Critical Review
Check out Entertainment Weekly's review. They pan this show pretty hard (grade of D+). The article isn't very long but it is pretty funny.
shareHere ya go:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/reviews/2008-07-14-cleaner-review_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
Too bad. I was hoping to like this one.
just caught the pilot, and i guess some peopel might like it and some dont, in any event, this is a really good show i think.i mean, i dont want to toot my horn but this is kinda like stuff i do, nowhere on that level but i understand. its a drama action show where someone is really trying to help others. guess a show about an anti hero is not something most press monkeys want to see. but dont take my word or theirs, how about everyone forms their own decision, watch it yourself. dont let others think for you.
shareI read a summary of what the show was about and it intregued me, so I watched it, and it has the potential to be a good show. The pilot had moments of - ok, obvious but nonetheless - emotional scenes. Trying not to give too much away, the scene with the addicts little sister and the final scene showed that there IS potential in the show, and stood out for be as high points, the bright light at the end of the tunnel that showed that the show has promise.
However, as it currently stands there are too many sequences that plainly, doesnt do anything for me. The relationship between most of the characters seems badly thought out, almost as an after-thought, and that wont hold. Its almost as though they havent figured out how the characters respond to each other. Granted, forming relationships between a decent number of characters from the get-go isnt easy, perhaps they simply havent explored that far yet. The show probably would have benefited from focussing more in the relationships between a smaller number of characters, rather than have the viewer try and figure them all out at once.
Furthermore, the monologues where he "talks to god" were abysmal. If he's gonna be constantly talking to god, its gonna get very old very quickly. Either scrap the idea, or limit it to subtle references like saying to an addict "God only forgives those who prove themselves worthy of redemption" or something. I have no problem with a religious character in the show, and it seems clear that its an important part of the story, the reason behind his actions and his drive, but this pilot went overboard with it.
As with all shows, the first 2 or 3 episodes often see drastic changes in the shows direction, so maybe they'll notice the elements that worked, and work out those that didnt. Or maybe they wont, and this'll end up being just another badly thought out TV show. Ill guess we'll see!
Summoner68:
I don't think the talking to god is over the top. I think it fits perfectly. I mean according to the pilot, which I watched twice thanks to DVR from Direct TV, William made a deal with his creator and now he is working hard to live up to that promise while also keeping faithful to his family too. This cannot be an easy thing to do for anyone but especially for a recovering addict whose helping other addicts. (I left that part in because the trailers show that he's an addict helping others like him)...
I'm not sure if you ever watched the movie with Seagal called The Patriot. If so, you might remember a line in the movie where Seagal takes his daughter out in the backlands to his father-in-law's house. He is testing the blood of his late wife's sister and the father-in-law and find that like his daughter, they have an immunity to the biological weapon the idiot in town released.
A short time after the joke the sister-in-law makes about this disease being payback for smallpox since so many Native American Indians died from it because they had no immunity to it, Seagal says something to the tune of, That's not nice, to which the sil responds with some funny quip about it being true and he responds that it could be true then he goes on to remind her not to blow her thesis as she is working toward her doctorate in herbal biology and botany.
As the SIL is talking to Seagal's character, she says that she is home now taking care of her father and learning from him for a while. She makes a statement about how he is doing well but of course he's "spending a little too much time in the spirit world" but otherwise, he's okay.
I laugh when I hear this line because it brings back memories for me from my childhood. My great-grandfather wasn't an old Blackfoot Indian but he was an old Cherokee Indian. He was in his 90s and yes, in the latter years he was spending a bit too much time in the spirit world. LOL! But, I loved him no matter what.
He spoke to Mother Earth and always left an offering from his leftovers outside after each meal. He tended to any animal that came near him. He healed those he could and brought the others out of their misery if there was nothing he could do for them except end their suffering quick and with as little pain as possible. After he took the animal's life, he spoke to the ancients asking them to help him/her find the way to the plains where they could still run free. Those he healed and were able to release had similar blessings sent to the gods for safe passage back to their homes. Before he was too old to hunt, he always thanked the animal's spirit for allowing him the honor of taking nourishment from the animal's body.
This was in no way weird or overdone. It was the musings of a kind old man from a different era raised in a different belief system, which was passed from generation to generation. Not all of my family follow his ways or the ways of our ancestors but at least most of them that don't at least show courtesy to those that do.
Viewers should do the same for The Cleaner. His methods are odd. He talks versus prays to his god. He does as much good as he can in exchange for what he feels is his penitence for allowing his life to get so out of control.
