'Happy Endings' Premiere: Was it a Happy Beginning?

The much-anticipated sitcom "Happy Endings" finally premiered last night, and with one of the stronger lead-ins in television (the sublime "Modern Family"). So, how did it do?

In general, reviews were very mixed. USA Today essentially called it a cheap rip-off of "Friends," while Entertainment Weekly said it was "not bad." The Hollywood Reporter gave it a non-committal "why bother?"

If the general consensus is "meh," then I have to agree. There were some funny parts, but I don't think I ever really laughed out loud (as the show's lead-in "Modern Family" did many times last night).

Each joke that could have been strong had so much attention drawn to it that you didn't feel like laughing; the show struggled from "did you just hear that joke we made?" syndrome. I may be wrong, but I feel like the first ten minutes of the pilot episode featured the phrase "ummmm...yeah..." pointing out another character's wackiness at least seven or eight times.

The second episode seemed to go much better, as if the writers had suddenly become confident in their jokes. Or maybe the cast (who is really quite talented and includes Elisha Cuthbert) got a better feel for how to deliver some of the more badly-written ones. Either way, after a cringe-worthy last minute of the pilot, the beginning of the second episode pulled me back in.

As far as ratings go, the first episode drew in 7.2 million viewers (with a 2.7 rating in the demographic), but those numbers dropped about 20% for the second episode, which drew in 5.7 million and a 2.3 rating. It wasn't a fantastic premiere, and the fact that a fifth of the audience left, while some drop-off is to be expected, is indicative that audiences weren't wowed by the pilot.

There's some potential here, and I find that it usually takes at least four or five episodes for a new show to really find its voice. We'll see if "Happy Endings" can stay away from an ending of any kind this season.