Xine9g9

A show that starts off well but becomes increasingly tiresome. Season One is interesting as Julia (Debra Messing) and Tom (Christian Borle) are inspired to undertake a musical about Marilyn Monroe and gather a cast of others, including the aggressive, womanizing director, Derek (Jack Davenport) around them to bring it to light. A second theme concerns the rivalry between Ivy (Megan Hilty), who's been striving on Broadway for years, and Karen (Katharine McPhee), the girl from nowhere whose brilliant singing and stage presence calvanizes all who encounter her. Among the other themes is the hostile end of marriage rival-producer hostilities between Eileen (Anjeica Huston) and Jerry (Michael Cristofer). Season Two introduces new themes and a raft of new characters. Bombshell is on its way to Broadway and the Tonys, Karen's love relationship with the appealing Dev (Raza Jaffrey) is on the rocks and other cast members deal with various other love and family crises. A second show begins to emerge--Hit List--written by two yound underdogs, Kyle (Andy Mientus) and Jimmy (Jeremy Jordan), the latter of whom becomes Karen's new love interest. The competition heats up, with the series culminating on Tony Awards night.

From the beginning the Karen theme undermines the show. Katherine McPhee can sing loudly but doesn't project anything near the brilliance needed to make her story of nowhere to Tony nominee feasible. And she is too weak an actor to convey the nuances of character and emotion. In Season One, this is somewhat disguised by her relationship with Dev. But by Season Two, she has become a kind of all-American Polyanna Redemption Missionary, intend on saving others (particularly the cynical Derek and awful Jimmy) from themselves. How on earth she managed to be starred ahead of Chrisian Borle, and even Megan Hilty, is beyond me. Jimmy is a horrible character who we are eventually supposed to come to understand and respect. Jeremy Jordan plays hime in a couple of monotones--monotone outrage, primarily, with occasional shifts to mono-sorry. The final episode is marked by a truly saccharine resolution of his and Karen's love affair.

As the final scene between them emphasizes, they were given some pretty poor material to play with. But, unlike the many of the other actors, neither of them has the skill to rise above their scripts.

For those who are not au fait with how it all works, the weaknesses of the show are partially overcome by the interesting issues of casting, pulling a musical together, the kinds of shenanigans associated with media attention and, sometimes, the music and choreography. And, along the way, we learn some things about Marilyn Monroe, although those could have been more fully drawn out, particularly in Season One, when Julia, Tom and Derek struggle to find focus.

All up, worth a look but not a second look.

A particularly compelling episode of this always watchable show. While Outrageous Fortune plays with tragicomedy, this episode teeters on the edge of outright tragedy. The two interlinked stories concern Van's (Anthony Starr) ongoing struggles to get past Aurora's death and Loretta's (Antonia Prebble) surprise pregnancy. Prebble and the rest of the case handle the issue of how to manage a 17 year-old's pregnancy in typical West fashion, with thrown lines, characterful interactions and resolutions spawning more drama.

The cast, as usual, are excellent. But Anthony Starr's portrayal of Van, silently contemplating suicide, moving quietly among his family members and wordlessly trying to "tidy his room", absolutely steals the show. This is a far more nuanced performance than the show usually warrants. The end result avoids being maudlin or melodramatic. Obviously great script-writing, but it's the performance that tells.

Midsomer Murders is often silly; indeed it rejoices in silliness and that can be one of the charms of the show. But it can also be ridiculous and irritating and this in one of those times. A battered young girl wakes up and then the murders begin. Then Barnaby begins pontificating, as usual. Dudgeon usually comes across as irritatingly smug, rather than the witty he is presumably supposed to be (Oh, how one misses the deft touch and light wit of John Nettles!). In this episode, though, he adds pseudo-intellectual pop-psychologizing to the mix. And just to add to the misery, the dog is more nauseatingly cutesy than ever. The perennial question remains: what on earth is Sarah Barnaby doing married to this fat bore?

