MovieChat Forums > Simon & Simon (1981) Discussion > Simon & Simon Review Template

Simon & Simon Review Template

posted 7 years ago by pacwarbuff
24 replies | jump to latest

This is what I have so far as I begin to write detailed episode reviews, though they are more observations/likes/dislikes more than anything else:

Season and Episode Number:
Episode Title:
Original Airdate:
Writer:
Director:
Synopsis:
Simon Back Story: Notes on the characters' past and continuity-related topics.
Notable Use of Music: Episode underscore and/or use of popular or classical music.
Review/Observations: Technical, contemporaneous pop culture references
Rating (1-5 stars):
Memorable Dialogue: Quotable quotes
Undercover Shtick: When the Simons go undercover and role play as other people.
Flubs: Bloopers, alternate takes, bits in teasers but not in episodes, boom mics, etc.
1980s-ness: Things that scream 1980s.
San Diego References: Chargers, Padres, geography, etc.

That's what I have so far. If there's anything else you feel should be mentioned, feel free to contribute.

[–] jarrodmcdonald-1 7 years ago

That's a good template. When I write my reviews, I usually try to indicate how the plot and characterization lend themselves to "social messages" and other TV trends of the 80s, especially in this genre. Plus I try to look at it from an actor's point of view-- like what does this script mean in terms of performance possibility and how has the direction and editing helped with that.

Your 'Undercover Shtick' part could also be called 'Memorable Scenes.' I think you may want to have an 'Other' category where Standards & Practices (censorship) issues can be included.

And I'd suggest making the rating system go from 1 to 10, so it is aligned with how the episodes are rated on the IMDb.

[–] pacwarbuff 7 years ago

The Undercover Shtick should probably be a stand-alone category since the Simons did them quite a bit, though sadly they would get away from that almost completely dueing seasons seven and eight.

Yes, 1-10 star ratings should be aligned with the IMDb ratings.

I suppose there ought to be a "Guest Cast" category as well, along with the character they play.

It's difficult not to go all out with things like whether Marlowe makes an appearance, or Liz or Carlos are mentioned, but that might be stretching things! It's funny how many little things from this series are noteworthy (at least to us diehards).

[–] jarrodmcdonald-1 7 years ago

I like the idea of commenting on the guest cast. Some of them do a spectacular job. It's interesting to see who was invited back for more episodes.

The 'Undercover Shtick' is usually where the comic relief occurs. The shtick itself is not what counts, it's the fact they're trying to make the episodes fun and memorable. I haven't seen the later seasons yet, so I am looking forward to observing the shift in tone with those more serious-minded stories.

[–] pacwarbuff 7 years ago

I'm also big on noting contemporaneous historical/cultural/ references and part of the fun of watching this series is seeing how the times affect the characters.

As for the template, I'm finding it difficult to keep each episode's review at a decent word count and to be honest, my reviews are too peculiar, for lack of a better word, for posting on IMDb reviews.

In reading your (excellent) reviews, which are concise and plot driven, I find my own perspective largely focused on character traits, history, recurring themes or motifs, backstory, and continuity. The latter being just to chronicle events in the Simons' lives rather than to find fault with inconsistencies and all the other obsessive continuity stuff people rail about; I just go with what is given in the script and try to fit it accordingly. Unless there is a huge plot hole or lapse in logic, I usually don't get into too much detail about plots, instead I just provide a brief synopsis and take the review--more like observations, really--from there.

Heck, I even make notes about A.J.'s house, Rick's boat, and whether or not Marlowe puts in an appearance!

[–] jarrodmcdonald-1 7 years ago

You're right, I do tend to focus on plot, because this is a kinetic show with a lot going on-- I like to comment on the activities the Simon brothers are involved with in each story. My 'template' is that I try to keep the reviews to two long paragraphs or three medium-sized paragraphs. I always mark them as containing spoilers but I usually do not reveal the killer-- since it's more fun for the reader/viewer to find out while watching the episode.

If your reviews are too lengthy for the IMDb, perhaps you can start a blog on WordPress or Blogger where you can be more detailed and idiosyncratic without having restrictions on word count. I hope you share some of them with us!

[–] ringfire211 7 years ago

Hey pac, did you ever post FIVE-O reviews on the FIVE-O board the way you did here for S&S as you watched each season?

Currently there's a season 9 and season 10 thread over there where you can make a brief comment on each episode.

Connery, Moore, and Brosnan! Accept NO substitutes!

