Kirsty

Episode 5: Damn, that was a good episode. I liked when Geordie noticed that there was something between his wife and Hobbs. Naturally he would think it was an affair. And I liked the way the show used the falling-out between Leonard and Mrs. C to give Leonard a reason to be annoyed with Will, which led to their final scene. It was very effective; I understood where everyone was coming from in each scene; and I didn't guess where it was going. So Will is from a dysfunctional upper-class family who place a high value on keeping up appearances. His father was a horrible bully, who was physically and emotionally abusive to Will, to Will's mother, and to staff. And his mother covered for his father. His father said Will used to be wild. He said, "girls, drink, and tearing around on that bike" -- which makes Will sound a lot like Sidney. Well, Will does go dangerously fast on his bike. But all we know otherwise are two incidents from his teenage years. He slept with a French hooker his father procured for him on his sixteenth birthday. And when Will was seventeen, his father's friend's wife, who must have been twice his age, seduced him; they had an affair everyone knew about; and she got pregnant and had an abortion. Both incidents indicate that he grew up surrounded by some terrible adults. Finally, I can see that Will is a hothead like his father. Boxing is his way of dealing with his anger, and he must have always feared that he would take after his bullying dad. But I never thought he would actually hit Leonard! Great ending, well set up. How do you come back from that? Leonard won't feel physically safe living there. So does this episode make Will more interesting? Absolutely. It looks as though the Church is Will's escape from a screwed-up family, bad influences, abuse, a possibly wild youth, and whatever other coping mechanisms he used to deal with all of that. He probably really wants to be the nice, bland, boring vicar he appeared to be in his first couple of episodes. Of course, if he succeeds in that, if he successfully puts his past behind him, he'll be dull as ditchwater. So the writers need to keep testing him, and haunting him with reminders of his past! Will says he's sworn off sex until he's married, which... Haha, he obviously hasn't been watching this show. I assume he'll be tested on that front next season. My money's on an older woman reminiscent of Meredith.

I watched episodes three and four, the first ones with Will and without Sidney. I actually gasped when Mrs. Chapman (formerly Mrs. Maguire) walked in on Leonard and his boyfriend kissing. The fall-out in the following episode was surprisingly moving. Because it's a nice Sunday evening drama, I imagine she will eventually come to look past an aspect of him that's incomprehensible to her, so that they can be on warm terms again. But realistically, I wouldn't expect much given the time period. She probably would have been shocked and appalled if it was the 1990s, let alone the '50s or '60s. Cathy's storyline is one where things tragically haven't changed much over the years. Her boss's reaction to her problem made me laugh because it was outrageously dismissive, condescending, and sexist. But that's been happening every decade since! A boss would phrase it differently this century, but the result is often the same ie. protect the male predator over his female victims. I'm guessing Hobbs is going to attack someone else this season. It would make sense if the store had lost other female staff because of him, and if other women on staff were warned (by each other) to be wary of him. He chose Cathy because she's new. So far Will does nothing for me, neither the character nor the actor. Judging by his angry attitude to the Mennonite father in episode four, he has daddy issues? But so far so bland. Sidney loved jazz so Will listens to rock'n'roll. Sidney rode a bicycle so Will has a motorbike. It's about as subtle as a brick. But I'm still watching and I'll give him a chance.

I agree with dargosmydaddy. I watched the first two episodes where everyone's worried about Sidney, including Sidney who wonders (with considerable angst) if he's on the wrong path. He gets drunk; he gets in fights; he seems depressed; he sleeps with someone he's just met when she takes refuge for one night at the vicarage! He's coming across as a hot mess. I'm assuming that's on purpose. So when he decides to go with Violet to Alabama it simply looks like he's running away from his problems. He's latching onto the latest pretty stranger in his life, desperately pinning his hopes on her magical ability to save him from himself. Is it believable? Sure, but it's not satisfying. And it's no happy ending for the show's main character. When Geordie said something like "Sidney Chambers happy" at the end, it rang totally false. He's miserable! Leonard and Mrs. Maguire are buying him Cufflinks of Despair! Violet is lovely but does she really want to take on another cause?! If he must leave the show as a walking disaster, I at least expected that his departure would be a step in the right direction for him eg. a move to a new role that he might find more fulfilling. But I would have preferred if he simply left the show when he was in a less troubled headspace. He could have been muddling along alright in Grantchester, and then an offer to work in a city parish comes up that's too good to ignore. Why write him so screwed up (for his final two episodes) that leaving looks like trying to escape himself? And why have him leave for love if you've only got two episodes in which to portray love?

