free counter with statistics Chuck | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

chuck.jpg


Secret Agent Geek

“Chuck” / The TV Whore
Sept. 24, 2007

TV Reviews | September 24, 2007 | Comments (24)


Just as I was predisposed to dislike “Journeyman” before having actually watching, I was similarly predisposed to like “Chuck,” despite its star having an uncomfortable resemblance to Jimmy Fallon. First, “Chuck” focuses on a full-on geek who works at a Best Buy-like store. And since I’m a full-on geek who used to work at such a store, I already have much love for the character. Second, the show is executive produced by Josh Schwartz, and if Schwartz showed us anything with “The O.C.,” he showed that he’s capable of providing truly entertaining geek (the fun that show had with Seth Cohen in the first season is unquestionably what made me fall in love with the show … well that and “welcome to the O.C., bitch!”). Mix in the “Alias”-like secret agent aspect of “Chuck,” and I was all aboard from the get-go. Of course, I’ve learned to keep my expectations for new shows tempered, regardless of any predisposition, so I didn’t go into “Chuck” expecting the next great thing. Instead, I simply went in hoping for a fun show. And I think it’s going to be exactly that.

“Chuck” focuses on a main character who, shockingly, is named Chuck. He works for the Nerd Herd at a store called Buy More, which is an obvious parody of Best Buy’s Geek Squad. Chuck is a geek in the truest sense of things, just as I loved all of Seth Cohen’s geeky moments, so too do I love Chuck’s geekdom (for example, his explanation that certain finger injuries were the result of playing too much Call of Duty, something I can absolutely sympathize with). Mind you, Chuck’s not a loser, and actor Zachary Levi wears the role well, showing himself capable of both the humor and the minor dramatic elements, and keeping Chuck the kind of character you enjoy, not the kind you feel bad for.

But this world of geeks is only one aspect of the show. For unbeknownst to Chuck, his ex-college roommate is an accountant a fancy-schmancy government spy for the CIA. When Chuck gets an accidental e-mail from said ex-roommate, he suddenly finds himself plunged into the super-secret government spy world, as the e-mail has inadvertently made Chuck into a kind of living computer with all of the government’s most important secrets. Yes, this sounds stupid, and it is stupid — the writers give it a cursory explanation, but it’s one that doesn’t hold up to any form of scrutiny. You just have to accept the premise and move on.

And if you’re willing to accept it, it’s all rather entertaining. At first, Chuck doesn’t really know what the hell is going on, but he starts to get the gist of things after getting wrapped up with a super hot CIA agent (Yvonne Strzechowski) and a big, bad NSA agent (“Firefly’s” Adam Baldwin!). Over the course of the first episode, Chuck inadvertently winds up in a car chase, in a Mexican standoff, and defusing a bomb. And by the end of the first episode, we learn that there are also some double-agents in the mix, further complicating this new spy world Chuck has entered into (man, how great would it be to find Arvin Sloan behind the baddy agents?). But the key for “Chuck” is that, while the spy and action stuff is shot and played well, it doesn’t take itself too seriously. This show isn’t “Alias,” and it’s not trying to be. The geeky side of the show is relatively campy and light and a sudden tone-shift to super-serious spy shit might be a bit too much. By wisely keeping the spy of things light as well, “Chuck” manages to keep a relatively fun overall tone.

To be fair, I don’t think the show is perfect. While I enjoyed the camp of it all, I could see some preferring to call it a bit cheesy. Plus, rarely is the humor truly funny, as it’s more of the “that’s cute” variety. And some of the cast is a bit over-the-top, particularly Chuck’s geeky friend and his sister’s boyfriend (referred to as Captain Awesome). But beyond that, I can’t really put a finger on any specific failing because the show managed to keep me entertained enough that I didn’t bother taking notes bitching about this, that and the other, as I often do. And so I’m willing to forgive the show some of its weaknesses, in part because it’s just not the kind of show that’s meant to be overly analyzed and in part because I’ve heard that things improve over the first few episodes. All of which is to say that I’m sticking with “Chuck” for now, although it certainly won’t be taking me away from my live watching of “Monday Night Football.” And I actually suspect that this show will be one of the bigger freshman hits (though it may not become the break-out NBC is hoping for), particularly as it’s the perfect lead-in for “Heroes,” both in terms of its tone and style. In fact, this makes NBC’s decision to cap the night off with “Journeyman” quite understandable, as it gives the network a full slate of sci-fi/genre which gets progressively more serious as the night progresses. Will this be enough to help NBC get out of its fourth-place status? Dunno. But I bet all the geeks like Chuck will be watching, and that’s a good start.

