stanleyk

I'm having some trouble following it as well, and it seems as though they are keeping a few of the storylines wrapped in a little too much deliberate obfuscation. It seems clear-ish that the assassin wasn't a terrorist or politically motivated, but in fact had some personal motivation based on prior dealings with Ralph. Given Ralph's lukewarm reactions to Meredith's throwing herself at him, maybe he's gay? Or maybe the weirdness with their childhood, their differing memories, the pictures of the girl and boy...pedophile? Something happened at his prior posting that caused the shooter to come after him? I don't know. I'm not super-invested and I feel the show is being too mysterious, such that it's hard to know what's going on. And I think there's a fundamental problem with determining where the viewer's sympathies are meant to lie. Ralph is pretty horrible regardless, but I cannot have any sympathy for any of the English characters because they shouldn't be there anyway. I guess the young Scottish guy with the drunkle is supposed to slightly comedic or at least sympathetic? Nope. Shouldn't be there. I guess we're supposed to align ourselves with Alice, and of the English characters she's the most sympathetic, but I just can't get on board with political machinations or personal interests of people forcibly colonizing another country.

Right, but my issue is that while the show seems to see those later actions as, at best, morally ambiguous, I didn't get the sense that it saw the earlier scene that way. My reading of it was that it was meant to show Jim being a bad-ass and a good street cop: Jim before the Fall. I didn't see it mentioned anywhere that Gordon's actions in this scene were mentioned again as evidence of an early slide into murky actions, but I didn't watch past this scene and my interpretation could be way off. But if that's the way the show chooses to portray him being a good cop, with no apparent awareness of the optics of it, that's what I have a problem with it.

This scene really, really bothered me, and struck me as profoundly tone-deaf to recent real-world events. To recap, the cop is faced with a disturbed white guy with two handguns and at least one sword. The guy has fired shots, taken a hostage at sword-point, thrown her violently down, and is threatening Gordon with the sword. Gordon holsters his gun, despite the guy literally swinging a sword at him, and says he doesn't want to hurt him. Ten seconds later, he pulls his gun, points it at a black boy in a hoodie (and two other people) who appear to be stealing some merchandise, and threatens them. Really, show? I was grossed out enough that I stopped watching. Beyond the politics and optics of it and the show's either ignorance of or disregard for those things, it is not possible for me to see Gordon as any kind of good guy at this point. Unless someone can tell me that this scene was meant as some kind of meta-commentary showing Gordon's total lack of a moral compass and it will be addressed later on, I just can't even with that.

This third series fell a little flat for me, and I think it's because it felt like they really changed Phryne's character in order to force the Phryne/Jack relationship forward. What made the Phryne/Jack tension work so well in the first two series was the knowledge by both of them as well as the audience that no relationship with them would ever really work. You could see Jack really struggling with his desire for Phryne while knowing she will not be in a traditional monogamous relationship. That was totally gone in this series, and Phryne's carefree approach to sex was also gone - did she have any casual sex this series? That's part of the fun of the series! I don't know, the whole series felt a little rushed, a little confused, not very fun, and a little...smaller, or something. We didn't seem to get as much of the supporting characters, the clothes didn't seem as amazing as they have in the past, I don't think there were as many splashy set pieces, and the characters all seemed a bit muted. Overall, a bit of a disappointment. I know they can't drag on unrelieved sexual tension forever, but it makes me wish they'd never started it because the necessary resolution seems to have ruined some of the other stuff I loved about the show. On the back story question, I've read most of the books, and while they do slightly better explaining Phryne's back story, it still never really made all that much sense, from a timing perspective. I think it's best not to do too much arthimetic and let it all go.

This sounds like just about what I expected. Until just recently, based on the billboards around town, I thought this was a telenovela. The style of the marketing just gave my that impression. Despite the fact that the title is clearly in English. And Don Johnson is in the pictures.

Well, your all's commentary tears it for me. I have the pilot and second episode sitting on my DVR, and as entertaining as it is to read the forum for this show, I cannot allot any of my limited tv-watching hours to this dreck. More power to those who vow to see this thing to the bitter, likely quick end, however!

