Reviews

On the surface, this is a lookalike of the long running BBC show university challenge. Same kind of format, questions, and so on. Good, if bland, family fare, you'd think, where parents and kids can come together. Bla-bla-bla.

An then inject some Micallef mischief magic: up comes a first-class comedic post-modern de-construction of the genre, with unusual questions, and weird conundrums that don't make sense, all this wrapped together by a satirical homage to Paxman's tenure at the BBC show.

The comedic bits between the students' questions are highly watchable, though one wonders if they are designed for or at the intended audience. Thus, is still the family show network 10 thought they commissioned in the first place?

This is a great coming-of-age comedy series. The timeless angsts of transition to adulthood are revisited from the perspective of a group of (mostly) young women of muslim descent, caught up between the pressure to conform to social norms and the curiosity to explore their own path. The characters and situations are keenly observed -you can tell that for creator Nida Manzoor, this is personal- and the humor is multi-layered, ranging from social critique, to girl-meets-boy sitcom, and slapstick.

The acting is consistently good and the characters are engaging and nuanced. The direction is good, the pace of the show is steady past the first episode. The punk music vignettes are good fun, too.

Overall an enjoyable comedy show with an original tone. 9/10.

This is as much a historical documentary as peaky blinders or pennyworth. Except for the opening sequence, which is factually accurate.

By the end of the first episode, one wonders where the series is going. The authors appear to procrastinate: is it a romantic comedy, a drama, a police procedural, or a political thriller? The story lacks focus, and about 25% of the scenes appear to add no value - except for the odd atmospheric shots. The characters appear to be card-board cut-out tropes of goodies and baddies, complete with corrupt chauvinist cops.

The acting is average, at best, and I found myself yawning and looking at another screen quite a few times.

Production values are mostly good; except for any outdoors locations which are very limited. I enjoyed the lighting and camera work, but that is not sufficient to sustain interest throughout.

Watchable if you have low expectations, or if there is little else on.

6/10.

There was a write up about the new series in one of the newspapers I read (I will not shame this otherwise fine publication by naming it) and their review was positive, so it piqued my curiosity. I watched the first 20 minutes of the first episode of the new series. It is incredibly self-indulgent, and weak. I have had some personal/family experiences with members of this particular Parisian circle. French actors/celebrities behave in ways that are so much more entitled -like monarchy and nobility (as a social class, not a personal quality) had never been abolished. This is not satire, it's a PR job. And it's not funny. If the only claim to fame for the series is that "famous" people will agree to cameo in it, not always acting well, by the way, that's a very thin case for success. There is so little bite in the script and dialogue, that one wonders where the irony and satire have gone? (perhaps Armando Iannucci stole it all?)

I like it. It's witty, well acted and directed. This version of Lupin is a clever re-imagining (with some flaws), trying to fast-forward the original character 100-years. And yes, XXIst century Lupin is the son of African immigrants. And why not? Omar Sy is a great lead character and the production values are good. Perfectly enjoyable light entertainment. I repeat: this is meant to be watched for fun, it's not faithful to the details of the original books, it's not meant to be realistic. Good tv is escapism. It reminds me in a good way of successful series like Hustle, or Leverage. with intricate cons and twists. To the critics: you are right, this is not a series of Lupin faithful to the original books and historical context, in a way that David Suchet's Poirot was. But it is in the same line of re-imagining classics (though not quite as spectacular, but neither on the same budget) as Dominic Cumberbatch's Sherlock. It's an enjoyable ride. Don't begrudge the artistic licence. Have some fun. For god's sake it's 2021!

