As a law student, I'm used to having to figure out who should win and lose hypothetical cases. With these skills, I figured I'd attempt to take on some TV shows and movies that seem to resemble legal battles, in name at least.
Kramer vs. Kramer:
One of the authentic legal battles on the list, everyone knows this story - neglected stay-at-home mother leaves husband and son to find herself, husband rearranges his priorities to put his son first, mother comes back with a vengeance to take back her son in what becomes a heated custody battle.
Winner: Kramer - started off with an easy one - you can figure this one out without even seeing the movie
Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever:
Consistently appearing on lists of the worst movies ever, including the lowest Rotten Tomatoes ranking ever of 1.5831% fresh, the film (can it really be called a "film?") stars Antonio Banderas ("Ecks") and Lucy Liu ("Sever") as government agents who first believe they are each other's enemies, but soon learn the greater threat is megalomaniac agent Robert Grant, who is now married to Ecks' ex-wife, and who is portrayed by Gregg Henry, best known for his roles as villains in Payback and Body Double.
Winner: Nobody
G vs. E:
A USA original series that aired during the 1999-2000 season, it starred Clayton Bohner, best known as the boyfriend of the main character in Just One of the Guys, Richard Brooks, who cut his legal teeth as the first ADA on Law & Order, and Marshall Bell, best remembered as Martian resistance leader Kuato from Total Recall. The three play members of "The Corps," or part of God's police force on earth - who fight two types of enemies - "Faustians" - who are ordinary mortals who have made deals with the devil, and "Morlocks," which wikipedia describes as "ground troops for the dark side."
Winner: G, barely, in each episode, over E
The People vs. Larry Flynt:
Misleading in its title which implies it is a criminal case, part of the movie is actually based on the real first amendment case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, in which Jerry Falwell sued Hustler for libel for this fake advertisement, which Hustler successfully won on parody grounds (I have to include some real law here somewhere.) Aside for this, it goes through the trials and tribulations of Larry Flynt's outside-the-box life.
Winner: The Harrelson family - Woody got an Academy Award nomination for his work as Flynt, Brett Harrelson got to appear in a movie of quality higher than From Dusk Til Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money.
(By the way...did you know Woody Harrelson's father was a freelance hitman?)
Kenny vs. Spenny
Kenneth "Kenny" Joel Hotz and Spencer "Spenny" Nolan Rice are two Canadians who battle each other in various competitions, such as "Who can stay awake the longest?," "Who makes the most convincing woman?," and "Who can win a court case?", the winner of which gets to assign a "humiliation" to the loser in this twice Gemini-award nominated series. The series is apparently noted for the distinct methods each of the two go about when competing - Kenny looks for ways to cheat, while Spenny is commited to the ethical guidelines of the contest. The most impressive thing about it's wikipedia entry is not simply the list of what the contest is each time and who wins, but the margin of victory, the description of how Kenny cheats, and the humiliation that follows. Someone really loves this show.
Winner: Canada, for somehow getting Americans to watch their TV shows (or at least put them on American TV) for the first time since Degrassi: The Next Generation.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Monday, November 26, 2007
How I Met Your Mother
Okay, here goes - I recently watched Seasons 1 and 2, and here's my take - there's a bunch of good things about, and some not so good things, so I'll kind of start and work my way from there...
First thing, I hate the gimmick. (For those who don't yet know, the premise is that the main character Ted Moseby, is telling the story from 25 years in the future to his kids, about how he met his wife (their mother) and the zany adventures on the way). It's a stupid gimmick and any impact it has on the show is negative - in the first few episodes, though less so later on, the beginning and or end contain Ted's future kids sitting on the couch and making dumb comments, about how boring their dad's story is, and during the show Bob Sagat (future Ted's voice (not sure why he would sound all that different in the future)) makes occasionally unhelpful and unfunny comments about what will happen in the future (for example, at Marshall's law school party, two kids are making fools of themselves, and future ted comments that one is a Supreme Court Justice, and one is Attorney General, or something like that - maybe a good effort, but incredibly unfunny and unnecessary. In addition, this puts a pointless onus on the comedy show to have to work around eventually finding his mother and doesn't even allow us to think that pretty much any girl he meets will eventually be the mother, otherwise, the tenor of the show would have to change.
