LIked Season 1 - then there is a slow decline that picks up speed and by the 2nd half of season 3 - most of season 4 - the decline is complete. Season 4 was watched just because we had an investment in the characters - Season 5 - well just couldn't watch it... sort of like the writers were just throwing things at the wall to see what stuck... unfortunately nothing stuck but they kept rolling it out :(
Saw I gave this a '9' ??? So then - I liked Season 1, thought season 2 was meh, didn't think much of season 3 and couldn't get past a few episodes of some of the worst tv I've seen in season 4. ... truly awful people all the way around.
Not sure why I'm going as low as an 8, likely because I had such low expectations. (a never mind - I bumped it to a 9) Cutting to the chase - "A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms" - is a slam DUNK! Highly entertaining, very heartfelt w/o being sappy. Very violent without being graphic and still being highly realistic. I really have a tough time finding anything NOT to like about it. Maybe the best thing is that it is nothing like GOT. Go watch it.
I enjoyed Season 1 of Shrinking - found the characters to be flawed but interesting. The story-line moved us along and there was good humor and heartfelt moments. Season 2 continued down a similar path - but the main story-line (around the death of Jimmy's wife and his subsequent tailspin) gets pounded into us too much. Jimmy becomes less and less someone we are rooting for and someone we'd wish would go away. The Gaby character was tolerable in Season 1, intolerable in Season 2 and hate-able in Season 3. Watching Harrison Ford go from a respectable yet cranky father figure - to a foul-mouthed mean-spirited hack with Parkinson's - is painful to watch. No character's story-line's are moving forward in Season 3 and most are entrenched in muck - and we'd wish they'd sink away. Doesn't help that every time we see Christine Miller on screen we cringe...
Yeah - lots to scrutinize.... the writing is pretty 'convenient' and bordering on incredulous. However - I liked the main characters and the actors who portrayed them. We're not talking award-winning acting but there is good credibility (outside the typically slight female attractive lead who can beat up any assassin twice her size-it would bother me but pretty standard fare these days as I guess we are all supposed to believe women can beat up men these days in an effort towards equality?) Simu Liu is quite good in his role - and Saul Rubinek is always worthwhile. Sinclair Daniel is a bit over her skiis also... but again - typical young beautiful female in a role that is way beyond her age and capabilities... but she is pleasant if not unbelievable. Beyond some typical poorly written spy/sci-fi believability - I found The Copenhagen Test to be very entertaining. The plot around Alexander's (Simu Liu) brain being hacked so his eyes and ears are basically a camera and microphone feeding the bad guys everything going on around him... may be 'out there' but it is played well and creates a good backdrop for the stories to play out. THere is a little bit of 'turning your head and coughing' to get through The Copenhagen Test - but not so much it takes away from it's entertainment value. There are many shows with similar or worse issues but aren't nearly as fun to watch. Hope we get a Season two - its set up for one!
Hmmm... I just guess these 'ER' type shows aren't my thing. Tried getting through a couple episodes but I find The Pitt to be too scattered and bouncing around to hold my attention...I find the ER 'action' to be boring - what HAVEN'T we seen? What heartstrings haven't been tugged? I guess the advantage of this being streamed is things can be gorier and have more skin? Not sure that adds anything of value other than some cringiness? I don't want to be too critical as these type of shows seem to have a lot of popularity. Critics seem to love them but it feels as if they are just enamored with the grittiness and way too much drama? Just not for me... if you've seen one medical show... you've seen them all and The Pitt seems to be going out of the way to 'be different'. It isn't... just harder to watch.
Season 2 is a little better than Season 1.
Ted Danson IS this show - but his age is showing and maybe that is the point. Regardless he is a National Treasure and we enjoy watching him in whatever he is in. Make no mistake - the plot and writing are secondary to the characters and this is where season 2 improves on season 1. The writing is really bad though. Why though does EVERY show have to force a gay character into the story? It is as if the writers are sitting around trying to figure out who needs to be gay - whether it adds to the show or not? My wife and I play a game where we each pick which character is going to end up gay... I won! Don't misunderstand - I have zero issues if a character is 'whatever'... but when it is obviously forced into a story line just to check off some DEI box... that is getting a little old.
