Reviews

Very watchable- accurate casting- and not as controversial as some may anticipate. The 1st season seems to be setting up what will most likely be a very successful series (of at least 3-4 seasons). Others may disagree, but I see many parallels to the 1st season of Homeland- in that the motivations of the central character remain somewhat of a mystery. Although season 1 does leave you guessing how future seasons will unfold- I still found it to be a complete story line, (and provides a solid foundation for broader series).

I usually do not like tv series that are predominantly episodic (as opposed to serial.. in which episodes are completely interdependent throughout the season) ... but I'm enjoying For the People. It is basically a legal drama about a group of top graduates from the nations best law schools (half US attorneys/ half federal public defenders), battling each other in the highly influential Southern District of NY. Because the series is set in Federal Court- legal issues tend to be constitutional in nature... so the legal issues are a bit more academic than many other legal dramas. I think the characters have an array of personalities & the legal issues hold your attention & the show overall has a good pace. I definitely recommend checking it out.

"21 Thunder" is basically a remake of "Inside Edge," (which centers its storyline around Cricket, rather than Soccer). Actually, both series are listed as coming out in 2017, so I'm not sure which was first. But suffice it to say- Inside Edge is a far better version... much tighter script as well as better casting. 21 Thunder is probably not as bad as many of the review it will receive- but does seem a bit amateurish compared to Inside Edge (which has a more sophisticated development of the business side of team ownership & price fixing operations). 21 Thunder also has some casting issues that weaken the series & also result in a lack of chemistry among the characters imo. (by comparison.. I thought Inside did a good job re casting, chemistry, etc.) If you watch both series I think it will be clear how much of a difference... the solid casting & a tighter script.. made in Inside Edge (Amazon series).

Take away the melodrama.. and you actually get a somewhat realistic view of what its like to be single (or not married) in Charleston.... Maybe more accurately what its like to live in Charleston in the Summer... Excluding the 50 something popping out kids with a girl in her early 20s.

Although there is certainly more drama than one would typically have in daily life, much of the drama actually seems fairly authentic- even if over the top.

Its a Bravo show, so I guess it has to be graded on a curve... But it seems to have a pretty high production value all things considered (actually I've never watched another Bravo series- but I have a general impression of what the housewives series are probably like).

Most of the cast members are pretty normal for Charleston (with a few exceptions...ie Whitney's mom, who is at least entertaining), which highlights that if you were to edit and produce a show of most people's lives...you could make it seem more dramatic and exciting than reality).

Overall, Much better than I would've guessed.

One bone to pick- the theme song is misplaced... this takes place in Charleston/ Not New Orleans (which is very different).

Overall I thought Gallipoli was a top-notch mini-series with high production value, but held back by a few unnecessarily flaws...

The major flaw being the very distracting back-story of Tolly & Bevan (the main characters/ brothers in the series) ... and the girlfriend back home. The way this side story is woven into the series unfortunately makes it seem to be far more defining to the main character... than the war itself.

A somewhat slow paced production like Gallipoli can work if it ends up carrying the sort of gravitas it was aiming for (and that the story deserves). With a few changes this could have been accomplished, but fell completely short due to the girlfriend back-story.

With a better choice of "side-stories" and a few casting changes, this could have been in the major leagues ... but ultimately is just a very good minor league series.

Worth watching, but not as great as it could have been!

Having just watched the Australian version of "The Slap," I was interested in seeing how the US version would compare. It was quite a disappointment.

The Australian version was cast much better & key story elements were developed much better as well (for example the tension and chaos building up to the slap was perfect in the Au version, but completely unbelievable in the US version).

Regarding Casting: Jonathan LaPaglia, who plays Hector in the Au version is a much better fit. Also Alex Dimitriades as Hector's Cousin Harry in the Au version is a much better fit as the sort of short tempered hot- head.

There are many great actors in the US version- but they are unfortunately either cast in the wrong role (in a few cases) or do not work for this series at all (most cases). Thomas Sadoski is a talented actor, but is an example of miscasting. He could have been a decent fit as Hector, but not the correct fit for the role of Gary. Peter Sarsgaard and Zachary Quinto are also talented actors, but do not work for this series at all.

I guess I have to also question the directing. The entire initial episode was completely rushed, disjointed, and simply not believable. (Case in point- the tension between Quinto & Sarsgaard seemed almost joking rather than heated). I think both are good actors, so the problem is likely one that falls to casting or directing?

There are many other problems I could mention but suffice it to say- If you are at all interested in this series, skip the US version and watch the AU version..... Or at the very least, watch the first episode of each and see if you agree (It will only take 1 episode of each to make up your mind).

I would give Foxcatcher a 6.5 as it is worth watching, but by no means a title that should be nominated for best picture. Although I could see the merits of a best actor or best supporting actor nomination for Channing Tatum or Steve Carell.

I do not mind a slower paced movie when watching a biopic- But the trade off I expect, is a story line that provides me with insight into the mindset of the main characters and a moderately accurate portrayal of the events (accepting that some parts of the story or time-line must often be condensed, etc).

THE GOOD: We do get a pretty good insight into the characters of Mark Schultz and Dave Schultz... And John Dupont generally.

THE OK: The film provides a decent insight into the relationship of Mark Schultz & Dupont... albeit with a few holes.

THE DISAPPOINTING: We do not get much of an insight at all into the "Motivations" of John Dupont. Nor does the movie do a good job of exploring the relationship between John Dupont & Dave Schultz (Ruffalo).

In reality Dave Schultz lived on the Foxcatcher Estate with his family for 6 years (1989-1996), whereas Mark Schultz (Tatum) lived there a much shorter period (which ended in 1988). Additionally, according to the real life story, Dave is the brother that Dupont looked to as a best friend and had the closest relationship with- which the movie almost completely avoids.

OVERALL: Probably worth watching, however afterwards (when you undoubtedly go online to look for the Real Story to fill in some obvious gaps), you will likely be disappointed by the fact that the film almost completely avoids the most essential parts of real life events. (which In my case, left me feeling the movie in many ways was a big fail... as it relates to the biopic trade off between slower story/ in exchange for insight into actual events and characters).