- Critic Score
- Most active
- Publication
- Most clicked
-
80The pilot represents a polished product that neatly introduces an array of characters and establishes Eastwick as a project with no small measure of potential. As for how well that's realized, as they say, the devil is in the details.
-
For those who miss the romantic entanglements of Lipstick Jungle or long for an adult fairy tale free of vampires, Eastwick is the place to be.
-
75Eastwick is not much more than fanciful fluff, but the chemistry between the likable trio and Gross proves bewitching.
-
70Over the course of the premiere episode, [Paul] Gross grew on me, as did the show itself.
-
The actors are good, the writing's fine, and it's pleasant enough to watch. It's just that it all adds up to a series of pale imitations.
-
60It is something less than magical, but it's pleasant and pretty and easy to watch.
-
A breezy, bright trip to the dark side in which star Rebecca Romijn's hair magically stays well-coiffed and Paul Gross has a devil of a time making his smoky tones not recall Jack Nicholson's in the movie.
-
50A slightly older version of "Charmed"? Um, yes. Into all of this potential mediocrity (fully realized, by the way), comes the masterstroke of casting the phenomenal Paul Gross as the devil.
-
50Our gals will turn out to be witches, and while they are innocuously enjoyable (as well as hot), it's hard to imagine them generating enough magic to keep this show around very long.
-
50Gross, who couldn't look (or act) less like Jack Nicholson and is the No. 1 reason you should run out right now and rent the Canadian series "Slings & Arrows," is a happy bit of casting that could add a little zing to this warmed-over dish.
-
50If not for the impish, unpredictable charm of Paul Gross, who plays the mysterious Darryl Van Horne, the pretty, superficial Eastwick might have fallen completely flat.
-
50Overly precious and indifferently cast, this latest attempt to adapt John Updike's novel feels recycled and flat on every level.
-
42This is a shame and a waste of three gorgeous actresses, a wonderful actor (Gross) and an idea that--with a little more wit, smarter writing and less soap--could have yielded a winner.
-
40There isn't enough Jack Nicholson in Eastwick, and that is one of the main reasons to avoid this ABC adaptation of the 1987 movie "The Witches of Eastwick."
-
40I don't exactly know what to say to [a quote from the Updike book], nor did the 1987 film adaptation starring Jack Nicholson, nor does the predictably bland and totally adequate Eastwick.
-
40They carry on like mischievous scamps, and while they are fun to watch up to a point, the point is reached well before the shenanigans peter out.
-
40An odd tonal mix with uneven casting that never quite produces the intended magic, it feels like a misfire to me.
-
30The show (which is shot on the old Stars Hollow set from "Gilmore Girls") seems like a WB show circa 2002--not one of the good ones, but a copy of a copy of a copy of one of the good ones.
-
30The Eastwick characters are fairly generic types who are too bland and predictable to be involving.
-
20The writing is uneven, so is the tone, and all put together, it's just not very engaging.
-
20After a few minutes in front of ABC's bewildering sorcery drama Eastwick, you may wish that Bewitched's Samantha would twitch her nose and make the whole thing disappear.
prev
next
Page:
- 1
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 34 out of 41
-
Mixed: 4 out of 41
-
Negative: 3 out of 41
-
CrystalK9
-
bobm8I love this show. Weds night is the only good night of TV with Eastwick, Modern Family, and Cougartown!
-
JamieO10