Being a BBC Three commission, I'm assuming this is aimed at a late-teen/early-twenties audience, rather than at mothers/parents in their thirties/forties/fifties. So perhaps it was natural that the focus was on "educating" the mums to appreciate their daughters perspectives, rather than a more balance attempt to try to get each group to challenge their assumptions.
I suspect each generation faces at least some novel challenges (e.g. social media), while facing some that are persistent (e.g. peer pressure). So there will likely always be a need for programmes like this, aiming to help parents better understand the particular challenges their children are facing as they become adults.
I'm not sure what the USP of this series is. It seems like a simple retelling of history, perhaps for those who have never seen a documentary about the start of WWII in Europe? Is it claiming that focussing on the experiences of a fixed set of individuals, is in some way unique? But surely all drama involves things happening to distinct characters?
Nothing in the first episode drew me in enough to make me want to watch the remainder of the series.
A dire script at the rotten heart of this enterprise, means this show simply can't be saved. Not even worth casting someone from Casualty so they can say: "Shocking!"
Go and watch Doc Martin -- if you want something entertaining in a roughly similar location -- instead.
Watched the first 21 minutes and gave up: "The idea of separating dogs, fighting, scares me."
While a far from novel story, the three female leads (Izïa Higelin, Cécile de France and Noémie Lvovsky) give pitch perfect performances.
Where this film falls down is in giving the two lovers, far too smooth a ride. If you're fighting for freedom, surely the establishment would offer far more resistance? Here, the revolutionaries hardly seem to experience any push-back. There's one bump in the road, but that's really it.
This might have worked if it were built around a fast-paced pursuit or if it were a thoughtful analysis of the difficulty of living according to your professed values, but it is neither. It's a mildly entertaining watch, but in no way thought-provoking, and you wouldn't miss anything of any significance if you were to give this film a wide berth.
I expect (or at least hope) that the source novel goes into much more detail about the traumatic events in her childhood, but here all we have is a brief sketch. It was unclear if she gives an honest account of events; I wondered if she was more involved in what happened back then than she admitted to Patrick. All in all, there just wasn't enough exposition.
This is a pretty simple, and slight, "heist" story -- and it isn't enhanced, or obscured, by the faux space setting and paraphernalia.
Why have the gods of great cinema forsaken us?
Perhaps this really picks up in the remaining four episodes, but at the end of the first two and despite being billed as a "comedy, drama", it seems to be neither much of a comedy nor much of a drama.
P.S. I watched the final episode, just to see if/how this was resolved. I think it's fair to say the reveal wasn't all that surprising. And while Daisy Haggard gave a very measured performance in the final episode, overall it just left me cold.
Rosamund Pike gives a fine performance and Chris O'Dowd gives a (for him) relatively restrained performance. But after watching the first 2 episodes, I didn't care enough to want to watch any more.
There are a few problems here.
Effective casting is the first thing they need to get right in series like this and, while some of the characters here are worth caring about, some are just so overpoweringly obnoxious (and not in a good way).
Secondly, the narration is weak. It often sounds like Luke Kempner (who's done much better work elsewhere) is channelling a very muted Rob Beckett, but the real problem is that the script for the narration (by the credited "Writer", Lee Gant? ) is lacking any real punch. Way way below the gold standard set by Iain Stirling on Love Island.
Thirdly, the (presumably) very limited budget means they've ended up with "cheap and cheerful", rather than effective, mentors. Emily Atack (elsewhere a good actor and great mimic) came across as particularly uninterested in her mentees.
Since I don't find the supposedly funny bits remotely funny, this series would work much better for me if it concentrated on the social observation. I'd be happier if they got rid of Paper Boi ("I used to manage an artist called Paper Boi, but he got blown away"), with the focus instead being on Earn and Van's relationship.
Drab, boring, depressing and completely pointless. It barely had anything to do with space flight/exploration; it might as well have been set in a prison, where a long-serving inmate very laboriously comes to an insignificant conclusion.
Just say no to this turkey.
What must the people who work on this think as they're making it? Surely it must be soul-destroying to work on such rubbish?
ITV would be better off repeating the stronger episodes from earlier seasons than continuing to churn out such drivel. I'm sure this used to have interesting characters and real charm -- but not anymore.
Whoever commissioned this needs to be removed from post before they can do any more harm.
Also, some of the translations from Chinese (Mandarin?) to English seemed overly vague: on a few occasions, I couldn't quite grasp what the speaker meant. And the repeated use of "transparent" in the translated lyrics of the company song, seemed out of place; would something along the lines of "obvious" or "apparent" have been both less literal and also more fitting?
While I thought I knew where things were headed -- perhaps because of a bit of unintentional misdirection -- the conclusion was a surprise and so it is well worth staying with this documentary to the very end.
Yes, there's a plot, things do happen, but really they amount to sound and (muted) fury, signifying nothing.
Something like Tomorrowland (2015) is far more emotionally engaging -- give that a go instead of this pointless pile of piffle.
The Atlanta plotline went on way too long. They teased us with the BTK killer throughout season 2 and all they were doing was setting up a plotline for season 3. Bill Tench's "coincidental" personal difficulties added nothing. Charles Manson was wasted. The atmosphere of the first couple of episodes (the ones directed by David Fincher) was the only enjoyable part of season 2.
I'd unreservedly recommend season 1, but give season 2 a miss. And Netflix, please don't commission a 3rd season.
Other than as a means of redistributing money from advertisers to those working on this production, this serves no purpose. Could only have been worse if they'd cast Danny Dyer.
Here's a test. If you find the following line funny, you may enjoy this; otherwise, give it a wide berth. Rabbit: "Thing is, boy, Flora was a career criminal with a heart of steel, and that heart of steel was made of gold, and that gold was a diamond."
You have been warned.