colinebc
Lifetime Total
1+
IMDb Member
8 years
Reviews
The Rookie (2018)
Season 3 gone boring and absurdly lecturing the audience
Seasons 1 and 2 funny (although end of season 2 is over the top with this ridiculous serial killer thing)
Season 3 overwhelmingly making use of absurd political concepts (so, the guys of a city area complain about suffering from drug dealers, but it's bad to arrest the dealers because police bad, POC good: "heads I win tail you lose", as we say in French - the "whites" cops are the bad either the option, doing their job or not doing it)
I gave up after 5 episodes in season 3 - writers really need to realize that we are grownups who don't need to be reeducated.
It looked very much like soviet fictions meant to "edificate the masses" and I felt horribly embarrassed for the comedians.
Season 3 overwhelmingly making use of absurd political concepts (so, the guys of a city area complain about suffering from drug dealers, but it's bad to arrest the dealers because police bad, POC good: "heads I win tail you lose", as we say in French - the "whites" cops are the bad either the option, doing their job or not doing it)
I gave up after 5 episodes in season 3 - writers really need to realize that we are grownups who don't need to be reeducated.
It looked very much like soviet fictions meant to "edificate the masses" and I felt horribly embarrassed for the comedians.
1992 (2015)
It's more than a series, it's like a novel. And a good one.
I didn't expect this quality.
Some made a comparison with House of cards or Mad men.
I couldn't disagree more.
I think this show is far BETTER than those ones.
First, it does not fall into the usual traps of Us series like Damages or House of Cards, who tend to develop far too complicated plots. Of course 1992 tells a complex story with dozens of different characters, but the plot is not over complicated and remains terribly realistic.
I am starting to be reeeeeally fed up with those plots with countless twists and turns, with presumably good persons who turn out to be horrible and vice-versa, and then the opposite, and so on, until a point where you don't understand anything and, worse, you don't see the point in watching the program anymore.
1992 has not this default. The 10-episodes finally appear to be ONE, consistent story, not so complicated in the end.
Second, specific attention has been drawn to ALL the characters. They could definitely exist in real life. Not only the main characters, but also the secondary ones (the politicians like Nobile, the Judge Di Pietro, Notte's daughter, etc.), and this is stunning.
Third, many different universes are depicted. Where most of the traditional TV shows tend to focus on ONE, determined universe, the authors of 1992 have decided to juxtapose at least 3 different worlds : politics, justice, and advertising. This is amazingly well done. Each of these universes is depicted with a different atmosphere and a specific attention. In particular, the politic world is fantastically depicted (the national assembly, the way the parliament members impose discipline on the party sections, the lobbying, the electoral campaign, and so on). I couldn't remember any TV show or movie showing so many details of the "political cookery".
The dialogues reflect the specificity of each of these worlds, which is, also, impressing. Because you do not speak the same way in the parliament or in the office of the general attorney. And they are often very funny, too.
Fourth, the plot has a meaning. I mean, of course, the first priority is to watch a TV show with an exciting plot (and it is), good dialogues (and they definitely are) and characters. But this show gives more. It offers a certain vision of human societies (could have been the same story in ancient Rome, or almost). And when a good story offers a vision, I call it literature. Good literature!
Some made a comparison with House of cards or Mad men.
I couldn't disagree more.
I think this show is far BETTER than those ones.
First, it does not fall into the usual traps of Us series like Damages or House of Cards, who tend to develop far too complicated plots. Of course 1992 tells a complex story with dozens of different characters, but the plot is not over complicated and remains terribly realistic.
I am starting to be reeeeeally fed up with those plots with countless twists and turns, with presumably good persons who turn out to be horrible and vice-versa, and then the opposite, and so on, until a point where you don't understand anything and, worse, you don't see the point in watching the program anymore.
1992 has not this default. The 10-episodes finally appear to be ONE, consistent story, not so complicated in the end.
Second, specific attention has been drawn to ALL the characters. They could definitely exist in real life. Not only the main characters, but also the secondary ones (the politicians like Nobile, the Judge Di Pietro, Notte's daughter, etc.), and this is stunning.
Third, many different universes are depicted. Where most of the traditional TV shows tend to focus on ONE, determined universe, the authors of 1992 have decided to juxtapose at least 3 different worlds : politics, justice, and advertising. This is amazingly well done. Each of these universes is depicted with a different atmosphere and a specific attention. In particular, the politic world is fantastically depicted (the national assembly, the way the parliament members impose discipline on the party sections, the lobbying, the electoral campaign, and so on). I couldn't remember any TV show or movie showing so many details of the "political cookery".
The dialogues reflect the specificity of each of these worlds, which is, also, impressing. Because you do not speak the same way in the parliament or in the office of the general attorney. And they are often very funny, too.
Fourth, the plot has a meaning. I mean, of course, the first priority is to watch a TV show with an exciting plot (and it is), good dialogues (and they definitely are) and characters. But this show gives more. It offers a certain vision of human societies (could have been the same story in ancient Rome, or almost). And when a good story offers a vision, I call it literature. Good literature!