On the evidence of the show to date, I don't think they had any post-diagnosis plan. And didn't they originally liken their show to Breaking Bad? Wasn't it supposed to be a protagonist spiralling into worse and worse behaviour? Maybe there was never supposed to be a season of learning and growing.

The Bert/Darryl subplot was so bad I was sorry I didn't fast-forward through those scenes. I've never fast-forwarded through this show before, but that was almost insultingly bad. I expect better from kids' shows. The Cats stuff was cute. The Nathaniel/Bland!Greg story just didn't amount to anything. I wonder if the show needs Rebecca's dysfunction to make for good tv? Maybe that darkness is what drove it, because I agree with the comments that this season is seriously underwhelming. And the last time I thought it made for really good viewing was the first half of last season, up to Rebecca's diagnosis.

Crikey. That pilot had a lot going on. I was taken aback by how much he crossed the line in the first episode. He stood outside her windows jerking off. He let himself into her apartment and lay on her bed exploring her laptop. He stole her panties and her phone and followed her around the city. I guess I expected more nice facade and less psycho in the early episodes! It makes me wonder where Joe is going if this is where he starts from. How long until Guinevere is in "the cage", lol. I totally agree with the comments here about Joe's take on Beck paying by card, or choosing to reach for the book herself. His interpretation of everything was totally convincing and slightly horrifying. Maybe those bracelets are just in fashion?! I didn't find her oblivious eg. She knew exactly what the lech professor was doing. But what could she do about it? The way the professor handled that situation was very clever because he has total deniability. And I just assume the absence of curtains and locks/passwords is a contrivance for the show to make Joe's stalking easier. Joe's reaction about Mr. Mooney ("He was a dick") stood out. So I'm guessing Mr. Mooney is dead. The scenes in the basement were all creepy, and the flashback made me wonder if Mr. Mooney sexually abused Joe. It makes me worry that Joe is grooming the neighbour's kid. I haven't read the book so no spoilers please! Can I just say that her friend, Peach, was giving good advice. This show could make you really paranoid because he appears to be so nice to her. I'm shipping Joe/Mallet to the head.

Another good episode. But I'm gonna start with a few criticisms: I enjoy flashbacks, but the show keeps flashing back to the same episode and the same scenes. It's like they don't have enough footage. I take it Patrick must have an entire childhood of bad memories of his monstrous father, presumably many summers in France, many examples of his mother getting stoned and disappearing, and probably many incidences of child abuse. But the show clearly has the Episode Two footage and almost nothing else. Okay, maybe I don't like the actress's face, but I thought from her first scene that Mary (Patrick's now wife) was nice, mousy, and boring. Obviously she's a good, healthy person and she seems like a wonderful parent, which can't be said of most characters on this show. But in terms of entertainment value, she can't compare with Patrick, Julia, Bridget, or any of the characters of their parents' generation. I guess we never got to see her having fun, and she has a thankless role in this episode. The show never sold her to me, basically, except as Healthy and Good. But you can be healthy and good and have a bit of personality! It didn't click with me that Julia is like Patrick's mother until she drove away from the house like a maniac, just as his mother had in episode two. And then their affair made a kind of sense. Why would he be drawn to a pleasant, healthy, stable introvert like Mary, after all, when there was a wilder, unhealthier addict and worse parent like Julia in the vicinity? As an Irish person I didn't love that the only Irish character on a show about English aristos is a scam artist taking advantage of an old woman, whose accent they imitate. Anyway, I was appalled at how blase Patrick appeared to be about cheating on his wife while on holiday with his wife, kids, mother and mother-in-law! WTF. He obviously took his wife for granted, and the way he resented the attention and love she gave their kids -- as though they were his competition -- seemed childish. Also, I was appalled by his bender in the USA. His outbursts of rage must have been upsetting for his children to witness. And probably the worst thing he did to the children was when he drunkenly picked up his son and jumped into the pool with him; what a dick. But it rings true? I mean, he's much improved. The only drug he's taking is Prozac or something. He's not a sadist or a sociopath (or a rapist) like his father. He's leading a relatively normal life now with a career and a family. He sometimes tries to be a kind, decent parent. His wife is a much better mother to their kids than Eleanor was to him... Their generation is a huge step forward on the previous generation! But he's still messed up. And he was holidaying in the house where his father first raped him, and with the mother who failed to protect him. Even the way he resents the attention his wife gives to his children makes sense, if I assume that he wants to be mothered by her, because his own mother failed him. Yeah, that's a question that needed answering this week. We should have got more insight into Patrick's past relationship with his mother. Sure, he's clearly still howling with rage that she didn't protect him from his father. And the real betrayal isn't giving away the house but leaving him behind, when she left his father. But that last bit is the only new piece of information we got. It was the only new flashback and it wasn't enough. The funniest parts for me were Patrick going "Whose mother is worse, yours or mine?" at the table, as well as Blythe Danner's character saying that "Children should be seen and not heard" is too liberal. That was wonderful! Also, Mary's mother (Kettle? Petal?) was very enjoyable.

