b_clerkin

I decided to rewatch both the Marple series. I had originally given this series nine stars because I am a fan of all things Agatha, but in viewing the entire Hickson oeuvre, then this one, I found it far less attractive. I gave it five stars because the pantheon of acting talent appearing in these episodes is impressive and largely successful in their portrayals.

BUT-

One of the greatest strengths of the British producions of programs like those based on the novels of iconic writers has been the attention to period detail and faithfulness to the original source material.

That was so last century. Increasingly, the efforts to make things more exciting, attract younger viewers and impose artificial quotas to demonstrate diversity has resulted in far less credible and compelling viewing. This series is one of the first that ventured off the original mission that made Masterpiece, Mystery and other programming a cut above most television. Sadly, these productions have only become more ridiculous in pandering as of 2024.

But let's focus on this bitter disappointment.

First, these versions are utterly disrespectful of Christie's vision for Jane Marple. Dithery does not mean unkempt and McEwan's Marple lacks the genteel and proper facade disguising a mind like a cleaver. Instead, she dresses like an eccentric with color blindness and is a bit too knowing and wink, wink, nod, nod , not to mention she is more blatantly interfering than Christie's creation. The only portrayal more obnoxious is Margaret Rutherford's overbearing one in films.

The most appealing facet of Marple is how she innocuously floors people with her abilities because she appears to be the unlikeliest detective. McEwan, much as I love her in other roles, simply lacks the innocent diffidence that continually disarms people into revealing all. Julia MacKenzie looks and acts more like Christie's Marple, but seems far too matronly for the elderly spinster so brilliantly embodied kin Joan Hickson.

Second - and this truly annoys me - forcing a ludicrous backstory of an affair with a married man during the Great War is utterly awful. Jane Marple would NEVER do such a thing, regardless of the strength of her feelings. Her generation and social position was one that did not engage in selfish and destructive behavior. The aristocracy might have done so, but not the gentry- not without severe repercussions. Jane Marple developed her strong sense of right and wrong, and what is proper, tempered with deep empathy and rectitude, precisely because she understood the consequences of bad choices and selfish behavior - not because she indulged in it.

Third - the changes made in order to promote a more exciting or salacious narrative are utterly puerile and are insulting to the meticulous care in which Christie plotted her stories- particularly in A Body in the Library and Pocketful of Rye. Agatha Christie did not write sex scenes- subtlety and an assumption that the reader was bright and sophisticated enough to understand that there is sex, but that we are not horny schoolboys slavering for a bit of porn in our stories, kept the focus on the story and people. The sex scenes in these versions truly are crude and gratuitous- revealing the immature and desperate attitude of the producers. The idiots fail to understand that it is the avoidance of such unnecessary sex and violence in the programming that viewers flock to these programs. People watch PBS because they are tired of its dominance on network and cable TV and want adult stories without it and without the cloying wholesomeness of family programming.

Applying 21st century sensibilites to earlier periods in history is always foolish and insulting- particularly when it involves making drastic changes to iconic works. It is lazy and cowardly to disrespect an artist's vision (which is usually revered when something that repels much of society is crticized, like Piss Christ) by changing characters to something so divergent from what the author described. It also disparages the viewer- are we too stupid to understand context or do they assume that everyone is a victim of the excreble history curricula spewed in most public schools? Are they incapable or writing original stories taking place in the past from the point of view of marginilized members of society? Or that viewers won't be interested? Or are the bean counters far too terrified to take a risk- preferring to continually insult the intelligence and sensitivity of the viewers by bastardizing well-known works that wind up pissing us off?

The last blow to the enduring genius of Christie's work is that there is a sense of parody and mockery in many of the characters. The almost campy performances by some of the most talented actors in Britain sends a smug message of disdain for the values that have helped England endure for centuries and suggest that standards of behavior, judgy gossips, obsequious staff and prejudice are relics of the past- particularly in Murder at the Vicarage. They completely ignore that one of the reasons that Christie, like Shakespeare, was a master of the universality of human nature, and that people are essentially going to behave certain ways in certain situations, whether it's March 15th 44 BC or Stardate 43997.

Lest anyone sneer at this statement because my examples are Anglocentric- I suggest reading stories, - especially religious and mythological works as those are the foundations of any society- from all over the world and be amazed at the consistency of commonality in stories and behavior amongst diverse cultures, society and eras.