I hope this makes sense for you. I'm sure it will tick off others but Summoner, if you get it, then I feel I've done a decent job of explaining my position and my take on the matter.
Warmest regards my friend,
Paisley
dont let others think for you.
Bravo, thenewproducer -- that's the smartest thing I've ever read on the IMDB boards. share
it's also a great straw man attack.
who said anything about letting others think for you? the whole point of IMDB and online forums is to get other people's opinions and to share your own. why would you be on an internet forum if you weren't interested in having a dialog with others and exchanging opinions and ideas?
i guess if a show you like gets a bad review then suddenly reading film/tv reviews is not thinking for yourself?
"guess a show about an anti hero is not something most press monkeys want to see."
I don't think it's the protagonist that anyone has a problem with, it's the ACTOR playing him.
Plus the CSI over stylizing is horrible.
Weak directing, over-producing and poor acting.
Maybe if Showtime produced it it woulda been good..
it has nothing to do with him being an anti-hero or the reviewer being a "press monkey." batman is the archetypal anti-hero in popular media and he's hardly a commercial or critical failure.
i haven't seen the show myself, but the reviewer voices some legitimate criticisms which you conveniently ignored.
kidnapping someone and forcing them to quit drugs is an incredibly stupid thing to do, which in all likelihood would do more harm than good. it's the same kind of mentality that puts people in jail for using drugs.
only the addict can decide for himself to stop using drugs. no amount of coercion will speed up his/her recovery. and forcing someone to quit when they don't want to will likely just exacerbate their already precarious situation.
drug abuse is almost always the result of some deeper underlying problem. it's usually the symptom of emotional, psychological, or social problems in a person's life, and unless those problems are identified and addressed, there's no use in trying to stop the addiction. it would just keep resurfacing or perhaps change forms as you're simply treating symptoms rather than the true pathology.
the show seems to demonstrate an utterly naive and misguided approach to treating drug addiction. it really sounds like a program created by prohibitionists who clearly have no understanding about the realities of drug abuse/addiction. for that reason alone the show should be avoided.
secondly, from the review the show sounds quite mawkish and overbearing in its religious overtones. if that kind of kitsch appeals to you, then fine. but most reasonably discerning audiences probably wouldn't want to watch that sort of ostentatious ersatz spirituality and pseudo-morality on tv. the last thing we need is another tv show perpetuating conservative stereotypes and misconceptions about drug addiction--not to mention conflating religious indoctrination with rehabilitation.
Lysergic:
Personally, I do not follow Christianity and I do not find this series pilot overbearing in the religious department. If it remains in check, the show will do well and the pilot show kept it in check. The son asks if his father is praying and he says he is not praying, he is talking....
Secondly, I'd like to raise a scenario for you. What happens when the addict decides to come home and take out his frustrations on a wife that is half his size and two small children that are less than a tenth his size? Do we simply allow this person to continue breaking restraining orders that we know are not worth the paper they are written on and we also know that far too often police do NOTHING to the person breaking the order even when catching the person within the vicinity of the area that the restraining order claims is illegal for the person to be in?
Who protects the innocents? What is to stop the addict from coming home, breaking the door down, murdering the family to steal what is valuable to pawn it off for more drugs? Which is more dangerous, hiring someone to place this person in a facility where there is some small chance they might take to treatment or do nothing until the addict murders someone and then gets the lethal injection when all that heartache and pain might not have had to happen if someone simply stepped up and said enough is enough, you're going to rehab....
I think it's worth the effort. I've lived in that kind of hell. I've had my life threatened and on a few occasions I thought I was going to die. It's no fun when you are a chlid and instead of having a father that you can run into his arms for a giant hug or have him chase away the monsters under the bed or attend dance recitals - sober.... yet instead you get the father that downs Tennessee Whiskey by the boatload then proceeds to beat on whomever is closest to him, which quite frequently was me. The police refused to touch him as did the sheriff's office. This is the trademark of the "good ole' boy's club."
The wife takes out an order, he goes to jail, he is out of jail the next morning and as soon as he finds the hidden bottle in his truck the turmoil starts all over again.
Speaking from experience, I wish someone had man-handled my biological father into rehab as many times as it took or take the other route and put a bullet in his head. Either way, I would have been safe as would my little brother and my mother. My childhood would have not included going to almost a dozen schools in various states constantly hiding only to have him track us down while he was drunk four sheets to the wind and the latter years he appeared to be on some type of drugs.
In the case of minors, getting them into rehab and beginning family counseling in addition to substance abuse counseling there is at least some semblance of a chance to heal a family that might otherwise live in hell for a lifetime until the addicted child eventually doped too much causing an overdose or the police find him on the street murdered by his drug dealer for not paying or for just being there.
