For Your Consideration...

And so we begin. 

A few days ago, the official Adventures in Odyssey podcast mentioned the return of the Avery Awards. I don't know how the rest of you feel, but I love award shows. I enjoy watching the Oscars on TV each year. There is no better feeling than to sit and watch other people get awarded for stuff that I can't do myself. For some reason, our society is fascinated by winners.

The purpose of the "The Changing Times" is not only to "comment on and critique" but to encourage fans to express their own opinion. After all, my opinion of each episode is far from perfect. The "Avery Awards" is a useful way to capture everyone's thoughts; to accurately represent the Odyssey zeitgeist. They enable all listeners to join together and come up with a list where we can proudly say: "this is good". 

That said, here are my top 5 choices--not predictions--for which actors and actresses should be nominated for their work in Album 52.

Best Performance by a Male Actor:

1. Jess Harnell as Wooton Bassett in "Wooton's Broken Pencil Show"

2. Will Ryan as Eugene Meltsner as Abominable Turkey, and Harlow Doyle in "A Thankstaking Story"

3. Adam Wylie as Ryan Cummings in "The Owlnapping"

4. Will Ryan as Eugene Meltsner in "The Mystery of the Clocktower" 

Is Jess Harnell the new Marlon Brando?

My Thoughts: There were many opportunities this year for male actors to flex their acting abilities, comedic timing, and overall versatility;  "A Thankstaking Story" and "Wooton's Broken Pencil Show" were the episodes which demanded the most out of actors. And Jess Harnell and Will Ryan could easily be nominated for either one of these episodes. However, Harnell carries "Wooton's Broken Pencil Show", despite a chaotic script, keeping our ears glued until the last second, offering a cute and spirited as Captain Absolutely. Likewise, Will Ryan should be nominated for the same reason that actors Jeff Bridges, Catherine Zeta Jones, or Jamie Fox were nominated--and won--for their respective awards: they sang as well as they acted. Indeed, Will Ryan not only lead us through wonderful tunes, but impressed us playing by Eugene, an abominable Turkey, and Harlow Doyle--all in the same episode. 

Sadly, this season lacked serious and dramatic performances. Even the most serious situations were somewhat lightened for laughs. Probably the most dramatic performance this season came from Adam Wylie in "The Owlnapping". Adam Wylie should not only should be nominated for being one of the most likable kid characters introduced this season, but for making the terrific "The Owlnapping" into a better episode than it should have been. How differently would that episode have been if Matthew Parker was the lead character? No one could have done a better job than Adam Wylie. For that reason, he should definitely be nominated. It would be a crime if he wasn't. 


Will Ryan gives the other "serious" performance in "Mystery of the Clock Tower".  Will Ryan helps us believe in the severity of the situation, despite the somewhat implausible storyline and cliched dialogue. 

Best Performance by a Female Actor:

1. Katie Leigh as Connie Kendall as Katie Poo-Magloo in "A Thankstaking Story"

2. Katie Leigh as Connie Kendall in "Fast As I Can"

3. Sydney Shiotani as Camilla Parker in "An Agreeable Nanny"

4. Amanda Troop as Mrs. Parker in "Grandma's Christmas Visit"

5. Corrie Shenigo as Amber in "Opposite Day".

Could "Stage Fright" win best episode? 

My Thoughts: There were more roles for women this year than in previous years. This year, the actresses I enjoyed were often playing supporting roles. Notably missing from the list are Christina Puccelli as Emily Jones, Kari Wahlgren as "Maria", and Heather Simpson as Alicia Jennings. All three actresses will probably get nominated, but I don't think they should. I personally felt all three overplayed their roles. They were too much when their roles called for much less. 

Will Katie Leigh win again? Someone told me a few weeks ago that Katie Leigh isn't necessarily the reason for why Connie Kendall seems to be one of the dullest characters on the show these days. The writing is probably more to blame; Katie should not be faulted for actually giving the occasional dazzling performance...even if she may be out-of-character . That said, I thought she displayed a lot talent in "A Thankstaking Story" as Katie Poo-Magloo. If she's nominated for that episode, it should be for Poo-Magloo, and not for playing Connie Kendall. However, to her credit, she did give a humorous performance as Connie in  "Fast As I Can". 

Might Will Ryan get nominated for his performance in "Fast As I Can"? 