Once again, the Wolf Universe has chosen to propagandize its entertainment, this time about abortion. It would be helpful if instead of only showing one side of an issue, and dismissing the other side as ignorant and hateful, they reflected the opinions of the majority of actual people living in the Real World - which supports abortion rights up to a certain point. Most people are not in favor of abortion on demand up to delivery, like the laws in NY, and find it repellant when extremist abortion activist encourage women to celebrate abortions, and when extremist on the other side forbid abortion at all, even in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.

The tone was very disdainful of a doctor who was worried about violating the law and refusing to abort a non- viable fetus that showed signs of life. There was no context or criticism about the oversized role law plays in medicine, which is a huge factor in the exorbitant cost of health care in this country.

I doubt the writers would provide a scenario in which a doctor who challenged the vaccine mandates or the use of words like chestfeeding or birthing person or who, after treating a female athlete who suffered an injury caused by a trans opponent in a basketball or volleyball game, advocated following the science regarding biological males being bigger, stronger and faster than biological females which can cause such injuries and which gives them an unfair advantage in sports.

I doubt that Wolf World would be sympathetic to that.

Seriously, do read all of the Harry Hole books. They are dense, compelling and highly entertaining. Hole is one of the most interesting fictional detectives in the genre abd he is a disaster. He is also someone with whom you empathize, even knowing that he is doomed- because his intensity and willingness to do things to stop a killer make him a deeply flawed and heroic figure.

We catch glimpses of this in the film, but as other reviews have noted, the story is disjointed and incomplete due to time constraints that eliminated a lot of the script.

As others have said, this would have been much better as a series. I agree abd they should start with the first novel. However, because Harry is such an anti-hero, noble and utterly pathetic at the same time, it is unlikely that any producers would be willing to finance it- unless massive changes took place. This would ruin the stories for me.

Fassbender is normally an excellent actor, but he is below par - perhaps because the Harry described in the books bears little physical resemblance to Harry in the film. He is also not nearly as complicated and desperate, either.

The film itself differs significantly from the novel, which is probably another why it comes across as disjointed and confusing.

It is terrible waste- of a terrific story and an enormously talented cast and crew. This could have been infinitely better.

However, it was good anough to inspire me to start reading the Harry Hole novels from the first one and they are simply great.

You know that the actors have done a superlative job when you want to physically reach through a screen to hug or strangle them. This is a series in which the actors are so invested and so credible that you forget reality.

The best thing is that they portray the reality of social mores of the time without beating one over the head about the intolerance- instead, it develops a sense of sadness for the waste of energy spent on negativity.

They do a brilliant job in drawing attention to so many issues which still haunt us today without lecturing or being too judgemental.

The goal of the writers seems to be exploring universal truths in an empathetic manner by placing events into the context of the times, making it easy for the viewer to consider the perspective of even the least sympathetic of characters.

People keep saying that this is a Hallmark movie- it's not. Lifetime put this one on. This is the epitome of why viewers prefer Hallmark movies much more than Lifetime ones at Christmas. The story is standard holiday fare, but a Hallmark production would have cast far better actors and made sure that the sets were beautiful.

The lead actress is appallingly untalented and save for Sully from Dr Quinn, the others are not much better.

They are stilted and awkward, clearly "acting" - whereas the Hallmark actors make you believe that they actually are their characters. The lead actress might be almost illiterate- her mangling of "windmills" and use of "expeshally" reveals a lack of education on her part, and gross ineptitude on the part of the director and any other staff responsible for dialogue. The dialogue sounds like the Netflix programs dubbed in English- like thevperson is reading from a page and is bored senseless.

The lead actor has less personality and animation than a malfunctionig Disney attraction. This diminishes the appeal of the historic tidbits about the lovely twon- the only thing positive in this train wreck.

Hallmark would have done a far superior production that would showcase Solvang and send droves of Christmas mad tourists to its streets. The town should disavow association with this production.

I've only watched 2 episodes. But I like the premise and I hope it gets better. Tilda the lead character is utterly unlikable. This is never a good thing but I but I think they want to make her funny. She is totally unaware of her truly obnoxious personality or she just doesn't care. Some of the background information provided explains why she is the way she is - overbearing distant father who was continuously disappointed in her, super competitive passive-aggressive sister, who takes pleasure in reminding Tilda of her failures, dead, idealized mother, to whom Tilda bears a starting resemblance- it's all there. Tilda is entitled, over-priviledged and ruthless in her vanity, heedless of other people and a Kardashian level attention seeker. Nobody likes her and it's easy to see why.