I'm loving this show. That party had great drama! The first thing that made me laugh out loud was Victor going "Remember: It's a party; you're not supposed to enjoy it" or whatever. And the second thing was when Patrick was the only person to sit down before Princess Margaret was seated! Actually, I was amazed to see that Victor was still in Patrick's life. Sure, he's his godfather, but he was also his father's best friend and a huge arsehole. Speaking of arseholes, I enjoyed all the awful people being either directly nasty or hatefully two-faced to each other, as well as massively snobbish about other people! It was a lot of fun. And I loved seeing how Bridget had changed. She spoke differently; her accent was much posher than in the previous episode. But she was a rubbish mother and a horrible daughter too. She had become one of them. I was expecting Patrick to cave to temptation at the party. And I was a bit disappointed when he didn't, not because I don't want him to get better, but how many people in his situation would get clean and stay clean the first time? But then I'm confused about the timeline on this show. And I think this was supposed to be the final/successful time he got clean, not the first time. We appear to have skipped over a stay in a psychiatric hospital too. (I just looked it up and the first episode was set in 1982. Ooooh, an eight year gap during which Patrick probably went on and off the drugs multiple times before this. That explains it!) Julia's an entertaining character. Great to see Jessica Raine playing more interesting women since her Call the Midwife days. I loved Call the Midwife when I used to watch it, but Jenny Lee was a very dull protagonist. And what a great role (Bridget is) for Holliday Grainger too. I love all the period-accurate costumes, decor, drugs, and even television shows in this one. And I liked all the echoes of the past here -- the child on the stairs, the child coming to the door, the bully at the table (Princess Margaret/David Melrose), the broken glass -- all leading to Patrick finally telling someone about the sexual abuse. The literal fireworks after Patrick told Johnny was a cute touch too!

Way late to the game here, I just watched this one. It took me a few tries too, as there was such a terrible/excellent sense of dread in the first half of the episode. The only time I thought the show overdid it was the close-up of David stepping on a fig and squeezing its flesh out with his slippered foot. That was overkill. Keep it subtle, show, this isn't a children's cartoon! On the other hand, the early scene with the housekeeper outside trembling, while David kept her standing there weighed down with the heavy tray was a brilliant way to show us what kind of man he was. I guess he was a sadist and he enjoyed his power over her, an old woman and a kind employee. Having both wife and son creeping around the house terrified painted a pretty vivid picture too. I loved the two American women's bright costumes when they went driving, the yellow dress and the red dress with matching scarves. Also Bridget's fantastic outfits that look to me like clothes you'd buy at a vintage shop and wear to a costume party! I was afraid they were going to show more of the sexual abuse. Jesus, what we saw told the story very effectively. That poor child - did he even have the words for what was done to him? And the way his father forced him to behave as though nothing had happened in the following scenes. My understanding of the kid breaking the glass and throwing himself down the stairs was that he needed to be comforted. He couldn't ask for comfort for having been raped, but they would and did bandage his bleeding hand and comfort him when he fell down the stairs. Imagine growing up there, as vulnerable as a small child is to his father. No hope of escape, no control over what's done to you, a monstrous parental figure playing controlling mind games with you when he's not raping you. This episode told a horrendous story well. I enjoyed the relationship between Bridget and Nicholas! He was wretched to her obviously, but I found it very believable when he criticised her conversation and her clothes, and when he yelled at her at the airport in front of people. I found the men's lack of respect for the women generally to be very believable for the era. I wondered too. What the fuck is wrong with him? I just assumed he was a paedophile whose talk about toughening children up is a bullshit cover or rationalisation for his sexual desire. But I'd also buy that he's repeating the pattern of what was done to him. They did talk about his father's power over him a couple of times in the episode. If he only controlled his wife by way of fear and manipulation, then I'd say that it was his way of showing her who's boss in spite of her wealth and his relative penury; it was his way of punishing her for his having to depend on her financially. No doubt he resented having to marry for money after he was cut off by his father. It's not just a case of a bad marriage, though; he enjoys having everyone in the household terrified of him. I think Bridget should keep walking, because after this episode it wouldn't surprise me if he raped any woman or young person on the property -- wife, son, guest, or employee. No one's going to call the cops on him for rape in 1967, and he knows it too. Good performance by Hugo Weaving.

