Netflix TV pick: Scrubs

For whatever reason, I didn't watch Scrubs when it first aired. The long-running and highly successful ABC series premiered in the fall of 2001 and ran until 2010. I can't help wondering what the hell I was doing from 2001 to 2010 that I wasn't watching this show. Probably gaming, I suppose.

It's not like I'd never seen an episode of the Scrubs. My friends watched it, and we would occasionally sit through an episode while waiting for our gaming buddies to show up for a board game session. But seeing a single installment in isolation doesn't give you a complete sense of what the show is about.

And so it was that I recently discovered Scrubs on Netflix and decided to give it a try. Having exhausted every episode of The IT Crowd, I was hungry for another good comedy series, one with the same kind of outrageous, laugh-out-loud moments I enjoyed with Roy, Moss and Jen. The first series to come to mind was Scrubs. Having seen a few scattered episodes of it in the past, I knew it was a good bet.

I have not been disappointed. I've been watching at least two episodes a night for the past week. While I don't find it as absurd and hilarious as The IT Crowd, I've become addicted to Scrubs largely because you just can't help loving these characters and seeing their relationships evolve.

Lately, I find myself contemplating my preconceived notions about the show from the few chapters I watched before. Primarily, I realized that you tend to judge the characters in certain ways based on out-of-context scenes. So here's my rundown of my character judgments prior to actually watching the first season:

JD: Duh. He's the main character, so you love him as the good-hearted underdog.

Turk: JD's wingman. A little on the cocky side, so I don't like him as much as I do JD.

Elliot: The token hottie. JD likes her; she's not into him. Yadda, yadda.

Carla: The hottie nurse, Turk's woman.

Dr. Cox: Total asshole. Takes every opportunity to gut JD of any sense of self worth and dignity.

Dr. Kelso: Satan incarnate.

Janitor: Weird, scary dude.

Jordan: The former Mrs. Cox, probably left him because he's a total asshole. Obviously, she deserved better.

Todd: A brainless, annoying jock.

And after watching one season of the program, my conceptions have changed to:

JD: Duh. He's the main character. I like him even more now that I've seen the show.

Turk: Still kind of cocky, but in a lovable and funny way.

Elliot: A very sympathetic character, full of vulnerabilities. I sometimes get angry at her for not being stronger.

Carla: The mercurial hottie. Don't piss her off. But she's got her vulnerable side too. Love her.

Dr. Cox: Dammit. I wanted to hate this bastard, but they went and showed how totally messed up the dude is and I can't help feeling sorry for him. He's a jerk, but he's a jerk with a heart who genuinely cares about his patients.

Todd: A lovable manchild.

Dr. Kelso: Satan incarnate.

Janitor: Still weird, still scary, and a major pain to JD. But after seeing how his father treats him and understanding his defensiveness and self-esteem issues, yeah, he's a sympathetic character too.

Jordan: Mrs. Satan Incarnate. I thought Cox was the asshole, but she obviously wrecked the man. I already know from watching isolated episodes that they temporarily get back together, but I'm on Cox's side in this battle.

Scrubs is one of those sitcoms that goes for a lot of the daydreamer humor that often gives it a surreal quality. The funniest and most outrageous moments are those in which JD creates daydream metaphors for the real-life conflicts he faces. I especially loved the episode in which he saw Dr. Cox as the superhero who could save a leukemia victim (who just happened to be Cox's former brother-in-law). The a capella band headed by hospital attorney Ted's rendition of the Underdog theme song was hilarious in this one.

Ultimately, though, these daydream moments of JD's are true metaphors representing his interpretation of events and his personal growth. In spite of all the verbal abuse he's suffered from Cox, he comes to idolize him because he sees through the craggy exterior to the vulnerable man beyond, a man steeped in emotional torment yet determined to do right by his patients. It is, after all, Cox who helps JD overcome many of his own personal fears to not only succeed in the hospital, but to also follow a moral path. In a world where money and politics grease the wheels of the machine, it is Cox who teaches JD how to game the system to do the right thing.