And yes, I know what all of you are thinking: Wasn't Amber annoying? Yes, but wasn't that the point? Essentially, Corrie Shenigo played "annoying" well. In my review of "Opposite Day", I mentioned how she "does a surprisingly good job at creating sympathy for her character despite how aggravating she could be". She was never over-the-top, but subtly communicated a sense of desperation and loneliness in her performance. She should be nominated, clearly. 

The last spot in the list was a toss up between Sydney Shiotani as Camilla Parker and Georgina Cordova as Nelson Swanson. While both had few lines this season, they did a great job with the ones they did have. They probably won't be nominated, but I'd like to see them both win eventually... 

Finally, Amanda Troop as Eva Parker was,  in my opinion, the best thing about "Grandma's Christmas Visit". Nuff said. 

Who do you think should be nominated? Who do you think will win? What was your favorite episode this year? Speak your mind in the comment section below. 

Review: "The Malted Milkball Falcon"

They should rename the show "Mysteries in Odyssey".

Boring. Uneventful. Ridiculous. These are the words I would have used to describe last week's episode, "A Disagreeable Nanny", but not this one. "The Malted Milkball Falcon" is, as Jacob Isom described it, "unique". Kirby Atkins finds his groove and concocts a mystery which not only avoids several weaknesses plaguing "Game for a Mystery" or "Stage Fright", but one that is significantly more intriguing than the majority of episodes this past season.

Before I begin, let me make something clear. It's hard to write objectively about a well written episode when half the voices in it either aggravate me or cause me to think about something else. Odyssey has a long history of memorable brag-worthy cast of characters. It's been the escapades of those such as Bernard, Tom, Bart, Jack, Edwin, Nick, the Barclays which made me tune in each week. But which characters make the older generation tune in now? I watch what's happening at the fan forums, and I read comments submitted by fans at the official site. There is an uprising...fans are frustrated. And their frustration is spreading like wildfire. It's difficult to know whether these are simply newer fans unprepared and uncomfortable with change, or whether the show is truly being a tad shaky nowadays. Trust me, I've witnessed a lot of change in this show. I've been listening to this show for so long that I have absolutely no memory of ever not listening to it. I have grown to like some characters, while there are others I hold no delusions that they were ever any good. I've spent 10 years outside the target audience, seeing kids come and go. I doubt my inability to warm up to these characters is a sign that I'm simply too old to be listening. I doubt I'm outgrowing this stuff now. The facts are plain; a lot these newer folks just don't cut it. They don't adhere to the standard placed by characters of the past--which makes perfect sense if you think about it. It took a few years for the show to get Bernard, and much longer to get Jason and Jack. It will take a while again, with trial and error, for the show to get more memorable/classic characters. Thankfully, of those who are now decent, there is great potential for them to become better. This episode explores that potential a bit more.

As for specific criticisms of each character, I'll keep them short and sweet. Jay sounds like Daffy Duck without the lisp; I preferred the sullen and humbled Emily Jones I heard in "Square One"; Stojka continues to impress as the show goes on; Priscilla spoke and I thought someone was blowing a whistle in my ear; Matthew Parker was the show's most relatable character since we both seemed bored to tears following Emily around; Barrett's voice is changing for the better but his presence goes unnoticed in scenes; Nelson's distinct voice and likable personality makes him the show's newest treasure.

Should you care that the outcome of "Broken Window" is similar to this one? Personally, I don't, despite the fact "Broken Window" has one the greatest Adventures in Odyssey endings and, for that reason, is a personal favorite of mine. After all, what was more surprising than finding out Whit was the "culprit" when all he normally does is give wise counsel and sage advise? That said, this episode could have been substantially better if "Broken Window" never aired. As a result, while this week's episode's "reveal" did end up fooling me, it didn't surprise me. The result is an episode which merely entertained but didn't impress.

I'm also slightly (very slightly) concerned that Whit was tad more deceptive here than he was in "Broken Window". Maybe it's just me, but in that one, he lets the events play out instead of interfering. In "The Malted Milkball Falcon", Whit seems to be encouraging suspicions a little more. Aside from that sense of slight uneasiness, I will say that Atkins handled Whit's role well enough, making sure Whit never overstepped his boundaries. Still, while re-listening to the episode, I kept wondering how manipulative was too manipulative for Mr. Whittaker. In "Broken Window", he let things play out a little more without interfering or purposefully shifting suspicions, merely asking "So you think you know who broke the window..." A Whit's End commenter said: "[Whit] has a tendency for doing stuff like that. [Re]member the broken window episode?" Glad to know that Whit is getting a reputation for being a sneaky, deceptive man.

