Daytripper

I don't normally pay much attention to what's said in Entertainment Weekly. I don't even buy it. But while flipping through the latest issue (the one with "Harry Potter" on the cover) at the book store, I noticed a review for the season premiere of "Six Feet Under" this Sunday night (6/13). They gave it a grade "C" and basically said the show has become wooden and not very interesting. I *completely* disagree. Looking back, I don't think there has been one "SFU" episode I didn't think was above average (at a minimum). So, we'll see. I can't wait for the season to start.

AgtFox

I think Ken Tucker (I'm guessing he wrote it, don't have the issue in front of me at the moment) is trying to convey that the emotional rollercoaster is cyclical in nature on the show (not that I agree with him). When things get rosy it's time to put the character deeper into the emotional hole and the writer has a problem with the changes for some of the characters...but who knows how long this season begins after the last season in a timeline.

What I will say is that Seasons 1 and 2 were superb and Season 3 was still good, but not as good as the other 2 in my opinion. I have hopes for this season and this review isn't going to make me not watch the show this coming Sunday.

kninestile

DeanoBKN

Season 1 was amazing. Season 2 and 3 were also very good. I for one can't wait for Sunday.

Daytripper

@ AgtFox: Agree, seaons 1 and 2 were the best. Season 3 took a while to grow on me. Personally, for me, not having Brenda on the first several episodes changed the dynamics of the show too much.

bboisvert

The C rating and comments were in reference to the new season, which we haven't seen yet. The reviewer enjoyed Seasons 1-3.

Daytripper

I'm sorry, but I find that very hard to believe. I don't think I've ever read a review of a TV show where the review was for the entire season. Not in Entertainment Weekly, TV Guide, the Washington Post, etc. Plus, it didn't say anywhere in the EW review that it was for the entire season. Do we even know if the fourth season has been completed? "Sex and the City" was still filming a few weeks before it ended.

Patman

The reviewer in EW is reviewing the upcoming 4th season, and gave it a grade of C. It's not implausible that all 13 episodes are in the can because it's been a year since season 3 started. A year is plenty of time to have filmed 13 episodes already.

Daytripper

I didn't say it was implausible or impossible for all 13 episodes to have been filmed in the year since the last season ended (didn't it start around January or Febuary of 2003 anyway?). But they didn't go right back into production. And I thought the HBO shows took longer to produce anyway. I'm just saying, I've never seen a review for entire season before. And if that EW was in fact one for season 4, that was pretty weak. Not the grade, which that obviously was. The review itself.

bboisvert

Daytripper -- I didn't say he was reviewing the ENTIRE season. But the review, if you read it, is clearly referencing Season 4 throughout. I don't know if the "C" is for the first episode, the first few, or what.

But my point was that you can't really disagree with the C rating, given that it is for material that hasn't aired yet. It's posible that this above average show has a mediocre season coming up. It happens to the best of 'em.

Patman

The de-nadding of Nate last season was jarring, and I don't think the 3rd season ever really settled into a groove like Season 1 or 2 did. I found season 3 to be a little of a chore to sit through with each episode last year. I haven't really anticipated the 4th season with much vigor either.

The Antipodean

Good lord, he's obviously just reviewing the first few episodes of season 4, is it that hard to understand?

Daytripper

I don't know who you're directing this at. I'll admit I read through this quickly while flipping through it at Borders. But it wasn't clear (to me) whether it was one episode, five or all thirteen.

Jadzia

The review did not state specifically how many episodes had been seen, but I know from past EW reviews of HBO shows, usually they are reviewing the first few episodes (3-4), based on specific plot points they mention.

I am going to take this review with a grain of salt. Last season started out a little slow, as I do think it takes awhile to check back in with these characters and settle into a groove with new storylines.

mphtrilogy

Last season was weak, this review has me worried that this show is close to being done, leaving HBO with very little to watch (not a fan of deadwood, or the wire..)

conscience

Just got my digital cable box back today for Six Feet Under!

can't wait.

After the season, cable box goes back!

Yay!

Dave Scarpa

Your absolutely dead on. Season 2 ended with Nate on the verge of Death, in fact many thought the beginning of Season 3 to be so odd it could only be Nate in his mind during the operation. Nope it was real. But we find him completely recover, married to Lisa who only guest starred in season 2, and completely turned around in character from his ordeal , of which all happened off screen. After the buildup at the end of season 2 I thought Season 3 was the ultimate audience cheat.

das Monkey

I'm not sure if I'm in the minority or not, but Season 3's premiere was a level of brilliantly creative writing that we rarely see in television or film. Some of the episodes were a bit off, but on the whole, I thought it was a fantastic season. It was difficult, but so is life. There are too many "easy" shows anyway. I'm really looking forward to this 4th season, and I'm not particularly interested in what fashionable publications like EW or USA Today have to say about it (has the USA Today guy showed up to tear it apart yet? It's about that time)

das

riley_dude

The review was for what he had seen of season 4 and just because he doesnt like what he has Seen of the new season doesnt mean he isnt a fan.
Since the season has not premiered yet how can we judge since we havent seen it yet? He has.