I am surprised that this excellent series hasn't received better reviews.

At the heart of it is a troubled family: Jenni, a borderline addict not recovering well from a difficult pregnancy and having to deal with an unsettled baby (Lucas) and mothering a young, deaf daughter, Nicole. Nicole, herself, is shattered by her parents' distraction with the baby and Jenni's inability to take adequate care of her. And then there's Salle, a recovered addict, struggling in the grey economy of low-paid part-time jobs in an effort to provide adequately for his family while having to care for Nicole when Jenni can't. Jenni's mother is somewhat sympathetic but critical of Jenni and reluctant to help with care.

Beyond the family is Alice, an experienced police officer caring for a husband who's recovering slowly from a stroke, and managing some tense relationships at work. Maria is a middle-aged paediatric nurse, unable to have children of her own and constantly frustrated by the failures of the medical and social work systems to provide adequate care and nurturance for vulnerable children. Finally, there's Emma, a pregnant teenage runaway who seeks sanctuary with Maria.

At the heart of the story is the question of parenthood, primarily motherhood--those who cannot have children (Maria), those who decide not to have them (Alice), those having them by accident (Emma), those who choose or feel obliged to have them (Jenni) and those whose children have grown up, leaving the question of one's ongoing obligation, and those dealing with inadequate parents.

When Lucas disappears in a horrific snowstorm on Christmas Eve, his disappearance is initially put down to Salle's and Jenni's irresponsibility by an indifferent police force and it's only when Alice hears of it that the tension begins to build.

Over the course of 6 episodes, the question of who took Lucas remains a tense question, but I found myself increasingly drawn into the question of what would happen to all of these people. Without any trace of sentimentality or excuse making, the awfulness of personal lives, the consequences of mistakes made at key moments and the flaws of everyone involved mean a doubled mystery and tension.

From early on, the one who dunnit is reasonably obvious, with only one or two possibilities. But that doesn't matter. We are not asure till episode 5 (episode 6 adds its own tense uncertainties) who it was and by then the momentum carries you to the last frame.

The series starts slowly and is never rushed--one obvious reason for the limited reviews. But the pace of this slow-cooked mystery enriches it, allowing depth and comprehension that would be lacking without the time. It's worth patient viewing, paying attention to characters as well as crime.

The cast are great. Nicole, played by Nikole Bartnas, as the confused kid, loved but neglected; and Maria, played by Maria Rossing, who progressively reveals her sadness and need to love others, are stand-outs. But it's Ardalan Esmaili, as Salle, floundering, doing his best to juggle unmanagable responsibilities, and driven to desperation by his grindingly unfixable situation, stricken by tragedy and others' behaviour, who really makes this series .

It's possible there could be a second series about which I feel ambivalent--hard to imagine that they could top this.

Rating 6.5/7 There's nothing wrong with fictionalizing the life of famous people long ago or with creative anachronisms. When done well, that's absolutely great. So, I have no great sympathy for those who condemn this solely on the basis of fictional licence.

But, for the life of me, I cannot see why this show is even linked to the life of Leonardo. It's not as if it gives any insight into the nature of art, artistic compulsion, sponsorship or even the making of Leonardo's works. Strip away the famous name (and other names of the time) and what you have is a so-so costume mystery about a murder.

The mystery itself--who killed Caterina--scarcely works, in significant part because Freddie Highmore is poorly cast as the inquistor, Stefano Giraldi--a matter of age, script and, perhaps, performance.

Aidan Turner, fine looking and competent actor though he is, also seems miscast, particularly for the young Leonardo in the earlier episodes. He looks too old and he doesn't convey the passion, innocence and hopefulness of a young man embarking on his career. Nor is there any nuance to his responses to the various opportunities and disappointments to come to him. His scenes with Caterina are often awkward or overblown.

To be fair to the cast, they're not given a lot to work with.

So, if you want to see lots of good looking people in luscious costumes and settings, this may be for you. But, that's about all you'll take away from it.