(“Chuck” premieres tonight on NBC at 8 p.m.)


theTVwhore.jpg
Seth Freilich is Pajiba’s television editor. He wishes that his brain were a government super-computer so that he wouldn’t fuck up his fantasy football roster each and every week. Seriously, this shit is killing him.


Journeyman | Interview with Derek Haas and Michael Brandt



Comments

Eeeeeeh, sounds like that other show with the geek in the NSA (or whatever).

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at September 24, 2007 12:25 PM

I am TIVOing this tonight and looking forward to it.

Seth, do you have Brees as well? Or the Bears D? If so, I certainly feel you.

Posted by: Melody at September 24, 2007 12:33 PM

Wow, with these 2 reviews, I'm actually starting to garner a little faith in this television season. NBC looks to be doing something right with this Monday line-up, and I hope to God they don't fucks it up.

Posted by: jonr at September 24, 2007 12:36 PM

Do I have the first comment?...Man, I got nothing. Fuck Chuck.

Posted by: chaz at September 24, 2007 12:40 PM

All I needed to hear was "Adam Baldwin."

Posted by: Seth L at September 24, 2007 12:44 PM

Well, if Sloan showed up, I would be a fan forever. That said, at first I thought this show looked ridiculous and stupid, and what's with the proliferation of things called Chuck? I can't wrap my head around that.

Then I saw an extended preview and actually laughed. So I might watch this, we'll see. I'm just counting down the hours until The Office premiere.

Posted by: Rachael at September 24, 2007 1:02 PM

This sounds an AWFUL lot like "Jake 2.0," which I found cute-ish but not interesting enough to keep up with. I think it lasted two seasons.

Just so you know, your review of "Journeyman" has prompted me to make a date with my TV tonight. (Well, your review + Kevin McKidd.) I appreciate your fair and balanced reviews, Mr. Whore, and I hope you keep 'em coming in the next few weeks.

Posted by: Jerce at September 24, 2007 1:04 PM

Watched this on the NBC Preview disc and I laughed out loud a lot. "Chuck" was my favorite of the 3 offerings. The side characters are a great addition and well cast - particularly Captain Awesome. I also like the interaction between Chuck and his best friend. "Pedal safe!" Ha ha.

And Adam Baldwin, I loved you the moment you saved Bill Pullman by blowing away the alien through the glass window. Sigh.

Posted by: VTRosebud at September 24, 2007 1:06 PM

First "Journeyman" borrows from "Quantum Leap," and now this show borrows from "Jake 2.0." But Jake was an IT geek at the NSA/CIA (I don't remember which agency, and don't care to look it up) who was exposed to nanobytes to become an accidental secret agent. Hollywood just recycles ideas and plots.

Posted by: rlr260 at September 24, 2007 1:09 PM

Oh, God, I have Brees. And Laurence Maroney. And Larry Fitzgerald. Needless to say, it's been a tough year in fantasy land.

I enjoyed this pilot a lot. Adam Baldwin makes everything better!

Posted by: Carrie at September 24, 2007 1:42 PM

I'm on board with the Adam Baldwin love, and any review that references "Alias" that much will get my attention. But am I the only one who finds it silly that this so-called "geek" looks more like John Krasinski than Rainn Wilson?

Posted by: Todd at September 24, 2007 1:51 PM

Carrie, I feel you. I might be able to get my first win this season if Brees manages to outplay Vince Young, which is who my opponent has. I go in with a 1 point lead, thanks to the Bear's D's implosion.