Ibrahim, on the other hand, it immediately sympathetic. If other reviewers say he's boring, they're not really paying attention because he lives in his head and it is fascinating to watch as he relentlessly strives to figure out the case. He is ingenious abd creative in managing to overcome the restrictions of his life. He is obviously a student of humanity because he immediately picks out that Tilda is someone that he can exploit to his own purposes. And he is single minded about what he wants and where he wants to go, refusing to give his name or revealing that he is fluent in Swedish and English. The glimpses into his past and how he wound up in Sweden are tantalizing - by episode two, we know that he is a former cop brilliant and intuitive as well as logical.

The show manages to reveal the dilemma faced by refugees and the host country without beating you senseless - a flaw in many programs trying to promote the progressive agenda.

As it moves forward, I hope that we learn Ibrahim's story as well as what Tilda did to be fired. I also hope that she gets a comeuppance for exploiting Ibrahim at some point, but he is willing to be exploited as long as he can remain in Sweden and gets to use his considerable talents.

The English dubbing in this film is so atrocious that it reduces the appeal of the entire story. The dubbing cast sounds like it's reading from a sixth grade English class script. Not paying any attention to the what the words say or mean because they think that a full stop Is at the end of each line on the paper. A few irritatingly read two words at a time, like the SNL spoof of Captain Kirk. Add some annoying speech impediments plus a lack of expression or emotion in the dubbed lines and you're left with most of the tension and atmosphere reduced. I've heard more animation from people reading a menu than those supposedly going through tense and emotional scenes.

The story is intriguing - sex trafficking, a dangerous pathogen and cross border tensions should provide lots of intrigue and drama. The expressions and body language of the actors (some ofvwhom I've been impressed with from watching other Finnish dramas with subtitles) indicates that they are infinitely better than the talentless dubbing cast- in fact, it sounds like there are about six people in the dubbing cast, with each reading several characters. Badly. Part of the problem could be that the dubbing actors are not native English speakers, which would account for both the wooden delivery and the lack of flow.

The atmosphere, settings and scenery provide an air of menace that emphasizes the isolation of a sparsely populated place and the claustrophobia of a small village, despite showing vast tracts of pristine white landscapes.

Ironically, the main character chastises an older cop for using less than flattering terms for sex workers, but the entire casts uses Lappland, which is viewed as derogatory towards the indigenous Sampi or Sami people who live in the very northern parts of Norway, Sweden and Finland.

I really want to see what happens so I will endure the increasingly irritating dubbing to find out.

Maybe Plex can do what Netflix does, offer the viewer the option of watching non- English shows dubbed or subtitled. For maximum enjoyment l, go for the subtitles.

The image of the irish is always of a fun-loving, hospitable, humorous gregarious and musical culture set in a stunningly gorgeous place. Once you learn about its actual history l, though, you marvel at how they manage to laugh at and celebrate anything. Single-Handed is a stark view of how intensely Ireland's past informs its present. The scenery is breathtaking- and the reality of it is even more astounding. I drove through this landscape between Galway and Donegal, from where both sides of my family come- the Irish bits.

This show does focus on the darker aspects though, there are few light moments and Jack Driscoll is relentlessly dour and righteous (does Owen McDonnell ever get a role where he's allowed to smile? I see comedies in his credits, but I've only seen him solitary, conflicted and rather joyless) but one can see why he is like that- his father was a monster, who terrorized the town in an affable, sociopathic way. His mother's a perfect example of an abused woman who was given just enough freedom to think that she wasn't. The oppressive weight of brutal Irish history weights Jack down and he is constantly trying- and succeeding- to Do The Right Thing, always needing to prove that he is not his father. The failure of so many to understand why he does what he does makes him crazy. He judges himself more harshly than anyone else, even his Mother - atypical of Irish women with one son, she does not dote on her son, mostly because he refuses to support her delusional view of his awful father.

The stories are mostly very credible, realistic portrayals of the bad choices, sheer stupidity and casual cruelty that cause most small town problems. The intrusions of Big City Crimes seem organic and are viewed by Jack as no more important to the people he protects than the day to day ones that define his job.

He is the epitome of the Celtic Warrior Hero - flawed, but unbowed and determined to protect and avenge (if possible) the vulnerable and even rectify the wrongs of the past. No wonder he never laughs.

