puzzledresearcher Reviews

The Lost Room (2006)

Good story, but the characters aren't very believable

[6/10 · 27 August 2019]

After 13 years The Lost Room still holds up as an ok mini-series.

To me the biggest problem is that the protagonist is portrayed as not very bright, making all sorts of errors that a veteran policeman would not be expected to make. Sometimes stories work with the naive or bumbling protagonist, but when your lead is supposed to be a trained law enforcement officer and doesn't know to not leave fingerprints, or how to handle a gun, etc., the character becomes less believable.

The strength of the series is the story itself; as a mystery the viewer is drawn into the story by a plethora of devices.

Flip It Like Disick (2019– )

Infantile infatuation with aspirational lifestyles

[1/10 · 13 August 2019]

The deadening of the American soul could not be better represented than by Flip It Like Disick.

Shallow, infantile, without any anchor in reality, and especially without any consideration of what it actually means to live in a structure on a piece of property, yet somehow Flip It Like Disick represents the sadness that is "flip it" America.

Now all of that could be a good documentary on the vacuity of contemporary "aspirational" lifestyles, if the production values could carry such an undertaking, but this show is pretty low down on the quality scale of "reality TV".

Instead, all that is left is a pain to watch. It will be probably be gone soon.

My Lottery Dream Home (2015– )

Escapist TV and nothing more.

[5/10 · 19 July 2019]

My Lottery Dream Home is a mix of the good and bad on HGTV. The host is ok (David tends to go over the top but that is not necessarily a bad thing for TV.) The guests are whoever they are: winners (not always lottery as some are poker players or even a settlement winner).

Of course the show is like all "reality" show, which means what we see on the screen is not how life really happened. We see a crafted version of how winners go about finding some real estate.

Most of the shows present fairly mundane real estate, with the early seasons having more of the wow-factor in housing.

Still, the emotions of the winners come off as authentic enough.

In the end, MLDH is just another House Hunters variant, a way to push the idea that the American Dream is all about owning a piece of property. So there are no deep reflections, no architectural insights, and not even anything new in TV production.

Any episode is just twenty-some minutes of escapist TV, something to watch while in a waiting room.

Home Town (2016– )

Relatable couple help their town

[5/10 · 28 December 2018]

Ben and Erin come across as a sweet couple who mean well in restoring their town. And this is what the show is about, presenting an idealized vision of a couple, in a manner similar to most other renovation and flipper shows.

The undercurrent of these HGTV shows is not so benevolent, though. Ultimately these shows are designed to make viewers unhappy with their own living situation so that they will go spend large amounts of money at their nearest big-box store.

What I dislike about the renovations is when they get all too interested in cutting down trees for "curb appeal", which is just a way for the real estate industry to sell houses and is often counter to actual quality of life.

Cloak & Dagger (2018–2019)

Hard to stand out in a crowded field of comics-inspired shows

[6/10 · 8 June 2018]

Cloak and Dagger has an unenviable task of entering a very overcrowded field of TV shows about young, reluctant superheroes.

Formula for these type of shows is an overabundance of good looking young people (obviously, as the show exists to sell advertising to the young demographic.)

Still, after just two episodes, the early rating on IMDB surprises me for how low it is (5.9 as of this writing.) Perhaps there are fans of the comics that are disappointed in the version on television.

On the whole, given we are just two episodes into the series, the positives are that the story is creating a complex enough entanglement between the lives of the main characters that, if the writers and directors have done their job well for the rest of the season, a long and interesting story can develop.

The teen angst is too stereotypical but there is no avoiding it in these kind of series. So, what is good here is that Tyrone's life situation in particular has enough supporting characters with decent actors that Aubrey Joseph can play his part with a very reasonable portrayal of a young man.

Unfortunately, the Dagger character and situation is less realistic and I think that is making her the weaker of the two parts.

Worth watching at least for a handful of episodes, to see how this works out.

Kevin (Probably) Saves the World: Pilot (2017) Season 1, Episode 1

Occasional chuckles do not may up for the weaknesses.

[5/10 · 3 October 2017]

(This review based on the pilot only.)

Came across this new show by accident. After watching it, I doubt I will follow it.

There are moments of humor. But for too much of the show the need to force the plot along quickly overrides any possibility for extended funny scenes. Perhaps the funniest line in the show (and a bit risqué for the audience intended) is Kevin calling Snapchat "snap snatch" in a very brief scene, but frankly the implications of that felt out of place given Kevin was speaking to his underage niece.

