Most comedies are generally fun in one way or the other. After all, that’s their purpose in life, but not all comedies go beyond that superficial pleasing feeling that laughter gives you. “Scrubs” doesn’t, and neither does “How I Met Your Mother” - two of the very best shows in the genre that are still on the air. “Weeds”, however, delivers both the phunny as well as more depth than every other sit-com combined, and that’s why I love this show so much.
That, and all the other reasons listed below, of course.

The premise of the show is… well, I guess this is where the word “original” starts calling attention to itself. Nancy and Judah Botwin are living in the suburbs of L.A with their two boys and everything is fine and dandy. They have a healthy income, they love each other and the kids are getting along fine in their respective schools. That’s when Judah has a heart attack while he’s out jogging and dies tragically, thus leaving poor Nancy with the job of paying for their expensive lives in “Agrestic”. Most people would get a job, cut down on commodities, get the kids into state schools… but not Nancy Botwin.
She decides to become a drug dealer.
And that’s where season 1 of “Weeds” begins; with things in a slight disarray…
I’ve been watching this show on and off for a couple of years now. I’d catch an episode on cable, and would always find myself entertained and intrigued by its uncommon qualities, but not enough to actually do something more about it. Until a couple of months ago when I finally got around to watching the entire thing from start to end.
And I didn’t like it.
To begin with, that is. The first couple of episodes were really slow and very different from anything I’d tried before. I was actually *this* close to put it away when I gave it a final resuscitation attempt, and was surprised to discover that it wasn’t boring at all; it was goddamned hil-arious, and suddenly I couldn’t stop watching it to save my life.
“Weeds” combines it’s bright and sunny environment with the darkest humour I’ve tasted since I tried “Wonderfalls” and “Dead Like Me” (neither are shows I ended up liking). It’s got a great and diverse cast of characters (my favourites being “Celia Hodes”, “Doug Wilson” and “Andy Botwin”) and its got surreal plotlines that keeps the show ceaselessly entertaining. Sometimes the show gets overly slow while its building up to another climactic confrontation, but normally the writing is so clever that you don’t notice these dry patches too much. Because this is a smart show, and a show that dares make fun of, and often, satirize stuff that other shows only pick the scabs off. These things include, drugs (obviously), religion/”Jesus freaks”, how to run a family (poorly), teenage obesity (it’s wrong!), and a whole host of other things.
If it’s got any problems, they aren’t big, but I’ll mention some things that has been on my mind:
1. It isn’t for everyone. A lot of the humour may strike some people as downright unfunny, or in the worst case, just wrong. It tickled me, that’s for sure, but, you know, if you’re of the skittish sort, I would recommend you stick to watching safer stuff.
2. It can be a bit slow on the surface, and it doesn’t always go for the laughs where it has the opportunity to do something more meaningful. Yes, this should be an obvious plus, but I get the impression not everyone feels that way about a dark dramedy (what a horrible genre name!)
3. Some characters that are no longer needed have a tendency to stick around for too long, or simply vanish without a reasonable explanation. These are of course minor supporting characters, but it’s frustrating none the less.
So, “Weeds”, right? It’s a keeper, and I highly recommend it. It’s pure quality through-and-through in a way I’ve never experienced with a comedy show. If you haven’t watched it yet, you’re in for a real treat: It’s time you get a hold of “Weeds”…
… and smoked it!
9.0/10 (weak)

Posts
good, you’re really good!!! You would be an writer
4. May 2008 @ 14:51 ( Permalink )
No, it can’t be…
…
Is it really?
…
Voldemort?
Seriously, though, Thank you very much
4. May 2008 @ 14:53 ( Permalink )
Point 3 there is a huge issue for me, it’ll melt my brain if I like the show. Also, I am most definitely of the skittish type.
I have one issue with something you claim here, by the way - “Scrubs” being a show not going beyond the superficial feeling of laughter. These days, probably, yeah, which is why I’m not half as crazy about it as I once was. But if you look at the early years, they blended the serious with the hilarious and the tragic with the silly at times so exquisitely that it reminded me of - dare I say it - M*A*S*H. (Though obviously with the main focus heavily on the silly instead of vice versa) it’s not that kind of a show anymore, sadly, but as a whole, I’d say it’s been enough of one for that statement of yours to be rather faulty. Or in need of some form of modifications or addendums, anyway, which I suppose is what I’m trying to do in this comment. But really - watch “My Old Lady” or “My Screw Up” again and then repeat that statement honestly. I’m sure it’s in no way comparable to Weeds on this front, but that doesn’t make it right to pretend it hasn’t at times had quite excellent plunges into the arena.
4. May 2008 @ 15:43 ( Permalink )
Regarding point 3, there are really only two characters that have gotten this treatment. One of them was a Mexican drug dealer who appeared in a couple of episodes before vanishing without a trace. That was puzzling, but I didn’t bother me overly much. The other character is the, yet again, Mexican housekeeper who didn’t contribute anything after the first season, but that they couldn’t fire because Nancy needed her for logistic reasons. Again, not that important to me, and you’d have to be pretty anal if you cared too much about it.
You’re right about “Scrubs”, though if you look at the sentence, it continues with “that are still on the air”, which should (rather too subtly I guess) imply that I was basing this on the show’s current form.
5. May 2008 @ 09:21 ( Permalink )
Talking about forgotten characters, when do you suppose we’ll ever see Sam’s brother in Reaper again…? ;D
No, I got that you BASED the statement on that. It’s just that the statement didn’t actually SAY that, hence the need to clarify. “Shows that are still on the air” in no way means “exclusively considering the current seasons of those shows, of course”.
5. May 2008 @ 12:48 ( Permalink )
Aww… Reaper! The word’s been very bad on its chances for a second season lately, but today was suddenly Nothing But Yayness in that respect. It hasn’t been confirmed yet, but supposedly the CW loves the show and even though it hasn’t gotten very high ratings, it’s one of the most watched shows after all the *legal* downloads… And it’s got a big nerd-following so they’re probably scared what would happen if they cancelled it.
I can’t even remember Sam’s brother any longer. What episode was he in? Right at the very beginning? I wouldn’t put it past the show to dredge him up again, ’cause the spoilery talk on tonight’s episode says that we’re about to get a real blast from Sam’s past.
6. May 2008 @ 05:37 ( Permalink )
I was in the pilot, a rather big deal in it, but then we never saw him again, so I’m starting to fear they retconned him out of the show proper.
Then again, there’s the huge big plot-thread of his parents and the contract that they’ve been omitting for a while that’s clearly going to stir up some shit at some point, and I suppose he could be tied back into the story then, when the family gets in the spotlight again.
And yay for positivity.
Now, is it okay for everybody if we just sit down?
6. May 2008 @ 06:14 ( Permalink )
XD
That’s supposed to be “He” was in the pilot, but hey, apparently, I have a subconscious desire to be related to devillish bountyhunters.
6. May 2008 @ 07:15 ( Permalink )