I'm noticing more and more fans quibbling about the "message" in episodes. Many are arguing that episodes are becoming less spiritual and would do better to mention the name of Jesus more often. That said, I certainly like it when Adventures in Odyssey covers all the bases with certain themes (I myself will be quick to point out that "Fast as you Can" failed in this area; its desire to entertain, rather than teach, was its downfall). When it came to "The Malted Milkball Falcon, however, I'm surprised by how some criticized its message. I'm not quite sure what type of show would make some of these fans happy. Adventures in Odyssey has never been solely about preaching, but about entertaining as well. I thought this episode was the perfect example of a show which knew how to slowly and carefully unveil the message as time went by; the theme of the show became as much of a mystery as the thief of the malted milk-ball falcon was.

Recently, I've began reading the weekly devotionals at the official website. If you haven't already, then I'd suggest you check them out. They reinforce the lessons in the show and encourage listeners to apply those lessons to their own lives. The theme of today's show, I think, speaks volumes. Why do we do what we do in the name of God? Do we go to church to meet our friends or to praise God? Do we help the poor in order to feel good about ourselves or because we love Him? In a time where "hipster faith" is growing, where following God can be "cool" in social circles, one must wonder how much of what we do "for Christ" is really for Christ. In other words, our motivation matters.

For the first time, I enjoyed this Kirby Atkins episode. He wrote a script with more layers, with more twists and turns, than the average episode has. This is how a proper mystery is done; it not only made me question "whodunit" but "howdunit" too. I think those qualities are strong enough reasons to rate this episode on the positive side, despite its flaws.

Rating: ★ ★ ★ ½

Film Review: "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader"

In "A Bite of Applesauce", Connie is left in charge of Whit's End. After being informed that the train-set is experiencing technical difficulties, she heads upstairs to Whit's secret computer room to fix the problem. Knowing she isn't suppose to be using the new Applesauce program or even know of its existence, she looks for a way inside the hidden room.

"First I have to get bookcase out of the way..." she says to herself.

She remembers that Eugene moved one of the books before being able to enter the room. But which book was it?

"Dawn Treader, Magican's Nephew..."

She spots "The Last Battle". Bingo.

After removing it from the shelf, the bookcase opens up, and the unexpected happened...

Forgive me if any of you visited my blog today in search for the latest review of Adventures in Odyssey's "The Malted Milkball Falcon". Although this season is nearly at an end, it's time to take a short break, and focus on a series of books I love that have no doubt inspired the creations of the Imagination Station, McCusker's Passages series, or even in that little bit of dialogue in a "Bite of Applesauce": "The Chronicles of Narnia". Are those small connections to the world of Narnia enough to justify posting a review of "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" on an Adventures in Odyssey blog? Probably not. But I will anyway.

The beautiful "Dawn Treader"

If you haven't yet seen the latest film version of "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" because you're bitter about how the last two turned out, or because you've heard negative reviews about this one then read on. I am a habitual visitor of rottentomatoes.com and have realized that one must carefully discern when "fresh" or "rotten" reviews should be paid any attention to. While this latest film is getting hammered by the critics, realize that most them, intelligent as they may be, know nothing of Narnia. Only a few truly understand this series, and they are the few whose opinions should be listened to. Lewis scholar Devin Brown is one of them:

"The Voyage of the Dawn Treader very much. It is exceedingly moving at times and also at times very funny. It has kept all that was essential to Lewis’s original while still opening up the story to be adapted to a different medium. I am convinced that Lewis fans—young and old, new and longtime—are going to like it very much as well. As one of the countless readers who have been comforted, inspired, and challenged by Lewis over the years, I would like to offer my congratulations and my thanks."

After I went to see the movie, I became interested in finding out what everyone has else had to say. I found that, after watching the film, negative reviews were never 100% wrong; each had a nugget of truth. However, I eventually discovered that many reviewers were either 1) generalizing the film too much, or had 2) entered the film with flawed expectations.