As far as critiquing this show on its content and script: the pilot comes off as a rather blatant attempt by ABC to pander to the (large) religious sector of the American TV viewing audience. Fantasies about angels (and everything about angels are fantasies) continually appear in media (TV, movies, books, radio shows) and K(P)STW is just another.

The pilot left me with the feeling of it being pulled between being mawkish and being banal. It's not either completely, but somewhere in between. Overt attempts at being a "family" show (as that term is now used) tend to do this, and K(P)STW felt like it is going down that path in the pilot.

The actors are probably too good for a shallow script. Production quality is typical for a network show.

Not a show for me.

The Orville (2017–2022)

May disappoint many.

[6/10 · 10 September 2017]

Based only on the first episode:

I found T.O. to be disappointing. The humor was too sparse, and the show comes off as taking itself too seriously at times. Not quite enough successful humor for a comedy, and too shallow for a drama.

The story in the first episode is a bit formulaic, and even with the little twist by the time the episode is over the development of the story was predictable.

Part of the first episode dragged a little. Suspect that trying to do the great reveal of the ship was overdone and too much of a callback to the original Star Trek movie.

Midnight, Texas (2017–2018)

Mixed bag of magic

[4/10 · 25 July 2017]

Based on the first episode only, Midnight strikes as a mixed affair, with some entertainment value but let down by less than engaging dialogue and character interaction that is too formulaic. The genre (of vampires, psychics, witches, etc.) has become rather worn of late, and Midnight may not be the best entry in this field.

The look, the direction, the scenes are appealing for a small screen production. The town as presented is not too hokey, if a bit contrived.

Boy meets girl is the major plot element (for the lead character), with a large dosage of mystery.

Most intriguing characters are the reverend/pet-cemeterian, and the talking cat. The latter's visual effects are not quite as good as some talking animals in other productions, but is sufficient for the cause.

Cautiously recommended.

The Saint (2017 TV Movie)

Like a Fake Oil Painting but Painted By The Numbers

[4/10 · 14 July 2017]

It was with some reservation that I decided to view the latest version of The Saint, having watched the original TV version as a young person. Remakes often cannot live up to the original.

And that is true here too.

After a few minutes it was clear that this movie is but a series of tropes (e.g., Russian bad guys, rogue nuclear bomb, Arab terrorists, FBI good guys, etc.) strung together with an unimaginative plot. Moreso, I got the feeling that this was intended to be a pilot for a series, or at least the first installment in an arc. This production did not deliver, though, and no more should be made.

Good looking actors do not make a great, or even good, movie. And that summarizes this effort well, as the actors, the sets, the accessories, all *look* like what they are supposed to be for their designed roles in this story. Yet there is no there there. No engaging dialogue. No emotion. No real intrigue.

In the end, it all comes off as one exercise for people with nothing better to do.

Origins: The Journey of Humankind (2017– )

This is what passes as a "documentary" on the National Geographic

[2/10 · 21 March 2017]

Many of us who like documentaries have lamented how American television outlets, such as the National Geographic Channel, have dumbed-down the genre. (In the case of NGC this was not unexpected especially after Fox got involved with them and took significant ownership.)

"Origins" is further evidence of the sad state of this genre.

One key problem is the presenter. Nominally this series is anthropology illustrated, and typically such a presenter would be an expert in the field. That is not necessary though as often a great orator or actor can present in a documentary; but here we get neither. The presenter is too forced, too fake. If this series is aimed at 5 year-olds (as the narration may suggest) using exaggerated speech might be acceptable, but this series is being presented as something for the wider audience.

Then there is the content. Oh dear, the content. The opening scenes of the first episode focus on "fire" and the present goes on about man harnessing the power of the sun (cue image of our star) and... wait.. what? The sun? Our star runs by nuclear fusion, but then the narrative switches to humans with wooden fires...

The show doesn't get better.

This is just television for busy parents, to place their children in front of the screen to keep them occupied.

Time After Time (2017)

Why do contemporary script writers make characters so stupid?

[5/10 · 6 March 2017]

Yes, H.G. Wells as a plot line is overdone. But classics are not bad, if done well.

Yes, Jack the Ripper is a plot that is overused, but again, a classic is fine if well done.

Time travel - is popular these days as TV genre. Again, not a problem if well done.