It's time someone does something because fella, the current system is broken and I can't imagine it getting any worse. My hats off to Warren Boyd. While I have not gone to the extremes he does, I have spent my time helping a few of my friends get off drugs and alcohol. The sad thing is that the one person I wanted to save, I lost. My favorite cousin Jimmy was a few months older than I am. He has been dead almost 17 years now. He left behind four children all because he came home from work a little early and caught his wife in bed with another man with his children in the next rooms. He began drinking again and the police, who knew him well, believe he intentionally drove his van into the bridge pilon where they found him DOA. If I couldn't reach him, I sure would have given anything to find someone else that could.
The problem is that you have never walked a mile in those shoes so you have no idea what you are talking about but it makes you feel high and mighty to take the high road of "I'm perfect." You're no better or worse than anyone else. Addiction sneaks up on you and before you realize it, it's consumes your life and takes everyone you love down with you.
Don't be a poser. If you want to be useful, spend time at crisis hotlines and go through their training programs where you can actually do some good versus sitting here talking about how this won't work because of this reason or that reason when it is plain as the nose on your face that you have never been anywhere near an addict.
what happens when a sober person decides to come home and take out his frustrations on a wife that is half his size and two small children that are less than a tenth his size?
i think your specious reasoning is the result of confusing your personal emotional issues with the actual issue of drug abuse/addiction.
and it's strange that knowing nothing about me you immediately assume that no one but you understands the social impact of drug abuse. as a recovering addict currently undergoing treatment, as well as someone who's lost friends to drug addiction/overdose, i think i probably understand drug addiction and treatment better than most people.
clearly there is a lot of hurt and deep emotional scars potentially clouding the issue here--and not just just for you but for lots of people who've had first-hand experiences with drug abuse--but i think it's important to address the issue of drug policy with an objective mind. you can't base drug policy on personal experiences or anecdotal evidence. not every addict is your dad.
if you look at statistical evidence from treatment centers, detox clinics, prison systems, etc. around the world, you'll see that forced treatment is almost never effective--especially in places like prisons where there is no therapy/counseling offered concurrently with rehab treatment.
it makes much more sense to focus on prevention as a community strategy. priority should be given to integrating realistic drug education programs into schools, but attention also needs to be paid to the root social problems that lead to drug abuse: domestic violence, poverty, mental illness, etc.
and while drug abuse can never be eliminated completely, harm-reduction goes a long way in attenuating the negative social impact that drug abuse/addiction has on the community. this may include needle exchange programs, safe injection rooms, maintenance programs, etc. lastly, there needs to be professional treatment facilities and services for addicts who _are_ looking to seek help, such as detox clinics and drug counselors.
if you want to combat the problem of drug addiction/abuse, it makes more sense to establish outreach programs for at-risk teenagers, offer resources for teens suffering from depression or other mental health issues, and provide therapy and counseling services to these at risk populations. it doesn't make sense to send out vigilantes with no professional training in treating addiction to kidnap people off the streets and force them to get clean.
not only is that kind of attitude counter-productive, but it's dangerous. the road to recovery is a long and arduous one. and if someone is propelled into recovery when they are not ready--especially by force--not only will they not get better, but they'll probably avoid seeking professional help in the future. what immediately comes to mind are rapid opiate detox programs. the proponents of such treatments claim to be able to cure an addict while they are unconscious, so family members will force their addict relative to undergo treatment against their will; they're brought in to the facility, put under with a general anesthetic, and then injected with high doses of an opioid antagonist like naloxone or naltrexone to induce spontaneous opiate withdrawal. the patient is unconscious, so there's no visible struggle from the patient, and they don't demonstrate withdrawals symptoms while they're asleep. but the patient wakes up to excruciating physical agony much more intense than normal opiate withdrawal. they are unable to move, in a state of high fever, and often delirious. some patients are then transferred to a regular hospital ill-suited for handling opiate detox, other are simply sent home in a cab despite their being in no condition to take care of themselves. patients often report extreme physical and psychological trauma from the experience, such as coughing up blood, and the National Institute of Drug Abuse has even advised against such Rapid Opiate Detox because the potential risk of choking and cardiac complications, and studies have shown that the procedure can be potentially fatal for some addicts.
it's clear that in the vast majority of cases where overzealous family members with no professional training take it upon themselves to try to force an addict to get clean they do far more harm than good. so you can despise and hate addicts all you want, but don't try to do them any favors when you're motivated by personal anguish rather than empathy and true desire to help.