A continuation of the 1980s series, this time focusing on the grown sons of J.R. and Bobby Ewing, TNT’s pokey, cliché-riddled new “Dallas” comes to us from screenwriter Cynthia Cidre. Cidre, who wrote the acclaimed movies “In Country” and “Mambo Kings,” was also behind CBS’ horrible 2007 drama “Cane,” which many described as the Cuban-American “Dallas.” (Nestor Carbonell, taking a short break from his great work as Richard Alpert on “Lost,” played the Latino J.R. to Jimmy Smits' Hispanic Bobby.)
The Ewings of Southfork were last seen in the 1998 TV movie “War of the Ewings,” which starred original series vets Hagman, Duffy, Gray, George Kennedy, Steve Kanaly and Tracy Scoggins. It dealt with J.R.’s scheme to take control of Ewing Oil from Bobby and Sue Ellen.
A number of cast members return for this “Dallas” as well, among them Hagman (now sporting impressively sinister upturned eyebrows), Duffy, Gray, Kanaly, Ken Kercheval and Charlene Tilton, but they are now supporting characters in service to newer, better-looking cast members.
Two former members of the “Desperate Housewives” cast – Josh Henderson and Jesse Metcalf – play the sons of J.R. and Bobby. Jordana Brewster (the “Fast & Furious” movies) and Julie Gonzalo (“Veronica Mars”) portray their love interests. These four, along with Brenda Strong (another “Desperate Housewives” alum), get top billing.
The acting’s often terrible and the writing cascades from poor to dopey. J.R.’s evil spawn bests his entrepreneur cousin with schemes that could never work in the real world. I can’t speak to the quality of the 20th century “Dallas” (unlike Bill Haverchuck, I never paid much attention to it), but this version seems too creaky, slow and dull to warrant continued interest.
... In many scenes, Hagman's eyebrows on their own outact any of Hagman's young new co-stars. .… Hagman — and to a lesser extent fellow returning stars Patrick Duffy and Linda Gray — are so much more fun to watch than their four new, young co-stars that the new "Dallas" plays less like a passing of the torch than a suggestion that torches were better back in the '80s. … It's a very traditional, unapologetic soap opera. …
... pleasingly cheesy … worth watching just to see the evolution of [Hagman’s] magisterial eyebrows, which have more personality than some of the greener cast members …
... doesn’t meet expectations, let alone defy them. This version is palely faithful to the original without any of its seditious zest. … Texans used to be big hat; now they are old hat. So, unfortunately, is “Dallas.”
… very much its heir, in spirit and execution. … There is some sloppy writing, as when information regarding Christopher's undersea mining project, which the script treats as somehow secret and valuable, is also displayed as news available on the Internet. And it can look phony: A key opening scene set around a gushing oil well just seems like actors and extras at work; other characters speak technobabble issues like a phonetically rehearsed foreign language. But "Dallas" never was a series that worried over a little wooden acting, or prized sense over the sensational …
The San Francisco Chronicle says:
… there are more than a few moments when the absence of logic strains credibility in "Dallas." And soon enough, you start anticipating the next unlikely plot development moments before it actually happens. Why? Either because it's a cliche or it makes no sense. And on "Dallas," if it makes no sense, it's bound to happen. Except for Hagman, the performances are adequate without ever standing out, which may be one of the reasons it takes so long to care much about the younger Ewings …
... “Dallas,” always an epic tragedy, has learned important contemporary tricks from “Desperate Housewives” (from which it also borrows some of its new ensemble), “Revenge” and even some telenovelas, while mostly avoiding the pitfalls of the self-conscious camp displayed in ABC’s fizzled “GCB.” …
... Forget Dallas; they should have called it Thebes. You can find mummies who look fresher than this mold-encrusted relic, and who have newer ideas in their empty, embalmed heads. Not, of course, that this embarrassing throwback has any idea to offer beyond a desire to cash in on the standard-setting success of the CBS original in the 1980s. …
... The series will likely be a pass for everyone except those with a high tolerance for nighttime soap conventions — characters not asking obvious questions, double and triple crosses — that are as old as melodrama itself but were buffed to a high gloss in the ’80s by the original “Dallas” and its brethren. That crowd should feel no need to resist. No matter how stiff some of the younger actors portraying the new generation of Ewings may be, or how silly some of the plot twists, the heart of this new iteration is in the right escapist place.…
... This is how you do “Dallas.” TNT’s “sequel series” — don’t call it a reboot — reunites original stars Larry Hagman, Patrick Duffy and Linda Gray as those fussin’, feudin’, always entertaining Ewings. …
... Granted, very little is subtle about "Dallas," set in a Texas where gun racks are common, corruption is rife and dispute resolution often boils down to storming into somebody's office and smacking them upside the head. Still, it's all executed earnestly enough …
... a slow-moving, super-obvious soap opera with bad acting … Dallas is terrible. … It’s like a paint-by-numbers rendering of a bad idea. Even if you’re a sucker for nostalgia, don’t go back to Dallas. …
9 p.m. Wednesday. TNT.
