Television programmes [2]

I am a sucker for cozy crime, it probably comes to everyone after the age of 45. . I am enjoying McDonald and Dodds a lot. There is a new cozy crime series starting tonight but it is set in Provence instead of Bath. Its called Murder in Provence. Its probably made for middle aged women like me.

By cosy crime you mean Agatha Christie-ish?

Have you ever seen Columbo?  I think you'd like it. Not the Agatha sort, but it turns the formula on its head, and has Peter Falk as the lead detective you can't help but want to watch.  Can't seem to get full episodes streaming, I wonder if Europe ever airs it?

On the BBC I loved Foyle's War, with Michael Kitchen. The lead character makes or breaks cosy crime.

Absolutely!

Foyle's War is formulaic, but it's a good formula and I really enjoyed it. I watched it with my mom.

Is there a detective show that's NOT formulaic? Not sure it's even possible.

Some shows are better about not following the same formula each episode. Something like bloody Sherlock has more variety from episode to episode.
But as I said, it is a good formula that Foyle's War uses, and so it is a good thing.


Thoughts?

After the depths of retardation that the last few seasons of Game of Thrones sank to, I am weary of Westeros and it's stupid throne and I will not be watching this new show. I do enjoy some of the casting. Paddy Considine might be fun as the aging king here, and perhaps Matt Smith can avoid over-acting this time around lol. Rhys Ifans has been in so many stupid movies over the years, but I still like his appearance here. The daughter character, whose actress I do not know, has a weird face that seems appropriate.
(Notice how the show has introduced black Targaryans to match certain casting trends in fantasy of late. Rather tiresome.)

halfwise wrote:By cosy crime you mean Agatha Christie-ish?

Have you ever seen Columbo?  I think you'd like it. Not the Agatha sort, but it turns the formula on its head, and has Peter Falk as the lead detective you can't help but want to watch.  Can't seem to get full episodes streaming, I wonder if Europe ever airs it?

On the BBC I loved Foyle's War, with Michael Kitchen.   The lead character makes or breaks cosy crime.

yep Agatha Christie-ish. I have seen Columbo and I always want to punch his head. He is the only TV detective I cant stand. Dunno why.

Forest Shepherd wrote:Some shows are better about not following the same formula each episode. Something like bloody Sherlock has more variety from episode to episode.
But as I said, it is a good formula that Foyle's War uses, and so it is a good thing.


Thoughts?

After the depths of retardation that the last few seasons of Game of Thrones sank to, I am weary of Westeros and it's stupid throne and I will not be watching this new show. I do enjoy some of the casting. Paddy Considine might be fun as the aging king here, and perhaps Matt Smith can avoid over-acting this time around lol. Rhys Ifans has been in so many stupid movies over the years, but I still like his appearance here. The daughter character, whose actress I do not know, has a weird face that seems appropriate.
(Notice how the show has introduced black Targaryans to match certain casting trends in fantasy of late. Rather tiresome.)

The black Tarygaryan is pretty boringly predictable, but I don't mind it in Westeros. There was a similar multi-ethnic casting last time which I quite enjoyed.

Mrs Figg wrote:  I have seen Columbo and I always want to punch his head. He is the only TV detective I cant stand. Dunno why.

there goes my scorecard for recommendations. It may be because the affectations which make him Columbo, are so clearly the affectations that make him Columbo.

yep I do find his mannerisms annoying. Specially when he mumbles a bit, puts that cigar in his hand, waves it round his face and looks wall-eyed at the perp. Can't stand the bloke.

Mrs Figg wrote:

Forest Shepherd wrote:Some shows are better about not following the same formula each episode. Something like bloody Sherlock has more variety from episode to episode.
But as I said, it is a good formula that Foyle's War uses, and so it is a good thing.


Thoughts?

After the depths of retardation that the last few seasons of Game of Thrones sank to, I am weary of Westeros and it's stupid throne and I will not be watching this new show. I do enjoy some of the casting. Paddy Considine might be fun as the aging king here, and perhaps Matt Smith can avoid over-acting this time around lol. Rhys Ifans has been in so many stupid movies over the years, but I still like his appearance here. The daughter character, whose actress I do not know, has a weird face that seems appropriate.
(Notice how the show has introduced black Targaryans to match certain casting trends in fantasy of late. Rather tiresome.)