At its heart, Scrubs is a serious drama that tackles real issues. I'm in love with this person, but I have to work with her professionally every day and not let it interfere with my job. This person has no health insurance; how can we get him the surgery he needs? I'm afraid of death, but I have to live with it every day.

Never before has a show made me laugh so much and cry so much at the same time. Every episode is funny and moving and thoughtful. I walk away from each feeling a little sad and a little hopeful, but always I am moved. Very few TV programs have the ability to affect me so deeply. To dismiss Scrubs as comedy is to fail to fundamentally understand it and its characters.

Bye-bye cable, hello streaming

So I ditched cable some months back. The family still hates me for it, but it was a financial necessity. We just plain couldn't afford it any more. I purchased a couple of indoor antennae (antennas?) to pick up air signals, but, yeah, the number of channels is greatly limited and the signals tend to be unreliable. The plan was to purchase a good outdoor antenna and split the signal out to all of the TVs in the house—just three of them, really, but that hasn't happened yet.

As a replacement, I've turned to subscribing to three streaming services: Netflix, Hulu Plus and Amazon Prime. Netflix has a pretty large library of TV shows and movies, but quality can be spotty. Some of the movie offerings I could do without, but I do like many of the TV shows, including "The IT Crowd," "Dexter," and "Breaking Bad." The problem with the TV offerings is that they tend to be older series. Since I often want to watch recently aired programs, I also subscribe to Hulu Plus, which streams a number of programs I like a day or two after the network air date.

I also have an Amazon Prime membership, which affords me access to a number of TV and movie offerings included in the subscription fee, with rentals and purchases available for many more titles.

Streaming programs can save you money over that bloated cable subscription, but it's a decidedly mixed bag for a number of reasons.

First, you won't have immediate access to the all of the new episodes you like, and some seasons aren't made available to streaming services for up to a year after the original air dates. A number of really good programs are still available, and some of the older offerings are classics or ought to be considered classics. You also have access to many hidden gems you didn't even know existed, especially programs from the other side of the pond.

Network performance can be another issue. Even if your ISP isn't throttling bandwidth for some services, you have to put up with occasional buffering. I pay a premium for faster internet service, so I don't expect to have problem streaming video. I play online games without a problem, but sometimes I do experience lag and buffering while trying to watch video. Believe it or not, your hardware can be the source of streaming issues. I learned this firsthand while using an internet-ready Sony Blu-Ray player. I almost always had an issue with Netflix. At certain times in the evening I was just plain unable to watch a movie or TV program because the stream would buffer every few minutes and would sometimes never resume. It got so bad that I finally just cancelled Netflix. I didn't have the same problem with Vudu, a digital rental and purchase service, so I decided it must be an issue with Netflix's service.

Sometime later I purchased a Roku for my streaming needs, and, lo and behold, my buffering issues went away. A little research on the internet revealed that this was a common problem among users of the same Blu-Ray player I owned.

After I started streaming programs on the Roku, I saw a significant decline in the number of network and buffering issues. And by "significant", I mean they went from an everyday occurrence to almost never. And if you do like to stream movies and TV, I highly recommend the Roku. I consider it the best $100 I've ever spent on a video/network device.

Aside from challenges like these, I can't say that I really miss cable that much. For regular broadcast TV, I'm doing okay with the antennae, but I will certainly install an outdoor antenna as a long-term solution. The craziest part is, I still end up channel surfing. How's that? you wonder. Well, I often find myself spending hours paging through Netflix or Hulu or Amazon programs trying to find something to watch. Yes, there are tons of options—perhaps too many sometimes, but I still find myself pondering, "What am I in the mood for?"

When it comes to comedy, I have frankly been spoiled by "The IT Crowd." While I enjoy many comedies, including "Community," "Scrubs" and "Psych," few have given me the same kind of laughs as "The IT Crowd."

