Take Me To The Pilots '13: ABC's 'Resurrection'

[In case you’ve Forgotten, and as I will continue to mention each and every one of these posts that I do: This is *not* a review. Pilots change. Sometimes a lot. Often for the better. Sometimes for the worse. But they change. Actual reviews will be coming in September and perhaps October (and maybe midseason in some cases). This is, however, a brief gut reaction to not-for-air pilots. I know some people will be all “These are reviews.” If you’ve read me, you’ve read my reviews and you know this isn’t what they look like.]

Show:“Resurrection” (ABC)
Airs:Sundays at 10 p.m. starting in March
The Pitch: “If zombies are big on AMC, maybe people returning from the dead will be big on ABC, too.” “But are they zombies?” “Well, not exactly.” “So what are they?” “Can’t tell you!” “Sold.”
Quick Response: I may be irrationally gun-shy, but I’m distrustful of entirely serialized dramas that are set up as being ultimately only about the answering of a single question. That rule doesn’t necessarily apply to investigation-type dramas, because wanting to know who killed Rosie Larsen, or that sorta thing, will definitely keep me going for at least 12 or 13 episodes. But in the case of ABC’s “Resurrection,” I came away from the pilot with the key question that everybody will have: Why are residents of Arcadia, Missouri coming back to life many years after their deaths? [Or at all, I guess. Once you’re coming back from the dead, I don’t suppose it necessarily matters how long it takes. Still pretty strange.] So yes, I kinda want to know the answer. But there’s really nothing else that was put forward in 44 minutes that I need to know anything more about. I don’t care about any of the characters or the circumstances behind any of their deaths. So given that there’s a book by Jason Mott out there, is there a point in watching 13 hours of a TV show? Well, the book doesn’t star Omar Epps and I like Omar Epps, playing an immigration official, even if I’m confused by his absence of facial hair and even more confused by his character’s jurisdiction in all of this. The book doesn’t have Kurtwood Smith, getting a rare opportunity to play a character who is entirely sincere, without any sarcasm or venom or plausible menace (I could be wrong about the last two). The book doesn’t have Devin Kelley, who I liked in “Chicago Code.” It is, in fact, a pretty sturdy cast here. And pilot director Charles McDougall knows how to lay on some atmospherics and there are couple rather gorgeous visuals, mostly in the early-going. McDougall also lays on the spiritual schlock and even though I knew it was coming — this show went through several titles, but “Resurrection” is the one that’s least subtle, religion-wise — the arrival of a friendly priest character who starts giving lectures on belief left me cringing. With this and NBC’s midseason drama “Believe” and FOX’s departed “Touch,” TV has been pushing the “Messianic Kid & Stoic Guardian” buddy drama pretty hard, but it’s at least semi-ironic how these shows all want to be about faith, but universally have almost no faith in the audience’s ability to put anything together without spoon-feeding.
Desire To Watch Again: I’ll definitely give “Resurrection” one more episode to see if an ancillary mystery arises that will keep me engaged long enough to get the answer to the big question. “Resurrection” is a bit sleepy in its pacing, but it seems to be bursting with vim and vigor compared to “Betrayal,” the drama that’ll be occupying its time slot all fall. I have “Betrayal” pegged for a swift collapse, so I wonder how quickly ABC could push up the premiere, or if I’d rather just read the book in a couple days and save my Sunday TV viewing for other things. [Or maybe I’ll just watch the French drama “Les Revenants,” which airs on Sundance this fall and may or may not be REALLY similar.]

Take Me To The Pilots ’13: ABC’s ‘Resurrection’