First, what do I mean by generalizing too much? Well, some have commented on how the film was poorly edited, featured lame action sequences, or had poor performances. The thing is, in my personal opinion, the film had all of those but not necessarily throughout the "the entire film". Since the movie is somewhat episodic, there were some scenes which would make me think "Wow, that was nicely done" while others "Wow, that was terrible". I wondered whether the film had been using a different director every 20 minutes. While the adventure at the Lone Islands features poorly edited action sequences, the final battle against the serpent is beautiful crafted; while the performances and dialogue at Deathwater Island are cringe-worthy, quite the opposite could be said of the performances at the end of the film; while the "green mist" effects look cheesy and fake, Reepicheep looks very life-like and natural; and while the on-screen relationship between Caspian and Edmund felt loosely tacked onto the script, the relationship between Eustace and Reepicheep is very well developed. Essentially, for each time I disliked something about this film, there was a different moment I found absolutely perfect. Did anyone else feel this way?

Eustace and Reepicheep are the film's best characters

Many are even criticizing the film without understanding the original source material. Surprisingly, some are calling it a weak film because it felt too "episodic" and "lacked urgency". Anyone who knows the book will know that this is exactly what narnia fans expect when entering the movie theater. So why is it being so harshly criticized when it chooses to faithfully follow a famous book? So we must think: is this film being criticized in comparison to the original source material? Or, had the critic had the wrong expectations beforehand and are now criticizing it with the expectations that it was supposed to be "action adventure film", as "Prince Caspian wanted to be, and not the magical, whimsical, and thought provoking journey it was meant to be.

Enough about the critics though. Did this film succeed in being the "magical, whimsical...etc...etc."? Well, yes and no. For one thing, I'm surprised how these filmmakers managed to make so many changes to the original story and yet still managed to capture the spirit of its novel more than the first two did. One of the ways this was achieved was by distancing itself from the darker epic-sounding soundtrack composed by Harry Gregson Williams. The score of "The Dawn Treader", composed by David Arnold, is light, magical, and haunting--for the book was often all of these things.

It was as if the creators of "Dawn Treader" were approaching the film-making process totally differently from "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" and "Prince Caspian". The first two films built onto the main story by making it feel bigger, louder, and more extravagant; both novels, however, when reading them, don't exactly call for huge epic battles or have much of a sense of urgency. In fact, there are plenty of times when the books take their sweet time describing the majesty of Aslan, animals having tea-parties, and Lucy and Susan in the fellowship of Bacchus; however, these lovely moments were largely ignored in the films.

In comparison, it felt like the makers of "Dawn Treader" decided to come up with their own storyline (something to do with the "green smoke of temptation"); they were less interested in merely expanding and building onto the original story, but instead tried to fit Lewis' book into their own concoction. And because of this, it seemed like they were all the more required or forced to at least try to capture the feeling of the novel within their own changes. In other words, the old films built away from the original stories, while "Dawn Treader" built towards its original source material.

This is also, surprisingly, the most explicitly Christian film of the three. No it isn't perfect. For a more detailed analysis, check out the short essay by Steven D. Greydanus. Personally, my only complaint was that there are a lot of somewhat of contemporary Disneyesque themes, promoting the "you are special" message of individualism and self-realization--the clichéd  "Don't run from who you are" message every child is brainwashed with since birth nowadays. Regardless, the allusions to Christ should please many churchgoers and are blatantly obvious to anyone who isn't one. After watching the movie, I decided to listen to a weekly podcast dedicated to reviewing the latest movies. I don't feel comfortable enough giving the name of the website, since some of their podcasts use some pretty strong language. However, here is what one of its reviewers (presumably an unbeliever) had to say about the religious aspect of these films:

"...Here's some of my complaints that I've had. Now, one--I guess I can't complain too much, maybe in this movie it was obvious and maybe this was from the books. They pretty much--and I don't know--people, tell me if I'm wrong here, if I have here...I THINK that this is an allegory for Christianity, and I THINK Aslan is supposed to represent Jesus. [...] I'm not complaining about that. [...] I just don't know if it's from the books. Maybe complaint is the wrong word. Because. And I think, in this movie, I think this is the movie where Aslan comes down and says "Yeah. I'm Jesus".

Here is another review taken from Movies.com

"I've been taken to task lately by cool people for liking Aslan so much. But I do. I like it when he shows up. I like it when the movie comes to a thudding halt as he Liam Neeson-voices his moralistic wisdom. I like that he's supposed to be Jesus. Because when else do you get the nice gentle Jesus in movies? He's either being brutalized by Mel Gibson or ironically [made fun of]." (Dave White).