Here's one of the really big problems with Time After Time: the writers have made time travel very central to the whole story line. It's not just a device to set up a comedy (as in the also-new series Making History), but is part of the discussion within the dialogue. This means time travel is important to the ongoing story.

Yet the script writers have made, in episodes 1 and 2 of Time After Time, the character of H.G. Wells, who wrote the cornerstone work of fiction in the genre, and in this story also the inventor of a time machine, into a rather stupid character. And by that I mean he's not very bright. He has a time machine. He has the key. He already demonstrated that he could take the assistant curator 3 days into the future.

So why, upon discovering this same curator is kidnapped, does he not just go back a bit in time and set out warnings for her, or himself, or somebody, to prevent the kidnapping/killings in the first place?

Herein is the problem with writing time travel stories - it takes some thought to keep it from being silly.

And the scriptwriters here just didn't bother.

Regarding the movie by the same name - it was long ago and I don't mind if ideas and titles are reused, as there aren't really very many novel ideas in plots or characters in all of television.

After the first two episodes, my recommendation is to watch this only if you have some spare time and are not too picky about time travel stories. There are plenty of better works in the genre if you're interested.

Making History (2017)

Situation comedy that struggles

[5/10 · 6 March 2017]

The time-travel genre is blossoming these days with several series in 2016 and 2017. Sadly none of the shows are particularly strong, and Making History is just one more that struggles.

Time travel is just the entry into a situation comedy built around three people. The usual poor treatment of time travel paradoxes is clear in the first episode, but as this is not really a sci-fi show I propose we just let that pass.

Rather, this is a comedy, in which the situations for our characters are built around how two of them are awkwardly out of their time when they travel backwards (and for the third person, Paul Revere's daughter, when she travels forward.) Most of the humor I found flat, hardly worth a giggle.

I suspect this will be a short lived series.

Einstein's God Model (2016)

Fancy words out of a science dictionary a good film does not make.

[4/10 · 25 February 2017]

Sadly, Einstein's God Model is on the whole less than the sum of the parts.

Most seriously, it suffers from some amateurish direction and simple camera work. The acting is not very inspiring, though I suspect the actors could have come off better if they had a more reasonable script and direction.

The script writer(s) put in dialogue that makes it clear that the worlds they use like "M theory" are not really understood. "String theory", "M theory", and the like are just magical phrases as far as this movie is concerned.

I applaud an effort to dramatize the loss of death, but this film should have been so much more than its final incarnation.

Travelers (2016– )

Intriguing take on time-travel

[6/10 · 22 October 2016]

Time travel is very popular in the 2016 TV season, and Travelers holds promise to be one of the better shows in this genre.

First let's get out of the way the bad part - the problem of time travel, or in this case the problem of time-travelers having more capability than they claim. The premise of the story is that future individuals can relocate their consciousness back in time, into another person. Even if we accept that as possible, the problem in the first episode is that this system appears to be able to heal 1) physical brain trauma, 2) severe developmental intellectual handicap, and 3) physical drug addiction. The first episode did not even acknowledge that this is a "power" that the time travelers own, and simply stating that consciousness can be transferred back in time doesn't address this.

Now for the good part: the actors. The show is rich in a quality support cast that are given dialogue a cut above the usual TV fare. The lead actors also do a credible job with their characters. Production value is more than adequate.

Conclusion after just one episode is that this is a series worth trying out.

UPDATE: After second episode - the issue with time-traveling consciousness still remains though in the second episode it is clear that a severe enough drug overdose cannot be overridden by the incoming consciousness. Which strengthens the question I had from the first episode - how did transferring consciousness heal physical brain trauma and developmental issues in two of our characters?

Also, I reduced my rating. While I still find the acting fine, the storyline now I fear is going to end up resting on far too many tropes.

Timeless (2016–2018)

Alternative History Light

[5/10 · 12 October 2016]

Who doesn't like a good alt-history story?

Cutting to the chase (as these IMDb reviews are really more about venting then dissuading or convincing): Timeless is a basic, juvenile fiction, time-travel story with goods guys and bad guys, and maybe the bad guys are not so bad but we don't know that yet.

The glaring weakness is the laziness of the writers, leaving obvious problems within the story unaddressed. For example, our trio just leaves their time machine out in the open, on heavily trafficked property, such as in the second episode where they in their machine turn up in DC (which we can surmise given the image of the Capitol dome in the background) with no apparent concern for its safety. Why wouldn't some passer-by stumble upon the time machine during the day that they are running around the capitol?

