BogKid

I have seen only the first installment of "You, Me, and the Apocalypse" and I enjoyed it immensely. After reading "shoulderoforion"'s review I will obviously have to defer my final conclusions until I see more episodes to see if I agree with "shoulders"' negative conclusion. I knew nothing of this show before viewing it and I was not expecting much. It surprised means I hope it can continue to do so.

I enjoyed “Childhood’s End”. I wasn’t going to write a review until I read an early “1” review which was little more than a diatribe concerning the fact that the TV show did not follow Clarke’s book precisely enough. It was, even worse, a diatribe against the “Americanization” of the story. I’m certainly sorry about that, but it was a show written in America, produced in America, and largely viewed in America. Apparently a transference of that reviewer’s generalized annoyance about America. I was frankly surprised by the first two hours of the show. Let’s be honest. SyFy Channel original programming is rarely first rate. I felt that this show was. I was waiting for it to go sour with an eventually stupid ending. I did not find that. I think viewing this program has given me impetus to seek out Mr. Clarke’s book to compare the effect on me of the TV show and the book.

Situation comedies on television are usually painful to watch. There are some exceptions, "Mom" being for me one notable exception. I feel quite comfortable in adding "Life in Pieces" to this very short list. Though there is often an element of silliness in the show, I find that the mini-plots very nicely satirize real life, either experienced or thought about. My major complaint with the show is its 30 minute length. I think I would be happier with 60 minutes, but there is something definitely to be said for the very short time spans of the individual "pieces". Set the scene, a pretty quick punch, and get out while you're still funny.

Good opening for Season 2. "Les Revenants" is deliberately murky like the dark waters of the flood that has swallowed the valley and the town. I had watched Season 1 intently, but I have to admit that I had to go back to some of the later episodes of Season 1 (on Netflix streaming) to be sure that memory was accurate. It was not always accurate. If you feel confused about any of the happenings on this new episode and if you have access to Netflix streaming, it will be worth some of your time to check over the last two episodes of Season 1. You are likely to come to Season 2 with enhanced memories and enhanced enjoyment.

I am a male well into my senior citizen years who probably should not like anything on CW. I pretty much don't. But then I read an interesting article about this show in the NY Times, so I thought I'd give the pilot a chance. I really liked it. Writer and star, Rachel Bloom, hooked me immediately. She is a nice, fairly ordinary looking girl, who is a first rate talent with a skilled comedic flair. There were basically two songs (both quite good) in the initial episode so it's hard to call this show a musical. The show, and Rachel, just perfectly catch the realities of hitting one's 30s and realizing you're not really happy with your life. Fixing it turns out not to be as easy as Rachel had expected, but it makes for a funny, interesting, clever, and funny show.

I rather liked this show in spite of myself and my expectations. Not a big fan of Rob Lowe, but he and Fred Savage have turned this crazy concept into an at least amusing, almost funny, show. It deserves a couple of more viewings to decide, but it is off to a reasonably good start.

Disappointing. I was hoping for a believable quasi-military show about FBI training with the obvious need for a mystery plot of some sort. The mystery, as I see it, is how the writers think that FBI new recruits are represented by this bunch of shallow jerks right out of the CW network. Wow, if they got it right, the future of law enforcement is in major danger. Plot and characters. This show falls completely flat n both of these fairly important areas.

This show is really ridiculous! This show is really ridiculous! This show is really ridiculous! This show is really ridiculous! This show is really ridiculous! This show is really ridiculous! This show is really ridiculous! This show is really ridiculous! This show is really ridiculous! It is also poorly written and entirely unbelievable.

What a pity! Morris Chestnut is a good-looking fellow who is also a well above average actor. He has acquitted himself quite well on Broadway and on some cable dramas that deserve better audiences than they have received. “Rosewood” does not deserve a bigger audience. The title itself is unfortunate. When I first saw it as an upcoming show, I assumed it was about the horrific Rosewood, Florida 1923 massacre and destruction of an all-black rural town. Promising. Well it’s not about that at all. It’s a cheesy police with medical director over-the-top procedural. Kind of Rizzoli and Isles without the cast chemistry and without the humor. The director of “Rosewood” has apparently noticed that its first show is really badly written. The solution? Deliver every line at high speed with a snarky attitude. Give it up, guys. Go find a decent vehicle for Morris Chestnut!