Patman

I made the choice in reading the article in TV Guide on 6FU, and DAMN, we are in for a ride.

Daytripper

Nor am I. Just wanted to share the "news" And USAToday had two articles on the show. One yesterday and the other today. Neither were a review. I'm sure that axe job will appear tomorrow. Here was one of the articles:

HBO lightens up 'Six Feet Under'
By William Keck, USA TODAY
LOS ANGELES — Six Feet Under's new season kicks off Sunday (HBO, 9 p.m. ET/PT) with a drug-induced leap off an apartment complex. (Related story: New flesh for Six Feet Under)

And there was plenty of "grass" to be found at HBO's Hollywood premiere party this month for its fourth season opener.

No need to phone the narcs. This party grass was of the lush green lawn variety — potted take-home references to the new season's slogan: "Every day above ground is a good one." That's a particularly uplifting message for a show about death and despair.

It's a move to bring some light to HBO's increasingly dark lineup, where Sex and the City has been replaced with the violent Deadwood and where each Sopranos episode is judged by fans based on who gets "whacked."

In Six Feet Under's new promotional images, cast members leap gleefully over a healthy, landscaped lawn. Some, like Claire (Lauren Ambrose) and Ruth (Frances Conroy), even smile or hold hands. (The concept was inspired by 1950s photographer Phillip Halsman, who shot celebrities and politicians in midjump.)

It's an obvious departure from last season's dark poster, which featured the cast, their heads bowed in deep mourning, sitting grimly around the Fishers' kitchen table (which, symbolically, is replaced in the new season's second episode).

"Six Feet Under's executive producers indicated to us that the show was going to be a little bit more lighthearted," HBO marketing executive Courteney Monroe says. "It gives us an opportunity to showcase the show in a way we haven't before."

Concedes executive producer Alan Poul, "The third season certainly had a deep and somber tone to it." That third season earned 16 Emmy nominations — 2003's highest tally — though it won only one.

"In the fourth season," Poul says, "we wanted to let the characters have a little more fun and come back to the off-the-wall surprise plot twists." Among the uplifting turns:

• Ruth and new husband George get involved with a humorous story line when mysterious packages begin arriving on their doorstep.

• Keith is assigned to bodyguard a Britney Spears-type pop diva. (Ellen DeGeneres even pops up for a cameo.)

• Brenda gets to have the kind of kinky fun she loves — this time, without the guilt.

• And Claire, having dumped boyfriend Russell, relaxes with college chums.

Don't expect the show to turn into Little Funeral Home on the Prairie. "We can't keep our dark sides hidden for very long," Poul says. "We like our characters to find happiness — for brief periods of time."


And the other article. A new character breakdown:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/televis...characters.htm

Daytripper

Hollywood Reporter review:

By Barry Garron

If it seems like a year since we last looked in on the characters of "Six Feet Under," well, that's about right. It was a bleak time for most of those associated with the Fisher & Diaz funeral home, and the darkness pervades the fourth-season premiere as well. The good news is that successive episodes -- while still full of the angst and internal struggles so beautifully dramatized over the past three years -- also contain some of the rich irony and twisted wit that sets this series apart from all others.

The most cataclysmic event of last season's finale was the confirmation of the death of Nate's (Peter Krause) wife, Lisa, who had been missing for suspiciously too long. One of the central tenets of "Six Feet Under" is that people experience grief in highly individual and sometimes unexpected ways. Even so, Nate's reactions seem peculiar -- all-consuming at one point and oblivious the next, like the zigzag of a mountain road. Here, a little more consistency might have been in order.

Other developments at last season's end include the marriage of Fisher matriarch Ruth (Frances Conroy) to new boyfriend George (James Cromwell), a union discouraged by all three Fisher children. Claire (Lauren Ambrose) secretly obtained an abortion and Frederico (Freddy Rodriguez), facing an intolerable home life, enters into an unplanned liaison with a strip club dancer. Perhaps the only hopeful element in all this was the effort being made by David (Michael C. Hall) and boyfriend Keith (Matthew St. Patrick) to recapture the feelings they had for each other.

The season premiere, penned by Craig Wright, re-establishes the several downer story lines but does little to move things in new directions. That will have to wait for the second episode, a tantalizing bit of writing by co-exec producer Rick Cleveland in which several characters get their grooves back.

Despite all the emotional trauma surrounding Fisher & Diaz, the writers also keep Nate's old and odd flame, Brenda (Rachel Griffiths), in the picture. Although her budding romance with neighbor Joe (Justin Theroux) brings out yet another facet of this essentially unpredictable character, it seems disconnected to everything else going on in the series.

As you might expect in a series that has garnered accolades and frequent award nominations, the acting is uniformly superb, extending all the way to supporting cast members Cromwell and Rainn Wilson, who plays the geeky but oddly mysterious mortuary intern Arthur. Michael Cuesta, who directed, effectively employed dim lighting and shadows to reflect the grim mood of the premiere.

Frank TJ Mackey

first off, the critic has not seen the entire season or very many episodes

secondly, who cares? we love the show and 6 Feet Under average is better than most of the mindless drek on tv today

thirdly, i've read other positive reviews of this season