Reviews

The dialogue and the situations are brilliant and often laugh-out-loud funny. (Humor is highly subjective - my wife doesn't get it at all; but then, she doesn't 'get' New Yorker cartoons and never 'got' Seinfeld.) Bjarne Madel is perfect in this role - so low keyed, so sardonic, so 'ordinary' (as in, somebody you can easily relate to). (He's also great in 'Homicide Hills'). But the way 'Crime Scene Cleaner' merges the prosaic and the profound is very clever. Also, the episodes are about 30 minutes each - which is ideal for me (again, this is very subjective). Have only seen the first 3 episodes so far, but expect the rest of the episodes (3 seasons worth) to be as good.

For production values (cinematography, directing, acting, casting, etc. - especially the period settings and wardrobes) this is a top notch series. Absolutely top notch. As for the plots, well... they are based on Christie mysteries - which you either like or not. But so loosely that it doesn't really matter. The characters are over-the-top and the whole thing is done with humor in mind. Took me, however, about 4 or 5 episodes to really appreciate this series. Initially, Laurence's coldness, his male model handsomeness, his creaseless suit is a caricature of a male chauvinist cop. Again, part of the humor. But, with Season 2 he really showed a very different side of himself. The acting by all the characters is just superb. But, it does take awhile for this series to grow on you (or did for me). And the mysteries themselves are usually actually pretty good.

And the very last (wrapup) episode of the last season is one of the best shows I've ever seen: they made it a musical - and I hate musicals - but this was so clever and enjoyable and funny that I've watched it multiple times.

... if you like "camp" you it will go down well. The lines are fast. Unusual, quirky people, mysteries. Another reviewer here called the setting too "plastic" , another didn't like the lighting. I loved the plastic settings (unusual, original backdrops, outfits, etc) and the bizarre lighting, and the whole aura of Alond. Seems - I hope I'm wrong - that there won't be a Season 2. Disappointed. The characters are all really "over the top." So, it's likely that this series will either be loved or hated. Haven't read the Agatha Christie books upon which the Hjerson character is based, but seems to me would be irrelevant.

This is actually a whole series "Murder In.." with each episode in a different part of France .. and where the investigators are not always the same lead actors (although they do repeat at times). The cinematography is incredibly good and fascinating. And the local interest (economy, climate, etc.) is interesting. As for the murders, for me they are too complex (hence less credible); and the episodes too long (90min- hard for me to do in 1 sitting - but in splitting it over 2 nights, it's hard to remember from the 1st night). Some viewers might indeed relish complex crimes (and, granted, most murder mysteries - complex or not - are usually a bit contrived). The interaction between the investigators is well done ... as is the directing, casting, acting. So, I continue to watch these.

Love this (so far have seen Season 1 and 2, anxiously waiting for 3 and 4). The characters are interesting. Phenomenal setting (Martinique) and pretty good scripting, directing, acting. Light and refreshing. The cases are solved in each episode - which I prefer for police procedurals. I also like that there's not so much gabbiness and introspection - mostly action. There are some family and relationship issues that carry through across episodes - but I much appreciate that they are not handled melodramatically. Don't understand the poor reviews by other users. Also, I find many of the characters' quite riveting to look at (the lead was Miss France at one time). But they also can act.

I probably would have admired it greatly back in 1969, in my youth. But time moves on. Used to love Glenda Jackson back in the day. On news of her passing last week, I thought I should check out this one of hers which I never saw. I still found the Glenda Jackson magnetic and hypnotic. The cinematography was quite good ... considering the year this was made. Indeed everything about the production was letter perfect .. directing, casting, acting. The problem is that it was, likely due to it's fidelity to the book (although I haven't read it, but others here have said), very, very dated. The actors' lines were pretentious and self-conscious - although probably accurate to the period. And a much, much younger me, still trying to understand the world, would have lapped it up. But the world has changed. (OTOH, I generally enjoy period pieces .... regardless of the period. So, not sure why this was sticks in my craw). But I do miss Glenda Jackson.

Likeable characters. And the lead characters are very likeable. Great acting, directing, casting. Plots all make sense .. albeit somewhat farfetched (but that's par for the course with just about every mystery series). And, ironically, although farfetched, some of the twists are predictable (others not). Calling this a 'mystery' series doesn't do it justice. Nor would calling it an 'investigative journalism' series. There are lots of family relationships covered as well. This is mostly a feel good kind of series. Unfortunately the episodes are all approx. 90 minutes, which is more than I like (but others might). I also feel that I know Italy a bit better having seen this series (and having actually been to Italy) - what with the cinematography, and dialogue.