I am glad that I did not see the movie “Minority Report” enabling me to assess this new TV series on its own merits. Unfortunately, the show seems to me to have very few merits. First watching this show is a little like watching an exercise video – with dialog. Absolutely everything is done by computer and by wildly waving your arms and twisting your wrists. It’s a little like the whole world is an iPhone and your fingers just aren’t long enough to move everything around. The first show has a truly juvenile plot coupled with hackneyed writing and pretty generally stiff acting. Sorry cast. You need more work, or maybe you just need a new Director. Somewhere along the line, someone has said, “We need more cowbell, no, no, more special effects.” And more special effects are what “Minority Report” gives you. More than you need or, hopefully, more than you want. All in all, the show is a mish-mosh. Not entirely boring, but not very interesting either.

I see that the professional reviewers have given this new NBC show a spread of ratings from very low to very high. I don’t find either extreme to be true for my taste. The show is reasonably well written and well acted. The tattooed naked lady in a duffel bag in Times Square seems a bit of a stretch, even for Times Square, but the writers are trying to give the show some distinctive touches. Despite the fact that their distinctive touches do often take the plot over the top, the show remains suspenseful and engaging. We will see how subsequent episodes hold up, but for now, I found the show to be pretty exciting and involving. I am over 80 and I didn’t doze off once during this show. Now that’s saying something! Saying something also is the fact that no show with Marianne Jean-Baptiste in the case can possibly be all bad.

I am generally a major fan of the incredibly talented Neil Patrick Harris. What was he thinking when he agreed to "host" this godawful show? I have to admit that I did not give the show what you might call a fair shake. The problem is that some 25 minutes into its first showing, I simply could no longer stand to watch it. This show is amazing -- in the worst possible way.

Cute, hip, derivative, stupid. I don't understand why this site requires that a review be 150 characters long. I cannot think of any more characters that I want to waste on it.

This show visually evokes New York a few decades ago -- I know, I was there. I find the acting to be above average and the writing be about average. So far the show depresses me a bit since all of the cops seem to be dirty to one degree or another. They explained the lack of policing of victimless crimes as controlling those crimes rather than stopping them. I honestly don't know if the NYPD was really this bad back then but it is depressing if it is true. I certainly hope today's NYPD is at least measurably better. The show is OK, but it seems to me to be just one more of the usual cop show formula.

"The Whispers" up-date after 8 episodes. I felt that the first episode of "The Whispers" was an excellent start, but I had my doubts ihat the show could maintain the suspense and that the story could retain science-fiction believability. By my standards, it has and it has done so very well. I think this show is now among the relatively few really excellent shows on television this year. Congratulations to ABC.

"Tut" is not bad. It's certainly not great but it is definitely "OK". The interior scenery is quite good. The acting is mostly adequate. The battle scene are a little constricted but they are sufficiently gory. The writing? It's a little like C.B. DeTut. Very reminiscent of a 1930s to 1950s DeMille spectacular. They all looked good but were they stiff. Spike's "Tut" is also on the stiff side. That doesn't make it awful. I am still finishing up the reasonably entertaining two hour long Part I. Can King Tut hold my attention for four more hours. Ah, there's the rub. I'll stick with it until I shout, "Enough, enough Tut!"

This Jim Gaffigan Show seems to be designed for smiles. No complaint with that. It is all about life in the Gaffigan apartment -- one wife and five children. It's like the Duggars without the crowd scene and without -- well, you know. If you have, ever have had, kids you will find this show eminently amusing. I really hope that Jim Gaffigan is exactly like his TV persona. I suspect he is. I would really like to be his next-apartment neighbor. Well, maybe his one-away-apartment neighbor. Those kids are pretty loud.

I once read an article which explained why the Wolfman movies never made it big like Dracula or Frankenstein, etc., etc. The theory was that the Wolfman character simply looked to much like our own lovable dog or cat. He wasn't "different" enough to really scare us. And so it goes with the new TV show "Zoo". You probably know by now that the premise of the show is that wild animals and (I believe later on) domestic animals turn on people and start wreaking havoc. Maybe if a monitor lizard came at me, but really, lions and tigers, and bears. Sure they are potentially dangerous but they are still lovable animals, still mammals, still like us. I always thought the Laurence Talbot, the Wolfman, was just a poor, misguided soul. The same with the lions in "Zoo". I will bet somewhere along the line those lions realize the error of their ways and make it straight to the writers' room to give this show's creators some of their own medicine. Just a spoonful of BS makes the medicine go down!