I recommend this series for its thought provoking themes, its excellent writing and cast and its breathtaking beauty.

The prior episodes in the franchise were very serious police procedurals, worthy of Lynda LaPlante's oeuvre. This one has elements of farce, despite the subject matter being murder and fraud, it seems less tragic than the crimes in the prior shows.

The other thing is that finally, Clare is not as unsympathetic as in the past. It was always jarring that someone who's worked so hard and put up with so much crap to reach her rank, she was so undisciplined about her love life- the affair with Browning's boyfriend rang particularly false.

It was disappointing that in order to portray a strong woman with an active sex life, LaPlante made Clare too much like a stupid egotistical man with his out of control libido. The corruption and mutual covering up that she engages in was credible - LaPlante's heroines are flawed and very real women- but the seriously stupid affairs were not.

Not as great as the Prime Suspect series, but a cut above most shows, annd Amanda Burton is always worth watching when she's playing a brilliant, iconoclastic woman fighting the usual nonsense and prevailing in a very human way.

Others have praised the excellent writing of these adaptaions, the perfection of David Suchet's Poirot (Mr. Branaugh, your mustaches are ludicrous!) and the stellar supporting cast- regulars and guests.

But I want to rave about the production values. The exquisite attention to period detail- from the costumes to the cars and the stunning architecture- this series is like porn for aficionados of Art Deco. Every item is authentic, from a pair of earrings to a vase on a shelf, to shots of the British Museum and the unrelentingly gorgeous Art Deco buildings like the Midland and Imperial Hotels, the estates of moguls like Henry Reedburn (The King of Clubs) and Matthew Davenheim ( The Dissapearance of Mr Davenheim) and Poirot's immaculate flat in the stunning Whitehaven Mansions. There is nothing anachronistic- the crystal silverware, furniture, wallpaper, clothing - Every. Single. Thing. - is perfect. I lusted after champagne flutes and gowns and chairs every time I watched an episode. The cars were in a category of their own. The foreign episodes also managed to find locations- ships, planes, hotels, streets- that encapsulate the 1930s to perfection.

The only series that had comparadly marvelous wonders were The House of Elliot (another visual extravaganza for fans of Edwardian, Art Nouveau and Art Deco) and Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries, both of which leave fashion history buffs drooling with envy and wondering why people don't wear hats anymore.

Poirot, however, is the complete package of eye candy - clothes, accessories, hairstyles, makeup, vehicles, architecture, decor- and ear candy - language, music - that meticulously evokes the era.

The production team deserves high praise for the incredible effort- and success- in recreating the Poirot environment to perfection with consistency, authenticity and artistry.

I truly enjoyed this show. It was done with a lot of attention to period details, and very few in acronyms, mostly the use of late twentieth century and early twenty first century language well before it entered the vernacular.

Cillian Murphy and Helen McCrory were particularly compelling in their performances, but all of the actors were believable. This really draws the viewer in and gets one invested in their stories. Even the ones I wanted to slap around- (Linda, Finn and Arthur at various times)- or punch (Campbell, Diana, Mosely and especially the spoiled ingrate, Michael and his odious, power-hungry wife, Gina) engendered an emotional response. Speaking of those two brats- Finn Cole is a master of portraying a deadpan and lethal male version of Eve Harrington - here as Michael and as J in the US version of Animal Kingdom. Anya Taylor-Joy was as annoying and obnoxious as the despised example of a rich, spoiled American heiress who resents being female because she has little power of her own. Utterly punchable and that nasal whine made my teeth hurt, but she was perfect in the role.

My favorite- after Polly and Tommy - wound up being Tom Hardy as Alfie Solomons, despite being less than compelling in his initial appearances. Hardy's shuffling, eccentric Alfie was a mass of contradictions - casually brutal one minute, sage and wise the next - but by the sixth season, he'd endeared himself to me with his fatalistic humor and unique philosophical observations. Lots of people found Hardy's portrayal off-putting, but I loved it.

All of the villians (meaning those trying to undermine the Peaky Blinders) were portrayed brilliantly, except for one.

The less said about Adrien Brody and his bizzare cartoon of a NYC Mafia boss, the better.

The weaving of Traveller, working class Brummy and Irish background of the Shelby gang was done quite seamlessly, adding to the credibility of the story and informing viewers of the strict class structure of British society so that when the fissures created after the Great War start to get bigger, it makes a lot of sense. Also, the magical elements of the Traveller culture throughout the story did not come across as unusual or denigrated - the writers presented it as part of those characters- just as any other religion, like the Catholic, Protestant and Jewish ones. This made the pejoratives used so casually by the prejudiced characters seem uglier.