Second, and if you actually like the show, hold on, and eventually I will say some nice things about it, but I hate the narration and the moralizing tone - this is not a problem only with this show, it happens all the time, but this is the show I'm reviewing - the narration is constantly used to teach the audience little life lessons - which I can't stand - I'm watching a sitcom, to laugh, to be amused, and fine, I have even no problem with things that are heartwarming, but I certainly am not watching to learn little tips and hints about life from TV characters. Aside from the moralizing, the narration is just unfunny - filled with times when future Ted tries to give his kids quirky explanations about life. One example of this is a first season episode where future Ted repeats over and over ad nauseum that nothing good happens after 2 AM, which aside from being kind of stupid, just doesn't work. Another time, in a second season episode, on their way to Marshall's bachelor party, future Ted attempts to point out that there are certain types of people at every bachelor party - unlike the strict moralizing it's not as if this could never be funny - it's just not.
Even if they wanted to tell moral lessons, which I disapprove of anyway, narration is the lazy man's way of doing it - the show should display it with the actions of the characters and the story - the narration shouldn't be necessary to impart it.
This all said, it's a cute, traditional sitcom - it has funny parts, and most of all it has Barney, Neil Patrick Harris, who single-handedly makes the show watchable, and dare I saw, sometimes enjoyable - he is a quintessential "TV" character - but a good one - and his many catch phrases (various incarnations of high fives, legendary) and memorable quotes could easily become worth parts of the lexicon. I know that I've said a lot more bad about it than good, and that it sounds like I should hate it, but it's really just the bad things to me are so obviously, and really jump out, and could easily be changed to improve it. Really, overall - it's as a I said, a "cute" show - it doesn't try to be anything huge, and it's not - the characters are likable, the actors display good chemistry, and forgetting the narration - many of the jokes do work - for example, a second season episode features a slap bet between Marshall and Barney, in which the winner gets to slap the loser, with varying penalties for premature slapping (watch it if this entirely unclear) and Robin's music video from her brief time as a Canadian teen pop singer - both segments which are hilarious.
It's far from my favorite comedy, but it's good enough for me to watch, which honestly is saying something in and of itself. There are parts that are really funny and fun to watch - if they had just created this with some of the parameters of "new sitcoms" (Arrested Development, Office, among others) such as lack of laugh track, lack of moralizing, it would be just as funny and probably gain a quick point and a half on my scale.
How I Met Your Mother, Seasons 1/2 - 6.3
Okay, here goes - I recently watched Seasons 1 and 2, and here's my take - there's a bunch of good things about, and some not so good things, so I'll kind of start and work my way from there...
First thing, I hate the gimmick. (For those who don't yet know, the premise is that the main character Ted Moseby, is telling the story from 25 years in the future to his kids, about how he met his wife (their mother) and the zany adventures on the way). It's a stupid gimmick and any impact it has on the show is negative - in the first few episodes, though less so later on, the beginning and or end contain Ted's future kids sitting on the couch and making dumb comments, about how boring their dad's story is, and during the show Bob Sagat (future Ted's voice (not sure why he would sound all that different in the future)) makes occasionally unhelpful and unfunny comments about what will happen in the future (for example, at Marshall's law school party, two kids are making fools of themselves, and future ted comments that one is a Supreme Court Justice, and one is Attorney General, or something like that - maybe a good effort, but incredibly unfunny and unnecessary. In addition, this puts a pointless onus on the comedy show to have to work around eventually finding his mother and doesn't even allow us to think that pretty much any girl he meets will eventually be the mother, otherwise, the tenor of the show would have to change.
Second, and if you actually like the show, hold on, and eventually I will say some nice things about it, but I hate the narration and the moralizing tone - this is not a problem only with this show, it happens all the time, but this is the show I'm reviewing - the narration is constantly used to teach the audience little life lessons - which I can't stand - I'm watching a sitcom, to laugh, to be amused, and fine, I have even no problem with things that are heartwarming, but I certainly am not watching to learn little tips and hints about life from TV characters. Aside from the moralizing, the narration is just unfunny - filled with times when future Ted tries to give his kids quirky explanations about life. One example of this is a first season episode where future Ted repeats over and over ad nauseum that nothing good happens after 2 AM, which aside from being kind of stupid, just doesn't work. Another time, in a second season episode, on their way to Marshall's bachelor party, future Ted attempts to point out that there are certain types of people at every bachelor party - unlike the strict moralizing it's not as if this could never be funny - it's just not.