[–] pacwarbuff 7 years ago

ringfire: Years ago, before the official dvds were released, I posted several H50 season 12 reviews on Mr. Mike's old discussion forum That would have been in 2009-10(?) Of course, this being nearly a decade ago, I'm sure at least some of my views on those shows would have changed--except for A Lion in the Streets, which has always been among my most-loved episodes. I somewhat follow the Mr. Mike Method of reviewing H50, though with the Simons, which by comparison is a more character-oriented show, I take a different approach

For others wondering, his website is mjq.net/fiveo. I wouldn't want to leave anyone out of the Five-0 tangent. 

As for the Simons, since I hadn't watched any episodes from seasons 1-4 since their first run, they were largely new all over again since they were out of mind for twenty-five years or so. There were exceptions, as certain episodes that I remembered quite well stayed with me; it was a revelation to young me upon hearing California Dreamin' on "Who Killed the Sixties?" Plus, it was the original version, NOT the "Universal House Band" rendition, which I probably would have been treated to had the song been used on Magnum, P.I.

[–] jarrodmcdonald-1 7 years ago

...though with the Simons, which by comparison is a more character-oriented show...

I think it's interesting you consider Simon & Simon a character-driven show. I don't necessarily see it that way. When I look at S&S, I see a product that was made during an era where The A-Team and Miami Vice were big. Most of these shows seem plot-driven to me, and are action-oriented. The main characters tend to be high-concept and more often than not the guest characters are stereotypes and not very fleshed out. Also, if you look at the clips presented at the beginning of each episode where the announcer says 'Tonight on Simon & Simon' it's easy to see they're not highlighting the character-driven moments-- but usually the car chases, explosions and shoot-outs that are coming our way after the opening logo and theme song finish playing.

I do agree that over time we get to learn more about the main characters, but in each episode, they are immersed in stories that focus on nailing crooks and the brothers always have exciting plot-driven adventures.

[–] pacwarbuff 7 years ago

"By comparison" are the key words in my previous post. I suppose it's the tremendous Parker-McRaney chemistry and it was always that which kept me coming back to this show. I felt the same way when watching season one of Mannix; no matter how uninspired the plot or guest actors may have been to me, it was Mike Connors who made every episode worthwhile; the same goes for JP and Mackie.

With H50, we have some background on McGarrett, yet precious little on Danno, Chin, Kono, Ben, and Duke. I adore H50 for different reasons, particularly for the era in which it was made. Strangely enough, I am far less interested in the mid-70s-to-mid-Eighties era in which I grew up.

[–] ringfire211 7 years ago

Agreed on MANNIX. Overall it's a good show but I'm often surprised by how needlessly convoluted some of the plots are. Mike Connors was definitely the main reason to watch the show!

Connery, Moore, and Brosnan! Accept NO substitutes!

[–] jarrodmcdonald-1 7 years ago

"By comparison" are the key words in my previous post.

I do not consider Simon & Simon a character-driven show. I regard it as an action-packed show with high-concept characters. In my opinion, a character-driven show is one where we see a person on a journey, or stationed somewhere for a period of time, with an emphasis on relationships instead of chasing an endless supply of one-dimensional bad guys.

I am not being derogatory about this show. The S&S formula works and it's fun to watch. But it's not very deep and what we learn about the characters does not always illuminate things about our own humanity.

The chemistry between the leads is something else entirely and not exactly related to characterization. It's more a strong working rapport that professional actors have which helps distinguish a show of this type from the other run-of-the-mill varieties.

[–] ringfire211 7 years ago

I definitely prefer plot-driven vs character-driven. Just compare the old Five-O with the new one. On the old one a crime was committed and our guys were on the case. Nothing extraneous, just the case. On the new one there's a crime committed, meanwhile Steve is going through relationship problems with his girlfriend, Danno is trying to spend more time with his little daughter, Chin is dealing with some internal affairs investigation involving his uncle, Kono (a chick in the new show!) is having second thoughts about dating a mobster's son, and so on. On top of that there's also the case of the week to be solved. The end result is that the plot/crime of the week gets shortchanged because we also have to delve into all these other "character" side stories (week after week after week!) that nobody gives a hoot about. I certainly don't. That's why the new show is a joke! As are a lot of modern-day shows.

Connery, Moore, and Brosnan! Accept NO substitutes!

[–] jarrodmcdonald-1 7 years ago

I definitely prefer plot-driven vs character-driven.

I would say I do, also. Of course not all crime shows are one way or the other.

A program that I feel gets the balance right between plot-driven and character-driven is Fred Dryer's Hunter, especially from seasons 3 through 7. There's a good story at the beginning of season 5 where a wealthy couple is brutally murdered in their Beverly Hills mansion, and we gradually learn their young son (Chad Allen) killed them because they were so caught up in their careers and had no time for him. It was a very sad character study, that had all the elements we expect a police procedural to have-- the way the murders were done in the beginning was very plot-driven-- but then as the story went deeper we learned the killer was not a random burglar but was someone closer to home.