Just saw Episode 1; so original and well done. Probably not everybody's cup of tea ... but if you like historical fiction (I suspect this is actually more historical than fictitious - hard to know) and if you like art/architecture this is great. There are even interesting musical/dance numbers that are quite original. Politics (both the academic, local, and national and sexual) are covered. The interpersonal dramas are convincing. Great casting, great directing. Cinematography really makes you feel like you're in that Weimar Era. Am looking forward to the next episodes ,,, and then perhaps read a book or two on that early 20th Century phenomenon.

Brilliant. Although, midway through it started to seem unnecessarily lengthy (and the foul language had long become tedious); but glad I watched through to the end. The brilliance comes about through the A) writing B) acting C) directing D) cinematography. Re (A), there are big social and psychological and philosophical issues raised: the roles of money, law, science, medicine, race; loyalty (to sibling vs lover, to ideals vs practicality, to our sponsor vs ourselves -as in the case of the PR writer in later episodes) and - metaphorically - the role of the identical twin as stand-in for our own dual personalities (i.e., who are we really? - some of us more afflicted than others with that question); the tricks that our minds can play on us, etc. There are historical references (e.g. 'the father of gynecology'). No doubt many other issues. Also, some commenters here disliked the out-of-sequence segments that occur; whereas I thought that was an especially smart touch of scripting. (B)- Weisz is an acting genius. And her face is always, always fascinating. (C) the directing was brilliant. As was the casting (all the faces and voices just seemed spot-on.) (D) the hues chosen were somber, befitting the story. Also the background settings were often interesting. Great remake of the original ... but also a different story than the original, but touching on the same themes (and then some).

Am entranced with the ambience and feeling of the series. Although nothing much (action-wise) seems to happen during the main portion of each episode, there is a subtle (or maybe not so subtle) twist at the end of each. Many philosophical questions raised, usually in the form of quiet dialogue. The episodes are short. The cinematography and audio are crisp and pleasing. There is a quietness and an ephemeral quality that permeates the scenes. The first episode is very much in sync with many Japanese ghost stories, relating to transformation/hidden nature of living beings. The other episodes also deal with rather deep issues. I haven't fully figured out what all of them mean ... but have an inkling about some: the juxtaposition of nature vs man-made things, the pros and cons of solitude, the beauty of quiet, sparseness, nature; the transitory aspect of our lives. There is a profound aloofness (even while she exudes charm and warmth) about the protagonist. The protagonist is a very good actor ... conveys a great deal of meaning with just an instantaneous expression or glance - and has a fascinating face (imho). This is an intellectual challenge; but as I say, it is very soothing. I'll probably think of more things in my dreams. It's interesting that the name of the pension (guesthouse) is 'Metsa' and in the 3rd episode a visitor has just returned from Estonia where 'metsa', in Estonian means 'forest' ... and the forest in which the pension is located is very central to these stories. That is, there is a connectedness between episodes ... although technically each is a separate little story. Well worth watching.

(imho). The plot, the directing, the casting, the visuals, the audio ... just superb. The sparse setting is as hypnotic as is Florence Pugh's face and expression. Everything about her ... her gait, her spare and controlled gestures (even scenes where her actions are intense and cry out for gesticulation) just draws you in and don't let you go. Most of the dialogue (except that of Cosmo Jarvis) is also sparse and succinct. A few of the scenes are horrific - be forewarned. Without any supernatural content there is , nevertheless, a haunting, surreal quality about the whole production (e.g., the cat, the deathly silences, the sudden scene shifts - from interior to exterior, for example). And, of course, the period furniture, and clothing make this a period piece .. but without the usual trappings.

Never saw this series when first released (2020) because the external reviews were so bad. But a New York Times op-ed piece just asked (now is almost 2023) if it is so bad, why are so many people still watching it? So, had to find out for myself. IMHO it's a scream. One external reviewer said it's just a rehash of 'Sex in the City' ... but because I never saw any of that show, 'Emily' can't be a rehash for me. Granted, 'Emily' is based on stereotypes, is unreal (but what sitcom is ever real?) ... but the lines and situations are LOL clever. And her boss, Sylvie, really brings it home - as does Emily herself: such an effervescent character. I really look forward to each episode (refuse to binge watch, just take them 1 day at a time ... something to look forward to).

The cinematography alone - each frame - is like a pearl in a necklace of painting masterpieces. Settings, costumes, all perfect. As is casting: Lancaster, Delon, Cardinale ... just perfect. Stoppa (who plays Don Calogero), and all the other lesser characters (the priest, the hunting companion, etc, etc) were all superb. The story is a bit slow ... but has to be. To me what stands out is that the Prince (Lancaster) is not so much a gradually shrinking man, but is a thinking man - fundamentally decent - who is much aware of how the world is changing (not necessarily for the better ... even though he is fully aware of the ills of his legacy world ), aware of how little he can personally do to control events, and aware of his own mortality -about which he has mixed feelings also).