Another example: when being recruited in the first episode, why does our trio just go along with the DHS woman's orders? The characters just don't act like real humans ought when presented with these kinds of situations.

Thus for me, and I suspect for anyone who has watch considerable television or large screen productions, there are just too many holes to fill.

The lead character, our hero Lucy, is played well enough to draw out some sympathy, but the lead villain is much too stereotypical (and a great deal of the dialogue is formulaic.)

After the first two episodes, Timeless strikes me as an effort that many serious science- fiction fans will find wanting, though for young adults it may work as a time-killer.

Westworld (2016–2022)

Intriguing but perhaps too bleak.

[7/10 · 2 October 2016]

Reviewing this series after only one episode could prove a folly if the storyline takes an unexpected turn later on.

Initially we are presented with the existential crisis of automata becoming more aware, but also playing throughout episode one is the emptiness of the real humans.

And therein may be a problem, if the only likable, or redeemable, characters turn out to be the androids.

The cast runs from good to excellent; the presentation on screen well edited to provide 70 minutes that one can follow, want to follow, until the end. The dialogue between humans is sophisticated, more so than that of the androids, and that is how at least for now one can tell the difference.

Voyeurism plays a significant role in the first episode and I found it to be slightly too much, too dominating. Though the forwardness of the voyeurism is quite insightful on its own, at times I got the feeling that cheap titillation took precedence over what was necessary.

Initially rating 7 out of 10, I may need to increase that if the series proves to tell a more compelling story in the big picture. Definitely worth continuing to watch for a couple of more episodes to see what happens.

Aftermath (2016)

Disaster Themed With Little To Recommend It

[2/10 · 28 September 2016]

The fixation with dystopias in contemporary television may be telling us something important about our society, but the endless repetition of the end-of-the-world themes these last many years is giving us television shows with little originality.

From only the first episode of Aftermath I fear it is all too much like Fear The Walking Dead. The mother character is very unlikeable - indeed all of the characters are somewhat unlikeable. Stereotyped teenagers. Like FTWD, an attempt is made at presenting family dynamics in the face of an unthinkable disaster. Problem is, no one is endearing, or inspiring. And the family dynamics seem forced and unnatural.

In the end it makes for skippable TV.

Was the camper and the man who jumped the mother when she returned supposed to be zombies? Zombie-demons? Demon-Zombies? Just demon-possessed people? Maybe something else? Perhaps future episodes will enlighten us and there is nothing wrong with leaving this a mystery in the first episode, yet something was definitely missing in regards to the characters' response to these strangely posed humans.

After watching the first episode I do not feel compelled to follow the series.

New Blood (2016)

As mediocre as pre-packaged vanilla pudding

[5/10 · 10 June 2016]

The following is based on the first episode one:

New Blood became a chore to watch a little less than half-way into the first episode.

Upon reflection I think the producers just spent too much time introducing too many characters without furthering a plot that engaged.

Also entwined in the story is a theme of contemporary Brits as immigrants, not presented in a negative fashion but still an underlying theme that seems disconnected from a good detective story, at least in this episode.

Making a story around a corrupt government official and an evil BigPharm company is a bit too much a trope, and without any other enticing story elements becomes a bit.... blah.

I'm unlikely to revisit this show in future episodes.

Containment (2016)

You've seen this before

[6/10 · 20 April 2016]

Trafficking in stereotypes - if only there was a law against that.

"Containment" immediately got on my bad side as it appears the producers are cashing in on the fear mongering about immigrants, Arabs, Syrians, (not to mention terrorism and bio-warfare) so common in America.

Stereotypes - we all love that word, but as so many of the derivative productions we today depend upon such, there is no need to come up with a new word as "stereotype" works fine for so many of the characters in Containment.

So far, after episode 1, Containment offered little to nothing novel or noteworthy to the current TV offerings.

I found it hard to take Claudia Black seriously as the Fed heavy, being she is fixed in my mind as the star of Farscape and then a major role in Stargate. Her character here as Sabine Lommers doesn't really go with her Aussie accent, and Black plays the character with a bit too much ill-temperedness.

David Gyasi does an acceptable job the police major.

One question - why are all the characters so angry (that is, before confinement?) Perhaps director was trying too hard to get people to emote.