NOTE: changing this from a 5 to a 7. I am entertained by this show and legitimately have an interest in most of the characters... it is tawdry and the women are props at best... but I AM entertained. Probably because Billy Bob Thorton's character is so enticing. I've decided that Landman must be a comedy, it HAS to be. There can be no other excuse for the wife (Angela, played by Ali Larter) and daughter (Ainsley, played by Michelle Randolph). At least Ali Larter 'acts' ok but Michelle Randolph is cringey every time we see her. IF - and only IF - I can put those two characters into a comedy/parody bucket then I find the show to be pretty entertaining. Billy Bob Thornton is a treasure and makes the show work. The son character (Cooper played well by Jacob Lofland) is pretty decent and plays well off Bill Bob Thornton's Tommy Norris. Demi Moore isn't bad (other than the ending scene in S02E3 where her falling down sobbing is pretty over-cooked). The downside with Demi Moore - is she doesn't look anything like Demi Moore. That becomes a bit of an annoyance as everytime she is in a scene all I can think of is "is that Demi Moore?" Landman is nothing more than a comical soap opera and taken for that it can be entertaining...
... just get up for a snack or bio-break everytime Ainsley is in a scene.
Update: Season 4:
- I've 'made it' through the first 2 episodes of season 4 of The Lincoln Lawyer... perhaps 'suffered through' would be a better choice of words. - While I understand that taking a not so long book and turning it into an 8-week arch means some 'padding' - but what has happened in season 4 - is - well - horrific.
- Once again the Iggy character is a negative for the show... other than an excuse for demonstrating that yes - we CAN figure out a way to get a lesbian's story into the show. But don't get me wrong - it isn't that she is a lesbian that is the issue - it is that there just isn't any purpose to her... other than padding the show. The 'plot' around Iggy just isn't relevant or interesting.
- To be fair - we have a similar issue around Lorna... the idea she can be a lawyer and 'hold the firm together' is ludicrous... I guess making her a lawyer is a way to remove the real lawyer - from the books - (an intern) as being an additional character in the TV show? GEEZ - HERE IS AN IDEA... - KEEP THE INTERN, GET RID OF IGGY... so same amount of characters and a much much more interesting show. OH - the divorce case that Lorna is working... YAWN... YAWN... YAWH... and this 'gimmick' that a lawyer 'discovers but searching online' - a way to get past an air-tight pre-nup... it would be boring if it wasn't so - oh heck - its boring - we've seen this story before IN EVERY LAWYER SHOW THAT EVER EXISTS... - By making Lorna a lawyer much of the heart of the show has been destroyed.
- The investigator is ok - pretty much covers the book, and Maggie (ex-wife) is ok too - just a bigger presence than the books and - oh - we really don't need the additional drama that comes with her ex being a Micky hater... (grow SOME balls huh buddy?) My wife enjoys Micky - hates Izzy too... is ok with Lorna... so we'll continue to watch... I just need to do better keeping my snarky comments from leaving my lips. I'm reducing my score from 4 to 3 - and I think that is being kind.
(want to make it an '8'? make it 4 intense episodes and cut all the extra uninteresting, meaningless, DEI checkboxes... storylines... Just finished reading the latest Mickey Haller book (The Proving Ground) - and unfortunately I wasn't able to read it without envisioning the characters as they appear in the TV show. For Mickey - that is 'ok' (only ok but not a negative). but for Lorna and Cisco it is a real bummer. Both of those characters are played terribly on the show - not even close to their book characters but mostly because the actors are pretty bad. The Iggy character is - of course - a made up character that has no real place in the stories - and in the show - she is 'forced in' without any real purpose outside checking a number of DEI boxes... I hate to put it like that but there really can't be any other reason I can think of. The show(s) follow the books (again ok at best) - but it is just the terrible acting that diminishes the show (and worse - my reading of the books).
not for me. Just didn't care for the show's jumpy style. Hard to pick up any semblance of story or character development when all we get are small pieces that are jumbled.
