How good is 'John from Cincinnati'? The answer's as perplexing as its title character
-
- July
- 30
If you asked me what’s really going on in “John from Cincinnati,” perhaps my answer would echo one of the title character’s frequent refrains when something does not compute: “I don’t know Butchie instead.”
Confused? So am I. But I’ve watched every episode and I’m not tuning out just yet.
Like David Milch’s previous HBO ensemble series, “Deadwood,” part of the beauty of “John” is that not everything is revealed immediately; both series beautifully demonstrate how seemingly unconnected characters impact each other’s lives. But while “Deadwood” did this in linear—albeit complicated—fashion, it didn’t do it in so convoluted a way as “John,” which stretches unexplained matters into the paranormal realm and causes unnecessary confusion.
Example: “Deadwood’s” characters wage 19th-century battles under common laws of physics and time. The characters in “John” deal with their modern-day problems, too, but often do so in the presence of the title character, who can appear in multiple places simultaneously and deliver ambiguous speeches to all of them in the process. (It’s not much of a spoiler at this point to reveal that John is not actually from Cincinnati, if you hadn’t heard by now.)
With “Deadwood,” even the most complicated, iambic monologues uttered by Al Swearengen (played with vigor by the painfully underappreciated Ian McShane) could be understood with repeat viewings the same week. The same cannot be said with John (played with naive intelligence by Austin Nichols), whose cryptic speeches remain unclear to even the most patient audiences. Plus, at no time in “Deadwood” is the audience subjected to wondering, “Is this a dream?”, “Are these characters going to remember this event later?” or “Is this a lost episode of ‘Twin Peaks’?”
I was among the show’s staunchest defenders when it premiered after “The Sopranos” series finale, which left so many fans cold that HBO could have broadcast the next day’s winning lottery numbers and those fans still would have hated it. “John’s” first episode started out slow, but grabbed my attention once John summoned cash from his seemingly empty pockets. The two episodes that followed were spectacular. A subsequent dip in quality since then left me colder, striking a nadir once John gathered everyone for his first extended allocution that may or may not have existed in everyone’s subconscious.
There have been two constants that keep me watching. Ed O’Neill, best known for his farcical Al Bundy on Fox’s “Married with Children,” is jaw-droppingly spectacular as Bill Jacks, a reclusive, retired police officer tortured by the death of his wife. He’s by far the best part of the show, equally adept at making the audience laugh and cry, often within the same scene. And any interaction he has with supposed baddie Dayton Callie (known to “Deadwood” fans as good-guy Charlie Utter) is guaranteed to result in a few expletives between the two and countless laughs for the audience at home.
Many of the supporting players are just as engaging. Stand-outs include everyone who’s ever appeared on “Deadwood” (Callie, Garrett Dillahunt, Jim Beaver, Paula Malcomson and Stephen Tobolowsky), character actor Luis Guzmán, former “Beverly Hills 90210″ dreamboat Luke Perry and newcomer Emily Rose, who might be my new favorite TV crush.
It’s tough to tell if the surly, screamy grandmother character portrayed by Rebecca De Mornay (yes, Tom Cruise’s on-screen fling from “Risky Business”) is the reason I don’t like many of her scenes, or if this is the fault of De Mornay, the actress, for making the character totally unlikeable. Worse is the wooden Greyson Fletcher, a 16-year-old child actor whom I am convinced was hired solely for his surfing and skating abilities. I don’t blame Fletcher for auditioning—and I do feel bad for calling him out—but I blame the casting director for making a rare but glaring error with one of the show’s most crucial characters.
So, with all of this, do I even like the show? Yes, but it’s no “Deadwood.” (But then again, what is?)
I’ll ride “John from Cincinnati” out until season’s end. But the finale will be the ultimate gauge of whether the show sinks or floats. It could mean the difference between the perfect wave and a wipe-out.
This entry was posted
on Monday, July 30th, 2007 at 4:49 pm by Chris Serico.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Share and Enjoy: del.icio.us Digg Reddit Google StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! | 
Print
| 
Email
I'm a few episodes behind at this point, but I tend to agree. First off, Ed O'Neill is indeed fabulous and the "friendship" he has with Dayton Callie is screamingly hilarious. Any conversation between the two is the highlight of the episode, even if it's just a handful of words.
I haven't decided yet, either, how I feel. I won't compare it to Deadwood, because the latter was just one of the finest dramas ever to grace television, and the two shows are so incredibly different, though it is difficult to like it, given the demise of Deadwood.
Given it's Milch and HBO, I'm willing to give it a season. Will I give it a second season? To quote Jim Belushi in "About Last Night," "At this point, we don't know."
Greyson Fletcher was cas because he is the grandson in the Fletcher surfing family that the Yosts are based on.
And I want to add- Brian Van Holt is acting the HELL out of Butchie Yost.
I hope there is a second season, at least…..
Ed O'Neill makes this show watchable. I find myself tuning in every sunday for some reason. I hope the season finally is better than the Supranos finally!(that sucked)