Which service is best? Well, it's hard to say, really; it depends on what exactly you're looking for. I would break it down like this:

• Netflix: Tons and tons of movies and TV programs to watch. Generally good quality video. The new navigation interface is terrible, however. It's fine for when you're looking for a specific program, but if you're just browsing, like when I'm channel surfing, it's horrendous. Netflix needs to get a clue and offer a better browsing experience, for example, by specific channel or genre. The genre categories are really bad too. It's like they hired a 12-year-old to make some arbitrary labels. I'm telling you, it's gawdawful, and I often switch to another streaming service simply because I get frustrated with Netflix browsing.
• Hulu Plus: Great for TV, especially current programs, and offers some decent original content. Hulu Plus is my go-to service for watching the most recent episodes of programs I like, such as "Community," "Bob's Burgers," and "Agents of Shield" (yes, dammit, I'm watching it). Movie offerings aren't great, but that's not really its niche. The browsing experience is much, much better than Netflix's.
• Amazon Prime: Not nearly as big a collection as Netflix and no new content like Hulu Plus, but the Prime membership does give you access to some great programs, including "Justified," "Whitechapel," "Sherlock" and others. I've had almost zero network problems with Amazon.
• Vudu: My favorite services for renting movies and for purchasing programs digitally. The video quality is great, and I almost never have any network issues streaming programs. If you've never used Vudu, I highly recommend it for movie rentals. Since it's a rental service, there's no monthly fee like the streaming services. I've purchased a number of program seasons on Vudu and love to browse the Collections list.

One caveat I should add about each service's interface is that it will vary from one device to the next. I got very used to the interface on the Roku, so navigating on my Vizio TV is sometimes frustrating.

No one service is a complete solution, in my opinion, but if I were forced to choose just one, I'd probably go with Netflix simply because of the size of its library. And I am convinced that the only way to stream anything is on a Roku. Not only do I highly recommend the Roku, I'm strongly considering purchasing additional units for the other rooms in the house.

TV pick of the month, hell, the past year: The IT Crowd

Many a time when I was browsing my streaming services--primarily Netflix--I would stumble across the title "The IT Crowd" and never clicked the button because I just didn't think I'd be interested. I've worked in the software industry side-by-side with the "IT crowd" for over a decade now. Any "in" jokes about it would just seem stale and lame, I felt, especially since all of the end-user ignorance bit has been passé for years now.

So it wasn't until my daughter nudged me that I decided to give "The IT Crowd" a try. After all, I've been watching a lot British comedy and drama lately and finding it a good deal more satisfying than most of the American fare I've grown up with.

I was not disappointed. After the first episode I was hooked. "The IT Crowd" is one of the most outrageously hilarious comedies I've ever enjoyed. Richard Ayoade is a treat as the socially inept electronics genius Maurice Moss; Chris O'Dowd is a perfect fit as the perpetually disgruntled slacker Roy Trenneman; and Katherine Parkinson creates an empathetic figure in the hapless Jen Barber. They are the IT department at Reynholm Industries, a family-run business that does who knows what but seems to be important enough to attract Japanese partners.

The initial shtick is that Jen is hired to head the IT department though she knows nothing about computers. Roy and Moss know this and find a way to expose her--well, at least to themselves--but she continues to represent the ne'er-do-well department to the rest of the company.

The primary reason I resisted the show for so long was because I assumed it would be a litany of one IT or computer-related joke after another. Instead, it's more of the kind of madcap character comedy you see in programs like "Psych" or perhaps even "The Catherine Tate Show." Roy and Moss manage to get themselves into absurd predicaments that require complicated resolutions.

For example, in one episode Roy decides to use the restroom reserved for handicapped patrons because the wait was too long for the regular restroom. He gets caught and resorts to pretending to be disabled while Moss finds himself suddenly tending bar after he is mistaken for an employee of the establishment. Jen would surely feel she's the parent to a couple of grown-up ten-year-olds if not for her own mishaps.

The program is full of surprises. Just when you think you've seen just about every ludicrous thing that could happen in Reynholm Industries, the most head-slappingly preposterous will occur. I don't want to divulge too many details about this, lest you decide to give it a try, but one example is the discovery Jen makes about what lies behind a mysterious door in the IT offices. Let's just say there's more than servers in there.