There was another story in season 6 where the captain fell in love with an Irish woman whose brother was a violent freedom fighter (a terrorist). Again, we had a plot-driven set of murders, but because the captain loved the woman and was trying to save her from her brother, it took on added dimension. Not all shows are able to do this well-- where they deftly combine the action, the car chases, the shootings and the arrests with profound character-driven drama that sheds light on the human condition.

I think Simon & Simon relies on humor more, especially in the early seasons, because the formula they have chosen is not too deep or preachy-- so they focus on action and make it fairly light-hearted. Every now and then there's a serious story, where they are trying to address social issues prevalent during the 1980s, but even those tend to rely on stereotypes and are neatly wrapped up 45 minutes later.

[–] ringfire211 7 years ago

Actually you make a good point about HUNTER. The later seasons were definitely more character driven than the earlier ones, probably why the show did better in the ratings in the later seasons. It's funny because my introduction to HUNTER was through season 7 (which isn't most people's favorite) so I didn't even know who McCall was. The partnership I was introduced to was Hunter and Novak (Lauren Lane). It wasn't until later that I discovered McCall (Stepfanie Kramer) and eventually Molenski (Darlanne Fluegel) as I watched more and more episodes. So because of this I definitely have a soft spot for season 7 and I still think that season's theme song is the best! Gotta love that rock beat: https://youtu.be/vJPAp9bAVY8

I think the later part of the 80s is when character driven shows really became popular. Think also THE EQUALIZER and IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT. MIAMI VICE was really the first one to do it when it premiered in 1984. HUNTER also premiered in 1984 but during its first season it was more of a DIRTY HARRY style shoot-em-up, definitely more plot and action driven. But as time went on HUNTER began to change a bit. MIAMI VICE really started that whole thing right out the gate. I actually don't have a problem with the way it was done back then. HUNTER did it just right, it didn't overplay its hand. MIAMI VICE sometimes went too far so I was never really a fan. But nowadays it's even worse. It's just one loooong soap opera.

Connery, Moore, and Brosnan! Accept NO substitutes!

[–] jarrodmcdonald-1 7 years ago

Yes, when Hunter started it was a very typical, formulaic shoot-'em-up style crime drama. But by the second season, it started to evolve into something more substantial, with Roy Huggins as the producer/headwriter. Even after Huggins departed, they continued the balance they had with the character-driven stuff and the action scenes viewers expected.

I also liked the last season. I think the two-part episode where a cop killer takes Molenski's life is very intelligently written and played, showing us the enormous sacrifice officers make in the line of duty. The subsequent relationship with Hunter and Novak was meant to take Rick in more of a family direction-- that he was older now and ready to settle down with a wife and kid (Novak's daughter). The characters changed and grew like real people do, but their jobs basically stayed the same and the show's main theme about justice remained constant.

[–] ringfire211 7 years ago

But by the second season, it started to evolve into something more substantial,

I'm immediately thinking of the 2-part "Rape and Revenge" episode dealing with McCall's rape. That was definitely the start of something new, even though the season was still fairly formulaic villain-of-the-week stuff that we saw in season 1, whether it's Robert Davi or Stuart Whitman or James Hong or Leo Rossi or Anthony James or William Smith.

I think the two-part episode where a cop killer takes Molenski's life

Uh oh, spoilers!!  Never saw that one.

BTW, do you remember about 10 years back NBC brought back HUNTER for like 1 season? Same cast and all. I think I watched 1 or 2 episodes but then it was gone.

Connery, Moore, and Brosnan! Accept NO substitutes!

[–] pacwarbuff 7 years ago

When you get to seasons five through eight, you will find that both Rick and A.J. do undergo evolution in their character. It won't be the kind of character evolution found on TV today, but in the context of 1980s shows, the viewer can see that the Simon brothers have more to them than they did during seasons one through four. Chalk it up to the "Miami Vice-ification" of TV, with its emphasis on darker, edgier stories and characterizations, but when one compares seasons five through eight with the first four years, the difference is noticiable.

Now where was I in that S&S template o' mine?

[–] tenement-funster 7 years ago

AJ cuts his hair, for starters. ;) I was glad that they let him grow up a little. Whilst I like the marked difference between the two brothers, he couldn't have stayed quite so innocent forever! And he does still retain a noticeably more optimitic and trusting attitude than Rick's cynical approach. I love the jokes about ageing as the series progresses, too! Even if they do blatantly alter both brothers' dates of birth as the years go by!

