Kings, "The Sabbath Queen": The night the lights went out in Gilboa

I don't have the time or heart to keep writing about the burn-off run of "Kings," but feel free to offer your thoughts on "The Sabbath Queen." Click here to read the full post

Kings, "Brotherhood": Cain you help a brother out?

So "Kings" came back tonight, for the start of its Summer Burn-Off Theatre run(*), with a fairly strong episode. Yes, there was a lot of the weaker younger characters, but there was more than enough of McShane, Eamonn Walker, Dylan Baker, Wes Studi and Susanna Thompson to compensate.

(*) And I'll believe they'll air all the remaining episodes when they get done airing them. If the ratings for this are as low as I assume they're going to be, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see "Kings" replaced in a week or two by a weekly "I'm a Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here!" recap show.

But as this is a dead show walking, I can't find it in me to do much more than acknowledge the presence of each episode and move on. Talk about it as much as you like, if you're still watching at this point. Click here to read the full post

Kings, "Insurrection": Gone fishin'

Spoilers for last night's "Kings" coming up just as soon as I bribe a government official...

"He calls for peace, but denies me the cost. Good day to be a critic." -King Silas

"Insurrection" was the first episode of "Kings" to not have series creator Michael Green's name on the script (Erik Olesen is the credited writer), and it showcases just how tricky it's going to be to maintain the odd balance between Bible and modern-day, particularly in the dialogue.

There are deliberately stylized lines like William Cross telling Reverend Samuals, "Change is in the air -- like winter. Can you smell the wood burning?" But then there are lines like the skinny security guard, realizing that his chunky friend has a crush on Tomasina, telling him, "You are so screwed."

Obviously, "Kings" takes place in a world where we have to accept the contemporary (24-hour cable news) alongside Old Testament conceits (monarchs being chosen by God), and until now the arch nature of the dialogue -- not really Shakespeare, but also never really mundane -- has helped bridge the two. For however long this show is on, its writers need to be really careful not to let blatantly modern phrasing into their scripts, because they tend to break the spell.

"Insurrection" also illustrated the problem of having to deal with a relatively perfect hero. In the Bible, David becomes decidedly imperfect after he's King (just ask Bathsheba's husband), but at this stage of the story, he has to be pure enough to remain God's choice. Some actors can do interesting things as characters who are unremittingly good, but Chris Egan doesn't know quite how to play it, even as the writers place him in situations so complex that being good isn't of much use. And it doesn't help that he's so often paired with Allison Miller as Michelle, who's so far the cast's weakest link.

I'm not the world's biggest Leslie Bibb fan, but I'll reserve judgment on her character until we see if she's just been inserted to add a bit of classic soap opera vixen-ry to the proceedings.

Still interesting, but definitely my least favorite episode to date.

What did everybody else think? Click here to read the full post

Kings, "First Night": The binding of Isaac

Spoilers for the third episode of "Kings" coming up just as soon as I readjust a painting...

"This country only works if people look up to us -- not some boy." -Queen Rose

"First Night" is the last episode of "Kings" I've seen in advance, and probably my favorite of the three. It gives the great Ian McShane his strongest showcase so far in this role, and it gives us a much stronger idea of the role of both God and the monarchy in this alternate universe.

God's presence as an active participant in the Biblical tale of Samuel, Saul and David would have seemed to be the hardest element to translate into modern times, but Michael Green has done a surprisingly adept job at it. God appears to have chosen David as Silas' successor (the butterfly crown in the pilot), and in this episode He appears to punish Silas for his hubris by making him sacrifice his relationship with his illegitimate son Seth (but not, mercifully, Seth himself). It's all left just ambiguous enough that if you prefer not to mix your divinity with your contemporary political drama (even one liberally adapted from the Old Testament), you can just write it off as coincidence, but McShane and Eamonn Walker are sure playing it like men who believe.

Susanna Thompson's Queen Rose, meanwhile, believes quite devoutly in the idea of a royal family helping to elevate the commoners by giving them elites role models to aspire to. That's often been the argument in England about the enduring popularity of the royals, even long past the point where they had any real power: people living hard lives like knowing there's some grandeur in their world and believing that, under the right (albeit unlikely) set of circumstances, they might get to experience it firsthand some day. Of course, Rose only wants it to be a belief, and not a reality, and so she and Jack -- his mother's son just as much as Michelle is her father's daughter -- are doing everything they can to keep a commoner like David from making a major jump up in class.

"Kings" is this weird hybrid of the Bible, Shakespeare and soap opera, and the scenes with Jack taking David and his friends on a tour of Shiloh's hottest nightspots tilted more towards the latter. It wasn't quite "Gossip Girl," but those scenes definitely felt less vital than any of the material involving McShane or Thompson.

Based on the lousy ratings for the first two weeks, I have little illusion about the show continuing past this first season. But the one plus of NBC being in such lousy shape across the board is that it's not easy to pull even the low performers like this, which means chances are decent that we'll at least get to see the full season. And with any luck, Green will by then have advanced the narrative to a good stopping point, if not the natural end point for what's designed as an epic, years-long saga.

What did everybody else think? Click here to read the full post

Kings, "Prosperity": A seat at the table

Spoilers for episode two of "Kings" coming up just as soon as I blow up some pigeons...

