Supernatural Season 1 Finale – Recap and Review

BY ANTHONY MEDINA

**This episode originally aired in May 2006. If you are unfamiliar with the series, be aware this review contains spoilers.**

 “I coulda killed you a hundred times today. But this, this was worth the wait.” John Winchester

I have to be honest, it wasn’t the easiest thing in the world sitting through this entire season. After the first few episodes I had basically given up on the show. It’s not that it was all together bad, I just wasn’t that interested in the “ghost of the week” angle. The only thing that kept me going was the hope that things might pick up if and when they found their father. And thankfully, it did. The back-half of this season really pushed the show to a new level and the finale “The Devil’s Trap”  sealed the deal.

When Sam (Jared Padalecki) and Dean (Jensen Ackles) finally catch up with their father, John Winchester (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), things take an interesting turn. They track down the Colt, a badass demon killing pistol built by Samuel Colt himself, and use it in the search for the Demon that killed their mother. John gets himself captured but Sam and Dean manage to rescue him. Unfortunately, it’s no longer John. Dean discovers his father is now possessed, by none other then the very Demon they’ve been hunting.

He starts using his demon magic to squeeze the life out of Dean, but Sam manages to grab the Colt and shoot John in the leg. It’s enough of a wound to expel the demon but not enough to kill him. However, John refuses to let the demon leave and demands that Sam kill them both to finally end their chase and exact revenge. Sam considers it but can’t bring himself to kill his own father. As a result the demon escapes and the three Winchester men leave injured and generally bummed out.

The season ends with a shocking and captivating cliffhanger. As they make their way to the hospital, an 18 wheeler unexpectedly crashes into the side of their car leaving all three bloody, unconscious, and completely at the mercy of the demon possessed man inside the truck.

I literally gasped watching that final scene. And how often do you get to legitimately gasp? Throughout season one they managed to provide enough depth and character development (a rarity for the CW) to make me really care about what was happening. This show has its hits and misses, and it certainly isn’t for everyone. But the last few episodes of the season really make for some exciting television.

So if there’s something strange in your neighborhood, who you gonna call?

Win-chesters!

(Sorry, I had too)

Season 1

Thinking Man Rating: 11 Thumbs Up

Finale

Thinking Man Rating: 15 Thumbs Up

**Be aware the Thinking Man rating system is based on awesomeness and should be disregarded if you are not now, or have never been, awesome.**

USA’s POLITICAL ANIMALS: Pilot Review

Hot off the presses at SpoilerTV:

Political Animals – Pilot Review
by Kyle

USA Network takes a dive into the world of dirty sexy American politics in the hotly anticipated limited series event, Political Animals.

Starring Golden Globe winner and Academy Award nominee Sigourney Weaver, the series follows Elaine Barrish(Weaver) whose marriage to the philandering former U.S. President Bud Hammond (Ciarán Hinds) comes to an end after 32 years. Two years later, Elaine is working for current President Paul Garcetti (Adrian Pasdar) as the Secretary of State after losing against him in the previous election. With her ex-husband still an impending force in her life, Elaine’s family, which also includes poster child Douglas (James Wolk) and reckless screw-up TJ (Sebastian Stan) is further complicated by the ravenous D.C. journalist Susan Berg (Carla Gugino) who is hell-bent on destroying Elaine’s reputation and career.

The pilot episode quickly develops a cast of intriguing characters and provocatively complex storylines set in the backdrop of D.C. politics. Sigourney Weaver is brilliant in the leading role, with her verbal sparring against Gugino’s journalist character immensely entertaining to watch on screen. Sebastian Stan is also a major highlight as the openly gay train-wreck younger son of the family. The series is certainly more scandalous and gritty than the lighter more comedic fare USA Network generally offers, but this is a welcome change to their slate of programming, and proof that the network is ready to develop more sophisticated programs to compete with other cable networks like HBO and Showtime.

Read it all

This review has done what it’s supposed to: It has made us want to see the show. But…

“Scandalous and gritty?” With actors who look the ones in the pic? Actors who, thanks to the miracles of Photoshop, bear no resemblance whatsoever to real people? (And probably to themselves as well. We mean, that’s Sigourney Weaver?)

Wait, we apologize. It actually says “more scandalous and gritty than the [usual] fare USA Network…offers.” Well, of course. Even ONCE UPON A TIME is that.

Well, we’re still gonna watch.

The CW’s CULT Sounds Pretty Damn Good…

…Let’s  hope it lives up to what is, for TV addicts, a fascinating premise.

