Entertainment Weekly's PopWatch Blog | PopWatch

Fashionshow_l Imitation might be the sincerest form of flattery, but boy can it make for some lousy television. Case in point: tonight’s premiere of Bravo’s The Fashion Show, a.k.a. Since We Lost ‘Project Runway’ to Lifetime (Argh!) We Came Up With This New Series That Is Totally Just As Awesome as the Original — Really! Please Watch!

I’d like to give The Fashion Show the benefit of the doubt and allow that subsequent episodes might improve. But what we saw this evening wasn’t pretty: an obvious — and obviously inferior — Runway copycat in which 15 aspiring designers compete for a $125,000 grand prize and for the chance…not to show their collection at Fashion Week, but to sell their line "in a retail market." (If that’s not conveniently vague, I don’t know what is.)

All the familiar elements were there: outsized personalities (We get it, Merlin: You’re flamboyant!), clashing egos, and outrageously hideous designs. (Harem pants as a must-have? Maybe on Planet Princess Jasmine.) But what was missing was that mix of playful and panicked workroom magic that Runway conjures up every season and the inimitable Tim Gunn enhances. If there ever was any doubt as to who the real star of Runway is, The Fashion Show put it to rest tonight. With all due respect to co-hosts/-judges Isaac Mizrahi and Kelly Rowland, their presence lacked the zesty je ne sais quoi that Gunn exudes so effortlessly. Furthermore, unlike Heidi Klum’s signature sendoff, Mizrahi’s version — "We’re just not buying it. Bye-bye, darling" — felt contrived.

What do you think? Is The Fashion Show destined to become passé or does it have potential?

May 8 2009 12:22 AM ET

'What did you see' spots on ABC: have you seen them?

by Lynette Rice

Categories: Have You Seen This?

If you watched the 100th episode of Lost on April 29, chances are you saw some curious little promos that flashed a tiny scene in the corner — a newly married couple kissing, for instance, or a surfer catching a glorious wave — before the picture suddenly went black with the message: "What did you see?" Well, apparently ABC sees a lot. Though the network won’t comment officially, the teases are for Flash Forward, a high-concept drama in the works for the fall, starring Joseph Fiennes (Shakespeare in Love) and Sonya Walger (Lost), that chronicles the chaos that ensues after the world suffers a brief blackout. ABC hasn’t officially ordered the series—at least, that’s what it’s saying publicly—but word is the network brass is so high on the show, which is based on a novel by Robert J. Sawyer, that it kicked off the early marketing campaign last month. An insider says more promos are planned for the finales of Lost, Grey’s Anatomy, and Dancing with the Stars this month.

Launching a promo for the fall while the current season still has a month to go may seem extraordinarily premature—hell, we don’t even know if Izzie is gonna die or whether Melissa Rycroft will (inevitably) win the mirrored ball—but these days, the sooner a network can make some noise about a project it’s enthusiastic about, the better. (Look no further than Fox’s decision to screen the pilot of Glee after the penultimate episode of American Idol.) What do you think of the spots? Are they enough to get you to return to ABC this fall?

May 7 2009 11:07 PM ET

'X-Men': Will fans follow Deadpool's new direction?

by EW staff

Categories: Comic Books, Movies, X-Men

Deadpool_wolverine_dl I was ecstatic when I heard that some of my favorite mutants were finally going to get some screen time in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, especially Deadpool. However, I was utterly confused (and my fangirl heart was horrified) when Deadpool arrived on screen sans his greatest asset: his wisecracking mouth. So now that there’s a Deadpool spinoff in the works, I’m worried that it’s going to continue on with this tangent, rather than return back to the comic book character’s roots.

Deadpool has always been the most satirical of the X-Men, often making fun of his own stereotypical comic book plotlines and breaking the fourth wall to directly address the readers (which was vaguely alluded to in one of Wolverine’s post-credit scenes). But in the movie, the character who is nicknamed the "Merc with a Mouth"…doesn’t even have a mouth, rendering him speechless. That’s on top of the shiny katana swords that he has attached to his arms — a far cry from the comic book character, whose only powers are regeneration and his personal knowledge of fighting skills. So what will happen in a Deadpool movie? Is seems as if they’re setting that film up to be about the character’s rise as an X-Men supervillian,which is a completely new storyline not in tune with the comic book. I’d muchrather a film based on the original Deadpool — the comical, mentallyinsane assassin whose snide remarks tend to get him into trouble.

Of course, I know I’ll end up watching the movie. I just hope it doesn’t stray so far from thecomics. What about you, PopWatchers? Will you be watching the Deadpool movie if it is not completely true to the original storyline or are you keeping your minds open and your mouths shut until the final product is here?

May 7 2009 10:18 PM ET

'The Hangover': The film's new red-band trailer is hilarious, even if it does include a big spoiler

by Nicole Sperling

Categories: Movie Trailers

Will the R-rated comedy The Hangover be a hit when it opens on June 5? It’s starting to look that way. Besides the fact that the film’s sequel has already been greenlit, early peeks at the latest movie from director Todd Philips (Old School) are hilarious — like its red-band trailer (embedded below), which premiered today. Now, I’ve seen the movie already, but one thing in the today’s clip surprised me: It gives up one of the best reveals of the movie, Mike Tyson. Yes, this trailer is riotously funny and the faux drama conveyed through Phil Collins’ In the Air Tonight is genius. But rather than hear Tyson sing now, don’t you think the laughs would have been bigger if Tyson’s warbling came as a surprise as the movie unspooled? I guess they just couldn’t keep what was supposed to be a secret quiet any longer. Take a look and let us know what you think. And, either way, are you psyched for the film?