Even if they wanted to tell moral lessons, which I disapprove of anyway, narration is the lazy man's way of doing it - the show should display it with the actions of the characters and the story - the narration shouldn't be necessary to impart it.
This all said, it's a cute, traditional sitcom - it has funny parts, and most of all it has Barney, Neil Patrick Harris, who single-handedly makes the show watchable, and dare I saw, sometimes enjoyable - he is a quintessential "TV" character - but a good one - and his many catch phrases (various incarnations of high fives, legendary) and memorable quotes could easily become worth parts of the lexicon. I know that I've said a lot more bad about it than good, and that it sounds like I should hate it, but it's really just the bad things to me are so obviously, and really jump out, and could easily be changed to improve it. Really, overall - it's as a I said, a "cute" show - it doesn't try to be anything huge, and it's not - the characters are likable, the actors display good chemistry, and forgetting the narration - many of the jokes do work - for example, a second season episode features a slap bet between Marshall and Barney, in which the winner gets to slap the loser, with varying penalties for premature slapping (watch it if this entirely unclear) and Robin's music video from her brief time as a Canadian teen pop singer - both segments which are hilarious.
It's far from my favorite comedy, but it's good enough for me to watch, which honestly is saying something in and of itself. There are parts that are really funny and fun to watch - if they had just created this with some of the parameters of "new sitcoms" (Arrested Development, Office, among others) such as lack of laugh track, lack of moralizing, it would be just as funny and probably gain a quick point and a half on my scale.
How I Met Your Mother, Seasons 1/2 - 6.3
Monday, November 12, 2007
Okay, I'll admit it. I've been ashamed to blog for a while, as a result of my continuing inability to correctly pick MLB Division Series. All four wrong. Ouch - nobody said picking playoff series was easy, but even 1-3 has a distinctly different look than 0-4.
So, I apologize and beg for forgiveness for my horrible picks. Next year, perhaps I'll attempt to pick them, and simply pick the opposite, and hope karma won't see through it.
Aside from that, we slowly get underway in hockey, NBA, and college basketball; college football nears bowl season, and the NFL hits the halfway point - not my favorite time of the sporting year, but at least there's stuff on.
In Books, I'm almost finished with Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan, very much one of the "it" books of 2006 - in which Pollan takes a look at how food makes it from its origins to your table, through the industrial food chain, two types of organic ones, and a hunting-and-foraging one. It's very depressing in that it basically tells us how terrible most of the food that most of us buy is - health-wise for us, for the environment, and for the animals we eat (obviously, they die, but how they live is not perhaps how we'd like to imagine they do before they do die).
However, what I appreciate, is it passes my basic tests for writing a muckraking non-fiction work. First, it's written with a very practical, relatable, and perhaps most importantly non-self-righteous. As silly as it seems, this book would be far less effective if it was written by a vegan or a vegetarian. Even beyond that, Pollan doesn't come off as a food and environmental snob (not too much of one anyway) - he clearly cares for both, perhaps more than many readers, but at the same time doesn't appear to judge the reader for the choices they make, and admits that it's hard for the normal supermarket entrant to know or consider much of this information.
Second, Pollan at least makes some attempt to offer an alternative. Now, the problem here, is that ultimately, in today's world, the alternatives are largely infeasible - first, pasture-fed animals, and local, organic (not in the USDA narrow definition, but in a more holistic sense) grown fruits, vegetables and food, and barring that, which is many areas is simply not possibly, especially cities, farm markets, and CSAs, or "Community Sponsored Agriculture," programs in which farmers pair with community groups who arrange for a share of the vegetables and/or fruits grown at a local farm. While these are not entirely practical for many people - because of cost, availability and other factors, I do appreciate the effort - and as you read you feel like Pollan doesn't expect you to jump off you couch and head down the local farm and inspect their chicken slaughterings; he hopes that you'll rethink about what your food, but seems to understand many of the considerations of modern life.
Okay, I'll try this number rating thing again:
The Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan: 8.7
So, I apologize and beg for forgiveness for my horrible picks. Next year, perhaps I'll attempt to pick them, and simply pick the opposite, and hope karma won't see through it.
Aside from that, we slowly get underway in hockey, NBA, and college basketball; college football nears bowl season, and the NFL hits the halfway point - not my favorite time of the sporting year, but at least there's stuff on.