Brees sucks this week, I am totally playing Matt Schaub for the remainder of the season. He scored more against the Colts yesterday than Brees has all season.

Hey Seth, can we expect a real time review of Cavemen/Carpoolers? Please tell me that we can.

Posted by: Melody at September 24, 2007 1:57 PM

Hey Seth, can we expect a real time review of Cavemen/Carpoolers? Please tell me that we can.

While I agree that would be ossom, I don't want our Whore to wind up with brain damage.

Posted by: Jerce at September 24, 2007 2:35 PM

Ooh, I second Melody on the real time review. Please? Pretty please? That would make my workday completely bearable and maybe even enjoyable!

Still not sure about Chuck, but will now at least give it a shot due to this review.

Posted by: Sarah at September 24, 2007 2:36 PM

Umm...it kinda sounds like Jake 2.0. I loved that silly show, and if it's anyyhing like that I'm totally there!

Posted by: Fish Face at September 24, 2007 3:21 PM

I caught this on the NBC preview disk (which, actually is a fabulous idea, and I hope all networks eventually get into it, if it's not too expensive). It was cute. All I ask is, if there will be gratuitous half-naked shots of the blond chick, then there should damn well be tit-for-tat with Captain Awesome. Chuck can keep his shirt on.

Posted by: Daphne at September 24, 2007 7:34 PM

Worry ye not - I've had a real-time review of "Cavemen" and "Carpoolers" penciled into my daytime planner for quite some time.

Posted by: Seth at September 24, 2007 9:13 PM

Yesss! Will be trying to remember to watch for the sake of Adam Baldwin.

Posted by: Anne (in Reno) at September 24, 2007 9:23 PM

Watched it last night. It was entertaining enough, but not extraordinary. Television has always been the domain of beautiful people, but for some reason the exceptional looks of everyone on this show (his sister, in particular, is pretty much flawless) annoy rather than entrance me. And I can already tell that the intersection of comedy and brutal spy action is going to be problematic. We can't believe, as Chuck does after he "remembers" she's a killer, that the blonde will ever do anything to hurt him. And the obviously male ninja who turned out to be her... sheesh.

Still, I guess I'll keep watching as long as nothing else is on. Gotta do something to eat up the hour before Heroes (although that's not exactly hypnotizing me anymore, either).

Posted by: Todd at September 25, 2007 9:26 AM

Hey Seth - on a completely unrelated note to "Chuck" - I work at Blockbuster and I noticed "The War" in our pre-street box yesterday - looks like DVD is coming out 10/02/07 - so you won't have to wait very long to watch it all in one weekend.

Just wanted to pass the news along!

Posted by: superdeluxebabe at September 25, 2007 1:13 PM

My flu-ridden ass watched it last night. Maybe it was the Sudafed, but I thought it was pretty decent.

Posted by: TK at September 25, 2007 6:55 PM

We watched it last night. About 20 minutes in, my husband was like, "This stinks. Can I turn on the Saints game?" I persuaded (read: absolutely sick of football, begged) him to leave it on. At the end, he said, "Actually, that was pretty good."

Maybe our tolerance for "meh" TV is getting lower, with all the shit they put out, but we'll be tuning in next week, I think.

Posted by: Ariel at September 25, 2007 7:41 PM

Copied from my own blog...

I watched "Chuck" out of part curiosity and partly because it was the lead in for "Heroes." It has a certain cute show factor going for it, but it just seems like the writers are trying too hard to sell the product. The best example is the over usage of showing the blond spy being half naked for no other reason than to push the sex aspect. Do we see an over abundance of special effects on "Heroes" even though the show is about people with superpowers? No. Why not? Because the writers can still sell the story by itself. Obviously the people behind "Chuck" feel differently about their own show. I give it around a B- though. It's still way better than "Deal or No Deal." "Heroes" for me was about the typical quality I expected from it. I say it was in the B+ to A- range.

Posted by: mb at September 26, 2007 10:04 PM

Nope, I'm a geek much like Chuck, and this wasn't clever enough to bring me back.

Posted by: Darth Corleone at September 27, 2007 3:31 PM