My favorite episode is "The Work Outing" in which Jen, Roy and Moss go out to the theater. It was supposed to be Jen's date with a co-worker whose sexual orientation remains ambiguous or evasive and is a mystery Jen must solve. I will say no more about it, but it is decidedly the most hilarious TV I have enjoyed in a long, long time.

In another episode, Roy and Moss fall in with the wrong crowd when they decide to fake being sports fans after Moss finds a web site specifically for geeks that helps them make conversation with, well, "normal" folk. As you might imagine, it does not end well. It seldom does in this program.

It doesn't take long to fall in love with all of the characters in the show, even the unsavory ones like Douglas Reynholm. He's one of the most enjoyable scalawags ever to grace the small screen. Roy, Moss and Jen will quickly become like family. You cannot help but feel for them as the luckless but well-meaning IT department.

The most disappointing thing about "The IT Crowd" is that it only ran four full seasons. It came back for a farewell episode later, but that final episode is not yet available on streaming services--as far as I can tell, anyway, and I've been searching for it. It's over all too quickly for me. I want more. One day I'll find that elusive final episode, and that will, sadly, be that. Until then I may have to watch the whole series all over again. I cannot recommend "The IT Crowd" highly enough. No matter what kind of show you enjoy, you'll find "The IT Crowd" a laugh-out-loud experience.

Halloween pick: The Innkeepers

The horror genre seems to have devolved into a tiresome stream of gory torture schlock, contrived self parody and pseudo documentary realism. Even the documentary-style subgenre has begun to parody itself. So when a film comes along that is genuinely enjoyable to watch, it's something worth mentioning. In a field overstuffed with Calvin Klein underwear models, overly stereotyped geeks and nerds and perky-breasted bimbos, The Innkeepers is a revivifying gulp of cold, pure mountain water. It's far from perfect. The story is a bit thin and predictable and the ending decidedly dissatisfying, but the characters are so delectable, the dialogue so genuine and the humor so disarming that one cannot help but enjoy the ride no matter where it is going.

The Innkeepers tells the story of two ne'er-do-wells, Luke (Pat Healy) and Claire (Sara Paxton), who work at a failing hotel that will soon be closing its doors. Luke is a would-be ghost hunter who claims to have seen the spirit that haunts the hotel, a woman who, after being jilted by her fiance, hangs herself in the hotel. The story goes that the owners of the inn, fearing bad publicity from the suicide, hid the body in the cellar (they refer to it as a basement in the film, but, really, it's a cellar) for three days. Naturally, her restless spirit continues to haunt the hallways of the Yankee Pedlar Inn. Zoinks!

On its surface, The Innkeepers is a traditional, even hackneyed, ghost story. The events—and the tale of jilted bride—unfold rather predictably. But what makes the film enjoyable has nothing to do with the ghost story or even the haunting. It's the two main characters. As long as they're onscreen doing something, anything, Healy and Paxton keep the audience tuned in and fully engaged. Luke and Claire are two of the most likable characters I've ever seen in a horror film, and their interactions are both genuine and hilarious. Claire is lovably dorky and aimless, while Luke is jaded and apathetic. While serving the few guests staying at the inn, Luke works on his web page devoted to hauntings. It's the typical, cheap-looking, home page that proliferated back in the '90s, but Claire praises him for it nonetheless.

Perhaps because of its context within a haunted-house horror film, the antics of the two hotel employees are entertainingly goofy. The Innkeepers feels at first like it's aimed at a younger audience. There's a Goonies kind of geekiness in Claire and Luke that draws us in. I stopped the film once just to confirm that it came with an R rating. Amid the comedy—sometimes even slaptick humor—I couldn't quite believe that this was, in fact, a horror film with an R rating.