TV Pilot Preview: The CW’s ‘Cult’
by Philiana Ng

It won’t launch until midseason, but the CW is edging into darker territory with Cult, from executive producers Josh Schwartz and Stephanie Savage.

The show’s premise is a bit complicated to understand, but long story short, Cult follows a journalist (Matt Davis) and production assistant (Jessica Lucas) on a popular crime series, also called Cult, who investigate a series of disappearances linked to the show — many of them diehard fans who may be recreating crimes committed on the series.

The Hollywood Reporter screened the pilot for the drama and as part of our Fall Preview 2012 offer the five things you need to know about the series before its launch.

Read it all

This article gave us not five, but a solid three things we’re glad we now know:

  1. CULT has a the kind of insider premise that only an insider like Josh Schartz could sell, which – yes – makes us both hate and love him
  2. The CW has a chance here to redeem itself after years of “Jesus-Can-You-Believe-How-Dumb-This-Is?!” disappointing shows
  3. The Hollywood Reporter doesn’t deserve all the bad press sites that run its material as their own keep giving it (you know who you are) because it really does function beautifully as a primary source for Most Things TV

So there ya go.

Why Politicians Shouldn’t Marry Comedy Writers

We’re seeing a beautiful Wes Anderson film in this. (Sadly, we doubt that Wes does.)

Bob Kerrey’s wife, Sarah Paley, rues his political career, disses Nebraska, in Vogue essay

Here’s an interesting twist on the adoring political spouse: Does it matter to voters if a wife or husband really, really doesn’t want to be part of the campaign?

Consider the case of Bob Kerrey — war hero, former governor and senator from Nebraska, presidential candidate. After a dozen years working in New York, the high-profile Democrat, 68, jumped back into politics earlier this year when he decided to run for his old Senate seat vacated by retiring Sen. Ben Nelson.

Exciting news? Not for his wife.

“My friends were understanding, some even as outraged as I that he would choose his country over his family,” Sarah Paley wrote in an essay for Vogue’s July issue. While she insisted her husband would be a great senator, Paley seemingly hates everything else about his decision; she even wrote that she fantasized about a career-ending sex scandal.

The former “Saturday Night Live” writer, 55, met the glamorous bachelor in 1995 when he was still in office…

Is this Paley being funny? Or is it — as some critics suggested — a condescending, East Coast put-down? A few Nebraskans noted that her essay wasn’t written for voters, but for Vogue, for whom she posed wearing a Narciso Rodriguez dress and Manolo Blahnik heels.

Read it all

To us, the real question is, “Is this the Washington Post being funny?” And we honestly don’t know if we hope so…or hope not.

Academics Never Get It

Satire, sarcasm, irony, just plain humor, call it what you will – academics don’t get it. The proof of this statement is in the courses colleges teach on the subject. The seriousness with which they approach comedy. Can one really dissect something using its opposite as the tool?

Case in point:

Truthinessology: The Stephen Colbert effect becomes an obsession in academia
by Paul Farhi

Nation, our so-called universities are in big trouble, and not just because attending one of them leaves you with more debt than the Greek government. No, we’re talking about something even more unsettling: the academic world’s obsession with Stephen Colbert.

Last we checked, Colbert was a mere TV comedian, or a satirist if you want to get fancy about it. (And, of course, being college professors, they do.) He’s a TV star, like Donald Trump, only less of a caricature.

Yet ever since Colbert’s show, “The Colbert Report,” began airing on Comedy Central in 2005, these ivory-tower eggheads have been devoting themselves to studying all things Colbertian. They’ve sliced and diced his comic stylings more ways than a Ginsu knife. Every academic discipline — well, among the liberal arts, at least — seems to want a piece of him. Political science. Journalism. Philosophy. Race relations. Communications studies. Theology. Linguistics. Rhetoric.

There are dozens of scholarly articles, monographs, treatises and essays about Colbert, as well as books of scholarly articles, monographs and essays. A University of Oklahoma student even earned her doctorate last year by examining him and his “Daily Show” running mate Jon Stewart. It was called “Political Humor and Third-Person Perception.”

The academic cult of Colbert (or is it “the cul of Colbert”?) is everywhere.

Read it all

This, btw, is a wonderfully written piece. Our hats are off to Paul Farhi, who probably should be writing for Colbert instead of about him.

Oh, a heads up about the Washington Post’s website. You never know when  your clicking is going to be interrupted by a notice that it’s time to register – “or else.” Usually, this happens when you try to go back to someplace you’ve been. Yes, we consider this proof that if there’s one thing newspapers still don’t get, it’s the web. Sigh.