I have to admit that Jason doesn't really bother me. Yes, he's socially awkward, can't read a room to save his life, has trouble seeing the big picture, and says all manner of eye-roll-y things. But after the way he was presented in the first episode, I was surprised that he got along as well as he did with everyone. I don't get a dickish or even particularly arrogant vibe from him. To me it reads more as general skittishness and immaturity, and nervousness in particular at this situation. Oh, and the dogs! I don't care for what the Farrelly brothers are selling movie-wise, but I am a dog person so the menagerie earned some points with me. I will slightly defend Jason on this too. While it was clear he wasn't super-comfortable with dogs (and I generally mercilessly, silently and unfairly judge people when I can tell they don't like my dogs), I also got the feeling with that huge one (a Leonberger, maybe?) that he didn't know how to get the dog to move back and didn't want to be rude to his host's dog by pushing it out of the way so he could work. As a person who lives on this plane of reality, though, of course I take Effie's side on all things practical related to film-making. That said, I don't respond well to her relentlessly upbeat and seemingly constant talking; the "with love" stuff is already chapping my ass. I would join her in the stress-eating, however. In other news, Pete Jones looks like a ventriloquist's dummy, and it is freaking me out.

Count me in on this. This made no sense to me. I didn't really know what to make of his claim that he hasn't really been trying; he seems to talk a lot of shit, so who knows how sincere he was being with that stuff. Everyone seemed a bit fatigued; I'm sympathetic to the procrastinators, so I wasn't as bothered by his attitude tonight. I didn't love what he made tonight, but I'm glad he survived. Glad to see the back of Joseph. Didn't like his personality or his clothes. His thing tonight wasn't creative, but worse it looked clunky and awkward. He also made the classic mistake of the "mumsy" designer on PR: he thinks "sexy" means just cut it up to there and down to there (setting aside the fact that his skirt that he thought was so daring didn't strike me as very short at all). He should have looked to his left on the runway, because Edmond made a much sexier outfit that included a knee-length skirt. Loved Kelly's and thought it deserved the win, regardless of whether it hit Heidi's usual requirements of short and tight. Ashley's didn't do a lot for me and Edmond's wasn't as streamlined as Kelly's. I still like Lindsay and still think she gives some of the most honest talking heads about her own designs of anyone that's been on Project Runway. It's refreshing to hear someone give such accurate assessments of where they stand with the judges and how much they like their own designs, without crumpling into a heap of self-loathing. She likes what she does, but accepts that the judges don't, and I can respect that.

I'll swim against the tide and say that, of the little bits of the three-minute scene we saw, I liked Jason's the best and I understood what they were talking about in terms of his providing a more interesting voice. I thought it was funny, and though he was inarticulate in his interview, he was describing essentially the comedy of discomfort, which has a pretty significant audience. Of course it doesn't hurt that he will clearly cause major dramz for the show. Which just highlights the fundamental question I have with their choice: if they think they're choosing the "best"...the best what? Best independent maker of a short film? I could agree that Jason may have been that. But what about all the other aspects of being a director (most significantly, leading a large group of people with clear communication and organization)? I guess Damon really truly believes that being an artist overcomes all? And the rest of them know that Jason will give them a good reality show. I won't belabor the Damon/Effie situation since I'd just be repeating what Irlandesa and Red12 and others said up-thread, but I'll just add that in my professional life I've often been the only woman in a room. The look on Effie's face as she bit her lip and held her temper while Damon talked over her in his rush to tell her how she was wrong was, oh, very familiar to me.

YES. A MILLION TIMES YES. I abohor the word "panties" and refuse to use it. Underwear. It's all underwear to me. I also get a vaguely misogynistic vibe from the word that I can't entirely explain - like women are little children who need cutesy names for things, or such delicate flowers that their underwear needs a baby name. I don't know. I FEEL WHAT I FEEL.

