Knighthawk81

Not sure what they were going for here, but it doesn't work. I watched the first two episodes and they were dull, unfunny and, at times, just plain stupid.

Sometimes new shows are great and draw you in. Sometimes new shows leave you scratching your head asking what did I just watch. "Hunters" falls into that latter category. I watched the pilot. I'm not sure what it's about, where it's going, or why I would ever want to watch again. That's a problem.

Comedies can be hard. "The Detour," through the two episodes that aired Monday night, seems like one that might work. Jason Jones and Natalie Zea make a good comedic pairing, and the show has elements of that "Vacation" feel, which just worked. Will it work long-term? Can it keep momentum going for a full season, much less multiple seasons? Who knows. But for now, it's funny and engaging, which isn't a given in today's TV landscape.

Do you enjoy "Criminal Minds?" Would you like it better if the profilers were solving crimes in foreign countries, jetting around and wasting tax payer money to save Americans too dumb to avoid desperate situations? If you answered yes, "Criminal Minds: Beyond Borders" is for you. If not, avoid the stench of this tepid failure of imagination like the plague that it is.

NBC comedy has been a wasteland for the past few years. With the exception of "Superstore," nothing has worked. "Crowded" follows that pattern. It's about empty nesters whose kids move back in. Hilarity ensues... except it doesn't. The show isn't clever or funny. It's boring and pathetic. Luckily, given the numbers, it shouldn't be on the air too long.

After a lackluster third season there was reason to be concerned about the future of "House of Cards." Fortunately the fourth season is more of a return to form. The episodes are tighter (most about 45 minutes) and the narrative and performances are stronger. As always, it's the work of Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright that pave the way, and that is what works best in this season.

This feels like a good idea and something that could develop in an engaging and entertaining way. The pilot for this limited series laid out the set up and the story, took us back in time, built the central character and set up the journey. Was it perfect? No. But it was engaging and made me curious to see where this goes.

Whoa, what is going on here. HBO has been hyping this series up, it has a great pedigree, and it seems like a potential slam dunk. But the pilot was underwhelming to say the least, and boring to be blunt. I'm not sure where it's going, and nothing about that two hours made me care. What's worse, the final sequence was beyond confusing. This feels like a series that might be a giant, high-profile miss.

Not sure what I was expecting with this show, but it failed to meet those expectations. There were two episodes last night, and neither was worth watching. This show was boring, disjointed, and pathetic. It focuses on some high school teachers in a state of arrested development, and neither episode really did much beyond reinforce that idea.

Samantha Bee was one of the best correspondents in recent years on "The Daily Show," and she gets a chance to helm her own show here. This feels like a first for TBS, and it's nice to see a woman headlining a late night show. The first episode was strong and witty, and I see this blossoming into a nice weekly addition to the TV landscape.

Not sure what the point of this show really is. "Animals," they're just like the terrible neighbors you try to avoid. That could be the tagline based on the pilot, which was about Rats having parties, doing drugs, and trying to hook up. Ugh.

Nothing is scarier than hillbillies. And that's what you get in "Outsiders," a clan of uncouth mountain men who are sitting on prime coal land. Of course the powers that be want to move them out, but most people are afraid of them. That's the set up for the series, which had a pilot that was interesting at times. Thomas M. Wright was great as the reluctant Sheriff's deputy, so I'm curious to see where it goes. But the pilot was also rough because it didn't explain much. I still don't have a feel for the characters or the world.

This series, based on the DC comics property and adapted for TV by the creator of "Californication," seeks to be edgy. Tom Ellis oozes charm in the lead role, but it's not edgy enough because it's on a network, but also not interesting enough to hold your attention. To do this well, you probably need to be a little more unbounded (or on cable), as it is this feels like a slickly made but hollow series.

This is probably sound subject matter to be approaching for a youth-oriented network like "Freeform." Addiction issues are serious, and there's plenty of drama to be mined from that idea. However, "Recovery Road" doesn't feel like the show to tackle that. The pilot was dry, poorly constructed, and didn't do a lot to embody the subject matter well.

Maybe these books are cool, I don't know. I never read them. But I watched the pilot for this series when it had a sneak peak premier, and it was a hot mess. No thanks.

This series has a good cast and an interesting concept. I mildly enjoyed the pilot episode. But here's the thing, this is an idea best served by a two-hour movie, not a 10-hour series that might get another 10 hours, and another after that. After two episodes, I feel like I'm good and don't need to see any more.

"Agent Carter" may never be as good as "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.," but it is the perfect mid-season gap filler. It's light, well-paced, and has colorful and fun characters. That's what I felt watching the premier last night. I'm glad the show got a second season and excited to see where it goes.

I like the Civil War period in history, so I was excited about "Mercy Street," which is set at a field hospital in Virginia during the Civil War. There are some interesting actors and some great potential here. That's why I'm rating it the way I am. The pilot was a bit slow at times, but I think this could develop into something different, interesting, and compelling.

