Broken". And then I see the previews for the rest of the season.... Snooze. Those promos were actually a let down after this episode.
As 742 says, will any of what happened in this episode make a difference? I have to say, I didn't miss the medical mysteries or the supporting cast. Didn't miss them at all. And yeah, that is a bit of a backhanded compliment to this episode. How many people actually watch the show for the medical mysteries or supporting cast?
I watch pretty much only for Hugh Laurie. And Hugh Laurie is fantastic in this episode. The material got better and better for him as the episode went on. Sheesh, he played a little of everything in this episode. It skirted the edge of feeling like awards-bait. But, somehow, it just worked.
In Alan Sepinwall's review he says this: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Watching "Broken," I could easily see myself enjoying a weekly series where House never goes back to Princeton Plainsboro Teaching Hospital but instead fights crime (maybe call it "House Arrest"), or becomes a talk radio host ("House Calls"), or even a crotchety country doctor (also "House Calls"). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah, pretty much. This character, House, is so fascinating. And Hugh Laurie is so brilliant playing him, that I think I could watch him in anything. Seriously. This episode completely removed House from the context of the show. Completely different cast. Completely different structure. It didn't even use the regular opening credits. This was the same character in a completely different show. And I really liked it.
Andre Braugher gave a great performance in this, too. Glad to see him back on television. Get this man another show!
Despite the disappointing tinge the upcoming promos lended to the end of the episode, I am sticking with A-. B+ for the first half. And an A for the second half.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: LadyHathor25,
I mean at it's core its core House is a populist serial show.
And "creative direction" is just a term that doesn't apply to serial shows that try to maintain its high audience.
As we've noted before there can be an episode here or there with shocking development and deep emotional implications (Cutners suicide, Amber dying, ect.) but 2-3 episodes later that event is almost forgotten about. After taking risks, house always goes right back to the way things were. There are no "game changers" asides from adding/dropping cast. (Which is pretty standard procedural material.)
Originally posted by Hodag129: I mean at it's core its core House is a populist serial show.
And "creative direction" is just a term that doesn't apply to serial shows that try to maintain its high audience.
As we've noted before there can be an episode here or there with shocking development and deep emotional implications (Cutners suicide, Amber dying, ect.) but 2-3 episodes later that event is almost forgotten about. After taking risks, house always goes right back to the way things were. There are no "game changers" asides from adding/dropping cast. (Which is pretty standard procedural material.)
Yes and no.
"House" is a procedural medical drama, but it is also a character study that has spent a lot of time on the psychologies and motivations of House and his fellow doctors. A week doesn't go by where Wilson doesn't pontificate about House's mental games and what motivates them on a deeper level, and in episodes like "Broken," the show exploits them for emotional melodrama that purports to show House growing as a person. But then it's back to the same old, same old, and the character development is revealed to be just a momentary tease or ploy.
If the show wants to be a straight-up procedural it should drop the pretense about House's psychology. But if it wants to delve into the complexities of House the man -- and I like the show better when it does -- there need to be meaningful consequences for what happens to the character. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
"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)
It would serve Hugh Laurie right to submit this episode next year. Two hours centered around House, with House being in every single scene? Yeah, he can't lose with this.
Also, please being back the Lin Manuel-Miranda character.
Posts: 3803 | Location: Earth | Registered: April 11, 2005
As I just got finished saying in the ratings thread, those numbers *should* raise some eyebrows. The ratings on this episode went up and up as the episode progressed. It was over 17 million viewers in the last half hour. It almost caught Dancing With the Stars. (And it totally crushed in the demos.)
This is a show with ratings high enough to play around with the format. They have a GREAT central character. They clearly know how to write episodes that develop this character. Why not just shift the focus of the show a bit, and see what happens?