May 7 2009 09:48 PM ET

Elizabeth Edwards on 'Oprah': What did you think?

by Annie Barrett

Categories: Oprah Winfrey, Politics as Entertainment, Television, Things That Are Sad

Elizabethedwards_l The jaded among us [raises hand] might have heard about Elizabeth Edwards’ much-touted appearance on Oprah today and thought, "Well, well, what a convenient way for one to plug one’s new book." But it’s hard to keep up that bias after hearing Edwards recall how her 10-year-old daughter recently asked her, "Did you know romaine lettuce was good for cancer?" The terminally ill Elizabeth struck the strongest chord when she put her husband’s affair with Rielle Hunter in perspective as it concerned her children: "Maybe the cancer’s a bigger thing in their lives than this woman passing through."

Their interview definitely picked up steam as it went on — the entire premise was awkward given that both Elizabeth and John were there to greet Oprah with hugs at the front door before the two women would proceed to discuss John’s infidelity at length inside the Edwards’ home. "He’s not going anywhere — I just saw him in the kitchen," Oprah joked uncomfortably at one point. The most noteworthy part, for me, was when Edwards attempted to justify the photo of her husband holding Rielle Hunter’s baby, outside a hotel room at night, thusly: "We’re politicians. Holding babies is our business." Cringe.

The meat of their discussion, though, was really Elizabeth’s game plan for how she should react to the whole ordeal. She only showed anger at one point, when she seemed to address Hunter (who Edwards refused to call by name) directly: "You can’t just knock on the door, say ‘You’re out, I’m in. How ’bout your husband, honey?’… There’s no excuse for women to do this." Edwards was much easier on her husband. "I’ve done terrible things, too. Who am I to say only this one thing counts?" she asked. "I want to protect him."

Toward the end of the hour, Oprah kept teasing her teeny tiny interview with John Edwards with clips featuring extended silences that didn’t really happen that way in real life. Maddening! But then there the former senator was, bragging about having played basketball with President Obama in his home’s full court. Regarding his wife’s book, Resilience (in which she recounts how she stood by her husband during his failed presidential campaign), "She definitely wrote it," said John. That’s a relief.

Did you see Elizabeth Edwards on Oprah? What did you think?

May 7 2009 07:33 PM ET

'Scrubs' finale: Perfect? Or totally perfect?

by Margaret Lyons

Categories: About Last Night, Television

A couple of days ago, I said I wanted Scrubs to call it quits. After last night’s finale, I want that even more. I’m totally still crying.

Yep, here come the water works. I can’t imagine a better ending for this show: Earnestly sentimental but not gruesomely corny. In quintessential Scrubs fashion, the episode acknowledged that sometimes awful things happen — like your mom dying — and that a lot of that pain stays with us: J.D.’s victory walk including appearances from the ghosts of Laverne, Mrs. Wilk, Jill (Nicole Sullivan,), and Mrs. Tanner (Kathryn Joosten, whose "My Old Lady" and "My First Kill" appearances are what made me first fall in love with this show) (still crying). But understanding and experiencing that suffering isn’t the same thing as being defined by it: Is there anyone more resilient than J.D., who despite everything still thinks this time, his fantasies could come true?

I’m over the moon for this episode. What’d you think, PopWatchers?

May 7 2009 05:47 PM ET

Has Batman really seen the last of the Joker?

by Jeff Labrecque

Categories: Movie Casting, Movies, The Dark Knight

Heathledgerjoker_l Heath Ledger is dead. But unlike Jack Nicholson’s Joker, who perished in a midnight plunge to Gotham’s pavement in Tim Burton’s original Batman, Ledger’s Joker survived The Dark Knight to fight another day. "I think you and I are destined to do this forever," Ledger’s dangling Joker taunted Batman at the end of the film.

Ledger’s tragic accidental overdose seemingly removed that possibility from Christopher Nolan’s blueprint for future sequels. But is the character necessarily finished within the franchise? Would Nolan dare recast the Joker with another actor? It would be a thankless — if not blasphemous — assignment for any young actor. (Sure, Michael Gambon slipped on Richard Harris’ beard in Harry Potter, but this would be different.)

But the facts remain: In Batman’s universe, the Joker is still very much alive. He is, and will always be, the yin to Batman’s yang. And, not insignificantly, he’s slightly obscured behind a face-full of grease paint.

Nolan’s next film isn’t Batman, but Inception, featuring an all-star cast, including Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Ledger and Gordon Levitt could practically pass for brothers, so I couldn’t help myself from imagining Gordon-Levitt in the Joker’s purple duds. Am I crazy? Hopeless? Disrespectful?

Quite honestly, the iconic villain and Ledger’s terrifying performance were somonumental that I think future chapters need to revisit him in some way, shapeor form. But how would you feel if the Joker reappeared in a future Batman film, played by someone else? Would Gordon-Levitt fit the bill? What about Emile Hirsch? Would this be the height of morbid commercialization or the faithful continuation of an unfinished drama?