I actually liked Merline's outift, at least in concept; the execution was a bit messy, but I'm not mad at her win. I would have preferred Ashley's, but, eh. I'm just happy Blake got ousted for that travesty. I suspect he was aufed at least in part because the judges realized he not only doesn't know anything or care to know anything about women's bodies, but he's so immature and enamored of his pretty princess routine, that he actually thinks it's adorable to giggle and squeal "eww! girl parts!" You're supposed to be a fucking designer. Of clothes. For women. To wear on their icky bodies. Get over yourself. I would have been fine with Jake going, too, though. I liked his bra just as much as I did when I bought it at Target five years ago. This is allegedly a design competition, and Jake doesn't seem capable of producing anything innovative or even interesting.

I hope you're wrong too! I do agree the Mark/Emma plot feels rushed, and while I love Keegan-Michael Key and like them together in the abstract, I hesitate with getting fully on board with this direction if it means the loss of Birdbones. I love that character, and it's hard to see how any of the main three characters could continue having much of a real relationship with her if Mark and Emma get together. It shows my age that I thought Zach was pretty hot serving some heavily-eyelinered 80s rocker realness.

None of the women covered themselves in glory tonight. Sure, it sucks to get picked last in what amounted to a popularity contest, but the mature reaction isn't to pout and refuse to participate and sad-sack your way through, as Ashley did. I thought Candice and Amanda and Kelly's mean girl shit was ridiculous, but worse, they seemed completely tone-deaf and clueless. And Laurie's "I'm not a gossipy person" shit-stirring was classic. Without taking the clothes into account, I was fine with any of them going home. (I admit I have a soft spot for Lindsey - I think she's funny and she's always honest about her own designs.) Cheers for Swapnil and Edmond! Jeers for Joseph the chubby misogynist and his boring designs that he's so smug about, and perpetual jeers for Blake (though I will allow it was cool of him to stand up for Ashley...though she should be standing up for herself rather than crying about how everyone's so mean to her).

I wore that exact dress to Homecoming in 1990. Which I want to be VERY CLEAR, was BEFORE this episode aired. You can imagine my excitement when I watched this episode a few months later. I have to say, for how bad things could have been during that sartorial era...I'm less embarassed about wearing this dress than about some of my other fashion choices.

I've been stressy lately and I honestly just the other day was contemplating a Midsomer binge to take my blood pressure down. It's just so...soothing. For a show with gruesome deaths occurring at an alarming rate, that is. And you can leave the room to fold a basket of laundry, come back, and not have missed much, because the mysteries tend towards the non-sensical anyway. I can't say for sure, but I'm pretty sure there have been at least a couple episodes where they just never explained some of the deaths (as has happened on Inspector Lewis, I believe).

I can almost feel sorry for Blake, because he's trying so hard to say shocking things - he can barely get some comments out because he's giggling like a four year old who just said "poop." I think in just a few years he will probably be crushingly embarrassed by his immature performance here. He seems like a painfully insecure person who is massively overcompensating. But...that's as far as I can go. He really is horrible and his seeming desire to be seen in this light (to be a "villain," or to think having no filter makes him "adorable," or whatever the fuck he thinks he's doing) makes him even more gross. Nothing new to add: thought Swapnil should have won, didn't understand why Blake's junior prom look was in the top, didn't really care who went home this early in the game but continue to find the judging mystifying - I hate that Heidi's desire for short-n-tight-n-shiny sometimes elevates club dresses over (in my view) much more tasteful designs.