Let me start by saying that I am in my 80s and totally illiterate when it comes to high-level computer programming and hacking. This new show on the USA Network is all about high-level computer programming and hacking and I found it to be absolutely terrific. The series hits the network on June 24, but the first episode is now readily available On Demand, at the IMDb and USA websites, and I am sure at many other places. Somebody is doing an excellent job of promoting this show though I only spotted it today. Christian Slater is ostensibly the star of the show, but in that first episode, the real star of the show is Rami Malek, previously unknown to me though he has been in a number of feature films. Malek’s low-keyed performance is just right for his brilliant, but socially inept, character. The rest of the cast, certainly including Mr. Slater, does a fine job too. Another major star of the show is writer, Sam Esmail, who has managed to make information technology and hacking exciting and suspenseful. I checked him out on IMDb, finding only a short list of what appear to be non-stand-out movies before the TV series of Mr. Robot appears. I am not crazy about the title of “Mr. Robot”. The word “robot” has been tied to too many mediocre TV shows and movies for it to be an asset. But, if you react negatively to it, do NOT let that push you away from this series. Let’s hope that Mr. Esmail, Mr. Malek, et al can maintain the intensity and fascination level of the first episode.

Can you write a two-hour TV story based entirely on your characters making totally stupid decisions – one after the other after the other? “Complications” features an angry doctor and a street nurse, who both have the absolutely worst judgment possible. I won’t go into details in order to avoid a spoiler review. On the other hand I question whether or not anything can be written that would spoil this show any more than its writers and producers have accomplished. I have tried, but so far I cannot think of a worse show on television. Come on USA! You are doing some pretty good stuff lately. This one apparently sneaked through your quality control department.

I think that this is a strange and fascinating story. Time and again I had thought to read the book but I never did, Watching the BBC America mini-series in Part I of which "Magic Returns to England" was a most enjoyable experience. This is definitely not Harry Potter. It could have been significantly more enjoyable if BBC America had not chosen to interrupt the program with commercial after commercial.. Yes, I know that commercials are necessary to keep free television free but Part I of "Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell" was simply butchered to near death by commercial interruptions every few minutes. I hope this mini-series is given a chance to find an audience by some more intelligent advertiser who could be satisfied by less frequent over-long commercial interruptions. I will check out Part II to see what happens. Eddie Marsan as Norrell is wonderful.

I had many reservations about the first two seasons of "Hannibal". I was beginning to find Hugh Dancey's character to be boring and repetitive. The writing and style of first episode of season 3 has, in my opinion, surpassed anything in the first two seasons. Mikkelsen and Anderson were superb. I can only hope that Will stays home. This episode makes me wish the show were on Netflix with the ability to binge-view the entire season at once. I never do this with Netflix (or Amazon) shows, but season 3's "Hannibal" would surely tempt me.

There is simply not much to "Aquarius". The writing is mediocre at best, Mr. Duchovny is basically expressionless, and the plot seems largely nonexistent. The show purports to be about the Manson gang before it has started committing its major crimes. The actor playing Manson, a total non-look-alike, projects very little of the hypnotic personality that presumably allowed Manson to hold his followers completely under his control. I think I will have to instruct my DVR to find something better to do with its time while "Aquarius" is on.

I have seen only the first episode of "Sense8". Now I know that it is a bit unfair to review a show from such limited exposure, but I also feel that it is valid since those viewers who do not like the first episode are unlikely to continue farther into the series. I am close to being in that group. The first episode was one long, long teaser letting you try to find out what the heck is going on here. OK, it becomes somewhat clear that there is a psychic connection among these eight people and Darryl Hanna's character is the connection. I really don't need "obvious" in my TV (or download) shows, but this first episode carried obscurity a bit too far. I will go on, hoping this begins to make some sense(8) and I will carefully up-date my comments after I've given the show a fair trial.