Speaking of reviews and such though, I watched "Double Play" last night (third season). First time in a while. Either of you watched that one recently? It's a bit of a mixed bag, I thought. I really like the idea of a revenge plot, and Rick's recurring dream of shooting AJ adds a fine edge to proceedings. The celebrity lookalikes are fun too. It all falls apart in the last act for me though. The doppelgangers of the brothers are just too out there. Also, Rick's dream suddenly becoming prophetic is a step too far.

Nice scenes with Town and Cecilia though, and I like Rick and AJ's face-off when Rick tries to protect AJ from the fallout.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I find concussion quite invigorating.

[–] jarrodmcdonald-1 7 years ago

Now where was I in that S&S template o' mine?

LOL...sorry for derailing the thread!

[–] pacwarbuff 7 years ago

By all means, continue! This discussion evolved quite naturally, and while I haven't watched Hunter in about thirty years, I still read the conversation with interest.

Speaking of Hunter, I thought I read somewhere that the character was supposed to have become a cop in reaction to his father having been a Mafia boss! To my recollection, this was never followed up on in the series or even mentioned that I can recall. In fact, the only episode of Hunter I even vaguely remember was about a sniper. I may even have the "fan fiction"/sequel story outline that 12-year-old me was working on at the time! Yikes!

As for the template, I suppose it's pretty much set. I have Christmas vacation starting this week, so I will attempt to review season five. However, I'm fairly certain I won't get much of that done since I tend to get bogged down in all my dopey observations!

Not only did A.J. get his hair cut and suffer a mid-life crisis, but Rick gets to suffer from PTSD. There would be some dark times ahead--relatively speaking --for the Simon brothers in seasons five through eight.

[–] jarrodmcdonald-1 7 years ago

Speaking of Hunter, I thought I read somewhere that the character was supposed to have become a cop in reaction to his father having been a Mafia boss!

This reminds me of a season 6 episode in which Jerry Orbach (against type but still convincing) plays a mob boss who has two sons. One son he had with his wife, who's being groomed to take over the family business-- and the other son is illegitimate, born to an ex-mistress. The illegitimate son has become a cop that works with Rick. When the guy finds out his biological father is a crime lord he is conflicted about taking him down. It's a great episode, called 'Son and Heir.'

I will attempt to review season five. However, I'm fairly certain I won't get much of that done since I tend to get bogged down in all my dopey observations!

Looking forward to reading your reviews if you decide to post them here on the IMDb. I'm half-way through season 4 and will post two new reviews in the S4 thread later today. I'm going a bit slow with these because I want to savor them and not rush.

[–] pacwarbuff 7 years ago

As I make my way theough season five, the thought of adding a few more regular categories crossed my mind. Categories for Carlos and Officer Nixon, but I figure I'll just mention those characters if they have any screntime or are referenced. Officer Nixon is credited I believe in every episode, but I haven't seen him even in the background for the past few episodes ten episodes into season five.

Nixon completely vanishes in season eight (or is it seven?) There is another officer who serves as Abigail's Nixon, but he's not really very noteworthy.

[–] ringfire211 7 years ago

Speaking of Hunter, I thought I read somewhere that the character was supposed to have become a cop in reaction to his father having been a Mafia boss!

You're right. This aspect of Hunter was introduced in the pilot episode (which interestingly enough I just watched about 2 weeks ago, just out of the blue) but wasn't really followed up on after the pilot. Most people don't even recognize this very important part of Hunter's background because it was probably never mentioned again. That's also a big reason why he's the black sheep in the department and why Capt. Cain (played by Michael Cavanaugh in the pilot) hates his guts. He's also a black sheep in his own family (with his aunts and uncles, I believe his parents are dead) because he's a cop. So he really doesn't fit in anywhere and that's why he's such a renegade cop who bucks the system.

Connery, Moore, and Brosnan! Accept NO substitutes!

[–] ringfire211 7 years ago

pacwarbuff, Mr. Mike archives all his old stuff so I could probably find your reviews if I went back to 2009. I know that "A Lion in the Streets" is considered the highlight of season 12 and lots of folks seem to like it, but I just never cared for it. Granted I've warmed up to it a bit over the years (same with "Number One With a Bullet") but I'm still not a fan. It's too drawn-out (2-hour episode) and William Smith is particularly cringeworthy in some of his scenes. There's a scene where he talks to Andy Kamoku's wife and tries to give some kind of compassionate speech where he calls Andy a "big beautiful dude" - ugghhhh!!! Who wrote that stuff??? In another scene when he pleads with Andy's pals his body motions look like he wants to dance with them. Horrible!! Let's face it - William Smith can't play good guys and should never attempt any kind of "heartfelt" acting. He was born to play baddies! Ross Martin as Tony Alika is about the only good thing about the episode.

Connery, Moore, and Brosnan! Accept NO substitutes!