San Francisco Chronicle Pans New Amsterdam

I guess being immortal can bring out all kinds of plot holes and problems. This article in the San Francisco Chronicle really skewers Fox’s New Amsterdam. Take a read, at your own risk:

“Review: 'New Amsterdam' shoots blanks
Tim Goodman

New Amsterdam: Drama. 9 p.m. Tuesday on Fox. Second episode 9 p.m. Thursday. Regularly scheduled 9 p.m. Mondays.

They spent a lot of money on the pilot of "New Amsterdam," but maybe not enough on the writers. Or, more accurately, the plot.

"New Amsterdam," which premieres Tuesday, has a long, strange (and funny) history to it.

In July, during the Television Critics Association press tour in Los Angeles, Fox trotted out "New Amsterdam" to a room full of critics, some of whom were a little perplexed about the premise, namely that the main character is an immortal New York City cop. He was born in Amsterdam more than 400 years ago, came to New Amsterdam, which of course became New York City, and saved an American Indian girl by blocking the sword meant for her. That was 1642. Her tribe repaid the favor by giving him immortality, with a catch: When he meets his true love, he will die.

Confusing - and corny. But that could describe any number of shows.

Armed with all kinds of plot questions, critics were just about to dive into the fray when what can best be described as the "sci-fi wing" of the critics took charge. They said the show seemed a lot like "Highlander." The producers said they'd never seen "Highlander." How could you never see or know about "Highlander," they were asked. It's huge (which, of course, is highly debatable). Anyway, someone else said the series was awfully similar to Pete Hamill's novel, "Forever." The producers said they hadn't been aware of "Forever" until after the series got started. For his part, Hamill told the Associated Press that the similarities were "astonishing," but that he knew better than to try to sue, because those cases cost a fortune and never end justly. Hamill said he'd rather spend the money on his grandkids. "You've got to laugh," he said.

In July, there was much laughing. The sci-fi wing of the critics brigade would not let this go. And others began pressing for information on how a guy who doesn't age can live in Manhattan and not be seen by people he's been involved with. Like people in his neighborhood who are growing older while he's not. Or how he changed his name all the time - it's now John Amsterdam (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) and got a Social Security number, etc.

The producers didn't have very convincing answers. But at least Coster-Waldau is Dutch. That part makes sense. Though, if John Amsterdam has been in Manhattan for 400 years and hasn't picked up a New York accent - which he hasn't - that may be an issue with the accuracy police.

What does help is that Amsterdam (he used to be John York, once, by the way), is a master forger. (As it turns out, he's also a master furniture maker and very, very good at other things as well - perhaps the perk of having a lot of lifetimes to kill.) He calls his dogs by a number - like 36. His snappish (but not curious enough) new partner, Eva (Zuleikha Robinson), reminds him of the past. "You're just like my last 609 girlfriends," he says. Yes, it's supposed to be funny but no, he's not trying to reveal himself (though he's an alcoholic as well, and proclaims at his AA meeting that he's been sober 15,495 days).

In fact, Eva never gets any of the hints or jokes he drops. (And why would she - nobody's immortal, right?) But it turns out there are people in Manhattan who know Amsterdam has been around for a long, long time: his children.

Apparently he's got a lot of them. They end up being much older than he is, of course, but they keep his secret. There's precious little freshness in "New Amsterdam," so no need to point out his kids before you watch. If you watch.

Which brings up a good question. Should you watch? "New Amsterdam" is very average - and in many aspects is well below average. It never feels like much more than a cliche. The writers put him in situations where it doesn't take a genius to figure out what happened. (Fox sent two episodes and it was pretty clear who was the killer in each one.) So, it's not a fascinating police procedural - nor should it be. The main character is immortal - that should be the hook.

But that just brings up all those unanswered questions about the rules at work here. Amsterdam has kids. He's been married. Was that not love? He says he's been in love. But it must not have been true love, because he's still alive. Could it be that this whole soul mate thing is more complicated? For example, if you meet your true love, do you die instantly? Do you just start to age, then figure it out and have to wait like the rest of us to see how it ends? Car accident? High cholesterol? Boredom?

Ah, but the pilot has a little twist. Amsterdam is just about to nab a suspect in the subway when he has a heart attack. J'accuse! Well, sure, but who? There were a lot of women on that platform when he had the heart attack. "New Amsterdam" lets this play out for, oh, about a minute until it confirms the obvious: The woman who saved him was a doctor. It's her! You're a detective, go find her!

Well, he doesn't. But in the second episode, he's basically given her name and place of work. Which means - what? That she's "the one"? Yeah, probably. We know her name is Dr. Sara Dillane (Alexie Gilmore) and that she's a permanent cast member. So much for suspense. But the producers already said he's not going to keel over soon. (A professional guess: He starts getting really sick in the fifth season, right before there are enough episodes to syndicate, then dies in the last episode, which conveniently occurs during sweeps?)

The gray area of true love and soul mates is annoying. If she gave him a heart attack the first time they got near each other (not to be a buzz kill, but she actually kills him), what's next? Aneurysm?

Maybe this can all be explained away by the sci-fi crowd. Maybe all the plot holes can be covered up with believable explanations. But beyond the questions raised so far, "New Amsterdam" is pretty hokey, not especially compelling and altogether flat (except for the shots of a very vibrant New York City).

You can be immortal if you want, but that doesn't make it any less boring.”



My New Amsterdam blog home page can be found
here.