lol234

S1-3 are very good. It's an excellent procedural show with interesting characters.

S4 is where you start to see how they've deviated from the source materials. It's still good, but there's a lot more personal drama.

S5 is silly. There isn't much of an investigation. It's a lecture on human trafficking (spoiler: it's a bad thing). But it's so heavy-handed, and over-acted (Hi Olivia), that it's hard to take seriously.

Both the villains and our intrepid investigators act stupidly to push the plot forward. Sandy is hung out to dry as being especially inept.

Watch S1-4 and S5 if you like the characters. After that, it's a melodrama.

I feel like I'm in a minority about this plotline, but it's actually quite ugly.

Rebecca falls into a cannal because she's now too stupid to see the markings on a bridge that inticate that she's standing in a bike lane while blathering on her iPhone.

She's rescued by a handsome Dutch man who makes it clear that his intentions are pure. Initially Rebecca is reluctant to drink with him because he's a stranger, but eventually he charms her and she gets quite drunk - so much so that when she wakes up the next morning, she can't recall whether they had sex. He comforts her by saying that they didn't. She's happy about that, but as she leaves, he whispers romantically to the camera that they did indeed have sex. Later on the bus she's shown being happy about the outcome of the evening.

I'm a guy who isn't a puritan or an angry conservative, but how the hell can a story show that, while still trying to be being unironically virtuous? Rebecca was blackout drunk. How can a blackout drunk woman give consent?

The first season was quite charming. It was the sort of show I could watch with my elderly mother during the lockdown. The stories are gentle but not too cloying sweet. There's a genuine love for the setting which is obvious with the beautiful sweeping shots showing the lush green hills and stone fences. The old cars are fun to see as welll. As someone who's not from the UK it's lovely to watch. There's a bit of interpersonal drama, but for the most part it's about a small vetenary practice in the 1930s.

By the time the second season rolls around, there's a bit of a shift. The vetenary stories are more in the background to the blossoming romances.

Now that I've watched the 3rd season, I'm not sure I'll bother with the 4th. It's turned into a period melodrama with fairly obvious parables. The actors are quite good, but they now spend a lot of time staring off into the mid-distance or with looks of consternation, like they're trying to hold in gas. The writers need to get back to the source material. Herriot's works stand the test of time because they're (obviously) quite good. I hope the show runners put their trust back in his stories.

I think it's fair to say that the first few seasons were absolutely brilliant. Reed did an amazing thing of creating a protagonist who would be utterly insufferable in person, but charming to watch as a viewer.

At a certain point, you could tell Reed was running out of ideas (understandably), to the point where he just put the show into completely different genres. Those weren't quite up to the level as the original 'spy' concept, but were still quite fun.

Now that Reed's no longer writing much for the show, the quality's taken a noticeable dip. The characters feel more like echos of their former selves. They're also trying to shoehorn in 'issues' like the environment into the stories. They've done that in the past, like when Archer and Lana went to protect a pipeline, but it was subversive and interesting because they were working for the gas company. You can get more comedy out of that premise.

I'll probably finish Season 12, but unless something changes, I'm not sure I'll bother with Season 13.

I have a fondness for the actors and creators of this show, but it's a bit off the mark. There's basically one joke; it's 'look at how these cosmopolitan visitors observe obtuse rural folk.'

There's an underlying smirk to the humour.

It's trying to be The Detectorists, except that show took the passions of the oddballs seriously and portrayed them with humanity and sincerity. Here they're just target practice for quips.

There's a scary mansion. Haunting costumes. Some 'scary' mood lighting. People who behave irrationally. A surprisingly long reveal at the end to explain the mystery's contrivances. And let's not forget the domestic DRAMA!

This seems like a parody of a Morse/Endeavour show. Like a Simpsons Hallowe'en special.

Harmon is at his best when he knows he's being meta, but still plays the characters straight.

The thing is, we all get "meta" So just being that descends into 'memberbarries. When comedy becomes too self-referential, it loses its punch.

There is nothing funny about Rick trying to be funny.

This is an attempt at a pickle-Rick holiday special with Special Guest Star, the POTUS. It's a rehash of concepts.

What they forgot was that Rick didn't get into lured into those problems because he was too stupid to defeat trivial obstacles like the US military. He was lured because of his own vanity and the desire to avoid confronting his own failings.

That was the core of the show. Rick's the smartest guy, but his failure is his vanity.

Now he fights turkeys.

The first 3 seasons are great. They're funny, irreverent and have a beautiful undercurrent of tragedy to make the comedy poignant. Rick's the smartest guy in the universe who loves science, but is undercut by his emotional immaturity. Morty is his heart.