In Books, I'm almost finished with Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan, very much one of the "it" books of 2006 - in which Pollan takes a look at how food makes it from its origins to your table, through the industrial food chain, two types of organic ones, and a hunting-and-foraging one. It's very depressing in that it basically tells us how terrible most of the food that most of us buy is - health-wise for us, for the environment, and for the animals we eat (obviously, they die, but how they live is not perhaps how we'd like to imagine they do before they do die).
However, what I appreciate, is it passes my basic tests for writing a muckraking non-fiction work. First, it's written with a very practical, relatable, and perhaps most importantly non-self-righteous. As silly as it seems, this book would be far less effective if it was written by a vegan or a vegetarian. Even beyond that, Pollan doesn't come off as a food and environmental snob (not too much of one anyway) - he clearly cares for both, perhaps more than many readers, but at the same time doesn't appear to judge the reader for the choices they make, and admits that it's hard for the normal supermarket entrant to know or consider much of this information.
Second, Pollan at least makes some attempt to offer an alternative. Now, the problem here, is that ultimately, in today's world, the alternatives are largely infeasible - first, pasture-fed animals, and local, organic (not in the USDA narrow definition, but in a more holistic sense) grown fruits, vegetables and food, and barring that, which is many areas is simply not possibly, especially cities, farm markets, and CSAs, or "Community Sponsored Agriculture," programs in which farmers pair with community groups who arrange for a share of the vegetables and/or fruits grown at a local farm. While these are not entirely practical for many people - because of cost, availability and other factors, I do appreciate the effort - and as you read you feel like Pollan doesn't expect you to jump off you couch and head down the local farm and inspect their chicken slaughterings; he hopes that you'll rethink about what your food, but seems to understand many of the considerations of modern life.
Okay, I'll try this number rating thing again:
The Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan: 8.7
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Jimmy Rollins is not the MVP
Okay, let's start with this. First of all, in probably the single most important stat, OBP, especially for someone who is most of the time a leadoff hitter - Jimmy Rollins has a .344. The average in the NL is .334. He only has 10 points higher than the average!
The other most bandied about MVP candidates - David Wright, Prince Fielder, and Matt Holliday, have .416, .395, and .405 respectively, and yes Holliday plays at Coors, but even on the road he has a .374.
Note that no MVP has an OBP that low since Andre Dawson in 1987.
But Rollins is such a slugger from that leadoff spot, right? That surely makes up for his lack of on base percentage. Well, let's look over to his slugging percentage compared with the other candidates -
Rollins - .531
Wright - .546
Fielder - .618
Holliday - .607, though .485 on the road
Rollins' OPS is .875, with what baseballreference.com calls OPS+ of 120 - basically, OPS with a park factor, but you can read more about it on their website, and in addition - it compares with league averages, so it's better at comparing players through different eras.
The last MVP with a lower OPS was Kirk Gibson in 1988 with .860.
The last MVP with a lower OPS+ was Zolio Versalles in 1965 for the Twins with 116.
And no, I don't want to hear all about his defense - yes he does play a plus position, and he should get credit for that - but no, his defense is not above-average for that position - 9th amongst NL shortstops in hardballtimes.com's Revised Zone Rating.
VORP up your alley? Jimmy Rollins is 9th in the NL, below the three other candidates discussed above, Albert Pujols, Hanley Ramirez, Miguel Cabrera Chipper Jones, and his own teammate Chase Utley - and this accounts for the positional bias.
And I don't want to hear about his RBIs or Runs scored - these are extremely lineup dependent stats, and, yes, when you're a pretty good player (and I never said Rollins wasn't) and you lead off for the most productive team, offensively, in the league, you're probably going to lead the league in runs scored.
Okay, I have more to say, and I should make my full award picks, but first before the first game starts, let me make my playoff picks.
Phillies over Rockies in 4
Dbacks over Cubs in 5
Yankees over Indians in 4
Angels over Red Sox in 5
All right, I'll make the rest of the picks, and then just make new ones, when all of mine are wrong:
Phillies over Dbacks in 6
Angels over Yankees in 7
Angels over Phillies in 5
Okay, let's start with this. First of all, in probably the single most important stat, OBP, especially for someone who is most of the time a leadoff hitter - Jimmy Rollins has a .344. The average in the NL is .334. He only has 10 points higher than the average!