There were very few weak female characters- which was probably more true to life at that time in that neighborhood than we assumed. Polly, Ada, Grace, Kitty, Esme, Frances and Linda are as powerful and vibrant as any of the males in the story.

The treatment of real life figures was interesting- Churchill, in particular, was neither canonized nor demonized. He was just a strong-willed , farsighted man who understood that he had to make hard choices for the greater good and that living with them would be difficult. The parallels between him and Tommy were made clear - and you wind up rooting for them both, despite their many appalling- yet necessary- actions.

While IRA Captain Laura McKee, who was equally willing to do the necessary to advance her cause, she seemed more ruthless, with a strict us or them view. The always excellent Charlene McKenna was wonderful in this role.

As for the despicable Mosely and his even more despicable wife, Diana Mitford, the actors portraying them did a wonderful job of making them so matter-of-factly depraved and repulsive that they epitomized Hannah Arendt's description of the banality of evil.

I watched all six seasons over a two week period, which really enhanced the flow of the story and made it easier to follow the many threads and relationships. If you can binge the series, do it. Its totally worth watching regardless of how you do it.

I loved this show. Adrian Paul is the epitome of a romantic hero - not the greatest actor, but as time goes by, he really inhabits Duncan and becomes totally believable. Duncan Mac Leod might be the most perfect combination of manly sensitivity and chivalric machismo that ever graced a series, especially in the first season with Tessa. I loved the historic aspects of the stories, pleasantly surprised that there were not a ton of anachronisms. I appreciated the mild humor, the wild romance, the tragic moments, even the Big Life Questions that come up regularly.

Some of the acting was stilted and lame, but the main actors were credible and natural for the most part and the characters pretty well fleshed out over time. The eye candy - Adrian Paul, Paris, the various homes of modern MacLeod, the flashback scenery, the costumes and Duncan's contemporary wardrobe - was reason enough to watch. Most of the stories were interesting. Duncan's journey was compelling and made his character heartbreakingly sympathetic and easy to root for.

However, the last season was a waste after the first two episodes, with MacLeod absent from two and barely there for several. Apparently, they were trying out some actors and storylines for a new series featuring a female immortal action figure. The actors chosen for the four potential stars were not good-stiff, affected and trying too hard, kind of like high school drama club denizens- with the exception of Claudia Christian, who's performance was smooth, natural and credible.

Clearly, they caused no excitement in the Highlander universe, which is why the spinoff that did make it to the screen was based on Amanda, a well.established member of the series, played rather engagingly by Elizabeth Gracen.

So, if you want to watch the entire series, don't expect much from season six until the final two episides, but enjoy the hell out of the exciting saga of Duncan MacLeod of the Clan MacLeod.

Sadly the perpetually offended have managed to cancel large swathes of clever satirical comedy, including this hilarious program. The first casualty of Zeal is humor; the second is context, the third is the ability to think critically. Hence the pearl clutching at anything deemed triggering - which seems to be everything, since these self a appointed judges of offensiveness are appallingly lacking in intellectual rigor.

This show is an equal opportunity offenders- no group, oppressor or oppressed, is left unscathed. The only legitimate complaint I support is the use if makeup, costumes, accents etc to turn the main performers into myriad genders, races and body shapes. This stuff is laugh out loud, spit out your drink, pee your pants funny.

However, until recently, acting was all about make-believe. Great actors are those who successfully inhabit a character despite having no resemblance to it. Pretending to be someone totally different than one's self is the raison d'etre of an actor.

But now, these humorless zealots whine when an actor pretends to be something he or she is not. Ironically, it is the entertainment community which has been most supportive as a bloc of the diversity, equity and inclusion movement. It now finds itself a target for engaging in make believe. I must confess to a bit of schadenfraude as the bubble dwelling denizens of uber progressive Hollywood find themselves failing to comply with the totalitarian intolerance of the Tolerance Police.

If you can find this show watch it in defiance of these fascists.

I am glad to see that we are finally rid of the super righteous, sanctimonious, and hypocritical Will Halstead.