Season's 4-5, while having some great highs, are very self-aware. This seems to be Harmon's weakness. It's not always explicit, but the characters behave like they're in a TV show. They're often trying to be post-modernly ironic. Or overtly "meta" in the language of Community.

Harmon forgets Abed's wisdom "It has to be joyful, effortless, fun. TV defeats its own purpose when it's pushing an agenda, or trying to defeat other TV or being proud or ashamed of itself for existing. It's TV; it's comfort. It's a friend you've known so well, and for so long you just let it be with you, and it needs to be okay for it to have a bad day or phone in a day, and it needs to be okay for it to get on a boat with Levar Burton and never come back. Because eventually, it all will."

Irony!!!!

There's nothing here.There's no post-ironic meta message.

It's nihilism, which is the artists answer to lazy boredom.

Black Mirror used to be about people you know in dystopian futures. Now it's the future First World Problems of attractive, wealthy people in LA.

What happens if an affluent suburban dad (with a 6-pack) falls for an equally affluent college buddy (also with a 6-pack) in a VR simulation? Also they're brahs! In case you didn't realise that, there are many exaggerated handshakes, hugs, etc. I don't quite know what the actors are doing, but they're doing a lot of it.

Sadly this seems like the sort of textbook 'dystopia' pablum that Booker would have deconstructed not so long ago. At the end of the day though ... Netflix has cash.

If you're going to write a heist movie, there had better be charm, intricacy or genuine tension.

The story of 4 bland suburban teens trying to steal rare books from a library has none of those. There's no energy, urgency or beauty to engage the viewer. Visually it's a wash of muted colours. Imagine sitting in a dentist's office with faded wallpaper. Kentucky has never looked so ugly.

So what's got people excited? Well, there's a gimmick where they have actors playing 'real people' in this 'true story'. Of course it's all nonsense. The 'real people' are remarkably photogenic and deliver their dialogue with trained inflection. They're also all wearing freshly purchased work clothes. It's obvious they're actors too.

Aside from that, there's a lot of self-indulgent whining. The dialogue hardly crackles. They reference Tarantino a few times, but that only emphasises how bland this script is in comparison. Can no one say anything interesting? Even Audubon's work seems lifeless.

Despite what critics say, this movie is a one note gimmick and deserves a pass.

Brooker is a media satirist, so I want to give him the benefit of the doubt about this episode. My 6 rating is because even as dry satire, it's underwhelming.

The premise is: mechanical dogs have decimated life in Scotland and presumably the world. The episode is essentially a prolonged chase. Instead of zombies in 28 Days Later, we've got robot dogs.

There aren't many beats. Maxine Peake runs, trembles, inhales, sobs, etc. Ms Peake isn't given a lot to work with, yet does an admirable job. If she appears to over-act: what else is she supposed to do?

So why is it possible parody? The first clue is it's in black & white. It looks a lot like Besson's wonderful The Last Battle. I'm tempted to believe that Brooker is giving a nudge to Besson to ask how he went from crafting quiet, beautiful films to his current excessive style. My second clue is the final shot. With the overwrought music, saccharine morality and the God-like perspective ... well, I hope Brooker understands what that means to the viewer.

As a sincere story, it's silly. As a parody, it's not skewering much. This one's a swing and a miss. But I'm optimistic that Brooker has many more interesting stories to tell.

It's an interesting concept for an episode, but ended up a bit messy and in need of more grounding. My main problem with the story was the method of the murders. They just seemed a bit contrived and too clever - especially when we discover the perpetrator. I'm not spoiling much when I say the killing was done with poison, but the way it was administered to the victims was borderline silly. A team of the world's most skilled assassins couldn't have pulled off these murders.

Endeavour/Morse/Lewis are at their best when they explore the interesting motives and interpersonal connections behind a crime. The method of the murder usually rather banal. In this case, too much of the plot hinges on how the murder could possibly have been accomplished.

Well, first you get the contestants. And they are really, really excited to be there. I mean, they're super excited. And that's hilarious. They also love to explain how they know the answers to kid friendly questions. Do you want to know how someone knows a plot point about The Little Mermaid? Because you're going to find out.

Then there's Fred Savage. And he's really, really excited to meet the guests. I mean, he's super excited. And that's hilarious. And he's bringing the enthusiasm. When someone answers a kid friendly question, Fred's there to make them feel like they just cracked the Enigma machine.

And what can I say about Gervais? He is really, really excited to talk to the kids. I mean he's super excited. And that's hilarious. Now some of you may think that Gervais has made a career on incisive, sardonic humour and that sitting in a room with a bunch of kids trying to force laughs out of their observations would be the sort of lightweight pablum he'd have parodied earlier, but that doesn't matter because everyone is having such a good time!