"Dawn Treader" made a lot of changes but
the spiritual themes, and Aslan, are still around. 

For one thing, comments such as these make me realize how the first two films tried too hard to please Christians but offend no one. Were Christians duped into believing this movie was for them? After all, many Christians, almost instinctively, keep a lookout for Christian messages in entertainment. In fact, it is the fault of Christian audiences for making "I am Legend" also known as "that Christian zombie-movie"; meanwhile, everyone else probably wouldn't have thought about its use of Christian symbolism. In the same way, those who aren't actively looking for these themes or aren't familiar with either the gospels or Lewis himself, don't automatically take note of every allusion to Christ. Considering how often secular entertainment uses themes of sacrifice, why should the average moviegoer have any reason to believe "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" refers to the death of Christ? For that matter, why should anyone get anything out of Aslan's words "it is finished" after he kills the White Witch? Again, probably only someone who has at least some sort of rudimentary knowledge of the gospels. This isn't everyone.

No hope for "The Silver Chair"?

Most of you will know by now that "The Silver Chair" probably won't be made into a film anytime soon--when taking into consideration the most recent U.S box office numbers. But whose fault is that? Despite focusing more on the novel's Christian themes and capturing the feel of the novel, I wish the screenwriters had a little more faith in the original storyline itself.  Is the approx $25 000 000 that "Dawn Treader" made its opening weekend (a low number compared to its predecessors) the result of not catering to enough non-Narnian fans, or is it the result of not following the book closely enough? The downfall of this franchise has been its attempt to appeal to Christian groups while at the same time trying to please every other moviegoer out there. It's plainly obvious that these movies can't please everyone. The producers don't have enough confidence in the original stories; they refuse to believe they can be good enough films on their own. In this one specifically, I suppose my biggest disappointed is that the screenwriters felt the need to connect the happenings on each island to a larger overarching story. As a result, Narnia purists are turned off from its drastic plot changes, while teens and tweens can't find this fifty-year old book series in vogue. I've come to the realization that Narnia is the impossible series to sell to the average american moviegoer. This series needed more vampires, more gushy teen romances, more eye-candy, a darker script, less vibrant colors, hipper catchphrases, more deaths, and darker central characters with turmoiled pasts, in order to interest more of today's moviegoers. After all, what so interesting about the brave, moralistic, and honorable heroes anymore? That's so passé...

Lucy, played by Georgie Henley,
opening the "Book of Incantations"

But what "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" managed to do right, more so than the first two films, was to forget that this series should try to attract to the adolescent Twilight fan who just wants to see Caspian and Susan kiss, or the Lord of the Rings fan looking for that 20 minute fight scene, or the Harry Potter fan who needed their fantasy fix until that next film comes out. To me, despite large changes, "Dawn Treader" was trying less to imitate other franchises, but had come a little bit closer to expressing the spirit of the novels. It somehow felt a little more honest. I like how pluggedinonline put it:

"Before this film, I think the cinematic Narnia series was a little like Lucy, looking enviously at big-sister Susan. Maybe it was trying too hard to be the next Lord of the Rings or aspire to Harry Potter-level success. It worked so hard to be literary and spectacular that, just maybe, it forgot what the Narnia books were at their core: children's stories. Meaningful stories, yes. Good stories, absolutely, filled with allegorical heft and layers of meaning … but at their core, they're meant to be fun."

We want to dwell on the silliness of the Dufflepuds, we want to hear every single thought from Eustace when he transforms into a dragon, and we want to think how horrifying it would be to mistakenly come into contact with the pool at death water. Does the movie do this? Only sometimes. Alas, the filmmakers don't have enough faith in the novel's episodic moments to entertain and instead rush through them. They, sadly, misjudged this franchise's core audience.