This is just one of several series based on the original Swedish/Danish co-production, which was riveting. The Franco-British version, The Tunnel, is also said to be excellent. This one, though, is disappointing in significant part because the partnership between the two main characters doesn't really work. In particular, Diane Kruger seems wrong for the role of Sonya: rather than evoking a brilliant detective with Aspergers, she veers between wooden indifference, shy rudeness. As a central plank in both the relationship and solving the murder mystery that, in turn, undermines the dramatic tension, leaving the plot to veer here and there before finally beginning to come together. Marco Ruiz is fine as the Mexican detective, having to deal with the realities of Mexican policing in contrast to the righteous, massively resourced, procedure-focused multiple American policing agencies. There was real scope here for really playing with the murderers' strategy of contrasting the significance lent to privileged white women's murders to the indifference to the massive levels of violence towards ordinary Mexicana but the script veers away from the political implications of such a message, perhaps because, indeed, it is a political issue within the wider political issues of Mexican - American relationships.

So, despite my high expectations, I find this slow, sometimes incoherent and ultimately unconvincing.

A pity. Watch BronBroen (the Scandinavian version) instead.

Any programme starring Martin Shaw has to be worth looking at but this one ends up disappointing. In particular, the scripts become increasingly pro forma and stilted as the series proceed. By the final series, Deed's chat-up line, some variation on "I want to make love to you" goes beyond irritating. In fact, the whole gender dynamic is now on the troubling side. What probably seemed sexy and edgy when the series premiered now, in the 2020s sometimes looks more like harassment or stalking. The melodramatic relationship between Deed and Jo Mills reinforces this. With more nuance, it could have been great. As is, though, you just want them both to get over it all. Seagrove, who plays Mills, is given a one-dimensional script so doesn't really get to demonstrate much beyond "passionate character verging on unreason". The various government officials and lackeys who try to interfere with Deed's personal ideas of justice throughout also tend to be one-dimensional although some of them develop more complex characters as the series goes on.

Overall, this show was incredibly successful when it was made, but television has become much more sophisticated since then and Shaw has gone on to better things.

After the first three delightful series, Season 4 was OK, but less funny. The one is even weaker. And the final episode, unfortunately, fails. It falls into the maudlin from time to time. More significantly, the comedy is forced and silly, rather than funny. A real pity.

I'm not sure why this receives such strong rating. As other reviewers have noted, it's an interesting premise. But, as others have complained, it is also quite slow. In many ways, it is quite old-fashioned, almost like a kind of quasi-melodrama, with many declaimed and over-acted lines. I'm not sure whether this is deliberate, artistic effort to give a sense of stage-plays of the time or whether it's just over-acting and cumbersome directing. Most episodes have a heavy-handed pedagogical slant, with the actors being used to declaim key events at the beginning of the war, particularly in regard to Russia's invasion of Finland. Obviously, they need to find a way to communicate this to many viewers, but it adds to the slow pace and sense of clumsy direction. The final episode leaves a sense that further series were anticipated but not shot, so viewers are also left with a sense of being left hanging.

A pity. Promising, but it never quite works.

What does it say about a society when an evil man can bend down towards his young son in the midst of an inspiring sermon and whisper to him that God is always watching?

The film is set in a devastated landscape with the signs of a ruined economy dominating the environment. The skies are grey and the land harsh. Great broken ship hulls litter the harbour, along with the great bleached bones of a whale, signs of an earlier time.

The signs of beauty and hope are few and far--a beautiful wife, good friends, a view of harmony from the kitchen window.

Things are going badly: a corrupt mayor wants your house, your land and your business and has the local council and courts under his control. The cops are almost all corrupt and manifest potential violence. The church is almost openly complicit with the forces of corruption, preaching the patience of Job.

What can you do? There are some hopes.. You have a lawyer who has some dirt on the mayor and hopes of gaining true compensation. So, things could get better.

Still, they can also get worse and they do. But there's always vodka and more vodka.