Clearly the inspiration for this attempt is the very popular Canadian series "still standing" where Canadian comedy star Jonny Harris (of Murdoch Mysteries fame) creates a half-hour, heart-warming and gentle comedy routine about a small place in rural Canada (usually a place with less than 10,000 constituents, often hours' drive away from the main drag). What makes still standing appealing is the message of resilience against all odds and inventiveness that come from the stories about the town folks that Jonny meets, pretends to work with, and gently lampoons. It appears that the producers of the show decided that they could 'innovate around' the 'still standing' format, so as to save on licensing fees. So Mr Allen's show is about small cities (Wakefield in the first ep.) it is about an hour (with ad breaks), and half of it is populated with poor comedic versions of game shows or tv reality, that clearly differentiate it from the Canadian show, but dilute and dumb-down Allen's interactions with the locals. I am sure the lawyers went through every detail to avoid liability. In spite of the often personable performance by Tom Allen, the outcome the show is too often cringe-worthy: so, in a Yorkshire city of 300,000 you have a cathedral and a pie shop! How quaint and original!

This is the second attempt to export Taskmaster from the UK. The US version was pc, tame and boring. New Zealand does one better. There is an attempt to translate the style and tone of the UK show, but it's lame. I don't want to offend the hosts, but they are trying too hard. New Zealand, you can do better: how about a female or indigenous taskmaster? That would be an interesting and relevant variation! Still, the challenges show some innovation and the comedians show some imagination and wit and the show is watchable, with some good laughs. Dear Alex Horne, if you are paying attention, I know that this is your baby, perhaps your best creation (most successful to date), but if you want it to grow, you have to let go a little, invite others to play with it and make it theirs: that will make it even more successful. What you are trying to do is the opposite of big brother, it can't be that formulaic, you need to make room for creativity and innovation.

I get it. The aim of the series is to make sophisticated and hard-to-understand advances in computing and technology less threatening to the consuming masses. But it relies on a crazy/stupid assumption: that we can program machines to match the complexity of human behavior. Yes, machine learning is a real thing, and it can have some really good and useful applications - as exemplified by the program, a GPS enabled navigation system can guide your driving. But beware: if the map has defaults, you'll end up in a ditch. And yes machines can learn patterns, and yes they can generate patterns that humans would not. OK. Here is the catch: if a machine learns to mimic how Miles Davis plays, you'll get Miles Davis played back to you, with some unexpected variations. The machine is not going to give you Roy Hargrove, Kenny Dorham or Don Cherry from that input. I concede to the documentary that AI can help people who have lost a limb live a better life and be creative and contribute to society in a positive way. It is a welcome advance in human development. But can you please refrain from claiming unproven achievements yet. The hubris and anthropomorphic simplification is a real concern, raising unfounded expectations. The overhyped claims of the series are misleading and dangerous: sending people to the moon and back safely is extremely difficult, to be sure. But asserting that if humankind can achieve this, then it can also deliver on the crazy promises of AI is a massive stretch. And how would the film makers explain to workers on an industrial assembly line that teaching robots to do their work is a good thing? it might be, but the proof of that is in the lived experience of the people involved: have their voices been heard? I'm not a luddite. If harnessed for the improvement of the human condition, technological innovation can be a positive force. But a perspective that balances the costs and benefits of innovation and its impact on people must be presented. This is not the case in this glorified infomercial. 3/10 and I'm being generous.

This is not an awful series. If it were packaged as a coming-of-age cop story, it could be ok. But the logic of pretending that 'young' Wallander was born after the kenneth brannagh series were shot - as other reviewers have pointed out, the timeline of this story is way out. My concern is more profound: I don't think this can stand up to scrutiny, even as an out-of-time re-imagining of an unprobable origin story. This is no Endeavour/Morse or Young Montalbano, by any stretch of the imagination. I'd file it alongside the failed Ms Fisher re-boot attempt. The crime story is ok, but the rest of the back-story, context, and liberty with timelines is laughable at best. Watch only if there is nothing else on. 6/10

I was initially apprehensive about the premises of the show. It could easily have been one of those 'dodgeball' US productions where the only brand of humor is slapstick. It's somewhat more subtle than that. American shows usually don't do self-deprecation well -it's just not in the culture. This is a notable exception, even though this particular recipe still contains too much schmaltz and sugar for me. Overall a very watchable production which can bring the occasional smile - though not to the point of making you laugh incontrollably.

