crumpytv

The first episode is disturbing. Is this psycho serial killer protagonist trying to induce some humour in his narration describing his reasoning behind his slayings.

It is just plain distasteful, but hey, it gets worse.

The first ten minutes of the second episode had me me reaching for the stop button.

If you enjoy graphic partial male castration, then this is for you, but really, it was just dreadful.

Come on New Zealand, you can do better than this. There wasn't even any scenery.

What had entertainment become when productions like this can make it through onto TVs and into our homes?

Entertainment?? Definitely not!!

Also contain offensive language.

Dark City: The Cleaner is a New Zealand crime fiction television series based on author Paul Cleave's 2006 novel The Cleaner. The series was co-produced by John Barnett and Chloe Smith, with Cohen Holloway and Chelsie Florence starring as the two man characters Joe Middleton and Melissa Flowers.

I saw this on Talking Pictures and recorded it.

The surprise was that I had seen it when originally aired but I had forgotten what it was called and who was in it and I had wanted to see it again, but couldn't find it.

So much better than contemporary drama with all its political correctness, inclusion, diversity et al.

Both Helen McCrory and Fay Ripley are excellent in the lead roles. Different personalities, one dominating the other although this does not really manifest itself until near the end.

The ending was a little clumsy there were a few things that could have been tidier, like taking the car back to where it normally was rather than dumping it.

Definitely worth watching.

Vite in fuga AKA Off Grid This could have been a good 6 part psychological thriller, but after a good start it faded badly.

Episode 4 was a gratuitous "inclusive" episode for same sex relationships. It could have been missed altogether and none of the core plot would be missed.

Episodes 6-11 was just plain padded out waffle. Just boring soap.

There was no explanation as to how Cosimo Casiraghi could effect all the things that he did, passports, IDs, jobs, etc, etc, or how Miranda would have gone along with her coldblooded father-in-law.

It was just too long.

The Italian scenery was good, Claudio Gioè's acting was bad or should I say overacting.

This is a contemporary drama and contains language and/or attitudes that some viewers, particularly those of a more mature generation, the Silent Majority, will find offensive.

When it comes to culture correction and political casting this is not subtle.

It is there throughout, the subliminal multi culture casting in every ensemble scene, the changing of gender and ethnicity of major characters.

Truly awful fake cockney accents.

Women's militant suffrage in 1885. I don't think so.

Animated style action scenes.

Thankfully no reprise for the older Holmes brother.

Apart from the blatant social preaching, the film started off as fun, but it dragged on, and on, and on. I thought it was never going to end.

On one hand it is like Harry Potter (without the magic) on the other audience demographic appears to be young teens and yet there are some quite ferocious fight scenes.

A lot of CGI which is interesting to see a perspective of London in the 1880s.

Not sure who the target audience is.

We turned it off after 25 minutes of f bombs and weak attempt at comedy. It appears the writers thought that if you say F then it gets a laugh, well it doesn't.

Overall it is a very childish sex orientated profanity filled rom-com. Adolescents may find it funny.

The storyline will seem very familiar to anyone who watched the far superior Ticket to Paradise starring George Clooney and Julia Roberts.

This is a contemporary drama and contains language and/or attitudes that some viewers, particularly those of a more mature generation, the Silent Majority, will find offensive.

Why has it become apparently acceptable to have so much profanity in supposedly entertainment productions? It is literally supposed to be an entertainment, not a medium to create a profane culture. Current generations are being brought up to think this is normal. Is it normal? It never used to be. The worst language I have ever encountered was in the school playground in the 1960s, but it was not prevalent in general society, certainly not on in TV and films. So, when and where was the decision made, and by whom, to find it acceptable to introduce this sort of language into the lounges of the popu-lation where it is not deemed acceptable? Unfortunately turning off is becoming less of an option as it is literally in every drama and most contemporary so called comedies.

Downloaded from Talking Pictures TV A salient reminder of how a 1996 drama can hold an audiences attention and be quite scary without reverting the boorish profanity filled rubbish so much in evidence in contemporary dramas.