The constant question and hope sustained by the film is of the decent, insignificant person finally receiving justice. That hope is sustained to the very last scene, a scene at which you finally realize how much you care about flawed, but essentially innocent, characters.

A film very much in the tradition of Russian pessimistic cynicism and the struggle to transcend them that had run through its arts for centuries, this one make Dostoevsky seem like a cheery uncle. If you are open for that kind of exploration, this is very much worth watching for its final comment on those themes. If you are after a cheery family film, look elsewhere.

I am not sure why I continue watching this irritating show. Perhaps it's global pandemic we are currently living with its spectre of another, infinitely worse, one. Perhaps it's the hope that it will move on to more developed character depth and plot sophistication.

It's not there yet. In this episode, we see the usual issues with disease shows: crew disaffection, the trouble maker who stirs it up for his own selfish reasons, distrust of the laboratory experiment and leadership uncertainty about how much to share.

And, the most irritating of the irritating continues to be an opinionated, righteous scientist standing as the brave resilient, individual, quest for truth.

In the end, though, the nobility of true leaders, along with some scarcely credible use of the lab and lots of corny music, saves the day, as we might expect.

Some of the other crew members are beginning to become more interesting. Still waiting, but maybe it will be develop.

Season One Review: Max, the older brother, is a slippery affluent lawyer whose dubious practices and contacts eventually emerge. Younger brother, Jake, is an endearing but hopeless proprietor of a record shop that appears to be progressively failing. Driving home from a wedding one night, their car kills an old man who turns out to have terminal cancer. So, they cover up the accident, leaving the impression of natural death. All would probably be OK, but it turns out that there is something shonky about the dead man's niece, a couple of next door neighbours and, eventually a number of others with whom Max is directly or indirectly connected. Among Max's other, more ethical, connections are his sozzled PI, Kenny, who begins to cause more problems as he sobers up, and his wife, Claire, who begins to realize just how dodgy Max is when she has an affair with a woman connected to Max's business contacts.

Episode by episode, every apparent solution simply adds to Max's deepening crisis, with the final episode remaining uncertain till the virtual end. The penultimate scene, with most of the main characters dispersed around the street where the old man was killed, is a delightful camera pan from face to face and back to Max. Then, the very last scene is of Max's face with a series of shifting expressions right up to the final slight smile, with its suggestion that there may be a sequel. I see that that is in progress. One can only hope that it lives up to this one.

The characters are fascinating and well thought-out, the acting is wonderful. The themes of morality, brotherly relationships and the entanglements of different forms of guilt are deftly displayed but never overplayed. The funny cynical, deadpan utterances that come out of the characters' mouths from time to time are surprising and sometimes brilliant. Mark Bonnar is brilliant as Max, Jamie Sives a truly endearing Jake who has managed to hang on to his sense of ethics till early middle age. Amun Elliott plays Kenny beautifully. And Ellie Haddington, as Sheila, one of the neighbours, is a gift to the show. Along the way, pretty well everyone else involved in this dark little gem of a series does a great job.

Highly recommended.

A year later, SEASON TWO. Who had the not-bright idea of turning a brilliant black comedy into some kind of tragic redemption-cum-revenge tale??? The twists and turns of Season One become pointless rambling in Season Two, leaving you both puzzled and disappointed.

Will I watch Season Three, if it appears? Probably, because S1 was so good, but with trepidation.

Four contestants remain, Elise, Justin, Kishwar & Pete. In the first round, contestants go one on one to cook dishes based on emerald or ruby. Elise wants to fuse Italian & indigenous ingredients. Justin gets to work, drawing on his acquired skills and confidence. Kishwar cooks based on her life experience and sentimental dish. Pete aims to innovate.

The judges have friendly chats with Kishwar, cast some doubt on Pete's dish, add to Elise's panic & largely ignore Justin. Kishwar virtually cries--again.

