4 October 2010 | RestlessRust
Hart to Hart without...um...heart
I like action TV shows, I like throwback shows and I like Abrams, but Undercovers is dreadfully dull.
The show has very high production values, but the recycled plots do nothing to cash in on them. Locales and set pieces are interchangeable as the by-the-numbers plots unfold. There's nary an original idea to be found.
This might not be such a problem if we at least had good characters, but Undercovers is lacking there, too. We get only the most cursory back story for our leads. They seem to exist only in the moment. Even what we know about their past doesn't seem to jibe with what we see. First, they show no indication that they were ever highly trained operatives. They carry themselves like second-year agents, not the top spies who had to be reactivated because no one else could handle the job. Also, Samantha had a relationship with two characters on the show, but she has absolutely no chemistry with either of them.
And that is the nail in the coffin for the show. All the other weaknesses of the show could be said about a similar cheesy mystery show from the 70s/80s: Hart to Hart. But the two leads in that show had chemistry, and it carried the entire series. The only thing that carries Undercovers is Gerald McRaney...but his appearances are too brief to do anything more than remind us of what this show could have been.