Comments on Season Two: Last year I found this show to be slow and disjointed. The plots, concentrating on the character, Abraham Woodhull, wandered around and lacked focus. I am fascinated by history but this show simply left me behind. I stopped watching mid-season. This year, seeming to have more production money, they have chosen to really be about the Revolutionary War and the rebels early attempts at espionage. So much better than the show had been last year when it seemed to concentrate on Mr. Woodhull's uninteresting love affairs and marital problems. I was prompted to write this review by the May 16, 2015 episode which was essentially about George Washington's well known, but rarely portrayed, major difficulty in making decisions. Well written and very well played. It was a new high in the new and much improved "Turn".

Funny. Funny. Funny. Lili Tomlin is the aging hippie. Jane Fonda is the self-centered upper-middle-class society lady. Martin Sheen is the lawyer husband with the perfectly coifed hair. Sam Wanamaker is the sort-of messy lawyer (partners). I see other reviewers seem to be complaining that the show is a bit slow. That it is not up to the minute in its handling of social situations (I am trying to be careful not to produce spoilers). I think the writing is subtly funny. Sometimes serious/ Sometimes insightful. Sometimes very funny. It's not (thank God) a laugh a minute show. It's more like real life but with people who often say funny things. Without the four mentioned stars, Grace and Frankie would probably be nowhere near so good and possibly just a dud. But it's not a dud. It is funny. And best of all. No laugh track. You can laugh, smile, chuckle a little, all when YOU want to do so.

I'm as liberal as the next guy. I'm certainly not a prude, but whoever wrote this show must have kept by his side the American Dictionary of Curses and Profanities. Sure everybody throws one into the conversation now and then. I sure do, but the profane (can't think of a better word) comments came so thick and fast in the opening kitchen scene that it became ridiculous and, oh yes, damned annoying. The writer is trying to surprise you by telling you that life under the white collar is not so great. In fact the best you can probably hope for is "Happy-ish". Creativity only exists under age 25. After age 40 your brain is dead anyway. The show is negative, negative, negative. It is also a good argument (if it were really true) to never cross the Hudson River into that urban asylum of hopelessness. I really did not like this show. I told my DVR to f--- "Happy-ness".

Nice to know that the BBC can produce a bomb now and then. "Tatau" is, in fact, a mega-bomb. Awful plot. Bad writing, Less than mediocre acting. It's just awful. A number of critics have commented on the show's beautiful south seas settings and images as some justification for the show. Not enough! If you want to see the beauty of the south seas, check out a good travel program. You shouldn't have to listen to the rest of the drivel that is "Tatau".

This eight-part series on Lifetime purports to tell the story of Lizzie Borden after she had been acquitted of the murders of her father and her step-mother. Apparently, as this show tells it, Lizzie turned into a serial killer, solving all of life's little problems with a pitchfork, or a hangman's noose, or simply a solid whack to an adversary's head. This show is really trash. Some of the production values of the show seem fairly expensive, apparently leaving no money left over for script. Christina Ricci seems at least to try to make her weird character somewhat realistic. Most of the rest of the cast perform as if they had flown in for the day, phoned in their lines, collected their checks, and grabbed the red-eye home. It appears that the director had one direction -- "Keep it stiff and stilted, guys." This series is simply terrible!

Make no mistake -- this is not "Marvel's Wolf Hall." This is a low-action show and all the better for it. "Wolf Hall" is a measured telling of the story of Thomas Cromwell (not one of the revolutionary Cromwells) who by his wits and personal skill in dealing with people becomes Kin g Henry VIII's number one adviser and counsellor. Cromwell is played by Mark Rylance, one of England's greatest contemporary stage actors. He is well known on Broadway, but not on American television. Rylance is welcome on my TV set at any time. Damian Lewis (Homeland) as Henry and Mark Gattis (writer of, and actor in, "Sherlock") round out the leads in this overall excellent case. The show is, indeed, a bit slow and very talky, and entirely fascinating. If you haven't been watching "Wolf Hall", hie thyself to On Demand post haste.

While "Game of Thrones" sometimes seems to be unrelenting sex and violence, one has to admit that it is sex and violence done extremely well. Now in the fifth (is it) season, GoT's writing and plotting are as good as ever. Episode one of Season six was a tad busy in up-dating us on all of the more important story threads, but I thought it did an excellent job of keeping things straight. I enjoyed the show so much that I did not erase it from my DVR, anticipating watching it again later this week.