Oh, I'm glad to find there's a discussion forum for this show here. It's on tv on both sides of the Atlantic, but I don't know where fans discuss shows online anymore. (Any recs are welcome!) This first episode was very good. It's not the best show to watch before bed though! It really put me on edge. The protagonist is so anxious, twitchy, and ill, and he's clearly in need of therapy of some kind. I thought it was an acting masterclass from Cumberbatch, combined with excellent direction and editing. Apparently each episode is based on one of the books. I haven't read any of the books, but I understand that they swapped the order of the first two books for the show ie. the second episode will focus on his childhood where this one focused on his adult addiction. I was glad that I was already aware of his father's crimes, so Patrick's behaviour made sense to me. I was amused to recognise the (fantastic) voice of Pip Torrens, who plays the hateful Tommy Lascelles in The Crown. He plays one of Patrick's father's friends here. Same! I really appreciated that. I actually thought she was going to give in at the end, when she was in the car and he begged her to stay with him. The female characters you're supposed to like and identify with on-screen are usually obliged to care about random men's bullshit, so I was delighted when she was rightfully only concerned about herself and her own safety. She's not a social worker! Also, I loved that when he first saw Alison Williams' character, his inner voice was all "Oh my god, you'll save me, you'll give me a reason to turn my life around", or something like that. She was beautiful, so he was attracted to her, so he appointed her his saviour! It rang really true. I found the show quite funny and witty. I particulary liked when he was falling around the bar at the hotel after the Quaaludes kicked in. When, at the mortuary, he walked into the (wrong) room with the Jewish man's remains, I thought it was a memory or a hallucination. That's the kind of show it is. When he was in the right room, he looked up and saw a lizard on the wall, and then he went a bit berserk for a minute. Was the lizard really there?! Or do you think that was a detail from one of the most traumatic memories of his life? The show looks great, and I liked the mad eighties fashion. Although that mortuary receptionist's glasses were so enormous I wondered if it was realistic!

Meredith's storyline and April's storyline worked for me. Owen's didn't work until there was a hitch. Until then it was a bit of a drag. But once Teddy grasped the circumstances of his visit, then I totally understood why she would feel like a fool for her initial happiness. Owen came off as really oblivious. Plenty of people don't know what or who they want, but he showed no self-awareness of his cluelessness. He probably needs to learn how to function on his own for a nice long stretch. I found April's storyline moving, and I liked what the rabbi had to say. If Meredith/Alex is not on the cards, then let's have Dr. Ben from Felicity. I'm up for Speedman the surgeon. I enjoyed their scenes and would like to see him return. I tend to have less of a problem with it (in fiction and on tv) when the person initiating things is the patient, and when both parties are middle-aged and experienced like these two. It helps when the doctor is a woman. And it helps even more when the patient is a doctor also. But yeah, I completely get where you're coming from.

No. But Whoopi Goldberg's character says "When you finished that first book, you had just left your other life". Maybe you heard "wife" instead of "life"? In any case, I just looked it up and playing a gay lead character was one of the draws for Cumming: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/alan-cumming-being-broadcasts-first-leading-gay-character-cbs-instinct-1072172