This show is an attempt at a comedic look at last week's news in Australia. It's based on one of those high-paced morning radio formats, where everything is delivered at very fast pace in small bites. If you like your jokes to be delivered fast in large quantities, then you'll enjoy the show. Some of the segments can be genuinely funny (they do quizzes like 'supermarket own brand or sports celebrity?' -or a variant thereof- that can bring a smile or two), but the show is let down by the editorial choice to pander too much to tabloid/reality TV for cross-promotion purposes -love island is too much of a cheap target for genuinely funny one-liners. It's watchable, and as I said funny at times, but it lacks the sophistication and ironic de-construction carried by 'Mad as Hell' and 'The Weekly' (both on the ABC). The NZ version is a carbon copy. 7/10

You need some familiarity with the local culture to appreciate all the banter and one-liners (how much do you know about 'Palmerston North'?), but overall the show has been consistently funny for years. I just caught the first two eps of S12 after an extended hiatus. During that time, they tried to fill the gap with the NZ version of 'Have You Been Paying Attention', a downmarket tabloid competitor based on a format from Down Under. My verdict: 7 Days' format is less frantically agitated, which makes for more relaxed and funnier exchanges between the guests. Highly recommended. Perhaps the best way to keep up to date with the weekly news form NZ.

This is par for the course for Australia's largest commercial TV network. It's reasonably well made and acted, but the tone and approach of the script are tugging clumsily at stereotypical tropes that have been seen many times. The characterization is cliche'd, the emotions are forced, the script comes straight from a 'true crime' tabloid formula that tries to sensationalise the story, but without any real substance. Then again, in the current absence of good quality new TV drama, I guess it will have to do, if you can suspend your disbelief. 6/10

The critical reviews about the factual inaccuracies of the script are right: you wouldn't dream running a premier league football team with two idiots and a kit-man. What the critical reviews don't get is that this does not appear to be the main focus of the show. The football club (cleverly or stupidly named AFC Richmond, depending on which part of London you pledge allegiance to) is only a side show. To be fair, the series aims to capitalize on the increasing popularity of the world game in the USA, and is apparently leveraging off the stereotype of the 'yank out of his own depth stereotype'. But the script is way more layered and subtle than the 'intelligence' bomb foisted on us a few weeks ago. Sudeikis is an enjoyable lead in this series. My advice: don't try to stretch your luck too far. If executed without flaws, this concept might be worth one successful season. I enjoyed the first three episodes.

My American friends may take offense about the title I chose for this review, but they have to face the fact: the American investors (including the mighty Disney empire, would could only plead plausible deniability) were taken out to the cleaners by a bunch of bankrupt Russian mobsters. Back in the early 1990s, moments after the fall of the Berlin wall and the demise of the USSR, the US-based Penguins NHL franchise bought a 50% stake in what they believed was the ownership of the most successful hockey team outside North America: the Soviet Army Hockey team (CSKA), which was the backbone of the very successful USSR National team. On paper, that was a brilliant, creative idea. For that kind of money, if the Pittsburgh Penguins could get a couple of Stanley Cup winning players, it was worth it. That's what they thought. And that side of the story is well covered in the movie. What they did not see, is that they were not entering a playing field they knew the rules of. This is evident in the final minutes of the documentary (even though no one admits that they had no clue as to what awaited them). I felt that the documentary did a good job of documenting the facts from both sides of the cultural divide. Where it lacks is in any form of critical investigation is about how naive the Penguins were to make this investment in the first place. In fine, this a magnificent reminder about cultural ignorance. And this is where the effort falls somewhat short of the mark, failing to draw the lessons learned from this very remarkable story. Still very watchable, now that you know the limitations of the piece.