The black Tarygaryan is pretty boringly predictable, but I don't mind it in Westeros. There was a similar multi-ethnic casting last time which I quite enjoyed.

It made more "sense" last time. As in, the Targaryans shared common features.

Just watched She Hulk on Disney plus.
Only went for half an hour. Quite funny but where there
Going with this is anyone's guess

Just watched the 2nd episode of she Hulk.
Another 30 mins
Not very good.

I can only imagine She Hulk being any good if played for laughs.

About a decade ago I watched The Sarah Connor Chronicles, and thought it was good.  Not sure why I didn't watch the second season, but now I'm remedying that.

Stumbling home from several drinks in the hood (long story including things I've mentioned before, the last drink was on the house )  but damn when watching S2E7 the writing is good!  Fox has a history of greenlighting great shows, then killing them.  This was yet another which deserved to live, but I suppose we should be grateful for two full seasons.

If you haven't watched Sarah Connor Chronicles you should.  Features Summer Glau from Firefly, with the iconic line "Get in if you want to live!"

Features showed a fight scene. Turns out they commonly hire contortionists and then have the actors twist them around at half speed to look like terminators being hammered on and having imhuman things happen which they recover from. The amount of memorization is impressive.

Not played the game, but the trailer for the series looks good.

{{ The game was super popular, (2nd one more debatable) butit was also super cinematic and character focused, in theory this should be one of the easiest games to convert to tv or film. Heres the trailer for the remastered version of the game as a comparison - }}

With Pedro Pasquale and the girl who played Lyanna "baby bear" Mormont, it's got some acting cred.

chris63 wrote:Not played the game, but the trailer for the series looks good.

{{ Mofftas new series, with Tennant in the lead.



Guardian review of first episode summary-

Inside Man is typical Moffat fare. Rollickingly confident, meaty, funny, clever (if not quite as clever, on a line by line basis, as it appears). Wells – cast here after her tremendous turn in Moffat’s last project, the glorious Dracula, and hopefully now a permanent member of his rep company – is brilliant as Janice. The ineffable oddity and unremitting moral authority she brings to the trapped woman gives the whole thing an anything-could-happen air that shifts you anxiously to the edge of your seat, even though nothing truly terrible has occurred. Tennant is in non-frantic, non-spitty mode – which is a relief. Tucci sells his slightly smug, slightly portentous section of the script well, and some fine comic relief is provided in the form of his sidekick, Dillon, a serial killer (“I went to a therapist – I really opened up! She left the profession”) from the next cell. Think Brooklyn Nine-Nine’s Doug Judy with a murderous edge. If you aren’t a Moffat fan, watch it for Dillon alone. If you don’t get sucked into the rest of the romp, I would be surprised, but I’d like to think you had this joy at least.

Evening Standard-

With a star-studded cast and a multi-award-winning writer, expectations for Inside Man have been understandably high. And those expectations should be met — it is utterly compulsive watching, often disturbing in its rawness, with injections of dark humour to soften the blows.
Despite grappling with the most profound questions about religion and morality, there is nothing didactic about the show — it leaves the audience to make up their own minds. And herein lies his genius. While few of the characters in this ethical labyrinth could convincingly be described as entirely ‘good’ people, we find ourselves, sometimes against our better judgment, rooting for them all.

The Independent werent so keen however-

Inside Man remains impeccably watchable.
But Moffatt is, fundamentally, a purveyor of mediocre fare, and Inside Man is no exception...With likeable performances and quippy characters (Wells’ unfortunate teacher remains smart-talking despite bleak circumstances, telling her imprisoner, “I think in the end – and with regret I’m sure – you’re going to kill me”), Inside Man is a weeknight crowd pleaser. Just don’t expect the moral depth, or proficient plotting, of some of its rivals in the emergent “men making mistake after mistake” genre.