It seems to me that if Peter Weir was able to turn his seafaring adventure "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" into an Academy Award Nominated Best Picture film by not worrying about "the right audience" then Apted should have been able to make "Dawn Treader" into a more critically acclaimed film. Anyone who has seen "Master and Commander" knows that the MacGufin (to catch up to and capture a French war vessel) wasn't what the audience was most invested in. Rather, we were sucked into the film by the unbelievably witty dialogue and great characters. In other words, we cared about the journey, no matter how trivial it was, because we cared so much about the lives of those aboard the ship. Why couldn't this movie been like that? Apted somewhat underestimates the power of Lewis' characters and stories. Apted believes that by adding a more concrete purpose, like the "green mist" plot, we'd be more invested in what was happening. But we aren't. We love this novel not for "the whole" but for "the sum of its parts". The movie could have been immensely more powerful if they had let us dwell a little longer on so-called "pointless" island visits. As it is, we are left wanting more each time.

The following is a quote from (ready for this?) Mark Zuckerberg when asked about the film "The Social Network":

"The thing that I find most thematically interesting that they go wrong is...the whole framing of the movie, the way that it starts is, I'm with this girl, who doesn't exist in real life, who dumps me [...] and basically they frame it as if the whole reason for making Facebook and building something was because I wanted to get girls, or wanted to get into some kind of social institution [...] but I think it's such a big disconnect [...] [filmmakers] just can't wrap their head around the idea that someone might build something because they like building things"

Maybe Zuckerberg's comments could apply to a film like "Dawn Treader". These screenwriters felt the need to flesh out each character's back-story, giving us a better idea of what was motivating them. I don't quite remember the novel putting such a ton of emphasis on the fact that Caspian's desire to be a brave leader was motivated by feeling like a second-rate King to his father, or that the reason why Edmund was so easily tempted at Deathwater island was because he felt like a second-rate individual in his own world, or that Lucy's envy for her sister's beauty at Coriarkin's island was because she had some self-esteem problems, or that their entire mission had to be motivated by destroying a greater evil in order to make the rescue of Miraz's seven lord worthwhile. In movies, can't things just happen because "we wanted to" or "we felt like it"? Why couldn't they rescue the seven lords simply because they were missing? Why couldn't they reach the world's end just to reach the world's end? Apparently, according to these writers, things can't just happen unless there is a clear underlying reason or motivation. To make use of Zuckerberg's line: the writers just can't wrap their heads around the idea that the crew of the dawn treader might be on this adventure for the sake of "adventure".

I give "Dawn Treader" ★ ★ ★ ½ 

Despite all of the issues I had with it, I liked this movie. If you haven't already, see this in theaters. This weekend. If you don't, not only will you be missing out on a movie worth seeing, but you'll be preventing family-friendly movies, with uplifting messages from being made in the future; we can all agree that that in itself is an important enough reason to see "Dawn Treader". It is one of the reasons why I hope they continue with this series--to not only to keep entertaining people, but to give all audiences a better view of Christ, of His followers, and to remind His followers why and how we should follow Him.

Get the entire Narnia series dramatized on CD for $20 here. Be sure to check back in the days ahead for more updates.

Review: "An Agreeable Nanny"

Perhaps it ended up being more of a curse than a blessing when Adventures in Odyssey decided to introduce its most beloved family, the Barclays, so early on in the show. All that we older listeners can do now is compare each and every family to this perfect model. Unlike some fans, I've never had a problem with doing this. Why? Because not only am I an Odyssey purist, but a realist as well. The Barclays were extraordinary. Period. We do not want cheap imitations or wannabes; we want a family we can love, relate to, and invest in emotionally--a fictional family we can feel part of, and who can be part of ours weekly. And it's a shame that we have to deconstruct and analyze what makes up a good family-centric episode whenever a family, like the Parkers, ask us for our time...but I will anyway.

Frankly, the Washington family left and I barely cared. Did you? They weren't the show's most memorable addition. I'm sure the writer's would admit this themselves. After all, the Barclays were given their own send-off episode, compared to the Washingtons, who have seemingly dropped off the face of the earth. The reasons for the Washington family's failure to connect with listeners are obvious. The Washingtons demoted Xavier, its most compelling character, much too early, and squandered many opportunities to tackle interesting and deep family-related issues, in exchange for chaotic and so-called "comic relief" storylines. Truth be told, Ed, Elaine, Marvin, and Tamika, often seemed to be parodying a family and rarely felt like the real thing. The writers kept Ed Washington in his fatherly role, and never gave him the opportunity to develop into an intriguing character on his own, separate from his family. I could continue on but I won't. I've done that enough here. My point is that Adventures in Odyssey has an real opportunity to not let the Parker family go the way the Washingtons did.