Too many unnecessary twists and turns to the plot. Unless you're binge watching the series in one go, I challenge you to make sense of it all. The premise of the show and the central characters are attractive, the acting is OK. But this plot should be over and done with in 6 eps, not 10. The script has been over-burderned with too many twists in order to fill a 10-eps format. By e9, I had forgotten about half of the plot surprises, and I struggled to follow the details. The s2e10 conclusion was therefore underwhelming. Potentially, this is a good series, but they have to keep it lean and tight. Otherwise, it meanders into distractions. I think a reference for keeping plot lines tight is the much better French series 'bureau of legends'. Unless they improve their game, I am unsure to watch series 3, which was signalled in s2e10 without any subtlety.

The magic of Aardman's films and series is that it is quintessentially British. Shaun the sheep, as a spin-off from Wallace and Gromit was built on this heritage. This series, produced fort Netflix, was clearly designed to broaden the appeal to an American audience, and I get the business logic. But in doing so, they have weakened the franchise. It starts with the opening credits, and the incongruous appearance of a squirrel which does not feature as a strong or interesting character later on. Some of the new stories (e.g. turning the farm into some kind of tourist experience) lack the good storytelling infused with insightful social and cultural observations that made earlier series so enjoyable. Instead, the stories attempt to impose US cultural tropes (eg. the halloween episode with the scary snails eating the pumpkins) onto a British rural setting, which doesn't make sense. Either you make it a true American horror story, and it is the pigs next door that steal the pumpkins in order to engage into a scary ritual, or you make it British, and take the premise that the Farmer had been hoping to showcase the pumpkins at a farmers' show, and then his dreams of glory would have been crushed by some series of inept decisions, only to be rescued at the last minute by the ingenuity of the farm animals, led by shaun and bitzer. Instead the script ended half-way in-between with unbelievably dangerous snails, disappointing both cultural expectations: the happy ending with the trick-or-treat scene was piss weak. Lacking creativity and imagination. Not all episodes are as weak as this one, but the standards have been lowered. I don't believe that you have to lower your standards in order to be more successful, but this series seems to go in that direction. Don't get me wrong: this is still a very nicely produced animation series which your kids will enjoy watching. But it now lacks the irony and social commentary of the original, because it seems to have lost its cultural grounding.

I stopped watching half-way through the first episode. I can't connect to any of the characters, and there is no plot. 30 years ago I stopped watching Derrick 'cause I thought it was boring. This is worse. The accumulation of cliches is fatally underwhelming.

I get the jist of this gig: how about we reboot 'the office' with spies? And then: how about we reboot it with with UK and US spies? that would be awesome! And from this shallow premise, it all goes downhill (if you're American) or down the tubes (if you're AU/NZ or UK). Thank god, they only made a few episodes based on this forgettable brainfart concept. Even under influence, it is hard work to contemplate this shipwreck. What a waste of talent.

I was brought up with West Side Story, and An American in Paris. My mum and dad loved the musicals, it made them happy. I'm sure that they would have loved this one, my mum would have rated it as enchanting, innovative, and 'up with it' (or whatever label people used before 'woke' was trending). Don't get me wrong: this is an extremely well put together production, professional to a t. Mr Miranda is undoubtedly a talented, innovative and charismatic artist. I wasn't born in America, but I get the historical significance of the story, and how it resonates in the current Zeitgeist. I also understand the symbolic affirmation of the casting strategy. In other words, everything you have read in the other raving reviews is probably true. Many people will love it, because it manages to pull on many powerful strings. However, despite all the production values, the innovative score (I am sure that anyone looking closely enough will find elegant musical references from Rogers and Hammerstein to rap, the Beatles and several prog-rock concept albums from the 70s), the spectacular staging and direction, the excellent singing and dancing, and all the other qualities of the show, and despite all these efforts, 2 hours into this I am bored stiff with this piece. It does have its moments, but these are too few and far between. Hamilton is a snooze fest! I guess that if you are a die-hard fan of traditional Broadway musicals, you'll enjoy the show. I felt that the whole thing, even when the score meanders out-of-bounds into rap or -dare, me- jazz, remains a stereotypical, deeply awkward, singing dialogue musical which left me cold. I did not find it had a single catchy, memorable tune, Mack The Knife, oh where art thou? A few months ago, before the lock-down, I was looking forward to parting with a very large handful of hard-earned smackeroos to book a seat for one of the traveling performances coming to my godforsaken little Canadian town -not quite New York prices, but quite expensive by local standards. I had heard about Hamilton for several years, and I even researched booking a trip to NY to see it. As it turns out, the tour was cancelled -and for that I am truly sorry for the cast and crew- and then I experienced the show electronically, in a safe and carefully social distant environment. Perhaps I might have enjoyed it more in person at a live performance? That's possible. I can't but feel disappointed. For me, the show did not live up to the massive hype, hence a 6/10.