One is really kept guessing for about 3/4 of the drama about what is actually happening.

Nigel Havers is at his smooth and chilling best and Gina McKee is at her worried-expression best.

It did fall away once it was obvious what was going on and there were a few flaws in the plot; e.g. The swimming was filled with water, then it was empty with concrete being poured in despite there being a car in the bottom - no questions asked??

Overall it was very good.

The sound was awful. A lot of the dialogue seemed mumbled and we just couldn't work out what was being said. Throw in the accents as well .... You need subtitles really.

New Zealand dramas tend to pick up points just by virtue of the scenery and the settings. This is no exception, but it is still a 6.

The last episode just fell apart and the ending was frustrating. Were they leaving the door firmly open for a second series? Who knows, anyway I think The Goat Man was Bruce.

The bone crosses that were discovered in Colin Friends house was not explained. When interviewed by police the girl didn't mention the scars on the wrists of her assailant.

Why did Aileen go deep into the bush when she had a plane to catch? Clichéd lone female walking into danger.

Many other clichéd storylines.

All the profanities are totally unnecessary. Just write a good script and not rely on the F word for emphasis!! It adds nothing. Detracts in fact.

This is a contemporary drama and contains language and/or attitudes that some viewers, particularly those of a more mature generation, the Silent Majority, will find offensive.

It gets off to a bad start with the ludicrous rescue of a baby supposedly floating down river on flood waters. Not even the plastic baby could survive that.

After the introduction of what turned out to be an obnoxious ensemble of foul mouthed characters, most of whom were corrupt, the just got worse and boring.

Is this really an example of the state of British drama?

Some of the acting was atrocious to add to everything else.

This is a contemporary drama and contains language and/or attitudes that some viewers, particularly those of a more mature generation, the Silent Majority, will find offensive.

Why has it become apparently acceptable to have so much profanity in supposedly entertainment productions? It is literally supposed to be an entertainment, not a medium to create a profane culture. Current generations are being brought up to think this is normal. Is it normal? It never used to be. The worst language I have ever encountered was in the school playground in the 1960s, but it was not prevalent in general society, certainly not on in TV and films. So, when and where was the decision made, and by whom, to find it acceptable to introduce this sort of language into the lounges of the population where it is not deemed acceptable? Unfortunately turning off is becoming less of an option as it is literally in every drama and most contemporary so called comedies.

Une Affaire Française

Warning: the text at the beginning and end of each episode contains spoilers. Why they did this I cannot imagine.

If this was produced as a fictional drama it would have seen as completely unrealistic and be panned by one and all.

The fact that it is based on a real case is simply shocking.

The bungling ineptitude of so many ranking officials is beyond comprehension: The judge who was more interested in promoting his career than doing his job.

The completely obnoxious and narcissistic journalist who decided who should be charged and did all he could to make it happen. No thought of the consequences, his arrogance was beyond measure.

The city inspector who was only interested in charging somebody and furthering his career.

The rat pack of frenzied journalists. Really, did they behave this way? Shades of the hounding of the Royals in the UK.

This is a drama may have you shouting at the screen at the injustice of it all, it really is that bad.

One aspect that puzzles me was that no investigation appeared to take place in tracing down the letters that Christine was supposed to have post-ed. Surely the postmark on the envelopes, should they be found, have proven which day they were posted on.

It was watchable, but there were too many inconstancies and holes in the plot.

The dam scene in episode 4 was a real mess.

With Sterenn and Lyes approaching the scene, we see Markus removing a trussed and unconscious Marciano from the boot of his car and drag him over the road to the railings.

Only seconds later when Sterenn and Lyes arrive, and pull up shorter than they would in reality, we see that somehow Markus has manhan-dled Marciano over the railings and sat him on the edge over the dam. This is nonsense and physically impossible to manhandle a trussed body of the size of Marciano over metre+ high railings.

As Sterenn continues to talk to Markus over the phone, even though they are now within hailing distance, she fails to take the obvious action. This is to save Marciano by shooting Markus and thus solving her own complicity problem.

