A mini-review of "Malcolm in the Middle"

Well, it's official: The people who make an episode should also be the ones who promote it. Consistently, it seems that the promotions department (and not just Fox's, either) picks the scenes that least convey the flavor of the show.

If you went just by the promos, you might conclude that "Malcolm in the Middle" was just a series of gross-out jokes, with little heart or likability. In reality, the gross factor is there, but it's balanced with clever humor and characters that are interesting to watch. It isn't a live-action "Simpsons" -- it seems more dysfunctionally out-of-control -- but it has its own style, which in the long run is better. Malcolm is quite personable, and can even carry off the tricky "talking to the camera" plot device. His mom is gruff but obviously cares about her family's welfare (even if it isn't always obvious). The minor characters are good too. I liked Stevie, the wheelchair-using kid Malcolm reluctantly befriends, and the gifted-ed teacher with the nasal voice.

Several scenes stand out. I like the older brother, the one in military school, when he "confessed" his various scenes in montage. The scene where Stevie shows Malcolm his comic collection is actually quite warm. And the resolution is clever and unexpected.

A lot of people will hate "Malcolm," either because of it's ham-fisted promotion, or because it displaced "Futurama." That's unfairly blaming the show for things it can't control. I've been burned on shows that had only one good episode, and then went downhill, but so far "Malcolm" shows promise. It deserves the chance that the network has given it.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Benjamin Robinson wrote:

I thought Malcolm in the Middle was a promising series, too. I completely and utterly ignored Fox's vapid and aggressive ad campaign for the series (and their addlebrained scheduling techniques as well). Like with most things, Fox's promos tend to miss the point and think that viewers enjoy banal, obvious shock value more than wit and endearing characters. Most of the things I found funny about the series were *not* in any of the promotions (like when Malcolm identifies the problems with the picture while paint is on his behind). Anyway, it made me laugh and I cared about the characters to some degree. Plus, Malcolm acts more like a child would act at his age than most other kids in television. The father in the series can use more fleshing, and so could Malcolm's youngest brothers, but otherwise, the show doesn't seem like something worthy of venemous hatred (except for the self-righteous types who think Simpsons was the beginning and end of comedy on TV.)

I also note that Linwood Boomer is the creator and writer of the series. I find it amazing that someone who was a cast member on Little House on the Prairie had such a bent sense of humor.

       Ondre J. Lombard  *  [email]  *
S1.2 OFF+++ LIS++> BOB++ TEE++ f+++  -  Always remember that you're never
n+ w ; 7G11, 7F07, 7F12, 8F06, 8F08  -  alone when you're a schizophrenic.
9F11, 2F15, 3F22, 5F17, 5F18 ; M17   -  "Poughkeepsie."
    "Sometimes the only way you can feel good about yourself is by making
      someone else feel bad.  And I'm tired of making other people feel
                          good about themselves."

In article , Ondre Lombard wrote:

Pretty much ditto on all that. I saw the rerun tonight, and the show was pretty good. Hopefully they will limit themselves on the jokes that are funny just for being gross.

I don't see how you could be on Little House on the Prarie and not end up warped.

Sorry, but I think the show is lame in comparison to Futurama. Actually, I thought is was just as lame as all the sitcoms on every channel, though I don't have cable so just the local channels.

Benjamin Robinson wrote in message news:[email]...

ones

(and

the

quite

where

the

[email]

decide

Decored wrote:

I would rather watch Shasta McNasty than MITM. Sincerely, Little Girl

I don't believe you.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                         [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeealy
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.

Excerpts from netnews.alt.tv.futurama: 18-Jan-100 Re: [Semi-OT] A mini-review.. "Decored"@ixpres.com (2180)

sitcoms blow. The only reason they are on tv is because they are inexpensive and no one can make anything better.

James W. Sager wrote:

Just FIY, MITM isn't cheap. It's shot single-camera on film like most dramas rather than multi-camera on videotape like most sitcoms, which means that the production costs of a single episode of MITM is about ten times as much as a standard sitcom.

Just another useless fact for everyone!!

----- Michael K. Anderson "I don't understand any of this."

Ploobis wrote:

And of course Waterworld showed us that the more money you spend the better the final product.

You can also produce a total piece of crap with only $20k, as the Blair Witch Project folks have shown.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                         [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeealy
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.

Dave wrote:

You should see the crap movies I make for $50.

We should? Is Leela in them? Or Amy? Or even a second cousin with some resemblance?

Mike Zaite wrote in message ...

most dramas

that the

much as a

better the

the other

Rick Carlson wrote:

Their's an evil robot killing machine shaped like my friend Greg in them.

In article , [email] (Ploobis) wrote:

Why? Seems like a waste of money, since most people won't be seeing it on film.

I liked tonights episode too. It was a nice break from The Simpsons.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Simpsons. Rather, I _liked_ the Simspons. Now they just seem to be going for the beavis 'n' butthead gross humor style. Tonights wasn't as bad as last week, but it seems like Fox's decision for no more "World's Blankiest Blanks" has negatively affected the simpsons -- all the grossness that would be on those shows has to go somewhere, and it seems like the Simpsons got most of it. Must maintain equilibrium, I guess.

Malcolm wasn't bad. The resolution wasn't what it would have been on most shows, because they did what you weren't expecting, instead of being happily ever after.

It's actually kind of odd that a show that was advertised as really gross by Fox for the first episode turned out to not be gross when they had the chance. They didn't show the injury at every possible moment, they didn't show one of them getting hit by the bike, they didn't show inside the limo.

Kinda makes ya wonder why the show still sucks, don't it?

Ploobis wrote in message news:[email]...

dramas

the

a