I hope we get a Season 2, but I'm not sure where they'd go with it. Martin is trusted by no one so some kind of double or triple agent thing won't be happening. I'd be fine with following another character, but vote against Annett. She's just too dense and naive to resist all the Kool-Aid she's ingested, so I'm not sure they could take her anywhere very interesting, nor is she smart enough to do real spy stuff. If what she's already seen and done hasn't caused her to question anything or see shades of gray (and I don't think it has), I don't know what would. On the cliffhanger gunshot, I thought it was Edel Senior. The earlier scene where it takes him forever to get out of his car and then he lingers in the garage pretty clearly telegraphed suicidal thoughts, though perhaps it was a red herring. But his wife left him (and hates him), his surrogate son is a spy, his actual son has left the military (and also hates him), and he at least thinks his daughter might be a spy (who maybe hates him). While somewhat out of character for him to commit suicide, that's a pretty bad set of circumstances for a NATO general. Plus his fish died. His fish! Questions: when Alex teared up during questioning, was it because he felt betrayed by Martin, because he did actually bumble his way into trying to spy for East Germany and got some poor prostie killed, because he realized how close he came to getting caught doing same, because he was afraid of his AIDS test? Or all of the above in just general recognition that everything was just all fucked up? And with Yvonne...are we supposed to see her as just an overall free spirit trying to escape her family by any means? Because she spent most of the season living as part of some kind of peacenik commune/cult, but then suddenly she was singing back-up, dressed like she was in a Whitesnake video, and acting like a party girl. Are we to attribute this sudden shift as part of her flinging herself about in various acts of rebellion? It just seemed a very sudden change in approach and pretty different behavior.

I was initially interested because of Gaffigan, but based on what I've read (here and elsewhere), it doesn't seem like the show is actually attempting to subvert any of the tired sitcom cliches it uses, as I thought at first it might. I mean, when I read that the plot of the pilot is about whether Gaffigan should get a vasectomy, I was half-way out the door: is there really something to cover here that hasn't been covered by the legion of other sitcoms which have done this plot? And now reading that the plot of the second episode revolves around how the schlubby husband isn't as capable at handling the kids as the shrewish wife...ugh. It would be one thing if they took these fatigued and fatiguing tropes and did something new with them, but since it sounds like the same-old-same-old, I don't think I'll bother checking it out.

This was driving me nuts. In addition to calling into question their own "food authority" by repeatedly claiming that they couldn't understand anything he was saying, aren't they always on about how they want to learn something about cuisines they don't know well? Isn't that what they criticized Rue for? Alex could perhaps have chosen a different approach, but he was attempting to educate the audience about Japanese food. For them to be like, "just call it a fried chicken sandwich" doesn't really advance the ostensible "education" purpose of FN. They acted like he was talking about something super-exotic and crazy, rather than a cuisine quite easy to find in much of the country and familiar to a lot of Americans (after all, not all Americans eat only Italian or Southern food, as FN seems to think). And compared to Dom's "uh, and some other Asian spices...," Alex at least appears to know something about food. I root for no one. Except for myself, to stop watching this show, but apparently I'm not even rooting that hard for that, since I keep coming back for another beating from TV cooks who seem to be skilled at neither cookery nor tv-presenting.

I desperately don't want to defend Matthew and his incredibly awkward social skills, but in this context he clearly wasn't referring to the way she looks or her weight. "A beast in the kitchen" among chefs is a compliment, meaning the person is highly skilled and effective. It just came off super-weird because Matthew is awful. I didn't think he came off particularly well - he admitted being a little embarrassed by his behavior, but his big lesson was to have a focused point of view and to be more careful with how he presents himself (note, not anything fundamental but how he presents himself). The latter lesson he should have learned from his appearance on Cutthroat Kitchen. And no lessons learned about, I don't know, just spitballing, not being a total douche? He chalked everything up to his "natural competitiveness," which is reality show speak for "It's ok for me to act like an asshole because I really want to win." It's particularly tone-deaf when the competition depends in great part on likeability. From the short clip of pastry chefs talking, I think it was clear almost none of the food was good. That seems typical of this show - it seems much more rare for the people to be any kind of decent cook (at least within the constraints of the competition), as at this point the focus is almost soley on "stories" and presenting ability. No one really stands out for me; I'm glad Eddie changed his POV, because honestly, if you're a personal trainer, but your POV is "cheat day"...isn't that just what every other show is making? Wouldn't it be more unusual to have a show focused on healthy cooking?