His character has gone from a righteous Warrior to a tedious Whiner and consistent breaker of rules and norms who was excused repeatedly because he apparently is on the right side. No hospital in real life would ever allow the shenanigans in which he engaged to continue as they have on this show. The liability risks that he engenders on a regular basis would get his license yanked and render him unemployable. The worst message is that he constantly breaks the rules and takes outrageous risks with very few consequences, which seem to be imposed upon himself rather than by the agencies which should be taking him to task. Worse, he is completely intolerant of anyone else's opinion and disregards them because he is so certain that he is right all the time that he cannot bear for anyone to question him. His self righteousness makes him a danger to himself and others because he simply will not listen to anyone else. While he thinks that he's acting to protect other people, in reality, he endangers them and their careers particularly in this last stunt. He did not have the skill set to pull off the action required to get his way so his impetuousness caused a much more drastic result than was necessary. It SHOULD cost Dr. Song her job for being stupid enough to go along with it. She certainly has the brains and skill to have made a less dramatic malfunction, but St Will the Righteous refuses to consider any long term ramifications of his crusades, so he bullies everyone into doing what he wants. I would hate to have a doctor or scientist who is so emotional in his decisions, but in the Wolf universe, logic and actual science and facts take a back seat to emotions and whims.

The original movies played fast and loose with history, but its focus was on fun entertainment. This show is promising, but as per usual, the entertainment industry and its virtue signaling militants cannot help lecturing us about the evils of the Anglo patriarchy and its perpetual sins against pretty much the rest of the world. Way to suck the fun out of a potentially highly entertaining series.

Heaven forfend that we are not beaten over the head about DACA, the rudeness of requiring citizenship for certain public servants and the use of the idiotic Latinx - which the majority of actual Latinos find insulting and nobody uses except pandering academics and deliberately ignorant activists preaching tolerance and showing none.

It also ignores significant portions of history in favor of a preferred and inaccurate narrative. Not to mention an almost total ignorance of Masonic rules and rituals. For instance, non- lodge membees ar never allowed into masonic temples without being escorted by a ranking member of that lodge. And few Masons would be photographed performing any rituals- at least not knowingly.

The typical post millennial attitude towards viewing the context of history is revealed several times, most particularly in the outrage that the two young women express when they learn that Abigail Adams failed to persuade her husband to allow women to vote in 1776. Guess what, nitwits- there was a huge fight about slavery also.

Apparently, and evidently- by the way that young people have been conditioned to believe, compromise is a dirty word. This distortion of education results in a failure to see that there would have been no United States if everybody with progressive views at the time had remained as intransigent to compromise as today's progressives. But, considering how anti-anglo the narrative is, they would have been totally okay with that. Yes, it would have been far better for everyone if the Spanish Conquistadors had prevailed over the New World instead of those English tyrants inspired by the Enlightenment. The Spanish were so much more progressive. Zero religious tolerance- the Spanish Inquisition was still a thing in colonial times- even more hostile towards rights of women or indigenous peoples. Or better yet, let the charming Aztecs prevail and expand their society - well known for its gentle, tolerant and peaceful attitude. What's so bad about human sacrifice and slavery as long as no outsiders pollute the pristine paradise?

The intellectual bankruptcy of the entertainment industry is grotesque and insulting.

The writers try not to expose their own biases, but ultimately fail as evidenced the the utter lack of any exploration of the role that the corporate media has played in its own loss of credibility.

The things that the right wing pundit states- that anyone who challenges the approved narrative of the majority of the entertainment and news outlets is dismissed and derided - is true.

Lately, more and more of the information that much of the media have proclaimed as immutable truth have been debunked- Russia collusion, the origins of COVID-19, the Biden laptop as a manufactured piece of propaganda-many items on global warming.

The information they suppress is just as bad- the real environmental cost of clean energy is an important one. Reporting half a story, or gossip masked as news, or failing to independently verify facts can be blamed on the 24 hour news cycle or the need to scoop the competition or to get "eyeballs" and clicks, but real journalists must do more to protect the integrity of their profession. They are not. They are bullied into silence and compliance out of fear of being canceled or fired. Like Eileen.

The press has lost the trust of the people because it has shifted from objective reporting to what its supporters call "advocacy journalism" or, as it is more honestly known- propaganda. They've become lazy and careless, failing to provide context or background on important stories that impact our lives.

While I agree with Eileen's last statements about the crucial role of free and fair press in a democracy, she only seems to view the more conservative side as a threat. The press in the USA is expected to protect the people from the excesses of government- and others in power- not regurgitate press releases and talking points from it.