Showtime is desperate for some strong new blood. This series, which stars Damien Lewis and Paul Giamatti could potentially be that. I liked the pilot. I like the set up and the potential for the series. It wasn't a perfect hour, but I'm interested to see where it's going to go.

This was certainly not what I expected. It is blessed with a great and talented cast, and some talented writers and producers. But this kind of silly, over-the-top comedy doesn't work well in 2016. If you're looking to watch "Airplane" on TV each week, congratulations. Otherwise, this feels like a miss.

The pilot was made available early online, so I gave this a try. I don't recommend watching it. All I could think during the painful 30 minute presentation was why was this made, and how did someone decided to waste money on making this a series. Ugh.

I have been a fan of Rand Ravich's other series, "Life" and "Crisis," so I was curious about "Second Chance." The pilot gets off to a rocky, and somewhat boring, start. But I liked the way it picked up in the later parts of the episode. There is some potential here to be an interesting series. But it kind of depends on the way it develops, especially in terms of characters. There weren't any great characters, or much character development in the pilot. And I think it throws you off to have it be a "modern re-telling of Frankenstein" because it's not really that kind of story.

I think we're just about out of gas with this YA adaptation craze. "The Mortal Instruments" didn't work as a movie, and now it doesn't work as a TV series. While MTV surprisingly made an engaging show with the "Shannara Chronicles," Freeform swung and missed with this series. The pilot was a boring, confusing train wreck.

I was really drawn to the first season of "American Crime" for its writing, performances, and haunting portrayals of some of the deep issues in this country. By contrast, the pilot for the second season of the anthology series started a little slow. This feels more "ripped from the headlines" than drawn from the passion of the writers. And by contrast, to me, it's just been OK.

Nothing about the first two episodes of this show worked for me. The jokes were tired, the casting and story felt forced, and it was a complete bore. I'm not sure how this show makes it long term, or why NBC is pushing it so hard.

This might be the first new NBC sitcom in a while to really work for me. I like the characters and the setting. I think they've done a good job with the jokes, and through three episodes it's held my attention. This has the potential to stick for NBC.

I am sure someone thought this was funny and a good idea. And maybe all the racially insensitive jokes and story is meant to teach people a lesson. If that's the case it doesn't work. if that's not the case, this just feels like a huge swing and a miss for 2016.

Sometimes when you watch a show you can't help but wonder what was written on the page that made a TV executive say yes to sinking millions of dollars into something so poor. That was the way I felt watching this series, which hopefully isn't long for the airwaves.

By now we know what "Downton Abbey" is. It's a prime time soap focused on the lives of two groups of people in 1920s England. It also covers some of the social change of the time, but mostly we watch for the people. In this, it's final season, "Downton Abbey" is working to give a satisfying conclusion to all the stories and characters, and I think it does that well.

Real crime tales are all the rage right now, and "Making A Murderer" is Netflix attempt to jump into those crowded waters. The first two episodes I watched were riveting and do a good job of introducing the world, the people involved, and the crux of the narrative drama. It's a show that's about a miscarriage of justice -- or so it seems at the outset -- and one that draws you in and makes you want to see how it turns out.

If this was a live action show, it would probably draw comparisons to "All in the Family" and those type of sitcoms from a bygone era. In fact, though it's animated, that still feels like an apt comparison. Bill Burr does a great job of capturing family dynamics as well as capturing that certain era. That being said, I thought the first two episodes were dry for my taste. This is a show that fills a very specific niche, and it will depend on how you feel about that niche whether you're into the show.

Did the world need an inside look at the life of Rob Schnieder? No, it did not. But that's what we get with "Real Rob," a new half hour series from Netflix. I applaud Netflix for trying to produce a bunch of original content in different styles with different people, but this didn't work for me. It was painfully unfunny at times and hard to take Schneider seriously, even though he tries to set himself up as a Louis C.K. or Jerry Seinfeld with this series. It doesn't work.

This is the best new show of the fall. I loved the pilot when it aired during the Amazon pilot season, and I thought the second episode -- released as part of a sneak peak a few weeks ago -- was just as good. This show is based on a Phillip K. **** short story about an alternate timeline where the **** and the Japanese won WWII and split the United States. That creates some striking images, and allows for a very fascinating story. I liked the performances and the set up, and I can't wait to see where this series goes as it develops.

We have entered an era of television where every channel -- and every Website -- has original content. Crackle is trying to make its mark with "The Art of More," a thriller set in the art world. "Thriller" is a bit of a misleading statement. There was nothing thrilling about the pilot. We've seen plenty of shows and movies about a scrappy up and comer from the wrong side of the tracks trying to make it in a world where he's an outsider. That's the basic bones for this series. Then you have Cary Elwes playing a smarmy collector, Kate Bosworth playing a rival broker, and Dennis Quaid playing a rich cad. These aren't characters, they're archetypes. The pilot was fine, but not overly compelling. And in a saturated market, when you're an original series on crackle, it takes more than that.