In what is one of the funniest scenes I've ever witnessed, Claire struggles to haul a heavy, leaking bag of garbage out to the dumpster. It is laugh-aloud funny because her behavior is so true to human nature. It's funny because it's real. In the same circumstances, I behave in exactly the same way. And I applaud the filmmaking genius that had the patience to allow that dumpster scene to play out to its fullest. It would have been so simple to make it a quick ha-ha laugh and then move along with the overall goal of scaring the audience. Instead, the slaptick continued until finally reaching the inevitable conclusion. It's for scenes like this that I appreciate The Innkeepers so much in spite of its shortcomings as a horror film. In so many ways, it defies the common sense of the genre.

The humor, naturally, belies the horror that is to come, and we know it. It's easy to fall into the trap of enjoying the inanity and banality that make up two main characters' lives and forgetting that something scary is going to happen. The movie slowly eases into the haunted house story, and Claire's ghost hunting almost feels like a subplot. The audience knows, of course, that Claire will come into contact with the infamous spirit stalking the Yankee Pedlar. Once the wheels are set in motion, the spooky ride barrels forward through both suspenseful and comedic moments on its way to an ultimately disappointing ending.

Luke and Claire play host to three different guests along the way (well, maybe four or five if you count the ghosts and bumps in the night): an estranged wife and her child, spiritualist and former TV actress Leanne Rease-Jones (Kelly McGillis) and a mysterious old man. McGillis is rock solid as the cigarette-smoking, vodka guzzling former TV star, at once sporting an air of royalty while becoming something of a confidant to Claire.

Rease-Jones plays an important role in helping Claire communicate with the Inn's supernatural resident(s). Rease-Jones reveals to her that there are actually three spirits present at the Inn and warns her to stay out of the basement. Once the warning is issued, the audience knows very well that Claire is going to end up in the basement, and, in fact, that's where the climax of the film  takes place.

Where the film falls short is in leaving too many loose ends. The audience is left to wonder why it ended the way it did. What was the purpose of that climactic scene? What are the motives that drove it to its conclusion? We can speculate about the identity of the old man. Oh, it seems pretty obvious on the surface, but if one accepts that conclusion, then it makes the climax all the more puzzling. What is Claire's role in all of this? The ending could be a contrivance designed to avoid the predictable outcome dictated by the hackneyed ghost story. It's easy for the audience to see the Scooby-Doo climax coming, so to ensure that doesn't happen, the plot takes a different direction and is allowed devolve into something else, something we've come to expect in the horror genre. I'm speculating here because I can't fathom much about why it turns out the way it does. It's not that I want the Scooby-Doo ending; I just want something that makes sense and resolves the conflict central to the ghost story. I can speculate much about what it really means, but that's all it is—speculation. And if it means what I think it does, making the "jilted lover" something of a red herring, then the audience needs more explanation about what's going on, especially in terms of Claire's role.

The pattern is in place, the clues are there, but the film ultimately fails to connect the dots. While I can appreciate that on one level, I find the ending dissatisfying. I am obviously avoiding revealing any details that would spoil the story, but the solution to the seeming mystery is certainly open to discussion. Something is missing here that is essential to the story's realizing its full potential. I'd love to see the filmmakers go back and do a director's cut that fills in the gaps and completes the story.

Many viewers will no doubt judge this film harshly for its shortcomings. I found myself pleasantly surprised by how thoroughly enjoyable the movie is in spite of its faults. The characters, dialogue and humor are just plain fun to experience. Some people will say there's too much humor for this to be taken seriously as a horror film, but it certainly does have its suspenseful moments. If nothing else, the suspense works because it contrasts so well with the humor. I cannot say enough about how much I love these characters. Claire and Luke will live forever in my mind as two of the most memorable characters ever to step onto a horror set. If the movie were ever spun off into, say, a TV series with Paxton and Healy reprising their roles, I'd tune in every week regardless of the quality of the story just see these two acting their parts.

The Innkeepers may not satisfy the desire for the typical nail-biting, gory thriller, but it is nonetheless highly enjoyable. And, yes, it is currently streaming on Netflix, so add it to your Instant Queue.