But it's not the conservatives who are spearheading the movement against free speech. They are not "canceling" people. They are not demanding that those who disagree with them need to be silenced. They are not the ones who consistently apply double standards to how news is reported or if it's reported at all.

The Sovietization of our media- in which everything is viewed through a strictly political lens, and those individuals and institutions which are deemed to be politically "unreliable" and thus must be neutralized or destroyed- is terrifying.

If something is right, it should not matter what political beliefs those involved have. Same thing if something is wrong.

Reporters, and anyone who wants to be intellectually honest, should ask themselves this before drawing conclusions:

Would you feel the same if the subject of the story was from the other side?

If not, you are not being objective.

Yes, it was a bit hokey, but it was nice to watch a Dick Wolf show that was not a lecture on the perfection of the progressive agenda.

Mariska Hargitay was back to being the talented actor she was before she climbed up on her soapbox of annoyingly spaced phrasing of platitudes.

The story was wildly romantic and tragic, yet within the purview of SVU, with a small aside about lax investigations and how the past informs the present.

Bradley Whitfield was excellent and if they still give out Emmys for guest appearances, he's got it. He wasn't pathetic or a saintly martyr - just a human being going through something awful and not being too thrilled with it, but not in denial.

Some might dismiss the last scene as a bit much, but it bookended the story nicely and made me cry- even more when the dedication to Richard Belzer- who played the best Character in the SVU universe- came up.

I love the show, and I love the characters. In my opinion this is the best written show out of all of the Dick Wolf oeuvre. It does not dwell on the negative. It is not obnoxiously woke. The characters are uniformly interesting and sympathetic. The situations usually remain just this side of the plausibility scale.

However, if they make Carter and Stella a thing, and the relationship between her and Kelly fails, I will be very unhappy. I could understand them ruining the love life of Casey - twice- he was so damned noble that no woman could tempt him from a higher obligation. But Severide and Stella took a long, tough road from damaged childhoods to find each other and be together that it would just be lazy of the writers to take this too far, just for the sake of dramatic intrigue. Let Carter crush away, but keep Kelly and Stella strong and together. It is an insult to both of their characters' storyline and personalities to let someone come between them after everything they've worked through. If Kinney wants out, kill him off and let Stella grieve and find new love. Don't cheapen their story.

Either the writers have absolutely no experience of how the police is supposed to work or they think that real police departments have eccentric obsessives like Sarah who screw up all the time because of their inability to stay on task and not be distracted into a tunnel vision state that causes them to screw things up colossally.

She constantly goes off the reservation based on an emotional reaction to something that's happening. She has no consideration for her colleagues or the general public - her disdain of politicians is justified as these seem far more concerned with accruing and retaining power than giving a rat's ass about the best interests of their country (typical parasite hacks) - and she is downright abusive in the way she treats those in her private life. She is a kind of monster and she seems to justify her reckless selfishness because she's trying to catch a killer. So what if her extraordinarily poor decision making has caused more deaths than the original crime?

I hope that no actual police department would ever allow such a massive liability on legs to be a meter maid ( she'd probably get kids killed if she was a crossing guard - distracted by something and letting cars plow into schoolchildren going to a playground) let alone an armed homicide detective.

Still the show is compelling and entertaining- despite the fact that I just want to slap her (and the nitwits who keep her on the job) every ten minutes.

No wonder she got kicked out. She makes stupid mistakes that would get anyone kicked out of security guard school, let alone homicide. So many lives were lost due to her inability to follow even basic procedures, like not leaving someone alone in a car or going alone, unarmed into danger. Idiot.

The first season was too long, but the second zips along nicely, though I still want to smack Lund upside the head at least five times an episode. She should be like Nero Wolfe and use her genius from afar, sending less reckless minions to do her legwork. The crimes would be solved, the carnage reduced and the credibility of the police intact.

The Wolf propaganda machine grinds on slowly. This week we will be subtlely lectured on how unfair corporate America is to its workers by not offering infinite paid family leave and and no paid days off for hourly retail workers. And we're also going to be scolded about how we need global socialized medicine! Who writes these scripts? The Squad Staffers?

And it us so true to life that every member of staff are in step with their political views- and those who are not and dare to wander into view are inevitably cast as Bad Guys.

Stick to the mantra that surface diversity is a worthy goal. Diversity of thought is forbidden.