Of course dramatically this would have brought the story to and end and not allowed for further episodes, but it does make me feel that the viewers are being played as mugs.

The ending was poor and not believable.

This the IMDB subtext, so not really a spoiler.

"A group of old friends reunited at a funeral make a drunken pact. Rather than let each other suffer a slow and painful decline they would engineer a dignified death. But what starts out as a fanciful idea soon morphs into shocking reality." This is where the real problem lies. Would lifelong friends really agree to a pact that would threaten the liberty of the others. 17 years in prison, essentially the rest of their lives.

This started off ok, but episodes 2-4 were heavy going and I should imagine the rhetoric was quite distressing for those of the senior generation.

Episodes 5-6 were like a completely different drama and all the real interest in the drama was compacted into these episodes. The whole drama was overlong and could have been condensed from 6 to 4 episodes.

Another problem are the multiple inconsistencies, illogical acts and plot holes throughout.

Some examples: I thought police always were on duty in twos, and yet we have a lone female traffic cop pulling Phil over for speeding.

Also, another female PC, Ayesha, apparently has a license to roam. She is seen alone in patrol cars and carrying out her own investigations, including interviewing people and going to their houses, despite warnings from her superiors. This resulted in her character being very irritating.

Then we have her immediate boss also acting alone by going to interview a murder suspect at his house dressed in football kit. Really??

The staging of Tom's boat was a shambles.

Why did Phil and Ken dump the boat and not return it to the mooring?

Why did they not wear gloves when tidying up Tom's home?

Why did Ayesha not recognise immediately that it was Ken and Phil on the CCTV? It was pretty clear.

With all her police experience and going on record as knowing what to do to cover up a crime, why did Phil miss so many things that contributed to the Police (Ayesha) investigation?

As portrayed on screen and despite their apparent conditions, both Tom and Marion were both capable without assistance.

Walter Presents. Six part drama. French with English subtitles.

As with many dramas this starts off ok, but it becomes very repetitive. The rhetoric going back to a crime from 25 years previously and it is all very confusing.

The drama is drawn out too long and is at least two episodes too long.

The relationships of some of the characters is bewildering, even though the same ground is covered many times. Also, for some reason, understanding the actual names being used in the dialogue and who is being referred to is often unclear.

The further into the drama the worse it got until it finished with so many convoluted historical events it left me feeling it had been a total waste of time.

When Lola discovers her biological mother was murdered 25 years ago she is plunged into her hidden past she knew nothing about to discover the identity of her father, her mother's murderer, and her own history.

This is a contemporary drama and contains language that some viewers, particularly those of a more mature generation, will find offensive.

First of all, this is an excellent drama with first rate character portrayals, and as ever, Toby Jones is very convincing.

The worst of it is the actual story and the fact that the Post Office has tarnished its reputation for ever, that is presuming it had one in the first place.

Worse than that is the belief that the UK justice system has integrity and is sound, has been blown to pieces.

How is it that so many innocent people can be found guilty without any evidence by a system which its supposed starting point is innocent until proven guilty?

The drama has brought the whole affair back into the headlines, and so it should be.

Culpable employees of the Post Office and Fujitsu need to be brought to account.

People found to have lied should lose their jobs, their pension and be sent to prison in the same way that Post Office workers were.

The most worrying aspect is that the public are vulnerable to unscrupulous corporations with loads of money to throw at things that they want to go away. Look at how long it took Alan Bates to get his voice heard. People have died, lost their jobs, their mental health, lost their way of living and for what? An arrogant corporation who doesn't listen to what they are being told by their staff.

Although Fujitsu, it now turns out, are at fault for not admitting to faulty software, it is the Post Office who would have signed off on it being fit for purpose.

This is a contemporary drama and contains language and/or attitudes that some viewers, particularly those of a more mature generation, the Silent Majority, will find offensive.

I have often wondered what one of these modern dramas full of expletives would sound like if they were dubbed over.

