“Lessons in Chemistry” is like the miniseries someone suggests after the book has been a hit movie.
It extends moments that didn’t need extending and removes the speed which made Bonnie Garmus’ novel such a delight to read.
Visually, it hits all the right notes. It looks like the story of a woman in the 1960s. It moves like an expensive vehicle; it has all the hallmarks of something that has been handled with care.
Sadly, it doesn’t have any of the fun – or surprise – of the book. Part of the problem could be Brie Larson’s cool performance as Elizabeth Zott, a scientist who’s frequently reminded she’s trying to make it in a man’s world. Instead of tilting at those windmills, she devises her own game plan and gets shot down at most turns. In the book, she’s clever and able to find the humor in even the most unjust situations.
Created by Lee Eisenberg, the Apple TV+ series doesn’t shortchange the specifics, just the tone.
Oscar winner Brie Larson stars in "Lessons in Chemistry."
Zott hates the rules of the Hastings Research Institute (where sexism is alive and well). But with support from Calvin Evans, a coworker (nicely played by Lewis Pullman), she discovers there are ways to work around the system.
Interestingly, she finds the equation in food – where she’s able to apply formulas and mathematics to a world that didn’t seem worth her time.
She lands a TV series, “Supper at Six,” and becomes a Julia Child for the intelligentsia. The story (which, if you read the book) takes a decided turn around the end of episode two, then veers into worlds you didn’t expect.
Aja Naomi King – as a neighbor – gets a new storyline that brings the civil rights movement into focus. It’s interesting, but it, too, isn’t like the “Lessons” Garmus delivered. King comes through, but Larson gets so many different blows it’s a miracle she’s able to rise.
Brie Larson and Lewis Pullman share a similar take on life in "Lessons in Chemistry."
Like the “League of their Own” reboot, this creates its own world, even though there wasn’t anything wrong with the original one.
In the third episode, we also get a talking dog and a dig at journalism that isn’t warranted. When Zott creates a lab in her kitchen, “Lessons” becomes another origins story and a marvel of its own.
In someone else’s hands (Reese Witherspoon’s, perhaps?), the humor could have surfaced. In Larson’s, it’s a struggle. A beauty pageant is a missed opportunity that could have gotten the audience on Larson’s side. Instead, it separates her from the world she’s trying to upend.
While the series finds its own rhythm, it’s not the one you’re expecting. It’s a lesson – but from a class you didn’t consider taking.
Jack Cutmore-Scott, left, and Kelsey Grammer star in "Frasier."
'Frasier' works; others, we'll see
If you happened to watch the first episodes of the new “Frasier,” you realize Paramount+ has tacked the old ones on, just in case.
The move isn’t smooth. If you watch the first episode of the original, you realize how perfectly plotted it was. The characters popped immediately; Kelsey Grammer’s fussy “Frasier” was thwarted at every turn.
In the new run, he’s the only one up to speed.
Returning to Boston, the psychologist/talk show host wants to rekindle his relationship with son Freddy (Jack Cutmore-Scott), but Freddy isn’t all that eager. He’s a firefighter living with a friend who has a child. Frasier’s nephew, David (Anders Keith), is more in keeping with brother Niles; several Harvard colleagues are TBD.
While Grammer slips into the role like it's an expensive pair of loafers, he’s surrounded by a closet full of sneakers. They’ll need some breaking in.
The series’ producers are mindful of the show’s heritage and, for good measure, don’t forget to offer a callback to “Cheers.” There’s potential here. It just might require another round.