Perhaps the writers/director wants to emulate our current youthful generation but if this is them - ouch. To be fair - I only watched the first episode and I had to force myself to get through that. ... and of course the now-typical hollywood diversity police are in full force.
The first season was mildly entertaining. The Noah character is likeable and mostly believable. He overcame how unlikable Joanne and most of the supporting characters are. Season 2 just couldn't overcome that issue. While Noah may be a little too good to be true, Joanne just doubles down on being incredibly needy and unlikable. Even her sister Morgan becomes fairly likeable (in Season one she wasn't). Noah's mom is always presented as highly manipulative - only serving her own needs (as her son Sasha says - my mom doesn't say what she needs she only says what she wants (or something along those lines)). I suppose the show is a testament to the Jewish faith in that your family can be highly toxic but you still put up with them? Noah's wife Esther was a real 'next Tuesday' gal in Season One whereas in Season Two she is softened... but her character becomes much less interesting. Back to Joanne... as other characters are softened a bit Joanne becomes so highly needy - always searching to make a mountain out of any molehill Noah may offer. Throughout the show we are begging for Noah to dump Joanne and come to his senses... Not a great way to watch a show.
I really enjoyed Season 2. I found it to be highly entertaining with good action, comedy but best of all - no one is taking this too seriously. I am somewhat disappointed in the final episode. Not a lot happened and when something DID happen it was a bit anti-climatic (like we didn't see THAT happening) Hope the rumors that there won't be a Season 3 aren't true.... this is a great group of characters and I'd like to spend more time with them.
I've seen two episodes and am still waiting for things to improve. There isn't anything 'natural' in the writing or characters. It seems these 'stereotypical' characters are being forced down our throats. I have yet to see a genuine moment involving Lee Raybon (Ethan Hawke). Yeah - he always parks his van on top of the curb... HOW QUIRKY!. Yeah - he's a bit of a deadbeat (who isn't?), Yeah his relationships amount to his wife/daughter/friends tolerating his continuous bad choices... WHY? What does he really have to offer? The 'bad' guys are cartoonish and the supporting actors are right off the 'we need this... casting sheet'. There seems to be a potentially interesting story/mystery behind the scenes it is just being masked by an unwelcome 'style' that must be the director's wet dream. Again - nothing genuine going on. Update: watched episode 3 and turned it off half way through. geez, how many times can one guy be snuck up on and hit over the head? I have tobelievethey sit in the writer's room and try to figure out how Lee can have the crap kicked out of him each episode. it isn't entertaining. also,after30 minutes of showtime we had about 5 minutes of thingshappening...I'm done.
Honestly - I'm not sure why I gave this even a '3' rating? Perhaps there is some story in this convoluted mess? We typically like Jason Bateman but he's much better in 'light' movies than more serious (Ozark aside which degraded the last season or two)... This is the same Jason Bateman with long hair and a beard. He is meant to be the problem brother but we're never given any kind of back story that meshes. I think there is some backstory to both characters but it certainly isn't flushed out in the first 2 episodes which is I could stand. The flow of the show is a complete mess. The characters aren't 'baked' at all (half-baked would be an improvement). I just don't care about any of it. Beyond the tepid acting (Law and Bateman are complicit), I have to lay much of the blame on Bateman's directing. When the show is a complete mess the director has to take the blame. Basically we get a show with all style and no substance. Just a thin thread tying cliche' after cliche' together. ... bummer
Season 1 was quite good, maybe this is due creating a TV Reacher that captured the book's Reacher very well... Perhaps the best TV character from a book I've seen. Perhaps that skewed how much I liked Season 1? I also liked the Roscoe character quite a bit, played well by Willa Fitzgerald. In Season 1 the Neagley character is done about right! Season 2 is pretty good. I didn't find much chemistry between Reacher and Karla but that wasn't really important. Perhaps the novelty had worn off a bit? However I did find the show to be a mild distraction. Season 3 just jumps the shark. What an awful letdown. It was so bad I probably won't be interested in a Season 4. Two main issues... the Duffy character is awful, both the way the character is drawn up but mostly because Sonya Cassidy is terrible.... we're talking cringing every time she's on screen. The Neagley character and the back-story is completely forced and not remotely tied to the main plot. Just a major effort to create a new show from a fairly minor character. Book readers will know that Neagley doesn't even appear in this book, by itself that isn't an issue but when the character is shoe-horned into the story - to the point of distraction, that is an issue. I don't want to go into how wildly different the tv adaptation is from the book this season was derived from... if the tv show is good that isn't a big deal... but this show is so bad you can't help wonder what the heck were they doing... ? Like many streaming tv-series, this season could have been 2-4 episodes shorter and it may have been much more entertaining. However, with the Duffy/Neagley characters taking up so much real estate - the shorter the series the better... Disappointing... ruined a great character and a promising long-running series.