Well, by chance the opportunity presented itself on a long haul flight as this film was featured even though it had not been on general release.

There was a dinner scene early on where it was impossible to understand what was being said because so many words were dubbed out. It continued throughout the film, a real profanity fest. It is supposed to be funny, well, I think it is, but unless you like laughing at profane exclamations it really isn't that amusing.

The central characters are well known and let down by a bad script. The two policeman are awful.

The late octogenarian and nosey neighbor (Anne Reid) signs off with the worst of profanities. What a milestone in the history of cinematography. Absolute class!!

The actual story line reminds me of Weekend at Bernie's, only that was funny.

Also, Fawlty Towers proved you can have a similar scenario without resorting to crude humour.

Sarah and Tom are in deep financial trouble. Their situation takes a terrifying nosedive with the shock-ing behavior of uninvited dinner guest, Jessica.

I wanted to like this. It started off interesting enough, but the language was just so jarring.

F after F after F after F ........ Is this really representative of where drama is today.

Fill the script with expletives for laughs (?). Were these exclamations funny. No, not really.

When the plumber came on the scene the script picked up, albeit temporarily. There was some actual dialogue.

Then came the scene with 5 potty mouthed women and the comment about a man p**ping in a womans mouth.

I switched it off at this point.

Is this really comedy? Adult or otherwise. It is just vile.

This is a contemporary drama and contains language and/or attitudes that some viewers, particularly those of a more mature generation, the Silent Majority, will definitely find offensive.

I you like Mystery Road you will probably like this as well. It has the same style, but not quite such an outback feel, and I preferred Luke in this one to Jay (Mystery Road) as the central character.

Despite the shocking opening, it was pretty clear that there was more to it and that the event was calculated and not random.

A year later, a journo Luke hits town looking for a follow up human interest story, but starts to unpeel an onion skin of lies and deception relating to the event.

Follows investigative journalist Martin Scarsden as he has to uncover the truth of the case of killing of five parishioners by a charismatic and dedicated young priest.

Despite his apparent popularity, I find Robert Taylor a very dour actor.

This is a contemporary drama and contains language and/or attitudes that some viewers, particularly those of a more mature generation, the Silent Majority, will find offensive.

There are frequent profanity bombs and the F word is peppered throughout. One C word.

I enjoyed this. It was a lot of fun, without being over the top. It was subtle.

Yes, it was a cliched view of alien life forms from 60-70 years ago, but it didn't matter. The story was the thing that mattered and great performances from the four main characters made this all the more enjoyable. I particularly like the way Jane Curtin's nosey neighbour did not spoil things but contributed to the subterfuge when it seemed like she was going to spoil everything.

A really nice feel good film.

Milton lives a quiet life of routine in a small western Pennsylvania town, but finds his day upended when a UFO and its extra-terrestrial passenger crash land in his backyard.

Although sticking fairly close to the original storyline it just looks all wrong, from the casting to the hammy acting and over the top attire and beyond pristine cars.

Similar to The Larkins, this production portrays a social demographic and attitudes of mid 1950s English country life that simply did not exist.

Who is making these decisions on culture correction to align with contemporary attitudes? I would also love to hear the dialogue used when casting these productions.

It was family friendly, no profanities, a blessing these days, but I am concerned that current generations are being deliberately educated to believe in an alternative social history.

This hardly aligns with a democratic society, more like Orwellian mind control.

Slow, boring and pretty tedious.

Yes, a true story, as far as it goes.

Risque? Not any more. We get same sex relationships in practically every drama being produced these days, so this was nothing out of the ordinary.

As for the production, it should have been French thespians with English subtitles.

The first scene was an ensemble of well know faces, and they were not French.

Dominic West comes from the "Always the Same" school of acting and an unkempt looking beard does not hide the fact.

The actual story about the authoring of the Claudine novels was interesting, but all the personal stuff bogged it down until I could stand no more.

This is a strange, sometimes surreal drama.

The first three episodes followed two different storylines which eventually came together.

Episode 5 was fragmented, and boring and made me think this series was going to be too long at 8 episodes.