You know those "real crime" shows that cram 30 minutes of program into 120 minutes. Secrets and Lies seems to trying to cram 30 minutes into an entire season. I've watched three episodes now, trying to be fair, but I am just totally tired of watching Ryan Phillippe "acting", with extreme anger, upon every little impulse that enters his mind. I don't know where this story is going but I have come to simply not care. It drags on and on with everyone acting like jerks. Only the automaton police detective remains consistent in her behavior. I don't know why Ryan hasn't taken a punch at her tiny little face yet but I figure that as the show stretches on and on that punch is probably lurking in the near future. I will miss it.

Addendum to prior review. The second episode of The Jack and Triumph Show combines verbal crudity with hilarious jokes in a finely honed piece of comedy writing. Triumph's Hollywood and TV put-downs are too good not to be true.

Disappointing! I have watched two episodes and that should be enough to get a "feel" for a situation comedy. The feel I get from this show is noise, throw away writing, and extensive over-acting. It's a Tine Fey show so most reviewers will just love it. I do not. Yes it's full of New York humor, but I'm from New York. I got the humor and did not find it to be particularly funny. Kimmie's naivety has worn thin by the second show. It's time to kill it as a running joke. Disappointing! Want to catch a great situation comedy. Check out "Mom".

When I heard there would be a second season of Broadchurch, I assumed we would have some of the same characters with a completely new mystery. Well we don't. The conclusion of the first season was not as conclusive as it seemed. And . . . I am hooked again.Some of the reviewers here seem to have seen more of the program than I. I have seen only the first episode. I had started watching the Americanized version of Broadchurch. I cannot remember the title. It was OK with smoother production values than the BBC's, but it was just too close to the original British version and not quite as good. I am glad to see that the feel of season two, while different, is as compelling as it had been in season one. I am ready to go with this one!

For a large part of the initial episode, I enjoyed Will Forte's mildly humorous behavior. But, my biggest complaint with the show is its one hour length. It should be a 30 minute show and it might have a future. The jokes become quickly lame and where the show can possibly go in the future seems an unanswerable question. It's a bit like a MacGruber skit. It just goes on too long.

While the title screams "lousy show", I checked out two episodes because of the quality of the cast. I figured the people have to be able to put on a good show. Sorry, the title tells the whole story. The premise is ridiculous. The writing is atrocious. Some of the acting is pretty good, proving that good actors can rise above horrible material. This is city-people vs. rural-people which results in an insult to the intelligence of all people. I gave it a three ONLY because of the cast.

Are we supposed to take this show seriously -- or is it just an unfunny comedy? Totally unbelievable characters, really bad writing, generally weak acting all combine to make nearly unwatchable show. The plot moves forward only because of the insanely intelligent son who has apparently absorbed every piece of knowledge available in the world -- a walking Google/Wikipedia so to speak. The CIA vs. the modern day Russian spies who apparently have agents working on every U.S. street corner. The CIA (this may be the only true-to-life aspect of the show) is totally amateurish and inept. I gave "Allegiance" a "4" only because I was feeling unrealistically generous tonight. Smert Spionam.

I must admit to not having been a great fan of "Breaking Bad". When I decided to really check it out with a few episodes, I did like it but the show was too far along to try to catch up. So, I felt that I had to start with "Better Call Saul" right at the beginning. I did enjoy the first episode. I have not yet seen the second episode with is snuggly waiting in my DVR. The found the first half of the first episode totally intriguing. But then Chuck came into the show. I am not sure what his problem is but I found the character bland and annoying. If I had followed "Breaking Bad" maybe I would know who Chuck is and why he is, but It seems to me that prior knowledge of "BB" should absolutely not be required to enjoy "BCS". Too much of this may eventually put me off of this show. I hope not!

I have seen only the first episode so this must be considered a very preliminary review. I remember Robert Durst when he was in the news, especially at the time of the sandwich theft incident. I had to see this documentary. So far, I am a bit disappointed since the opening show did very little to explain Durst's motivations, essentially how he got to be the Robert Durst we see here. I assume this will improve as the series moves onward but I felt that the initial episode did little to hook me into this story. I came to it already hooked, so I will certainly watch the balance of the series.

I am not a musician and I do not live in New York City, so my criticism of this show may be the result of my country bumpkin lack of musical talent. Love the music. Like a few of the characters. Is everyone at Julliard and in the concert world so hopelessly shallow? Definitely not excellent dialogue writing. It's OK. Worth a watch. Not sure I will be able to stick it out (hate binge viewing) until the final chapter.

