I've had the viewing blahs the last couple of days. I'm ahead of the game with "The Sopranos," so I had already had the pleasure of seeing Sunday's episode. (And if you haven't seen it yet, please do so.) And I've already complained here about "The West Wing" and "Prison Break."

"Grey's Anatomy" was only all right. OK, so I choked up when the Chief's AA sponsor made it through surgery. But I don't know that I would put it among my favorite episodes; O'Malley should have gotten on with his new possible romance before this, and if they're sending Alex out the door — which felt even more likely based on this episode and the trailer for next week — then let's just get on with it. Last night, neither "How I Met Your Mother" nor "Two and a Half Men" was especially good, either.

So why do I feel good about TV tonight? Well, there is the season finale of "The Shield."

As I said in a previous post, I was somewhat disappointed by tonight's show because it did not seem to be on as high a level as recent episodes. Forest Whitaker has been a stunning addition to the show, and his relentlessness has created a more electric atmosphere for everyone else. Still, tonight takes us to a point that has seemed ever more inevitable as the show has gone along. With the noose closing around Vic and his guys, they have gotten back to a place like the one where the show started, one that asks them if their real goal is doing good or simply surviving.

In answering that question, the show plays absolutely fair with the story it has told. The result may sadden and disappoint some viewers. Still, it is the only place the show could go — unless it wanted to end tonight.

In the posting before this, I ranted about the live telecast of "The West Wing," a November sweeps stunt that went awry. Now let me tell you about a couple of others, airing tonight.

"Two and a Half Men" is a pretty sturdy comedy for CBS, and often makes me laugh out loud. Not only are Charlie Sheen (doing some of his best work) and Jon Cryer good leads, they get strong support from the likes of Melanie Lynskey (Rose) and Conchatta Ferrell (Berta). So, when you have a solid team of people and you know how to write for them, what do you do? Of course, you add someone to the mix who doesn't know how the game is played.

The person in this case is Charlie's father Martin, although the show has him playing Rose's dad in a game of who's-stalking-whom. There is some funny stuff at the beginning, but it starts to drag soon enough. While Martin is a good actor, that doesn't mean he's a good sitcom actor — different muscles and all that. So don't count this among the show's great moments; I saw a promo that was funnier than the episode.

"Las Vegas," meanwhile, is using a flashback for its stunt, with Danny (Josh Duhamel) imagining the characters in Vegas in 1962, at work in the casino that preceded the Montecito. There are tired references to the Twist (Chubby Checker makes a brief appearance), lots of smoking and clothes and hair that may prompt giggles. Well, one, anyway — James Lesure's Sammy Davis-like 'do. And you may find it mildly interesting to see the roles assigned to the characters in the past: Sam (Vanessa Marcil) is a pricey call girl, Mary (Nikki Cox) is a waitress, Ed (James Caan) has mob connections and a very ruthless streak.

I still had the same problem I usually have with "Las Vegas," that the show looks a lot more entertaining than it turns out to be. This show is a promo-designer's dream, but too often it feels as if all the good stuff is in the promo and the rest is just filler. But the cast works awfully hard to keep us involved. More than once, I have thought that Lesure, Marcil and Cox each deserve something much better than this — not merely shows of their own, but good shows of their own.

Fans of "Las Vegas" may also be more than a little troubled by Ed and Danny's actions in the '60s. Is the show suggesting they are much badder guys than we have been led to believe? Or does Danny have a nasty streak hiding behind those pretty-boy looks?