|
|
Let me start by saying: oh my gosh, could the reviews be any crappier? People with misguided notions of informing the world that "Zoo" is an atrocity and anyone who likes it is of below average intelligence? That being said, some of them aren't wrong.
The cast:
Billy Burke's character, Mitch, is believable and judging by the discrepancies between the subtitles and his actual lines there might have been some improvising. (Smart move, if you ask me.) Nonso Anozie does wonderful work with what he was given. Did anyone tear him apart for his roles in GoT, Ender's Game, etc.? Didn't think so. Save your "not their best work" speech for Kristen Connolly, the journalist. Her impression of a tough career-woman bent on uncovering the truth while carrying the weight of a tragic past is less than convincing and does take you out of the moment pretty often. When Billy Burke's character thanks her for "saving him" you don't believe she's done anything to deserve his gratitude, let alone his love.
As for Chloe Tousignant, the Parisian federal agent, played by Nora Arnezeder and Jackson Oz, the American safari guide, played by James Wolk? Both are solid actors portraying semi-solid characters. They have their weaknesses and their shining moments. Jackson's character seems to be based on little else than being the superhero to Abe's sidekick and the son of the scientist who discovered and studied the animals' abnormal behavior. Chloe's character is much more believable, down to the fact that she could afford a safari even on her entry-level type status as a French agent and seems to be her own worst critic. Nora seems to have found a way to connect to her character and bring her to life in spite of the show's writing.
The plot:
Riddled with holes? Absolutely. Writing that frustrates even the most docile of audience members? Check. You're constantly questioning the characters' motives and whoever was responsible for pacing has a lot of explaining to do. With such an intriguing premise and solid, quality acting there is absolutely no excuse for the odd jumps and bumps that make you feel as if you're trying to figure out what should already be obvious and have already figured out what shouldn't be obvious at all. It's backwards - and it's less enjoyable when it's backwards.
Other: In some places, it's shot like my high school drama class made a movie for a talent show. Action-packed sequences that could have been intense and terrifying are tepid and laughable. I would rate the digital elements up there with a good B-flick.
All of that being said. I STILL LIKE THE SHOW. People are so critical and their sense of entitlement causes them to look at good works-in-progress and be bored. That's truly a shame, and I hope that "Zoo" remains afloat for a second season to give it the chance to grow it deserves. Was it a James Patterson one-off to line some pockets? Probably. But if the network gets serious about it and brings the actors a decent foundation to work with in season 2, "Zoo" could easily compete with the more adventure-driven shows of 2016. This show doesn't need to compete with dark, intelligent shows (Scandal, Blacklist) to be a 10 in its own right.
To be honest, I'm inclined to believe Scott Rosenberg was the weak link in this project. The thing about actors is most of them become better with time or are weeded out, and the thing about writing is it can always be overhauled. It would be a loss not to explore such a dynamic premise, albeit more smartly.
So my rating's a 10 because I'm a hopeful, because I watched the whole first season in a day, and because I don't believe we should euthanize a show just because it showed promise and not performance.
score 10/10
stefanikrdavis 29 September 2015
Reprint: https://www.imdb.com/review/rw3325536/ |
|
22-11-2019 09:24:12