Agreed. Does Captain Connor's remark mean that mean John was raped, though he has no memory of it? Jesus. I loved John's grandmother jumping when the telephone rang! People still do that, especially older people. Right? It does look like Laszlo's most intimate relationship is with Mary. And I agree that Kilcher's ability to do so much with so little is impressive. I totally agree and came here to say the same. This episode made both Sara and Laszlo seem more human, which was a pleasant surprise. It went further than that with Laszlo. Showing him getting into a huff over a stain on his shirt (or maybe frustration with his bad arm?) made him human, which was lovely. But pressing Cyrus on what it felt like to kill; humiliating Mary in front of Sara and John; and then pressing Sara on what was presumably the worst thing to ever happen to her... what a jerk. It would have helped, in his final scene with Sara and John, if he had at least confessed his own coping methods and his own problems first. But no! He's too special to share. It made me agree with John in the carriage about the impertinence of asking. Unfortunately, John is usually this show's voice of stuffy propriety, so I'm not sure the show agrees with me that Laszlo's ends don't justify his being an arsehole. The weakest scene in the episode for me was the one between Laszlo and Sara in the first half, when she told him the body had been taken from the morgue. I don't know whether it's both actors' weaknesses compounding each other, or maybe it's two stiff, weirdo characters coming off stiff and weird. It all seemed so whispery and unnatural, like Dr. Cornylines meets Miss Fake Actress. I thought the setting of this latest crime scene was great. The show looks good, though the flashes of light in this episode got tiresome.

Yeah, maybe that's what's happened. But it hasn't been healthy so far. I expected Nathaniel to split with Mona way sooner, because he never wanted to end his relationship with Rebecca the first time around. But no! He cheated for eight whole months, and I guess he's still in a serious relationship with Mona? As the show didn't bother to explore why he stayed with Mona while hooking up with Rebecca, I can only assume it's because he's a shitheel. And also that it's not of major importance to the show, because he's of secondary importance to the show. It's about Rebecca and her issues. That scene where she told her therapist why she's afraid of a real relationship with Nathaniel was great. And if the show needs to use Nathaniel to explore her issues, why not? It doesn't mean that Dr. Akopian thinks Nathaniel is the one. She's just trying to encourage Rebecca to take a risk with someone she has feelings for. I enjoy Scott Michael Foster as part of the cast but I'm not counting on a HEA for Rebecca/Nathaniel. I thought the show might end with an ensemble song and dance number tbh. That said, I wouldn't mind if the issues and fears Rebecca has to deal with in therapy were about other aspects of her life too, not just her love life. Maybe that's the point of the baby plot? I'm still puzzling over that one but maybe the baby's arrival will send the show in a new direction. This episode was a surprise. Valencia is dating someone who looks like she could be Elisabeth Moss's older sister! Edited to correct all the names I got wrong!

If this is an allusion to my criticism, I meant that it's a cheap trick. The writer is giving the hero the benefit of more than a hundred years of scientific advancement, to make his hero look good and to make the other people of the time look bad. It's cheesy, so the writers should try not to lean on it too hard. And in my case, I was criticizing not the fact that Laszlo's living the way he chooses, but that he's preaching at others about how they should live, which makes it more pointed. It's a bit like... Have you seen the Titanic movie from the nineties? When the bad guy criticizes the heroine's collection of paintings, he says the painter, Picasso, won't amount to anything. It's a line that deserves an eye-roll. Edited to add: I'm not claiming it's eye-roll-worthy because it's inconceivable or unrealistic, but because it's a cheap way to score points off the villain. That's the point of the line: to put him in the wrong. That's why the twentieth century screenwriter chose the name of a world-famous painter that the movie-goers would be familiar with: to ensure we know the character is wrong in his prediction. Which character? The villain. Which character likes Picasso's paintings? The heroine.

All the city nightlife scenes, uptown and downtown, looked wonderful. I can see where production is spending the millions. The Jewish brothers who are Ye Olde CSI or whatever are having fun, and they're enjoyable to watch. Laszlo and Sara are stiff and reserved characters, so the team -- and the show -- benefits from the presence of the young, lively Issacsons. Another reason they're needed is that they're not rich. Without them, this show would be poshos outdoing plebs at crime-solving, you know? Our three heroes appear to be upper-class, while the victims and (bad guy) Captain Connor are from poor backgrounds. The show needs some working-class heroes and this duo fit the bill. I remember when I first watched the trailer for this show, I guessed that Dakota Fanning's character was on the autism spectrum. (I haven't read the book and this is one thing I'd like spoiled, if anyone can tell me?) If that's not the case, then Sara's flat affect is simply an acting choice of Fanning's. Or to be less generous, Fanning's idea of acting is staring blankly and unblinkingly. Speaking of acting choices, the guy playing Roosevelt is a problem. I wonder if I'm supposed to think John has a drinking problem as well as a brothel problem, lol. And is Mary sleeping with Laszlo or does she just wish she were? Because this is Laszlo's show, I'm gonna guess that Mary is in love with him. Half the time I find Dr. Laszlo Kreizler slightly ridiculous. They need to stop making him preach 21st century mores to 19th century people! And quite often his interaction with the other regular characters is so corny that I'm cringing.