The other most bandied about MVP candidates - David Wright, Prince Fielder, and Matt Holliday, have .416, .395, and .405 respectively, and yes Holliday plays at Coors, but even on the road he has a .374.
Note that no MVP has an OBP that low since Andre Dawson in 1987.
But Rollins is such a slugger from that leadoff spot, right? That surely makes up for his lack of on base percentage. Well, let's look over to his slugging percentage compared with the other candidates -
Rollins - .531
Wright - .546
Fielder - .618
Holliday - .607, though .485 on the road
Rollins' OPS is .875, with what baseballreference.com calls OPS+ of 120 - basically, OPS with a park factor, but you can read more about it on their website, and in addition - it compares with league averages, so it's better at comparing players through different eras.
The last MVP with a lower OPS was Kirk Gibson in 1988 with .860.
The last MVP with a lower OPS+ was Zolio Versalles in 1965 for the Twins with 116.
And no, I don't want to hear all about his defense - yes he does play a plus position, and he should get credit for that - but no, his defense is not above-average for that position - 9th amongst NL shortstops in hardballtimes.com's Revised Zone Rating.
VORP up your alley? Jimmy Rollins is 9th in the NL, below the three other candidates discussed above, Albert Pujols, Hanley Ramirez, Miguel Cabrera Chipper Jones, and his own teammate Chase Utley - and this accounts for the positional bias.
And I don't want to hear about his RBIs or Runs scored - these are extremely lineup dependent stats, and, yes, when you're a pretty good player (and I never said Rollins wasn't) and you lead off for the most productive team, offensively, in the league, you're probably going to lead the league in runs scored.
Okay, I have more to say, and I should make my full award picks, but first before the first game starts, let me make my playoff picks.
Phillies over Rockies in 4
Dbacks over Cubs in 5
Yankees over Indians in 4
Angels over Red Sox in 5
All right, I'll make the rest of the picks, and then just make new ones, when all of mine are wrong:
Phillies over Dbacks in 6
Angels over Yankees in 7
Angels over Phillies in 5
Monday, October 01, 2007
Okay, so Mets are done. Great. Anyway, after today's wild-card playoff between Rockies and Padres, I'll make some playoff picks.
Just a couple of things first - hopefully soon, I will come up with my ideas for what the Mets should do next year, but unlike some others, I think it's not a great idea to overreact - changes need to be made, but most of the core will probably be the same - and that's okay - Cleveland overcame a huge collapse in '05 to finish with the AL's best record this year.
That said, as I like to comment on articles others have been writing, please do not sign Pudge Rodriguez, although a likely HOF-er, he is very old, six-months older in fact than LoDuca, and while his offense has declined notably over the last few years, less often noticed is the fact his defense has declined as well - on a team trying to get younger, there is no reason to spend our money on a declining catcher this old who we hasn't been part of this team.
Also, I'll do award picks, but the one thing I want to note - is if Jimmy Rollins wins MVP, he will be the worst MVP in the recent past - I'll have to look back to find out exactly when - the other big candidates are all fine, but with respect to the quality player Rollins has been, he's no MVP.
Just a couple of things first - hopefully soon, I will come up with my ideas for what the Mets should do next year, but unlike some others, I think it's not a great idea to overreact - changes need to be made, but most of the core will probably be the same - and that's okay - Cleveland overcame a huge collapse in '05 to finish with the AL's best record this year.
That said, as I like to comment on articles others have been writing, please do not sign Pudge Rodriguez, although a likely HOF-er, he is very old, six-months older in fact than LoDuca, and while his offense has declined notably over the last few years, less often noticed is the fact his defense has declined as well - on a team trying to get younger, there is no reason to spend our money on a declining catcher this old who we hasn't been part of this team.
