0/5

Dallas: reviews

Praise for Larry Hagman and even his eyebrows, but critics circle the scripts on the Dallas reboot.

Some warm to its sense of fun, many already find it just another nighttime soap, but aside from praise for Larry Hagman and his eyebrows, it seems US critics are already circling the scripts of the Dallas reboot.

This one is coming to Nine later this year.

Variety:
After the CW’s spotty record with soap reboots, expectations for “Dallas” weren’t particularly high. But TNT’s take on the classic primetime serial is exactly as it should be: Texas-sized, frothy and unwilling to settle for a double-cross when a triple can be executed. The show also does a deft job of wedding old and new, setting a fresh generation of Ewings at each other’s throats while credibly (enough for these purposes, anyway) incorporating the old guard. Audiences have seen plenty of Texas in recent years — from “Lone Star” to “G.C.B.” — but there’s no substitute for old-fashioned crude.

Hollywood Reporter:
The writing is not there. Neither is the acting. And the plot – well, it’s not like that was a strong point of the original version anyway. But none of the elements is present, just soap bubbles and silliness. This is a remake that should never have been remade.

Boston Globe:
The series will likely be a pass for everyone except those with a high tolerance for nighttime soap conventions — characters not asking obvious questions, double and triple crosses — that are as old as melodrama itself but were buffed to a high gloss in the ’80s by the original “Dallas” and its brethren. That crowd should feel no need to resist. No matter how stiff some of the younger actors portraying the new generation of Ewings may be, or how silly some of the plot twists, the heart of this new iteration is in the right escapist place. The main reason for anyone to watch is Hagman, a marvel at 80. Though the effects of his battle with cancer are evident in his smaller frame, there is nothing minuscule about his gleeful performance.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ut6dRhrY8Y[/youtube]

Huffington Post:
It’d be kind to say that cast members of the original “Dallas” (which ran from 1978 to 1991) Larry Hagman, Patrick Duffy and Linda are “of a certain age,” but it’s probably more accurate to say they passed that age in the rearview mirror some time back. But Hagman and Duffy possess the kind of spark and on-screen chemistry that many of the show’s new cast members don’t really have yet, and Hagman in particular appears to be having the time of his life (the show is worth watching just to see the evolution of his magisterial eyebrows, which have more personality than some of the greener cast members). The bottom line is this: If you want to tune in at least partly out of nostalgia for the old show, Hagman, Duffy and the efficiently soapy antics on “Dallas” will make it worth your while.

SF Chronicle:
True, there are more than a few moments when the absence of logic strains credibility in “Dallas.” And soon enough, you start anticipating the next unlikely plot development moments before it actually happens. Why? Either because it’s a cliche or it makes no sense. And on “Dallas,” if it makes no sense, it’s bound to happen. Except for Hagman, the performances are adequate without ever standing out, which may be one of the reasons it takes so long to care much about the younger Ewings, or, as I came to think of them over the seven episodes sent to critics, the “Ewlings.” It’s not entirely the fault of the actors, though: As the script is written, there’s very little time for any real character development. If a Ewing does a bad thing one second, he’ll do a good thing two seconds later.
The female characters are especially elusive and underwritten, with the exception of Strong’s Annie, who has her own secrets to hide. Gray still can’t act but seems to be relying on her raccoon-eyed makeup to ground her character. She’s wearing so much eye shadow, you half expect her head to pop out of a garbage can somewhere along the way. Can’t wait for the Halloween episode.

RedEye:
Executive producer Cynthia Cidre has captured the soapy tone of the original, but focuses on a new generation of Ewings. J.R.’s son, John Ross (Josh Henderson, impressively wicked and looking great in a Stetson), and Bobby’s adopted son, Christopher (Jesse Metcalfe, kinda wimpy), continue the hostilities that defined their daddies’ relationship. Whether fighting over the women in their lives (Jordana Brewster and Julie Gonzalo), oil drilling or the family’s Southfork Ranch, they’re chips off the old blocks.

Baltimore Sun:
I can see some people checking out the pilot thinking they are going to get some nostalgic charge or, perhaps, a postmodern pop out of seeing Larry Hagman, Patrick Duffy and Linda Gray reprising their roles alongside a much younger generation of actors playing their sons and daughters. But if you come back for a second hour after you have been reminded of how sadly, soap-opera one-dimensional Gray and Duffy are, then you need to check yourself into a clinic or hospital and ask them to hook your head up to one of those machine with lots of little suction cups to see if there is any activity anywhere within your brain. Or, let me put it this way so the people in Texas can understand it: If you think the new “Dallas” is really worth an hour of your time, you just might be flatlining intellectually. I spent two hours with the new “Dallas,” and I swear I would rather have been watching Sunday morning infomercials for overpriced gated communities or those knives that never need sharpening even if you are using them to cut through blocks of iron ore that you happen to find on your kitchen counter next to the tomatoes and iceberg lettuce.

Kansas City Star:
In fact, for the “Dallas” faithful, there’s little to dislike here. From theme music to titles to tone, the new show is virtually identical to the original, which started a boom in prime-time soap operas that included “Dynasty,” “Knots Landing” and “Falcon Crest.” But TV has changed a lot since 1991. Prime-time soaps died out, and the ranks of daytime soaps have thinned. While “Desperate Housewives” had a long run and “Revenge” is a new hit, some viewers remain reluctant to start watching serialized drama at all because they are afraid the show will be canceled with no resolution. TNT has wisely scheduled “Dallas” for 10 episodes, all completed before the premiere. More could be ordered, but at least the audience can be assured of one complete story arc. Executive producer Cynthia Cidre (“Cane”) and her team have provided many entry points for new viewers, and references they may not get are either explained or expendable. The young cast, especially the male leads, is appealing, and the show looks good, benefiting from shooting on location in Dallas. The storytelling was compelling enough to lead me to watch three episodes (TNT provided all 10) in a row.

SiouxCityJournal:
While Executive Producer Cynthia Cidre has done her homework – the series looks just like the old “Dallas” – she hasn’t quite gotten a rhythm that works. At times, the new show looks like a museum piece; at others, it’s just one more soap. The trick here is using the veterans strategically, not salting stories with them just because old fans will be looking. Gray still manages the best eye tricks in the business and Hagman has such bushy eyebrows he’s practically broadcasting in 3D. Still, to succeed this “Dallas” needs to go out on its own, enjoy the spoils from the earlier one and explore new plotlines. Some look re-tilled; others need more nurturing. Metcalfe and Henderson aren’t there yet – but they could be. The original “Dallas” wasn’t built in a day. This one won’t be, either.

7 Responses

  1. this is so stupid finally a show that isnt a reality tv show comes on and my whole family and i love it and it gets taken away well done 9 how about you take your heads out of ur butts and start putting on some quality tv or as your slongan goes ‘ your still the one… thats sucks ass’

  2. I agree with paul2. I don’t see this working on their main channel. Give it to GEM. The 2 hour premiere was actually Ep.1 & Ep. 2. Thought it was ok until I watched Ep.3, now I’m hooked.

  3. Nine should be fasttracking this on GEM – it’s too niche to be a mainstream hit, but if they are smart, they’ll get this on straight after the Olympics while the show is still generating publicity in the US. Otherwise it’s going to be ruined by spoilers.

  4. Considering what this show is, I think those reviews are pretty decent. There are plenty of TV reviewers who were never going to write a kind word about it. For those who seem to know what they’re talking about to say “if you liked the original you might like this” is good enough for me.

Leave a Reply