Fortunately, I already have a fair bit of confidence in this family to give audiences unique, entertaining, and thought-provoking episodes. Already, Matthew "Sam Johnson" Parker has forced his way into our hearts, even though some of us may still be in denial about that. And everyone unanimously agrees that Mr. Parker and Camilla are two excellent characters. And while the jury is still out on Olivia, the writers can keep us happy by perhaps digitally lowering her voice, or at least, placing her character into situations where she won't need to whine so much. I suppose time will tell. However, is it just me, or did "An Agreeable Nanny" seem more like a Washington episode than a Barclay episode?

For some reason, when I think of the Washington family, I think of episodes that are loud, somewhat fanciful, and borderline chaotic. Like last season's "Clutter", "An Agreeable Nanny" is an episode that doesn't have much in terms of plot. As I've recently explained in my review of "Fast as you Can", shows like these barely pass as real stories, but are simply one idea repeating itself several times in different ways; the episodes driving it home again and again without much development. It would be the same as making an episode, thematically, about lying and simply hearing a character tell lies for the rest of the episode and expect that to hold our attention for 25 minutes.

So must every new and heavily promoted family star in an episode where kids go nuts while the parents are away? The Barclays had "Two sides to Every Story"; the Washington's had "The Mailman Cometh"; and now the Parker's have "An Agreeable Nanny". I wonder if there was any another way to communicate that kids "aren't as grown up as they think they are" without having to resort to listening to an entire episode where its central characters make poor decision after poor decision for twenty-five minutes. At least "Two sides to Every Story" had a creative storyline; listeners played detective while getting to piece together what was true about Donna and Jimmy's individual stories. No, I am not saying this because some sort of biasness towards the Barclays. "Two Sides to Every Story" is simply better and "An Agreeable Nanny" simply lacks its cleverness.

In addition, Bob Hoose, when writing for these characters, seemed to have ignored all the maturity, wisdom and common sense Olivia and Matthew have shown in the past. Is this the same Matthew Parker who acted so calm and rational next to Emily Jones for two seasons? I bet Bob Hoose noticed he only really had the Parker family at hand, and as a result, ended up injecting these new hyperactive personalities into the Parker kids, failing to realize that this doesn't jive well with how we've seen them act in recent episodes. And although I'm glad the show didn't choose the Jones family to be in this show, I almost think that the personalities of Emily and Barrett would have suited the storyline better. Almost.

And might I also officially call this the season of "ridiculous-plot-twists-tacked-onto-the-end-of-episodes"? "Stage Fright" felt the need to surprise us by making Charlie Stolfitz into an undercover actor, "An Agreeable Nanny" felt the need to have an British undercover nanny; and "The Melted Milkball Falcon" decided to--wait, let's wait until next week before tackling that one. While I don't think the "surprise" was completely unbelievable, I had a difficult time coming up with a single reason for why Mr. and Mrs. Parker felt the need to hire an actress-- instead of a simply hiring a real nanny. Did she need to sound British? Not really. But Mary Poppins did. And throwing in as many "Mary Poppins" or "The sound of Music" references was probably an easy way of injecting more life into an already dull story.

However, it would be unfair to review "An Agreeable Nanny" without pointing to a few of its better moments. I'll admit that there were quite a few memorable lines: "We'll work out your punishments after Maria goes, there's no point in having a witness--I mean--for her to witness..." or "You're not Cambrish?". Today, the best actress award goes to the youngest Parker, Camilla, who made me laugh several times throughout. While the scene in which she watches a scary movie is a familiar one, she performs in it well, and turns that particular scene into the highlight of the episode. I personally would not have let the dog lick the dishes, nor, for that matter, would I have cleaned them using a hose, but I probably would have waited until my parents left to watch a movie I knew I wasn't supposed to watch.

The somewhat chaotic "An Agreeable Nanny" feels recycled and follows a stale formula. I'm somewhat disappointed that my opinion differs so greatly from the numerous fans who've expressed their love for this episode. I cannot, unfortunately, appreciate this one as much as they did. The Parker family has a lot of potential and I eagerly look forward to when the show creates more interesting storylines to showcase this family's chemistry and solid performances. And while "An Agreeable" isn't exactly a bad episode, it still made me feel like I deserved something better than this. In fact, we all did.

RATING: ★ ★ ½