Episode 6 was terrible. Apart from 5 minutes of storyline which was integral, the rest was a gratuitous pander to the same sex, political correctness lobby.

It had nothing to do with the story and looked like a bolt-on episode just to satisfy diversity and inclusion.

Does every drama really have to include these storylines? It seems to have become mandatory.

Although purportedly based on real events, I can't understand how Axel could spend copious amounts of money with no income. I mean a lot of money, like buying land and building a factory, and employing loads of staff.

AKA DRUK (Bing Drinking) Danish with subtitles.

Four school teachers consume alcohol on a daily basis to see how it affects their social and professional lives.

The premise is that it is a social experiment, following a theory that humans are born with a blood alcohol content (BAC) deficiency of 0.05%, and that raising it by 0.05% makes one more creative and relaxed.

In reality, to me, it comes across as four men deluding themselves of this fact because they are all bordering on mid-life crisis and looking for some salvation.

It chugs along quite nicely for an hour, but it starts to get serious and dark. The result is somewhat unexpected, but they soon relaised the folly of their behavior and are left to reflect on life as it was, rather than as it is.

It does help having three very familiar Danish faces in starring roles. They are all excellent.

Episode 1 It is hard for me to understand how anybody could sit through this and class it as entertainment.

The demographic it is aimed at is a mystery.

I am guessing the age group of the featured personnel, a bunch of foul mouthed delinquents with nothing but time on their hands.

Is this a group of stereotypical native Indians living on the Res?

If so, then it is not exactly politically correct, like just about everything else is today.

If it is not, than the characterisations are offensive in the extreme and I can't imagine they are welcomed in the culture.

The episode is one long F bomb. There is no dialogue, just a string of expletives.

It is not funny, it is pathetic.

However, with a proper script this could have been interesting, if not addictive.

Is this an instruction on how adolescents are supposed to behave? God help America if it is.

Ok, before I forget, this had a great soundtrack.

The drama reminded me of the Australian Mystery Road productions.

It had the same sort of premise, set within indigenous people's tribes, et al. This is et in New Mexico on a Navajo reservation.

Dark Winds is an American psychological thriller television series created by Graham Roland based on the Leaphorn & Chee novel series by Tony Hillerman. It premiered in June, 2022, with the first season consisting of six episodes. After its premiere, the series was renewed for a six-episode second season, which premiered in July 2023. In September 2023, the series was renewed for a third season.

The series follows two Navajo police officers, Joe Leaphorn and Jim Chee, in the 1970s Southwest. The first season is primarily based on Listening Woman (1978) and elements of People of Darkness (1980). The second season adapts People of Darkness.

If I am going to be critical there were too many shoot outs with too many bullets (thousands) missing any targets.

The second series featured two apparently indestructible men with a refence to another one who apparently walked away from the end of season one, despite being shot and blown up.

Also, wounds kept disappearing and then reappearing in later scenes.

When Gina Henderson (Sally Phillips) is "let go" from her office job, she takes over the operations of a removal company to try and turn their fortunes around. With help and some encouragement from her friends at the swimming club, Gina pimps the (all-male) crew to provide cleaning services and, if required, prostitute themselves to the women in their town. As the business succeeds, Gina re-evaluates her own love and sex life.

Not a comedy, although I think it may originally have been the intention.

If woman of a certain age enjoy it, then fair enough (are they really that frustrated?), but I switched it off after 45 minutes.

I can't remember whether I finished watching the first series or not. I seem to remember it was dark and violent and gave up nit.

The second series I watched throughout, but it wasn't really satisfying.

Everyone has their flaws, including the two lead detectives who go to illegal means to "get their man".

The event between episodes 3 and 4 nearer made me give up.

Anyway, the scenery is good.

I started series 3 but turned it off at the beginning of episode 2.

Honestly, how many sadistic, satanic psychopaths live in the forests bordering Germany and Austria? Definitely a region to avoid!

It is just plain ridiculous. They solve one serial killer case then another comes along. Just not believable.