Round two, the winners must compete to create a dish based around pearls. Pete chooses oysters, having never learned to shuck them before, which leads to some time panic. Justin makes rather pathetically forced jokes about aphrodisiacs from the gantry. Considering how much they edit these shows, they could have left that out in favour of more re the cooking itself. Kishwar makes a sago-based desert which is quite beautiful to look at with its shades of pearl white.

The winner is manifestly the most original, creative and skilled chef in the competition. So, well done. The winner is beautifully gracious in defeat. Justin overreacts to the winner. Have the directors been pushing him to overcome his more reserved natural style the last few weeks?

American heroes--stoic, righteous, outmanned and outgunned by nefarious South American oppressor. Helpless local population, including virginal maidens awaiting a dire fate. Probably the single most irritating female lead on TV, complete with unnaturally icy British accent.

So, no guessing who is going to win this one.

Round One: Kishwar's doesn't cry, but manages to get misty eyed. Hers is the first dish tasted and she is essentially promised that she won't be in second round even before the judges taste others' food. But that seems to be par for the course in their responses to her: not that she's not an excellent cook but it all seems pre-determined. Jock, in particular, has his obvious favourites.

Kishwar cooks a chicken (her hero ingredient) dish; the chicken embedded in sauce, served on noodles and accompanied by several other ingredients. But this passes as "heroing chicken". Likewise Justin & Sabina embed their hero ingredient in several other ingredients and pass. Pete cooks patatas bravas, it has a sauce and the message is that doesn't hero potatoes. So, is it not heroing if you don't use meat? Elise & Tommy screw up their dishes. Through it all, Linda, who won yesterday but is one of the weakest remaining contestants, stands on the gantry authoritatively blathering on with the usual inanities of the gantry members.

Round Two: Pete, Elise & Tommy to cook a fine dining dish and one will be eliminated. Tommy, who's in a competition called MasterCHEF laments that he doesn't do this kind of food. It's pretty clear that neither Pete (potatoes) nor Elise (sardines) thought sensibly about their hero ingredients for today's competition. Jock & Andy do their best to undermine Pete's & Elise's confidence; Mel encourages Tommy. Melissa blathers on about relationships (one of the most irritating things about this set of judges is their self-presentation as friends as much as judges.) All three judges try out their amateur psychology in their usual sentimental style.

The loser leaves with grace and dignity, like so many others in the competition. This knowing how to lose in this way is one of the best things of this competition and a model for some of the other Masterchef franchises.

Ultimately, so amazing productions today.

After yesterday's mystery box when Kishwar didn't cry and didn't win, it's Linda, Elise & Justin.

Linda & Elise end up with compatible ingredients; Justin ends up with less compatible ingredient and material but is excited about the creative possibilities. Still, fate has dealt unequal hands.

Linda, as always, links what she's doing to family cooking and she cries. Elise decides to continue with her theme of putting a spin on what she knows.

Some interesting results and room for improvement, but one dish absolutely trumps the others. And it really does look fantastic. But, all up, it's hard to see this kind of lucky-dip start as particularly fair.

No choice about ingredients and everything must be used. No one will go home but someone has a chance to compete for immunity in the coming elimination challenges. Amazing ingredients, but it will take some creativity to work out how to use them.

Justin & Pete embrace the chance for innovation.

Sabina is excited at the possibilities Kishwar & Linda vex themselves about how to turn unsuitable ingredients to what they know how to do. Can they?

Elise decides to turn them into a spin on what she knows, but seems to conflate weird and innovative and isn't sure. How will it go?

The judges show themselves favouring Kishwar from early on, so it's hers to win or lose. Will she cry, will she win?

Tommy resolves to be efficient with time and make no simple mistakes, which seems like tempting fate.

Some really fascinating dishes emerge and the result is obvious but fair.

4 cooks in an elimination final in the beautiful desert oasis of Simpson's gap. They must star indigenous desert ingredients that have increasingly appeared in the last two series but are right at the centre for the first time. Three of the four enthusiastically embrace the challenge, the fourth doesn't, focusing, instead, on the problems of unfamiliarity.

