Zero Hour

I think some shows are just to intelligent for most people. Maybe People like easy, action and not very smart shows. If you look at what happened to "touch",first season was great and original, then in order to adapt to an audience that wanted action, the script was changed and became completely vulgar and predictable. I loved Zero Hour! It reminded me of a lot of god books i read and it had everything: a smart story, action, original script, and a way of telling the story that surprises you with the unpredictable. It is more and more difficult to find original story's that surprise us. Everything seems so "haven't i seen this before". And maybe story tellers can not do better because the audience demands more of the same.

Fantasy like shows are difficult to pull of because a lot of it has been done before. In this instance the writers have come up with a refreshing original tale that is engaging, twisty and intriguing. The cast is a great departure from the all perfect caricatures that grace our screens with little regard to what we really look like. We don't all have perfect hair or perfect eyes and bodies and this show reflects that by choosing talent over superficial looks. Im catching up on missed episodes and thoroughly enjoying each one. I hope this goes past the first season and enjoys a long run. It would be interesting to see how they would spin it.

I loved this show and would highly recommend it. It may take a couple of episodes for someone to really get into it but it's definitely worth it. It has a lot of conspiracy theories, paranormal indications, religious undertones, and Nazi/world war II connotations. It's smart and creative; like nothing else out there. Very mysterious and lots of twists! I wish there was more.

I've watched the first 3. I, unlike others, like the characters and it's nice to see Anthony Edwards in role again--since his days with Northern Exposure (I never watched ER). The young cast, most notably, Scott Michael Foster and Addison Timlin I find to be refreshing, both of which had a stint on Californication among other projects not leaving out that Scott worked on The River. Michael Nyqvist has chops...here in Canada he's been on Millennium but back home he's well known. His character is well acted and I feel that he brings the best out of Jacinda Barrett, she's no slouch herself.

Carmen Ejogo; she's been around and can act. Here's where I have to complain; the writing she has to deliver is poor and her role could be a bit more stereotypical--but not much.

Is the show going to win awards? Not yet for sure. But reading the other reviews made me want to say this: "Let's wait and see where this is going...". I truly believe that there is a lot more in store.

Reading my own review I got thinking that I look like I work for a studio or some such--I don't. I simply don't find the show all that bad and it's staying on my record list for now.

I watched the pilot online before the official broadcast because friends recommended that it would come across as just plain bad in its broadcast time slot (8/7pm).

--- Emotional reaction ---

The overall tone is hilariously overwrought. The scenes are hacked together. There isn't even an attempt at a pretense of internal logic. Even in the context of a portion of an individual scene, the characters' actions often are absurdly nonsensical. The silliness, stupidity and illogic come flying at you at such a pace it is impossible not to laugh -- I was laughing well past the end of the credits.

Watch it with friends and wine/beer/... and debate questions such as: Is this good enough to be a bad parody of "The Da Vinci Code" and the like? Is Anthony Edwards starring because Nicholas Cage said that there wasn't enough money ...?

--- Analytic reaction ---

Quick cuts between short scenes are typical of this genre, but to be successful, it requires audience involvement, either with the characters or the cause (idea, threat, ...). There is none here.

Nazis as villains is so overdone and outmoded in this and related genres that it hurts audience buy-in. Even if this isn't the case, it is just so badly done -- so over-the-top and comic. This is an enormous red flag that the show's creator has no creativity or imagination.

The genre appears to be race-to-the-treasure. This requires the lead characters to buy into the high-energy craziness, such as Nicholas Cage in the National Treasure series and the gaggle of comics in "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" (1963). Anthony Edwards is badly suited to play this role, both from the type of actor he is and audience expectations from prior role. And worse the script saddles him with two conflicting roles. The other one is that of the skeptic/voice-of-sanity (comic relief, exposition, whatever). Although the actor is much better suited to this role, the writers give him no support (I remember only one line, and it was a throw-away). The Anthony Edwards character could have been the "reluctant hero", but actor and the setup in the pilot preclude this.

There are multiple statements by characters to tell the audience that things are not what they seem, but rather than ambiguous hints to draw you in, they are ham-handed signals that the writers don't have the finesse to handle this genre.