"This one, you protect from what wants to happen. He has a destiny in him. People with destinies, things don't go well for them. They die old and unhappy, or young and unfinished." -Mrs. Shepherd

"Prosperity" was probably the weakest of the three "Kings" episodes I've seen, since it hangs more on David than the other two, and since David is, by nature of this early place in the familiar story, an underdeveloped character. I can't decide yet whether Chris Egan simply isn't up to the task of making him more interesting than he seems so far, or if he's playing the character as written. And based on the dismal ratings for last week's premiere, I doubt the show will be on long enough for his abilities to become clear.

But for however long it's on, I'm going to stick with it, because even if David isn't yet the man worthy of the destiny his mom sees in him, the world he moves in is still so interesting.

The peace negotiations with Gath give us our first look at the other side, and we see that the enemy isn't quite so refined -- a poorer country with no great city and some kind of military-led dictatorship as opposed to Silas' more glamorous monarchy. It's still not clear if this is a completely alternate reality or if it's supposed to be our Earth with some key historic differences (David does play a very familiar-sounding classical piece on his piano at one point), so it's hard to know what the rest of the world's governments are like, but in these two, Gath is definitely the jealous younger sibling.

We also learn more about the history of Silas' rise to power when, after his brother-in-law William makes good on his threat to bankrupt the treasury, Silas has to go to Abaddon(*), the once-mighty, now-mad ruler he defeated to help create this kingdom. Given how many of the commenters seem to be watching primarily because they loved Ian McShane in "Deadwood," I imagine you were pleased to see Brian Cox, however briefly, as Abaddon, in an episode packed with great character actors like Dylan Baker, Miguel Ferrer and Mark Margolis.

(*) Other than the setting, this is the first really significant break from the Bible story, where Saul was appointed by Samuel, who had previously been leading the Israelites, after the people demanded that they have a king to lead them. The name Abaddon pops up elsewhere in the Bible -- and was also the name of Lance Reddick's character on "Lost" -- but not in the Book of Samuel.

And after not having much to do in the two-hour pilot, Susanna Thompson's Queen Rose starts moving to the forefront here, trying to manipulate her daughter away from David and demonstrating that she has an army of her own for formal events like the treaty-signing.

I continue to love the way the show manages to feel simultaneously cinematic -- that area of the Upper West Side where David cuts off the convoy has never looked prettier -- and theatrical, with characters like the security guards functioning as the Greek chorus, or Shakespeare's fools, or deus ex machina, or whatever role is needed for the story.

What did everybody else think? Click here to read the full post

Kings, "Goliath": The man who would be king

Spoilers for the two-hour series premiere of "Kings" coming up just as soon as I give some leftovers to the guards...

I said much of what I had to say about the pilot in Friday's column -- particularly my concern that it's more interesting as a thought exercise than it is as a TV show -- so I'll just highlight a few points and then open it up for your thoughts:

• I love the look of the show, from the butterflies to the gleaming, spotless, CGI-enhanced vision of Manhattan-as-Shiloh. There's a joke about Toronto being like New York, only cleaner. The way this series films Manhattan makes Toronto look like a dump.

• You don't need me to tell you that Ian McShane is a wonderful actor who has no problem taking dialogue that would sound like gibberish -- or, in the case of David's "You want blood! Come here and take it!" speech at the frontline, like a freshman college drama project -- in the hands of lesser performers and making it sing. Whatever other issues I may have with the show -- particularly my concern that Chris Egan's resemblance to Ryan Phillipe extends past the physical and ito acting ability as well -- it's a pleasure just to hear McShane speak Michael Green's stylized prose.

• While I have reservations about Egan overall, he handles himself well opposite McShane, and I liked his work in the press conference scene, particularly the way he said "Perhaps you heard the story about my father" when a reporter asked why his mother didn't want him going into the military.

• For the most part, I think Green's done an excellent job of both translating the Bible characters into a modern context (Jack being gay seems to match what I remember of the Talmudic interpretation that David and Saul's son Jonathan were more than just close friends during David's time in exile?), and of making this alternate reality make sense. Since they'll explain more details in upcoming episodes about how the monarchy was created and how it works, I don't want to say too much, but the one question I had was the way the king's court seemed to be conducting sensitive business like strategic planning in front of what seemed to be a public gallery. Maybe everyone in the crowd is also a member of the elite in some way, but it comes across more like average joes coming to get a look at how the king gets things done.

• This is a good gig for Eamonn Walker, who always comes off as slightly theatrical in his choices. That worked on "Oz," particularly as that show got stranger and stranger over the years, and it clearly works here, but on a show like "Justice" (a short-lived, generic Fox legal drama he did a couple of years ago), it makes him seem fake.

• Is a grenade, whether or not it's duct-taped to a wrench, really what you'd call the 21st century equivalent of David's slingshot? If not, what should he have used to take out the tank?

What did everybody else think? Click here to read the full post

'Kings' review - Sepinwall on TV

In today's column, I review NBC's "Kings," which I found interesting but which I'm not sure I actually liked:

In "Kings," NBC's contemporary re-imagining of the Old Testament story of David, Goliath and King Saul, Goliath is an enemy tank, the slingshot is a grenade duct-taped to a wrench and the king's son is party-boy magnet for the paparazzi.

The concept of translating classic tales into a modern context is by now so familiar that it's almost a surprise when a new Shakespeare adaptation isn't set in the 21st century. But where a project like Fox's short-lived "Skin" ("Romeo and Juliet" in the LA porn industry, complete with Ron Silver barking, "His father is the district attorney!"), borrows the traditional framework and little more, what sets "Kings" apart -- for good and maybe for ill -- is how faithful it tries to stay to both the content and the spirit of the original.

To read the full thing, click here. I'll have a separate post for the pilot episode on Sunday night. Click here to read the full post