Thursday, May 17, 2007
The case against Charlie Sheen as an actor
I think it's odd how people are saying Charlie Sheen is having a great career in TV and is being nominated for emmys because he can't really act. On Spin City he just played exactly to type, so all he had to do was be himself. If there were any positive reviews of him on there, it was misdirected at the fact that the show was able to find at least another star to replace Michael J Fox. It was also that people weren't used to seeing him in a comic role and it was also the fact that he parodied his real life problems. But he talks the way he does in serious projects of his, it's just the people around him react differently and Spin City was so well-written that even when half of its original cast was gone and its stripped down to a cast of 6 that includes Heather Locklear (blah), it's still halfway watchable. Two and a Half Men is nothing more than an average sitcom that would have had the potential to transcend something like Yes, Dear or Still Standing, if there was better chemistry between the leads. Its emmy nods in the category are simply a desperate effort by the TV industry and emmys to remind its audiences that comedy's not completely dead, we have shows with laugh tracks too that are making the cut. Also, I can't name the number of shows alone that have used that plot of two brothers or two sisters being forced to live together after one encounters some marital troubles and moves in with a kid. A short-lived TV show from around 1998 called Brother's Keeper was the exact same plot (which I think was done better, anyway). There's also Three Sisters and Hope and Faith off the top of my head. It's saving grace is its ratings but make no mistake, there is nothing deserving about its acting or its writing.