There have been a lot of rave reviews for this show but, honestly, I don't get it. The pilot was dry, confusing and dark. I didn't care for the "Humor" or the worldview presented.

This is a wholly unnecessary show. It's set in the early 1980s for some reason, and focuses on cops hunting a serial killer while said killer stalks victims and finds a partner in crime. This feels like something of a reach, especially on network TV with its constraints. The show wants to be edgy but it can't accomplish that in this format. Instead, the performances seem strange and the story and characters are gross. This isn't the kind of show that's going to solidify the 10 p.m. spot on Tuesdays for ABC.

I am a fan of both "The Flash" and "Arrow," so I was excited about the idea the people behind those shows were making "Supergirl." But the pilot didn't deliver on that promise. I didn't hate the show, and in fact I still think there's some pieces in place for this to work on some level. But for all the build up and pressure, we didn't get much of a delivery. And that's a problem. We have never had more superhero shows and films, yet there is a big lack of gender diversity. Rightly or wrongly, "Supergirl" carries with it the weight of having to deliver on that, something that the producers and writers have seemingly embraced in interviews. That made the pilot a double disappointment. It was too busy for a first hour and didn't generate any buy-in with these characters. That must improve for this to hold its audience.

This isn't a great show, but at points it's watchable. That's a win in today's network TV sitcom landscape. Still, it's disheartening that the once proud Peacock has been reduced to this, a sitcom built on cliches and politically incorrect conversations. Ugh.

This was one of the best shows of 2014, and Noah Hawley is back and re-loaded with round two. While "True Detective" got the press, it was "Fargo" that delivered a compelling story and great characters. That appears to be true again as the pilot sets the tone for the season, introduces the characters, and gets the action going. I can't wait to see how this plays out.

I thought this show would be a bomb. Originally pitched to Showtime, instead it ended up on the CW. If you went by ratings, the pilot was a bomb. But if you watched it, you saw something different. Rachel Bloom is talented and, after a few rough spots in the opening of the episode, that really comes through. Does this feel like a contemporary version of "Felicity" with musical numbers? Kinda, but that's not a bad thing in this case.

This is clearly the BBC's answer to "Game of Thrones" and/or "Vikings." It's a period epic that traces a time when the English had to ward off the Viking invaders. The pilot was slow and dry, despite a lot of violent interludes. I thought the final segment of the show got better, but I'm still on the fence. To succeed on a Saturday night, you need to be compelling. This doesn't seem that compelling.

This was, perhaps, one of the worst pilots I saw during the Amazon pilot season it premiered. I am mystified as to why it was picked up for a full season. I saw the first two episodes, and it doesn't get any better. This is a misfire for Amazon.

I love Jason Reitman as a filmmaker and storyteller. He has a unique view of the world, and I've often been drawn to the stories he tells. I was looking forward to "Casual" for that reason, but the pilot was incredibly underwhelming. I expected more, or at least some consistency, and there was none to be had.

The best iterations of "AHS" have had compelling characters, ideas, and scares. I've watched the first two episodes, at least, of all the iterations, but only stuck with the whole thing three out of four seasons. Based on the overly strange and sado-sexual nature of the pilot, "Hotel" won't be one of them. It was gross, and not in a chilling and creepy way. It was over the top and gross, which isn't interesting to me.

"Madame Secretary" opened with a great episode that was well paced, included some humor and set in motion plenty of season-long drama. This show was one of the strongest from last year and has developed into one of the better dramas on network TV.

Oh "Dr. Ken," how you try so hard to be funny and fail so miserably. Ken Jeong is funny, or has been in parts in movies and TV shows. But this show, where he's the lead and plays a doctor, isn't one of those times. The pilot was dull and sets up the series to be painful. This is a big miss.

This is the second new "sitcom" to debut on IFC on Thursdays. It was mildly more interesting, but I'm not sure if it's completely staged or some kind of attempt at a "Borat" formula. Either way, it wasn't that interesting.

This was set up as a hockey comedy. There was neither much hockey or comedy in the pilot, and that's a problem. Not sure who this show is aimed at, but it's obviously a less discerning viewer than myself.

I like Rob Lowe and Fred Savage, and I like the comedy potential here. But the pilot was uneven. Some of it was funny and a lot of fun. Some of it was very dull. There needs to be more consistency and development of this plot. I'm worried this will get old real fast.

John Stamos is still an affable performer, but he needs a better vehicle than "Grandfathered." It seemed like an OK concept, but the pilot presentation was dry and uneven. Is there potential here? Perhaps, but a lot of work needs to be done.