roffles-263-184489

An alright drama with a few lighthearted moments. I never found the overall plot arc of the series that interesting, it all just felt a bit improbable and the main characters did odd things that even in hindsight I don't really think make sense (particularly Leigh Henry, who is in charge of the wing).

I enjoyed some of the side-plots more though, and liked some of the characters. It's quite balanced with the characters, not making the 'not very PC one' and the 'inappropriate sexual comments one' pure evil, but making them feel relatively 'real'.

I do kind of wish that the show hadn't had a big overarching 'threat', and had just done shorter stories exploring prison life for all involved, as some of the lighthearted moments are very fun, and the writing isn't bad overall.

The show does go out of its way to portray most prisoners as sympathetic characters, many of them with mental health issues, and most of the serious character discussions about the topic and the implied intent of the show writers is very pro trusting, supporting, and loving prisoners, and rails against the idea of punishing them, and sometimes even of having a prison system at all . Whether you find that grating or agreeable will depend on your personal opinions and experiences I suppose.

Overall wouldn't say I recommend this show, but wouldn't tell anyone not to watch it either. It's OK.

The idea behind this program is fascinating, which I guess why I watched it - has violence dropped over time? Why?

In practice the program presents individual bits of interesting science / history, but connects them in nonsensical ways. For example we learn that testosterone levels in human males have dropped over the past 200,000 years, as demonstrated by changes in facial structure. Only a minute or so later we're looking at a graph showing how US homicides have dropped between 1990 and 2015, but the narrator seems to be trying to get us to link the two data points as 'violence dropping over time'. This problem of conflating processes happening over wildly different timescales is present throughout the program, and there's very little attempt to bring the historical data we see presented in dribs and drabs together.

We then have a range of diversionary investigations into little case studies such as 'violence interruptors' in Baltimore, or bringing people together through sport. While these are sometimes interesting, and assert things about violence, they really aren't linked in to any overall coherent argument or narrative.

There is also basically no discussion of possible differences in factors leading to violence at individual, local, or national levels.

Basically, this is a program that started with an interesting idea, but then decided to throw a few factoids and case studies at the wall to see what stuck. Doesn't really address what it sets out to, and felt very unscientific.

Also, despite using his name as a draw to this programme, Steven Pinker really has a very minor role, and the majority of it is not presented or narrated by him.

Disappointing.

Watched this because I fancied a Rom com and this was popular on Netflix. Mistake.

The film doesn't really make sense, jumps from place to place without proper explanations, and is way too soft on both main characters.

I mean, the man's family just forgive and still seem to genuinely like this woman who has lied to them in such a massive way? And they don't even have a go at him either for also lying to them and creating the whole terrible situation?

The main woman seemed like a tool and I didn't like her character. The main man was also unlikeable, although slightly more forgivable because he was so pathetic.

Also, practically, the climbing wall scene just made no sense. Did they even speak to anyone that's done a half hour introduction to climbing before planning it? No visible belayer or auto belay system. She 'jumps' (is pushed) off the top of the wall and her crush seems to think that was cool, as though she's dropped the whole way? No idea.

Anyway, you can guess the key plot points just from reading the synopsis, if you really like the plot then maybe it'll be watchable.

Wasted opportunity imo, because although it's full of worn out tropes and clichés it might still have been an enjoyable rom com if the writing had been better and it didn't feel like 50% of each scene was accidentally cut out during the editing.

Bad Education follows Alfie Wickers, an infantile young teacher who deserves, and gets, very little respect from those around him. He has a class of assorted children, mostly more confident and adult than he is. Banter ensues. The end.

Fundamentally humor is subjective so you may not agree, but I found Bad Education hilarious. Great pace of jokes, funny situations and characters, just worked really well for me.

Although obviously the characters and situations are exaggerated I think the writing really captured a lot of 'truth' in the writing, and various characters and situations really reminded me of people I knew at school and things that really happened (if turned up to 11).

It's a shame how few episodes there are and I wish we got a bit more time to get to know some of the kids a bit better, but then the brevity does mean that it never outstayed its welcome. Seasons 1 and 2 are my favourite, with the pacing and style changing a little bit on season 3 - still entertaining but just didn't work quite as well for me.

You'll probably be able to tell whether you'll enjoy this series about half way through the first episode. If you're enjoying it then you'll probably enjoy all the other episodes too. If not then it's probably not worth watching any further.

Everything you'd expect from a Brian Cox astronomy documentary, only more so.

Aesthetics are the top priority, with plenty of pregnant pauses in Brian's narration for marvelling at pretty pictures and CGI of space, effects overlaying one shot onto another, watching Brian walk around in slow motion, various landscape shots of earth, and so on.

The script is a bit odd. It is reasonably informative at times, but slips into what is presumably supposed to be much more poetic language at other times, talking about stars being gods etc. It also makes some rather strong statements such as 'there's no need for made up gods when we have these real ones' (paraphrased) which rather surprised me - I don't think that sort of preaching is really appropriate in a program like this produced by the BBC.

Overall the scope of this series is impressive and the subject matter interesting, it's just such a shame that it doesn't actually cover very much of the subject matter in the time available. It seems to be intended more as an 'experience', and personally it leaves me a bit frustrated, and although the visuals are nice they aren't enough to fill hour long episodes by themselves.

All the funniest bits are in the trailers / clips on YouTube. There is humour throughout, but not as much as I was expecting.

This film tells quite a simple story really, of a military leader being sent to Afghanistan, believing he can turn things around, not having the support of his government or other governments, and ultimately hoisting his own petard. It directly pokes holes in the idea of 'counter insurgency' through the narrator's speech as well as implicitly through things presented on screen.

I quite liked the set of characters overall. Although they don't really develop in any way and Glen is clearly the focus and we get to know him much better than anyone else, the situation they were in and how they were presented gave them enough life for me to loosely connect with them.

I think ultimately this is a moderately entertaining film that criticises the US involvement in Afghanistan in some valid ways. It presents a very simple story which makes it easy to follow and gets the film makers' message across, but the downside of this is how simplistically it presents Afghanistan, ISAF's mission there, the insurgency, and what could have been possible.

Being curious about Nietzsche led me to watch this series. Broadly I did enjoy finding out more about the three philosophers, but I would have liked a more detailed exposition of each individual's philosophy.

The Nietzsche episode gave a mix of philosophy and biography, which actually worked well to give each other context. The Heidegge episode focused exclusively on his life (and particularly on his involvement with the Nazi party). This was quite a let-down, and left me with no real idea what it was that he actually philosophised about. The Sartre episode gave a more balanced mix again, showing how his personal philosophy affected the way he lived.

I would recommend watching the Nietzsche and Sartre episodes and ignoring the Heidegge one.