Reality seems to be creeping up on the entertainment industry as it realizes that the progressive policies they so enthusiastically supported for the last decade or so are not as welcome and popular outside the little bubble in which they've existed. After years of lecturing the ignorant masses ( i.e the folks they won't find at their exclusive events or circle jerk discussions) about how awful and ignorant and unsophisticated we are for not slavishly accepting their chosen narrative, the Wolf Wokerati produced an episode with only a couple of lines to remind us of why they think they deserve to control the rest of us.

This is the first episode of the L&O franchise that resembles the many shows that built it such a loyal following. If they keep it up, and expand it to the other two L&O and the FBI series, they may restore credibility to their production company.

I read all the books before the series came out. I was not happy with the casting of Jimmy Perez, as in the book as he is a dark haired person who looks Hispanic, not the Viking blonde of Douglas Henshaw. But that didn't bother me that much, as books rarely are translated well onto the screen and once an author signs the rights over to it she has no control over what happens. For the most part it was entertaining and always stunningly beautiful. And I enjoyed every season of it, until the last series and particularly this episode .

The ignorance about how the United States Justice system works is insulting to the intelligence of the viewers and to the author of the original books. Just because someone was a suspect in the murder of a police officer does not mean that if he gets extradited he will be sent right to the electric chair for execution. If they bothered to do the slightest bit of research, they would realize that there has to be an investigation, and a trial, appeals, etc. Based on the information provided, there is not a lot of evidence against Lloyd that would guarantee charges, let alone a death penalty sentence. This series deteriorated from an interesting and entertaining show, with well defined characters and plots into just another series of lectures on issues dear to the progressive mindset that permeates the entertainment industry. Allegedly, Henshaw had not planned to return for series 8, but his recent comments - which are not in line with this agenda- have assured that he would no longer be welcome had he changed his mind.

The series will continue, and there is speculation about who will step in to replace Henshall- they might recast Perez, but with this idiocy on top of last series' tribunal, it is not likely.

A new DI will probably come to Shetland. I suggest Rebus...that would be very entertaining indeed. Ah- even more entertaining than we thought! Agatha Raisin herself?! Will Ashley Jensen bring a lightness to this mostly serious show? Or will her character have a back story with sufficient drama and tragedy to fit in with the rest? I would not object to a few more humorous moments in the episodes, but to make it a lighter-hearted romp like Agatha Raison, Midsomer Murders, Brokenwood Mysteries, Queens of Mystery or the rest of the comforting pantheon of British TV sleuths would be a huge disservice to viewers and rather disrespectful of Ms. Cleaves genius.

Like so many recent productions and books in which lazy writers set stories in the past, yet forget to do any kind of serious research about expressions that are used, concepts that are common and technology that existed at the time in which the story takes place, this series is rife with late 20th and early 21st century language and attitudes. It takes away from a fun and otherwise well-produced program.

It is very tiresome that too many people who write stories taking place in bygone eras cannot be bothered to do even a modicum of research to make sure they've stayed true to those times. It takes a few minutes to Google the origins of a word or phrase to make sure it was in use at the time. Ditto manners and mores, songs, films, clothing and technology. Are they stupid or just lazy?

I love the series, I really do-BUT the reaearch team is either egregiously lazy or non-existent. I understand the plethora of multicultural characters being put into roles that certainly do not reflect the Cambridge of 1959, but we've got boxes to tick, after all. What is diminishing my respect for the producers and the enjoyment if the series are the increasing anachronisms that they're allowing. One of the great appealing characteristics of watching a Masterpiece production is the meticulous attention to period details. This is falling by the wayside- it's supposed to be 1959- yet they're playing a song that wasn't released until 1965. There's a woman of color as a full professor at Cambridge, where women did not receive degrees until 1948 and though the first female professor was appointed in 1939 and a Black man could not get tenure as a professor until 2004!

This information is instantly available on the Internet, so it puzzles me why producers would not have checked things like the release dates of music or films or books. Also, if the goal is to get people to be more tolerant of those who are unlike themselves, why pretend that the Grantchester (and Kembleford for that matter ) community was as diverse as it appears to be? They did a phenomenal job with the appalling challenges faced by Leonard as a gay man. Stop insulting the intelligence of viewers by pretending that most of a small English village embraced outsiders in the 1950s. And please stop imposing 21st century norms and vernacular in 1950s Britain. If I want to be lectured on tolerance and aghast at lazy writing , I'll watch the CW.