I watched Undercovers Wednesday night, but I couldn’t think of a single thing to write about it. Granted, I was tired, but what can I write about an episode I’ve already seen twice before? Because here’s the conclusion I’ve come to: Each episode of Undercovers is exactly the same.
Here’s the episode: Steven and Samantha have an adorable marital spat: (men not reading directions, women not liking technology and other tired stereotypes are common themes). Gerald McRaney‘s character comes and gives them an assignment. Gerald McRaney’s character tells them how much he hates them. Gerald McRaney the actor telegraphs how much he hates what he’s doing. The Blooms then travel overseas for a low-stakes mission that doesn’t use interesting gadgets, costumes, and employs way too little ass-kicking. One or both of them nearly dies, but is saved. They return to their catering company and talk about how Samantha’s sister is irresponsible/ an alcoholic. They go home and go to bed. The end.
The most memorable thing from last night’s episode? The 80-point Bingo I totally pulled out for “Equates” in the Words with Friends game I was playing while I was watching it. My opponent immediately resigned. The point is, absolutely nothing new happened in this week’s episode.
It’s not that I don’t understand stand-alone episodes — I’m a big fan of procedurals, so I don’t need a ton of character development if stand-alone is what they’re going for. However, if you’re not going to have an appreciable amount of character development, then you need to have exciting plots, and Undercovers just doesn’t.
I watched the episode fewer than 12 hours ago, and nearly nothing stuck with me. I remember that the human code-breaker liked jelly beans, and Samantha’s sister made out with a client at a funeral, so now the client’s mother doesn’t want to pay (which incidentally, I don’t understand, because that sounds like the best funeral ever).
What did you guys think? Am I being too hard on Undercovers, or did you think this episode was a snooze-fest too?
Clacked by Kona Gallagher 
on Oct 07, 2010 @ 18:57 EST5EDT
This review was so funny you almost make me want to watch it, just so I can invent a drinking game or something! Poor Gerald McRaney … the man is so awesome, it’s a shame he’s being underused.
I didn’t even make it through the whole episode, kona. When I looked at my watch in boredom and saw that it was only half over, I just turned it off.
It’s no Alias! I gave it three episodes hoping it would get stronger, but I guess I’ll be dropping it. The stories are boring and the chemistry is a bit lacking. Nothing to really pull me towards it. Forget Sydney Bristow, Michael Weston could teach them lessons.
I wanted to like the show, but last night I decided my time would be better spent sleeping. I think that next week I’ll look for something else to watch in that time slot.
First line – should be write not right
Otherwise I am not watching the show – NBC already has a cute spy show – Chuck that is exponentially better than the reviews I am reading about Undercovers.
This show needs a massive dose of Buffyspeak. Boringest dialogue on a spy show ever.
Just watched it. I really had high hopes for this show. But, you are right, it is just boring. Nothing exciting at all. Covert Affairs (with a much lower budget I’m sure) has more action and better character development.