What a waste of comedic talent. this is a naive and unsuccessful attempt to make reality-tv with comedians: no script, no substance, hoping that the mere challenge of making the others laugh suffices. no such luck: without a format to de-construct, parody, or ridicule (usually what improv comedians are good at), nothing much happens, and no one is laughing. the premise is shallow, the execution is on a par with the bachelorette, but the latter is funnier and easier on the eye. guess which show i'd rather have watched?

This one has been carefully researched and focus grouped. What are the bits that made top gear so popular? Classic cars, road trips, banter. Whilst the show delivers on spectacular scenery, the main character and the script are so inept, it's unwatchable, boring, pretentious. Good research, failed execution.

I agree with some of the negative critiques of the show: it does not have the potential to be a successor to Morse, or Midsommer, for that matter. But as a once-off parodic distraction, it works quite well. If you take them at face value, the characters are horribly caricatural, but if you take them as comedy, they are quite funny. Think of it as a (perhaps unintended) Alan Partridge version of your ITV sunday night caper, and then it works fine. The characters are flawed, yes; but the acting and production values are OK, and the plot had a few good (if hardly believable) twists. All in all watchable, if you take it for what it is. I don't think they'll turn the pilot episodes into a series, though.

Let's be frank: this is a very silly production. This oil-and-water partnership between a British cop and a German cop in Mallorca - neither character fully delivering to the expected behavioral cliches, in particular the German cop being loose with procedure and displaying a detached sense of humor- does not pretend for one millisecond to be realistic. The script is silly, but the acting is OK, and the location is great, making for a watchable product. If anything, this is a nostalgic series: one that reminds us that having the UK in the EU was good fun, allegedly sometimes in a eurotrash-twisted way (not that anything in S1E1 was untowards). The series has the potential -if it can overcome its shaky cultural foundations- to be a nice companion to "death in paradise" which successfully plays on British-French tropes -this time in the Carribean. And what should we next expect from a post-Brexit BBC crime caper: an Irish-Scottish twisted copper partnership on the Isle of Man? I'm sorry if you read here first, but this last one sounds like a truckload of fun...

I'd beg to differ with the majority of imdb reviews about this show. These guys are modern minstrels: they notice that the king has no clothes on and they make a funny song-and-dance about it. It's a centuries-old tradition! It is so unfortunate that Brexit has so polarised opinions since 2016, to the point that some reviewers on this site mistake the banter for propaganda. Let the opposition win the next election, and then we'll see who becomes the next biggest target. To be fair, the show has distributed ridicule fairly evenly. The Tory government got most of it because it was the most exposed as the party in power, it comes with the territory. I like the last leg because it comes at you from a different perspective, that of being disabled, but not disempowered. Over the past 10+ years, Hills (and his co-hosts) have contributed to transform our perception of minorities, and they deserve credit for that. And yes, with those achievements come the embarrassment that Adam feels he has a franchise to sing and dance. Fortunately, he does not seem to take himself too seriously. Loosen up, people, and enjoy the ride: we may as well have a little chuckle on our way to the gallows!