Is this an original show or the television equivalent of an army-navy recruiting poster? What made the movie "A Few Good Men" such outstanding cinema was its willingness to steer clear of obvious military cliché. Sure you can have the fanatical colonel who was a disciple at Patton's knee but there's also ingredients in his character that makes him different. Jessup certainly had the passion of a Patton but also the contempt for authority of a Nixon. But JAG offers the hot-headed and sweating military officer whose veins pop out of his neck ad infinitum that has been seen so many times that it's a textbook study of stereotypes to avoid. Budding screenwriters take note. (Take note of a similar character in the recent film "Avatar".) But in JAG few characters are anything more than these caricatures who are exactly as you would expect them.
The opening pilot episode wreaks with so much wall-to-wall story cliché, it seems a collage of scenes from other films and shows. From the strands of trumpet fanfares accompanied by snare drums at the opening (my kingdom for different music) to the flashback of the main character as a naval pilot, JAG never quite transcends to an original story. I couldn't help but think of the parody "Airplane!" with the flashback sequence. There's the tough butch woman out to prove she's as good as men, the hot-headed aircraft carrier captain, the obnoxious guy in the officer's lounge who knows the investigator, the sexual innuendos between the two investigators who just happen to be a male and a female, and the creme-de-la-creme: the main character's father was also a naval pilot who died on a mission. If I had $100 for every time someone referred to his father, I could probably buy a Carravagio. I guess you just had to have the obligatory "Your father would be very proud of you." Give me a break. Were the writers sick the day they taught how to avoid hackneyed dialog? This came off like a by-the-numbers approach to film-making that you could probably purchase at a game store for about $10. There's "Patton", "Top Gun", "Moonlighting", "A Few Good Men", almost any western of your choice where there's bar or saloon, and of course almost any over-the-top war movie of your choice, like "The Longest Day".
The plot of the first episode is somewhat interesting: a woman naval pilot on the verge of an outstanding career goes missing from aboard her aircraft carrier. The two JAG corps investigators, a boy-girl team in the style of "Hart to Hart" and "Moonlighting", board the carrier to reveal the truth. Of course the implied sexual play between the two leads is so over-the-top I expected them to be leaping into a bunk together by conclusion, which is against naval regulations. At first the female character states that this is strictly a business-investigative relationship. However, when the male lead is speaking to her in private, he gets closer to her than would be necessary to kiss. And she lets it happen as if she can't refuse him. So much for the rhetoric of the show. (One thing I liked about "A Few Good Men" is that the young leads, Tom Cruise and Demi Moore, never got together.) The only notable performance of the entire episode was by Terry O'Quinn, playing a military colleague of the lead investigator's late father. He's tough, smart and not entirely sold on the idea of women naval pilots. Simultaneously he doesn't come off cliché or stereotypical.
Unfortunately the pilot episode of JAG collapses under its own weight. By show's end I knew who did it. The acting is marginal, except for O'Quinn. There are too many badly scripted, acted and directed sexual innuendo scenes in the vein of Moonlighting but not nearly as good or believable. They just came off contrived as if the producers are showing us what we want to see. Also, too many cliché characters, too many other cliché scenes, like the chewing out of an inferior officer by a superior. And the hot-head in the lounge/bar. How many times have I seen this? And that's the problem with cliché. It starts seeming like a cartoon and not something real. And I begin to lose interest because I've seen it before. Good writing avoids cliché because we want to see something new, not just a jigsaw puzzle of worn-out scenes. Strangely enough, I think cliché is less believable.
The opening pilot episode wreaks with so much wall-to-wall story cliché, it seems a collage of scenes from other films and shows. From the strands of trumpet fanfares accompanied by snare drums at the opening (my kingdom for different music) to the flashback of the main character as a naval pilot, JAG never quite transcends to an original story. I couldn't help but think of the parody "Airplane!" with the flashback sequence. There's the tough butch woman out to prove she's as good as men, the hot-headed aircraft carrier captain, the obnoxious guy in the officer's lounge who knows the investigator, the sexual innuendos between the two investigators who just happen to be a male and a female, and the creme-de-la-creme: the main character's father was also a naval pilot who died on a mission. If I had $100 for every time someone referred to his father, I could probably buy a Carravagio. I guess you just had to have the obligatory "Your father would be very proud of you." Give me a break. Were the writers sick the day they taught how to avoid hackneyed dialog? This came off like a by-the-numbers approach to film-making that you could probably purchase at a game store for about $10. There's "Patton", "Top Gun", "Moonlighting", "A Few Good Men", almost any western of your choice where there's bar or saloon, and of course almost any over-the-top war movie of your choice, like "The Longest Day".
The plot of the first episode is somewhat interesting: a woman naval pilot on the verge of an outstanding career goes missing from aboard her aircraft carrier. The two JAG corps investigators, a boy-girl team in the style of "Hart to Hart" and "Moonlighting", board the carrier to reveal the truth. Of course the implied sexual play between the two leads is so over-the-top I expected them to be leaping into a bunk together by conclusion, which is against naval regulations. At first the female character states that this is strictly a business-investigative relationship. However, when the male lead is speaking to her in private, he gets closer to her than would be necessary to kiss. And she lets it happen as if she can't refuse him. So much for the rhetoric of the show. (One thing I liked about "A Few Good Men" is that the young leads, Tom Cruise and Demi Moore, never got together.) The only notable performance of the entire episode was by Terry O'Quinn, playing a military colleague of the lead investigator's late father. He's tough, smart and not entirely sold on the idea of women naval pilots. Simultaneously he doesn't come off cliché or stereotypical.
Unfortunately the pilot episode of JAG collapses under its own weight. By show's end I knew who did it. The acting is marginal, except for O'Quinn. There are too many badly scripted, acted and directed sexual innuendo scenes in the vein of Moonlighting but not nearly as good or believable. They just came off contrived as if the producers are showing us what we want to see. Also, too many cliché characters, too many other cliché scenes, like the chewing out of an inferior officer by a superior. And the hot-head in the lounge/bar. How many times have I seen this? And that's the problem with cliché. It starts seeming like a cartoon and not something real. And I begin to lose interest because I've seen it before. Good writing avoids cliché because we want to see something new, not just a jigsaw puzzle of worn-out scenes. Strangely enough, I think cliché is less believable.