But assuming the show goes through with this pregnancy storyline, don't you think that Rebecca looking to co-parent is a far more likely outcome than Darryl leaving the show? I do. And given how the story has gone so far, I'm not optimistic about the chances of seeing a wise and successful intervention to prevent her from doing so. Huh. Do you think it's possible that avoiding that trope could be the entire reason for this plot with Darryl wanting another baby, Rebecca donating her eggs, and Heather volunteering to be the surrogate? What I mean is: Say the writers want Rebecca to have a kid. Realistically, Rebecca is not going to choose to start a family any time soon. And if she had an unplanned pregnancy, she would get an abortion. The most straightforward way to write in a child for Rebecca is an unplanned pregnancy storyline where she decides against an abortion. But if the writers shared your feelings about that particular tv plot... Then this Darryl storyline is a way to avoid it that produces the same result ie. a biological child of Rebecca's. And it would explain why it feels a bit plotty and forced, instead of character-driven. Or maybe I'm simply over-thinking this storyline because I don't like it. :) Edited to add that I love all the analysis here of Nathaniel's role on the show.

No one has said so. If I recall correctly, Paula (in the previous episode) and Heather (in this episode) expressed their concern about the process Rebecca would put herself through to donate the eggs. They rightly suggested that this wasn't a good time to inject hormones and they were concerned about how it would affect her therapy. But no one tried to confront her with the reality of a mini-Rebecca walking around. The larger question of the *result* of the egg donation process -- the child, the new person, the new generation of her family -- hasn't been raised. I'm sure Naomi will have something to say about it, but only when it's too late to do anything about it!

I'm not usually a big fan of baby or pregnancy stories on tv shows, and this one is no exception. Rebecca broke up with Nathaniel, even though she really likes him, because she doesn't think she's ready to be in a relationship with someone. But she's ready to create a new person?! She's ready to have a son or daughter, who might look like Rebecca's mother, act like Rebecca's father, and sound like Rebecca?! This show could be called "Rebecca, Nooooo!", so I'm accustomed to head-desking at her terrible ideas. But the stakes aren't usually so high, the consequences aren't usually so far-reaching, especially not for other people. Earlier this season, when Rebecca was making a series of bad decisions, it was clear that the show and the viewers were all on the same page. It was clear that stalking Josh was not good or healthy, for example. But this time, it's very unclear. The way the show has told the story of Darryl, Rebecca, and now Heather having a child has not been framed as a mistake, the way Rebecca sleeping with Greg's father was, say. Even though having a child is a far graver decision than consensual sex with your ex's parent. And it's a more frustrating viewing experience when no character on the show is voicing my dismay about this development. Paula knows that Rebecca isn't ready to have a child; why hasn't she said so? Heather seems like exactly the person who would immediately list off the reasons why now is not a good time for Rebecca to procreate; why hasn't she said so instead of jumping on board the Bad Decision Express? This storyline feels like it's being pushed through at top speed with a destination in mind. Does anyone know what that destination might be? Is it simply Darryl raising a child next season who takes after Rebecca?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/27/business/media/reese-witherspoon-producer.html Reese Witherspoon: serious player in the tv industry. I admire what she's doing. And I hope that newsroom show with Aniston is good!

Here's the trailer: What do you think? I think this show looks like a great fit for CBS, although I'm surprised that they paired him with a woman; I'd have expected CBS to pair a gay male lead character with a straight male partner. This isn't my kind of show so I was surprised by just how winning and appealing I found both Cumming's character and the trailer to be. He looks like he's enjoying himself and it was fun to watch. I assume the show will hope to draw in former viewers of The Good Wife; that's where I know him from anyway.