Most of Season 1 was good. I found it entertaining and fast moving. The end of the season started to get muddled. Unfortunately that trend continued beginning season 2 whereas the show became unwatchable. None of season 2 was believable nor remotely interesting. The main characters from Season 1 were what now, friends, enemies. The plot just had no cohesion and was a convoluted mess. Being vague and mysterious doesn't lead towards anything other than not caring. May be the best example **** show going down the toilet I've encountered. I'd like to say I know how it ended but honestly I couldn't get through to the end. I'd like to say I know what happe
I liked what some other user's said - just another Hollywood self-indulgent show. I can see why the 'pro' critics like this - as they are much more 'insider's than the casual user. I found the pace and camera movement to be distracting if not annoying. I guess I'm just not clued into how hollywood works, or perhaps I just don't care how hollywood works enough to care about this show. (that said I'm not sure hollywood is working all that well anyway. The number of 'adult' non-superhero movies worth watching are slim and none. This is regardless of genre, rom-coms are non-existent (the ones that are made are just 'star-stacking' anyway, dramas are too wrapped in social statements to be enjoyable and while I'm all for diversity I get tired of playing the 'which character will be LGBTQ+' game... Forced diversity ****... and quit changing the gender/race/sexual preference of already established characters... just create new and better stories to do that...)
Mostly an observation - but why do most all of AppleTV+ shows come out with GREAT critic's ratings but over time, user ratings are usually mediocre? Same happens for NetFlix. I always enjoy watching ratings drop over time as the initial PR hype launched by the studios catches up with reality.
As a Star Trek fan I have tried to watch this series several times. I've finally decided it just isn't for me. Perhaps it comes from having recently watched the 3 're-launch' movies, which I found to be very good. In that case the actors/characters are what make the show. Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana (and I'm not typically a Saldana fan), Carl Urban, etal - are excellent. So much so the story/plot is almost secondary... This cast was meh at best. None of the characters seemed compelling whereas Anson Mount and Ethan Peck just don't seem very good as Pike and Spock. It just feels like all the chemistry and characters are forced. The dialogue is just Star-Trek cliches but again, with no chemistry between the characters that issue becomes cringe-worthy. The show also feels quite cheaply made. If you want to compare apples to apples (series to series), then TNG is far superior across the board. I'd even take the original series over Strange New Worlds as campy as it is we always enjoyed the banter and chemistry between Kirk/Spock/McCoy/etal... the banter in Strange New Worlds just falls flat as does the entire show.
Season 1 was at least interesting. We could be somewhat invested in the characters. The story itself degraded as season 1 progressed but it was worth sticking it out. Season 2 has none of that. There is SO MUCH HIDDEN 'MYSTERY' - that well - the plot is hidden from us. The characters are all pretty unlikable and Nicole Kidman is painful to watch. Not sure what the heck Lena Olin's character is for? Couldn't finish watching it - gave it the old college try but glad I gave up.... (I did read what happened in the episodes I didn't watch. I didn't mess anything). Time to put this series down.