That at least was the in-show explanation (though I'm not sure they said the non-compete was separate; I thought it was a clause in the employment contract), but of course in reality it would be much more complicated. Most contracts have a clause saying that if one clause is found unenforceable, the rest of the contract still stands. So that issue would then have to be litigated. But the show's explanation was in line with the rest of the legal stuff (i.e., didn't make much sense, doesn't really matter). But where the legal stuff did take me out of things was that this whole case was premised on Richard's contract with Hooli - all the lawyers in the case, from Hooli's fancy lawyers to Richard's can't-legally-call-myself-a-lawyer, would have gone over that contract line by line looking for ways to strengthen or invalidate the underlying case, so to have the arbitrator spring an issue that neither side raised is pretty unbelievable. I guess at this point I just have to accept that PP will never really get an unqualified win; I personally find it kind of exhausting to go through a whole season of the team getting shit on to have one semi-triumphant moment in the season finale. I'll keep watching, because there's enough funny stuff, but I suppose I just have to work that into my expectations.

This show, man. I want to love it but it does everything it can to prevent me from doing so. This episode made so little sense to me, and I thought showed the pacing problems the show has had throughout. The events of this episode should have happened at the start of this season and set off an exciting chain of events - instead we marked time seemingly forever as Abe languished in prison and Washington acted like a dolt. The "twist" that in fact Washington was playing a long con to expose Lee was completely unearned and that plot should have spanned one or two episodes - not ten. And as he smirked about how he had set the whole thing up so he could get rid of Lee without exposing him as a traitor, all I thought was, and what about all those guys who got killed in the battlefield so you could execute this dumb plan? And the Arnold/Peggy thing...setting aside historical inaccuracies, I thought it was really clumsy, ham-fisted writing to have Arnold yelling about how it's finally his chance to get what he deserves. A little pat psychologizing about motives and stymied ambition and grandiose narcissism and how he sees Peggy as a desirable possession. The whole thing was silly, and it just showed me how little I'd bought into the Peggy/Andre relationship, because I just didn't care about any of it. I think the only bit I liked was Mary turning into Lady MacBeth. I would like to think that, if the show is renewed, this finale set them up for some exciting moves (and maybe, I don't know, SOME SPYING) next season, but I've been disappointed before.

They were delightfully trashy. They were good-natured enough that I couldn't actually hate them, but they certainly gave me some reasons to. They hit some classic HH peeves: "you can get more toys!" "the closet's only big enough for my clothes!" "stainless steel!" but their ultimate choice was at least practical. I can imagine it's challenging to find a big enough closet for multiple pairs of thigh-high boots. It does genuinely rankle me, though, when a couple goes on and on about how difficult it will be to transition from an enormous five-bedroom house and how they need the garage space and all that nonsense, especially since they were living apart most of the week. The wife seemed a little more practical about it (and her view won out), but it seemed like the guy just wanted a big house as a status symbol.

Me four. I have no great love for Anne, and suffered vicarious embarrassment at her temper tantrum, but, as someone with a bad temper, I would act the exact same way in that situation, including the shame once the temper wore off. I saw the smile as nervousness and embarrassment at her poor behavior, and the apology as sincere. Not excusing the behavior, but I understood it and actually appreciated in one way as a real emotion based on her desire to do well.

I've always resisted the idea of reality show fixing, but that was the same moment I conceded that it's all rigged in favor of which chef is really in with FN; I also knew Jet would win when I saw the line-up, and the way the finale went down confirmed my suspicions for me. Anne's got the biggest FN presence, so she wins. I was only surprised Michael ended up second rather than Jet, but I assume that's because he had an emotional story about his dad (Chopped has to keep the tear-jerking theme going even in "special" episodes!). With these "all-star" Chopped competitions, it feels like an excuse for FN to whine about how they're way better than Top Chef! Way better! See how all the Top Chef alums get chopped and all the FN "experts" win! The problem there is that Top Chef actually has credibility in the serious food world, and none of FN's gimmicky competition shows (which I also love) do.