Depinder has cooked confidently through the series, often doing her best to appear anxious. But this time, after taking her team into the elimination yesterday, she has reason for worry. Will her many skills take her through?

Kishwar wants to create a fusion of indigenous and Bangladeshi flavours. I thought we were going to get through without it, for once, but no, she cries--again.

Pete dives into the challenge, relying entirely on indigenous ingredients. He's the big risk taker of the competition, always wanting to push the boundaries, in stark comparison to most of the competitors who focus on honing what they already know. So, there's always the question of whether his risks will pay off... Tommy also embraces a kind of fusion of indigenous and Vietnamese ingredients. He's enthusiastic about the possibilities and is increasingly innovative. But he may have set himself up for failure. And, he's also started getting teary, episode after episode.

Finally, once contestant, of course, must leave.

One of the more enjoyable episodes this series, marred only by the apparently obligatory weeping and the judges' ham-fisted amateur psychology and awkward niceness.

It's no spoiler to say that Kishwa cries again. We're now well used to her teary eyed assertions about how much it all means to her. But this kind of thing seems almost de rigeur for Masterchef Oz now. All made so much worse by the maudlin choice of music to somehow try and persuade the readers to upset or empathy. In Kiswa's case, the question is whether it will work for her again? Pete & Justin remain calm, thoughtful and creative. But, they take risks, which often leaves an anxious uncertainty about them.

First round is a mystery box round with some great ingredients. Some astounding looking dishes and amazing creativity. First elimination is a shocker loss of an excellent and appealing contestant.

Second round they have to "hero horseradish", which sounds ghastly. But, apparently, some great cooking. Sad elimination, but it's someone who's struggled fairly often, so not a great surprise.

An interesting, sometimes gripping series in which a series of gory murders reference core issues in historical and contemporary Muslim - Christian, Soviet & post-Soviet eras. Two cops from different positions and each with their own family problems must find a way to work together, supported by a local cop team, to unravel the reasons for the killings and reveal the killer. Mia's family issue is a stereotypical teenage daughter stereotypically alienated from her. The daughter is important to the plot, but the whole unforgiving daughter theme could have been significantly edited down. The emotional turmoils of Filip & Mia are rather overdone, thanks to both script and their overacting. And Filip, designed as the moody, sexy hero sometimes verges on the creepy or, at least, a real turnoff. But the supporting cast, particularly the three local cops, are interesting, characterful without falling into caricature, and well performed. The final outcome is obvious in the second-last episode, leaving the final episode to make it all even more predictable.

Up until that point, however, it's a compelling, enjoyable series. And it's worth a watch despite the weaknesses. Revelatory, but not intrusive, history, stunning scenery, glimpses of contemporary life and politics in rural Bulgaria and a beautifully constructed soundtrack that fits perfectly.

More sucking up to Poh, for some reason, who responds to everything with her wicked witch of the west laugh. Some great food, incredible imagination in round one and truly desirable comfort food in round 2, especially from the winner.

What is it with all the focus on Poh, who typically says something quite sensible then follows it with a massive "monster from the deep" all-teeth gutteral pseudo-laugh. Sometimes does great food, looking great. But she's not exceptional in this list of "once almost won" contestants.

"a twist that no-one could see coming"?? Apparently the contestants couldn't but it was pretty obvious. Amazing food porn for them to produce. As usual, Reynold did a lovely job. From the beginning, it was pretty obvious who was going to manage and who was likely to all flat. Maudlin music and pseudo-psychology from the judges. Overall, though, the wonderful food art makes the irritations worth dealing with.

A totally expectable "twist" that apparently left them all bamboozled. Poh, the resident twit, demanded the captaincy, then proceeded to do nothing of value, while claiming a democratic approach, leaving Callum to do the actually captaining. The other team had Sarah.

Yet, once it came down to deciding a tied result, no consideration of the two captains' skills.