Also, I'll do award picks, but the one thing I want to note - is if Jimmy Rollins wins MVP, he will be the worst MVP in the recent past - I'll have to look back to find out exactly when - the other big candidates are all fine, but with respect to the quality player Rollins has been, he's no MVP.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Time to make my Emmy picks - don't have a lot of time, so I'll just pick who I think will win, maybe more about who I think should win later. (Only picking the awards I choose to pick)
Outstanding Drama:
The Sopranos
Outstanding Comedy:
The Office
Outstanding Reality Program:
The Amazing Race
Outstanding Variety Music or Comedy Series:
Colbert Report (Okay, I'm admitting I want this to win)
Lead Actor in a Drama:
James Gandolfini
Lead Actor in a Comedy:
Steve Carrell
Lead Actress in a Drama:
Edie Falco
Lead Actress in a Comedy:
America Ferrara
Supporting Actor Drama:
William Shatner
Supporting Actor Comedy:
Jeremy Piven
Supporting Actress Drama:
Lorraine Bracco
Supporting Actress Comedy:
Vanessa Williams
Outstanding Drama:
The Sopranos
Outstanding Comedy:
The Office
Outstanding Reality Program:
The Amazing Race
Outstanding Variety Music or Comedy Series:
Colbert Report (Okay, I'm admitting I want this to win)
Lead Actor in a Drama:
James Gandolfini
Lead Actor in a Comedy:
Steve Carrell
Lead Actress in a Drama:
Edie Falco
Lead Actress in a Comedy:
America Ferrara
Supporting Actor Drama:
William Shatner
Supporting Actor Comedy:
Jeremy Piven
Supporting Actress Drama:
Lorraine Bracco
Supporting Actress Comedy:
Vanessa Williams
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Friday Night Lights
A few things about Friday Night Lights, which I finished watching recently.
- I appreciate the fact that one of the main characters is a quadriplegic, apart from Joe in Family Guy, and that hardly counts, I feel like we never get to see handicapped characters as main characters in shows, and his recovery process I found very interesting in and of itself – of course, watching it in real time, would be monotonous and boring, but spread over a couple of hours, it becomes fascinating.
- I like the way how each main family of the show is different, both socioeconomically, and in the family structure and personality – in a lot of ways, this is something evident through the show, and it’s kind of a show of representation – each character, while being built upon and deepened gradually, seems to represent a certain type of generic person – the self-obsessed star, the snobbish, sheltered cheerleader, the drunken, dumb fullback. They both represent their types, and build upon them, showing some complexity rather than sticking to the roles that they’re laid out in, yet at the same time making it believable within the character.
- Yes, the show definitely gets corny at times, and features over-the-top game winning scores and sequences in nearly every game, and yes it does take on almost every conceivable stereotypical high school sports issue (a la pro football in ESPN’s Playmakers of a few years back): there is steroids, recruiting violations, tough decisions regarding favorite status to football players, etc
- However, in a strange way – it does a great job with moments that could easily be merely sentimental, and really makes them very powerful – almost all of Coach Taylor’s speeches – while your brain knows that this is often clichéd, Motivational Speaking 101, you still get pulled in by them. In addition, my feeling for the characters made many of the sappy things that they did, worth more than that, because I had grown to know them, and, got to have these moments, as I do in all good dramas, where I have to remind myself that this is just a show, and that Kyle Chandler doesn’t have to worry about losing his job, and that poor Matt Saracen’s grandmother is probably just fine.
- A quick note about the credit sequence – it grew on me over watching the show – I didn’t like it at all at first, and now I kind of like it, but it’s still a little long, could use a little more energy, and would benefit from a few more scenes that showed more in them then just countryside, even though I understand what they’re going for, it’s hard to pay full attention to it every time
- Also something I’ve been strangely focused on in watching TV shows recently: who belongs to be featured in the credits? In FNL, the coach, portrayed by Kyle Chandler and his wife, Connie Britton, are the only two adults featured, while Gaius Charles, Zach Gilford, Minka Kelly, Taylor Kitsch, Adrianne Palicki, Scott Porter, Aimee Teegarden, and Jesse Plemons are featured as kids, a featured cast of 8, which is within normal bounds for a drama. Everyone pretty much features in every episode and deserves their entry into the credits except for maybe Jesse Plemons, who plays the new QB’s best friend, Landry, who is simply absent from some episodes and has very small parts in others. There are a number of different important supporting characters, primarily family members of the featured kids, along with an assistant coach or two, but the only one that really makes any headway into being close to worth of being featured is Brad Leland as Buddy Garrity, the cheerleader’s father, and team’s head booster, along with used car salesman and sleezy adulterer. Garrity is in most episodes, and has some major parts, though still does not deserve credit entry, with only two adults in there anyway. However, his character is one of the most entertaining in the show.
Friday Night Lights, Season 1: 7.4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)