Interesting, original story line. Unusual dialogue - in a positive way - in that it was sparse and the listener/viewer has to fill in some gaps. The cinematography was superb, the casting and acting and directing was great. The story develops in an indirect way. Filled with both action and thoughtful aspects. Pretty good history ... although perhaps (?) poetic license taken with some of the historic specifics, but the broader picture .... encompassing man's cruelty to man ... and how the U. S. West was won (not a pretty picture) are correct. Number of episodes, and their lengths, was about right.

Great acting, directing, production values (i.e. Cinematography, scenery, background music, etc). Of course, all or at least most, noir movies and books require some degree of suspension of belief, as does this. But the twists and turns did all surprise me. The casting was, I thought, exceptional: the faces and expressions of the main characters are unforgettable. The message conveyed - at the end - is somewhat cynical and dark, but not unexpected given the circumstances portrayed. This movie is based on a novel ... and I'm now tempted to look up this author and find other books by her (assuming they've been translated).

So far have only seen 3 episodes. #1 and #3 both a 10 rating. #2 perhaps a 7 or 8 rating. The characters very likeable (albeit with flaws). This is probably a form of so-called "cringe" comedy. The episode lengths are - for me - ideal (30minuts) for this kind of humor.

The first half was great, then it got a bit absurd. But the actors - esp. Rueda - were very good. But I always wanted to know how it would end .. so kept my interest, a key rating criterion for me. Rueda is not only hypnotically (imho) beautiful, but has a very animated and dominant presence, and great comedy timing.

..not sure why not. Perhaps the characters too stereotyped; or just not appealing. Perhaps they tried to hard. Perhaps the case (I didn't get through the first episode) was of no interest to me. I've really loved some other S. Korean series and movies ... just not this one. Wish I could say why. The production values (cinematography, etc) were excellent, but sometimes more than that is needed to make it work.

Wonderful acting, likeable characters (with a few exceptions ... deliberately meant to be unlikeable - but not horribly so). Light ... and yet, at times, wistfully sad with the background music of Hitchcock's Marnie (I think). I think even the photography evoked Hitchcock (slightly). The mystery was rather intriguing and beguiling. The main character has, imho, a wonderful face that I fell in love with.

Clever, original, mostly plausible plot; well acted and directed. Amusing (mostly in a low-keyed way, but in a few instances really laugh-out-loud). And the characters are very likeable (imho).

Girl and wolf-cub bond. And, there's a plot, drama. Very sweet. Incredible how the director was able to capture it on film. Good acting. Intelligent dialogue. Great photography and scenery. Feel good movie (mostly).

Insane. Some uncomfortable - very uncomfortable - moments. Also, some dull sections. But some screamingly funny moments. But, as in most good works, the desire to find out what ultimately happens keeps you watching (or reading, in the case of books). Definitely the case here (imho). The subtitle of this movie (or perhaps the original title in French?) is "The Origin of the World", a famous painting by Courbet, which pretty much describes the issue that the film is about. Not 10 stars because it's fundamentally absurd (and there were some slow moments).

Should have been reduced from 8 episodes into 6 .. or even 5. A mix of good and bad (acting, writing, directing). Some characters were almost too stupid to be believable ... but, if you think about it, that's probably an accurate assessment of real life characters as well. I think part of what kept my attention was the face/features of the protagonist ... although subjectively I suspect she's not what most people would consider beautiful. In fact, come to think of it, most of the time she just glowers. (Justifiably, however).

Although it's in English, the audio was atrocious, and with no subtitles it was a struggle. But I got the gist (before I finally bailed out): a fantasy about a very disagreeable genius. Was the real Klimt disagreeable? I have no idea. (He was undoubtedly a genius).

Rarely do I have the patience to watch anything longer than 45 minutes in a single sitting. Not so with this. Great dialogue, directing, acting. Having watched the original TV show in the '50's (not the reruns), I felt that Lucy, Desi, Ethyl and Fred were reincarnated. Although Kidman, Bardem, etc don't look like them, their voices, gestures, expressions brought them all back to life again. I believe the facts presented in this movie were essentially accurate (although it seems likely that the timeline here was compressed - to 1 week, discounting flashbacks - for the sake of dramatic impact). Perhaps (?) if you hadn't grown up in that era, this movie would not impress you as much as it did me.