The dialogue can be ham-fisted at times: "trust the system", "have faith in the authorities", etc. - as if the viewer has to be spoon-fed the conflict that the protagonists are supposed to feel as their world comes crashing down around them.

Currently I give this 6 stars because some of the supporting actors are fine and the production decent (but not great - the music I found uninspired), but I'll probably change my rating down if I keep watching this and the story never moves the characters beyond stereotypes.

11.22.63 (2016)

Interesting ideas awkwardly presented on screen

[7/10 · 16 February 2016]

Based on the first episode:

One of the few novels I have read in recent years was the original King story upon which this mini-series is based. My rating of this show is not about whether I believe the screen adaptation is faithful or not to the original - usually that does not matter to me - but here the problem that surfaces is that the television adaptation carries over from the novel the weakness of the main character. In the novel I found Jake Epping to be a disappointment as far as a protagonist, and that now is on screen.

The script is awkward in transitioning characters, in making us believe their actions are in accord with real human motives, even more so than in the original novel. We are not given or shown explanations for many characters' actions.

Scene: Jake is sitting at a booth in the diner, signing his divorce papers when Al comes into the front of the diner from the back (and from the 1960's), but with an obvious change in looks such as sporting a rough beard and dirty clothes and coughing blood, whereas only a couple of minutes earlier Al was clean shaven, upright and healthy; the main character Jake presents only a modicum of surprise, where as the natural human reaction should be much stronger. This is not only due to James Franco's acting but also the script which is undermining the scene.

Once again a very common problem in television dramas surfaces in this story - a lead protagonist acting uncharacteristically stupid or out of type.

We are first presented Jake as he is teaching English (composition), and the scenes in his classroom present him as being a very competent, aware, and compassionate teacher. Such a person ought to have been more observant when around Al in the diner, and less blundering when around various people back in 1960.

As far as time travel as a plot device - used in 11.22.63 as somewhat more than just a device, more like study - we are left with the essential paradoxes such stories will always bring. There is no need to ding this production for the inherent problems of time-travel. Either we accept the premise of the story or we do not.

After watching the first episode I am only somewhat interested in viewing the rest of the series.

Lucky Man (2016–2018)

Intriguing but may not be everyone's cup of tea

[6/10 · 31 January 2016]

This review is compiled after watching the first two episodes.

As a "super-hero" show, though in this case the hero is not supernatural but rather gifted with an unusual object, Stan Lee's Lucky Man is atypical compared to the legion of Marvel and DC comic inspired creations which litter small and large screens.

Very much the first two episodes are about the nature of human flaws, the fabled human condition, and the weaknesses of men. In Harry's case it is gambling. Other characters suffer from this or that addiction or character flaw.

Indeed, the protagonist Harry is a seriously flawed human, portrayed well by the actor James Nesbitt as a gambling addict.

So far one weakness of the show is that in the first two episodes the police station and unit are portrayed as being a bit too lame, the police service unrealistic, and the new section chief is a stereotype of the boss-out-to-get-you. If you are looking for a show about police work Stan Lee's Lucky Man is not for you.

After just two episodes it is difficult to figure out where the story arc is heading. We are left with an unraveling crime story with no apparent direction. The supporting characters around Harry garner more sympathy from me than does the lead character, and while the villains are indeed villainous they are too much the tropes - e.g., the mysterious oriental, the suspicious Mediterranean immigrant, the jealous office worker, etc.

As a small screen production the work is quality (acting, directing, sets, etc.) but not especially innovative or catching. Overall I can describe the production as satisfactory without being trend setting.

I suspect this show will entertain a viewer looking for a little bit of an escape, but don't expect the typical super-hero. This show is not up to the high mark set by genre leaders like Daredevil, but is acceptable and I intend to catch the rest of the season. Perhaps after watching the entire season I may upgrade my rating from the initial 6.

The X-Files (1993–2018)

You can never go home again

[5/10 · 26 January 2016]

The old saying - You can never go home again - applies to the X-Files.

Glaringly in this "season 10" of the X-Files is the constant reminder that time has passed. It's not just that the actors are older, but the genre is now so over-exploited that any attempt to extend the X-Files seems quite derivative, in this case of itself.

I found problematic that we are to believe that all we saw in the last 5 seasons of the X- Files, and in the first movie, somehow is not what was originally presented.

This is Chris Carter and company not being honest with us, the viewer.