Agreed. That was the stand-out scene and very effective storytelling. I thought it was a great way to deal with an issue in a single episode. The domestic violence storyline in this episode didn't work. It was weak sauce. The fiancee's turnaround seemed too fast. She was all of a sudden way too clearsighted and articulate about her situation overnight. And killing him off in a random hit-and-run was too easy. Probably the best bit was when Paul said "You sound crazy", and all three people in the room firmly contradicted him at the same time. If the show wanted to tell a story about domestic violence and do it properly, they'd need more than two episodes. You'd need a longer arc. Ideally they would introduce a new regular character who gets romantically involved with one of the main characters, and then the show would portray the possessiveness, controlling behaviour, subtle undermining, and gaslighting leading up to the violence. And after each escalating act of violence, they'd show him (or her) being really contrite, upset, and sweet. For a while, it would be this horrible secret shared only by the couple and the viewers. So that the viewers would be first, equally taken in by this charming, attractive new character, and then, desperate for the victim to tell someone! (But maybe the show already has done a story like that in a previous season?) Still, I think it all helps. Better to cover this issue in a quick, shallow way than not at all. Poor Matthew! It would be hard not to blame April, even just for the comfort of having a target for your anger.

Meryl Streep joins the cast for the second season! http://deadline.com/2018/01/big-little-lies-meryl-streep-season-2-cast-hbo-series-nicole-kidman-reese-witherspoon-1202268349/ That's some cast announcement. Has Streep ever worked in tv? Although I loved the first season, I felt it was all wrapped up nicely, so I'm not excited about a second season. But I'll tune in for Meryl Streep! And Andrea Arnold is excellent. I'm delighted for the producers who made this show happen.

On the contrary. A show about the murders of child prostitutes is inherently concerned with power imbalances in sexual relationships. And even if it was a show about puppies picking daisies: an online tv forum is exactly the right place to talk about age gaps between actors. What if some of those so-called puppies are too old to be considered puppies? I'd want to know why. ;P tessathereaper, I'd say 15 year age gaps between couples weren't uncommon among well-to-do, nineteenth century Americans. Didn't women marry very young back then? So there might actually be a legit excuse for it on this show, apart from the usual bullshit. Maybe the historian who posted above could offer a perspective on this. My thing is that I love the setting but I'm disappointed with what they're using it for. Apparently it's shot in Budapest and at $5 million an episode it's the most expensive show TNT has ever produced. I mean, if the ancient Roman empire makes a comeback as a story setting during "peak tv", I'll be disappointed if all the beautiful sets and costumes Netflix pays for are only there to tell us the story of unorthodox Gaius Genius tracking the serial killer who leaves corpses in gruesome, theatrical poses. Meanwhile, his sidekick Doofus Maximus is introduced fully clothed in a scene with a bunch of naked slave women who get no lines while he cries. On the one hand, I'd be oohing and aahing over the look and feel of ancient Rome. On the other hand, I'd be all "This shit again? Haven't we all seen these cliches before? When is he going to tell us that he has to think like the killer to catch the ki-- There it is."

I like period dramas, and I love this setting and time period. This episode set up the story and introduced the characters pretty well, and it mostly looked well (if dark). Overall I liked it enough to stick around for the next one. But I thought it would be better? It's yet another story about a special genius white dude who solves murders. And I found everyone around Lazlo more interesting than him. Like, I was all set to be bored by Luke Evans, but I was surprised to find that he was excellent in the Doctor Watson role of foil to the special genius. You could read every feeling of disgust, discomfort, embarrassment, and exasperation on his face throughout the show. And I'm intrigued by the little we saw of Sara Howard's odd life. Captain Connor's Irish accent is perfect (Just looked him up and David Wilmot is Irish) and his attitude towards the dead kid rang true. But I agree with the criticism of the actor playing Roosevelt; he doesn't impress so far. What was with the direction and score during Mrs. Sweig's scene? If she's not (a) the murderer, (b) a ghost, or (c) a figment of Lazlo's imagination, then the show needs to tone it way down! Right? This tired bullshit where the show indulges in a little titillation, but only for the male viewers. Way to make me roll my eyes in the first five minutes. Still, I was curious about what John was playing at with the ring. Same! Lazlo lives with Pocahontas and Bunny Colvin from The Wire; I hope they get some lines. That reminds me: some of the lines were baaad eg. Lazlo's final monologue while Mary took off his boots by the fire. The show could use a little less over the top atmosphere and a little more work on the script. Edited to add: And I just saw this on Twitter from the tv critic at Slate: In the book, a character is roused from sleeping: in the show, he is roused from having sex with a whore in a brothel. Any show that makes this kind of change is... almost automatically MEHsville That's not part of the book?! Lol, that's... not a great sign.