Though hard not to detect a hnt of previous anti-Moffat disike in the writer there, I am always wary when they go after a writer in person without example. Its a review that gives praise but also tries to hard not too - making the show both an impeccably watchable weekly crowd pleaser yet mediocre at the same time?

I shall have to nose it out once all four parts are released and see for myself on ths one. }}

halfwise wrote:With Pedro Pasquale and the girl who played Lyanna "baby bear" Mormont, it's got some acting cred.

chris63 wrote:Not played the game, but the trailer for the series looks good.

She looks sort half-downy or something. It's unsettling.

I see Moffat's writing is up to his old standards

"Everyone is a murderer... You just have to meet the right person."

{{ I'll stick a brief review up when I get round to seeing it. Dont mind that line myelf, its a typical 'premise line' you often get in trailers and is often used by the writer as short hand when pitching- it sets out the underlying theme- that you cant tell who might be a murderer, it just takes for events to line up a certain way. Which from what I can tell is the premise of it (Ive been avoiding spoilers so not sure). Anecdotely I was at my mums yesterday and two of her friends were there and they were talking about this show, they are fans of thrillers/murder mystery and consume every tv show going on the matter and are all in their 70's. Their only complaint was Tennant mumbled too much and they had to put the subtitles on! }}

I was driven kicking and screaming to upgrade to a modern operating system, and with it I got apple TV with a free first episode of Foundation.

I had avoided watching it before because 1) I didn't think apple TV would be worth paying for and 2) I was skeptical of all the changes they made.  But now I got it for free, so hey, why not?  Was visiting parents so watched Foundation episode 1 with Dad and brother.  Here's my thoughts.

First of all as a series it takes the basic framework of the story and adds massive embellishments.  It seems to help if you already know the story pretty well, as my Dad hadn't read the book in decades and found the intro episode to be unintelligible.  They start with a completely disconnected, meaningless scene that's not in the books; so poor thinking right out of the box.

I found that the writing and acting in large part was good enough that I didn't mind the embellishments as much as I thought I would.  The emperor being a "genetic dynasty" when at any time there is 3 clones: an older  "brother dusk", a mid aged "brother day", and a young "brother dawn" - fine, okay.  There's scenes where brother dusk is educating brother dawn not unlike the scene in game of thrones where Tywin Lannister is educating Tommen during the wake for Joffrey.  It works.

They've made Gaal Dornich female and black, again fine - especially since the whole planet she comes from it black, so she doesn't seem shoved in there as tokenism.  The actress herself is incredible, so if they stick with her as main character for a while I have no reason to complain - she's one of those who can convey complex thoughts and emotions with her face alone.  Sort of the same skill the actor who plays Tyrion has if I continue the GoT analogy.  I'm not sure if the writing for her is good or she just does so much with what she's given that it seems good.  She can also rattle off mathematical jargon like Kenneth Branagh rattles off Shakespeare.

But there's a couple stupid decisions they've made as well.  The biggest I've read about before (maybe here?) about the convenient terrorist attack just when Hari and Gaal seem to be on their way to execution after the hearing/trial.  Way too coincidental; no mention of the probabilities of the trial outcomes becuase they obviously blew that theme out of the water.  They would have done much better to have shown some incidents before the trial, growing as it progresses.  I think they worked their way into a box by first showing the emporer executing a long time servant just for having some writings about Hari Seldon; so then they needed some big event to change his mind about executing Seldon himself.  Poor writing decisions.

The other thing I didn't like was making the Time Vault into some mysterious entity - it doesn't seem that we'll see Seldon addressing a gathering of the leaders of Terminus.  These scenes are iconic and I think they are blowing it by twisting things around so much.

But I can see continuing with it.  The production values and acting are really quite good, and the writing decisions only sometimes offend me, unlike bloody Rings of Power which makes me want to trash my room every single scene.

Oh God this is why I don't have a streaming subscription. I was curious about The Terror last night and started watching it pretty late. It's now a little past 9 in the morning and I've just finished.
I hate staying up all night so much.

I take it that's a "thumbs up" for The Terror, then. Not thought of or aware of it before, may have to look it up now.