Hmmm, I think a rating of '3' is generous but I'll give it some credit for the production value. I am not familiar with the books so I started watching without any leanings one way or the other. Turned it off after 3 episodes (actually 2.5). The acting is mostly bad - but tough to know if it is the acting or the incredibly awful dialogue. Hard to blame it on too many 'cliches' for this type of genre... but wow - you can almost hear what dialogue is coming before you hear it. Without reading the books - I can't say if the characters have been 'redeveloped' for the TV show? I am suspicious though as it IS AppleTV - who likes to redefine a character to meet some sense of 'dei-culture' (too strong a word but not sure what else to call it). Unfortunately AppleTV continues to ruin its shows by hitting us over the heads with how progressive and inclusive their characters are. Sad state of affairs where AppleTV and Netflix in particular are pumping out some pretty lousy stuff - and trying to pawn it off as prestige entertainment.
I keep trying to like the show but I'm not succeeding. There really aren't many (any?) likable characters. All of the 'powerful' women are nasty people. The 'nice' women are so weak and vanilla there isn't anything to root for. Most of the men are 'meh' and outside Mr. Russell - they typically have these fake smiles that are cringe-worthy. I was a fan of Downton Abbey - but the characters were all interesting and it was easy to root for some and hate others (a good thing). However - The Gilded Age is just a very shallow version and I personally don't find it entertaining. I'll go back to the cringe factor... I find this show pretty high on the cringe scale. (the background music works very hard to create mood/drama but it is too loud and obnoxious. Very often it doesn't fit the scene - just trying to overcompensate for bad writing - and worse acting. Carrie Coon is typically a favorite of mine but her character - Bertha Russell is so unlikable... perhaps that's good acting but I find it unwatchable. Morgan Spector (George Russell) - is more watchable but being 'stern' and grouchy all the time doesn't make him anyone I'd root for. Louisa Jacobs - as Marian brings nothing to a nothing role
Dept. Q is a rare case where the show matches the book(s) in entertainment value. The TV show does make some significant changes to main characters but perhaps for the better? At least you can understand why. However the main characters keep their gender/race identities which is actually refreshing. I guess the DEI-cops were sleeping? (note: changing a race/gender can be ok if the character is kept consistent but don't change race/gender just to meet some silly DEI counts that no one really cares about). The story is actually moved from Denmark to The English Isles - but nothing seems to be lost with that. Mathew Goode IS Carl **** as I read more of the books I can easily picture him in the books - and that is a good thing (much like Season 1 of Reacher-TV, until they completely ruined the show in season 2 and even moreso in Season 3... doesn't change the fact that Alan Richardson IS Jack Reacher (not Tom Cruise :( ) The story, dialogue, banter between the characters is excellent. The show moves quickly and is a wonderful mystery that keeps you interested and engaged. Watch it! Can't wait for Season 2 (please don't pull a Reacher!)
(EDIT: tried watching again (I REALLY want to like this show)... but the result is to lower my score... This is an awful show that emphasizes all the bad things streaming studios are doing to ruin great stories and great characters.... Find better actors, stick to the book's characters/plot and add SOME pacing? Oh - find writers who can create dialogue that doesn't make my ears hurt... ) So a little mea-culpa here... I've read the books so my perspective is very different than non-readers. The TV-Ballard character(s) are nothing like the book-Ballard characters. That in itself doesn't have to be problematic. However - in this case Maggie Q is SO much unlike the Ballard character you just can't look past it. I can't imagine that she/writer's/director even acknowledge who this character is? The supporting cast is generally awful, even if they were like the characters in the book... again - if they captured even a sniff of the book's characters it might be ok. ... and I hate to be that guy - but why do characters have to be re-gender/racified? Wouldn't be so bad if they just changed the race of a character but the race AND gender... and with that - basically a completely different invention of a character? Just stop. If I wasn't an avid fan of the books - I'd still hate this show. I've seen Maggie Q in several shows and while she is great to look at, I don't think she brings much to any character I've seen her try to be. Beyond her failure to be a viable 'Ballard', the rest of the cast is worse. Throw in bad dialogue (horribly bad - police procedural cliche' bad...) with bad acting... ... bottom line - book reader or not - this show is pretty unwatchable. And to answer everyone else's question... why are critics giving this great reviews? The answer to all your question is money.