I have seen only the first episode of "Ascension" so far. Most SyFy dramatic shows have been very disappointing, often with promising beginnings lapsing into soap opera as the show progresses. I suspect there is a major possibility that "Ascension" will do the same. That said, however, the show does have a reasonably promising opening episode. The plot is a bit too obvious with its progression pretty much telegraphed by the types of characters featured in the initial show. Worth a watch -- but is it really better than "Sharknado"???

I think "The Librarians" needs more time and more episodes to see where it is going. Often clever. Sometimes just goofy. The show's intent is clearly to be an action/comedy. Noah Wylie is looking a bit old. Rebecca Romjin seems to be preserved at some younger age. Any show that includes Jane Curtin and Bob Newhart (YES, Bob Newhart) definitely has something going for it. It is most certainly worth another look. I watched the first half of the two hour (too long) premiere and it has hooked me. Now let's see if it can reel me in.

I first reviewed this show a few weeks ago saying, "I liked the pilot, but now that I've seen more of the show I think it is slipping into mediocrity pretty quickly. This ain't no "West Wing". If the government ever appoints this character as Secretary of State, I am finally moving to Canada. Their government ain't all that much either but at least it manages to do less harm." Have seen a couple of more episodes and I am changing my rating from a 6 to a 1. It's a pretty awful show. Completely unbelievable and, frankly, a bit of an insult to both Ms. Clinton and Ms. Albright. I see Tea Leoni as completely miscast here. Liberal, fair, soft, an all-around "good person" qualifies her for a job in diplomacy in Toyland, not in the real world. As I see it, she plays the character too softly and the writers are constantly taking her in ridiculous directions. ump that family! I can hear Ms. Albright laughing from Georgetown to here.

My initial reaction to the first half-hour of the first show of this season was disinterest. I wasn't finding the actors particularly interesting and the plot seemed very old fashioned. I stuck it out though and now I am deeply into the show and very much enjoying it. What changed my mind? As the story developed, I began to see the direction and convolutions of the plot and it grabbed my interest. I feel confident that the rest of the show will keep my interest.

I have watched only the first two hours of this HBO mini-series. It is too soon, certainly for an sort lot final judgment. The production is superb. The acting, hardly surprising considering the cast, is first rate. The story, so far, is a bit depressing but it is also riveting. I could not stop watching even if I wanted to. I do not!

Too much, too loud, too flashy, too Matt. I have watched one and one half showings of "Constantine" and I cannot remember a single thing about the plots. I do remember that he has flaming hands and the world is simply filled with these nasty little demons ready to do you harm. Fear not, the ineffective Constantine is here to save you. God help you!

Mom is back and Mom is still the best comedy show on television. The writing is crisp, quick-witted, and actually funny. Allison Janney is so terrific in this show that it's almost easy to overlook the excellent work being done by Anna Faris and Mimi Kennedy. Ms. Kennedy has slowly grown into a well-deserved leading role on the show. Mom is a comedy show with real laughs, real humor, and even a bit of a message.

I have watched a few episodes of American Horror Show in its earlier incarnations and I have been repelled by both its content and its throw-everything-at-the-wall style. I decided to give this "freaks" series a shot and I watched the first episode electing to be quickly grossed out by the exploitation of the unfortunate and by crummy production values. Have I been wrong all along or is a new person with cinematic talent and some sensitivity in charge this year? The freaks, mostly make-up and/or computer modification are portrayed as largely decent, caring people. The outside world is insensitive, crass, and dangerous. I especially enjoyed Ms. Lang's performance of the David Bowie song. Weird and oddly affecting at the same time. I told my DVR to keep on recording.

Season 15, CSI - Las Vegas. New season started Sunday, October 5, 2014. Now this show has always been pretty interesting and well done, BUT: Am I the only one who thinks the writing on this first Season 15 episode was incredibly weak and juvenile? The plot was unusually contrived. The dialogue was clichéd and seemingly written for an eighth grade writing assignment. Eighth graders please do not be offended. It appears that a once pretty good show has aged to the point of senescence. Time, I think, for one of those Obamacare phony age panels for CSI, Las Vegas.