Also tiring is the overt placement of ideological talking points. Even if I agree with them, they are presented naively and in a juvenile fashion. It's as if Carter just can't wait to preach and doesn't even try to fit the ideology intelligently into a story line.

After only two episodes, this season 10 is grossly over-rated even compared to IMDb tradition. I suspect legions of Duchovny and Anderson fans are just giving this season top ratings, even though the substance of the episodes are not very good, even by classic X-Files standards.

Within the story itself, the technical explanations given along the way are not intelligible. They are just multisyllabic words given to try and impress the viewer. For example, Scully says she "sequenced" DNA, but the close up of the lab results shown are not in fact a "sequence" of a genome but just diagrams of a very simple DNA test. The explanations given to Mulder for the ARV energy do not make sense (e.g., "zero point", "electro-gravitic", etc.) and while Mulder in the original series may have fallen for that claptrap at one time, we the audience today have become more sophisticated due in part to the many alien-themed movies and TV series that have come along.

The X-Files belongs in the era of Bill Clinton, in which they started and had their best episodes. There the X-Files should have stayed.

Lucifer (2016–2021)

Police detective show mashed up against a supernatural thriller

[4/10 · 25 January 2016]

Based on the pilot only:

"Lucifer" will appeal to the target audience - younger adults - as there are a bevy of good looking actors, a fast moving script, and decent music.

However I found myself not quite able to buy into the premise, and those looking for a more introspective look into life may find this show wanting, or at least confusing.

Some of the dialogue I found cringe-worthy and no more so than between Lucifer and his angelic opposite. The B plot, if it is the B plot, of heaven being displeased with Lucifer's little vacation in Los Angeles, really feels out of place to the A plot - that of the beautiful police detective playing hard-to-get to the devil. So the apocalyptic language from the angel seems quite strange when set against the interpersonal dialogue of the detective with Lucifer. The war-in-heaven theme is not so much a trope as it just doesn't fit with the romantic police detective story lines that I am expecting to unfold.

For older viewers this will probably be skippable. Ultimately I found the pilot interesting but unsatisfying. That the characters are mostly stereotypes is what I expect in not-well-written television productions today.

Childhood's End (2015– )

Worthy for a diversion into another world

[6/10 · 1 January 2016]

First off, a "6" from me is not a bad rating. The ratings across the board at IMDb suffer a great deal of inflation by those who are not critical in general of what they watch. It is difficult for a small screen production to rate a 7 or higher from me.

This 3 part series is not a bad television show. I find it to be better than many other shows that have appeared in the past year or two. I believe many people who are looking for a mini-series in the fantasy/sci-fi genres will enjoy this adaptation of the Clarke story.

There is one significant weakness though that kept me from giving Childhood's End a "7". It is the same weakness in so many small-screen creations that attempt to be serious dramas. It is this: the humans don't act real enough. By that I mean some of the dialogue and the decisions at times of the characters just are not how humans speak or act.

Another minor weakness is how the writers handle religion. It is difficult for many writers for television today to accurately portray religious beliefs. I'm not dinging this production in particular for this because there are few American (US or Canada) television shows which can handle religious beliefs with subtlety and accuracy; religious thought is all too often presented too shallowly.

Some reviewers are quite critical of this series for not being close enough to the Clarke original. While that is not an inaccurate critique I believe that a show such as this has to be judged on its own merits. The credits are quite clear that this creation is "based on" the Clarke story; it is not a transcription of the original.

This is not the type of science fiction that is a space cowboys serial, as so many small (and especially large) screen "sci-fi" are. So if you are looking for a show where the good guys go around shooting the bad guys then this is not the show for you. This is not a feel-good type of story either, in that the major human characters to which we are introduced all die, some of them horribly. Childhood's End is more contemplative and escapist.

I found the 3 part series quite acceptable for binge watching on a holiday.

You, Me and the Apocalypse (2015–2022)

Quirky End of the World

[7/10 · 8 October 2015]

After watching the first two episodes I find YM&tA to be quirky and it has kept my interest.

As long as one goes in with the understanding that this is an off-beat comedy about the end of the world, the tone of the show fits quite well.

Perhaps American audiences might find the British stereotyping of Americana kind of strange.

The comedic elements rely heavily on irony and social commentary, so if those are not your thing then this is not the series for you.

Most of the characters are well performed; I find many of them engaging. The ensemble reminds me a bit of a Coen brothers creation.

Recommended to try at least the first episode and see if this is your kettle of tea.