Reviews

I binge watched LA Law through Season 5 over the span of a few weeks. (I found that I could just listen to it, and got as much out of it as watching it.) The acting was great and the writing mostly great for those seasons. Am I the only one who liked Diana Muldaur as Roslyn Shays? She was spectacular; I loved how her presence affected everyone on staff differently. Larry Drake was a fantastic Benny. Binge watching did underscore, though, how yelly the litigators were.

With Season 6 came a lot of drama and overemotional scenes plus hack writing. I'm assuming it just gets worse, so I'm not continuing.

STITCHED is a fun show to watch. It's a Canadian show, which means that the judges and contestants are nice, so if you're sick of the backbiting from other competition shows, this will be a welcome antidote. It's also brief: In one hour you get the whole competition, with three challenge rounds. Looks as if the contestants are given 4 hours for each challenge, which isn't much time, so it's amazing what they come up with. No one's a superstar (or a super-snob) but you can find talent and great attitudes among the STITCHED contestants.

Sure, you don't get the hotsy-totsy production values that you'd get on PR, Making the Cut, or Next in Fashion, but that's kind of amusing, as as is the silly scripting. The judges' taste is just about as good as on any other show, and they're never nasty. (Frankly, I can see the agendas behind the judges'/producers' decisions on the other shows, and it's annoying.)

I just like to see people being creative and that's what you get with STITCHED. Good on you, Canadians!

The plot is simplistic, the characters shallow and two-dimensional. Even the premise is dumb. It's a slick, well-choreographed production, but there is nothing new here. Anyone who has listened to a single foodie podcast could have come up with the specifics of the dialogue, and anyone who hates rich, pretentious people could have rattled off the cast of characters. I'm baffled and disappointed that any professional reviewers have given this film the least bit of acclaim

Looks like I need more characters in this review to get it published, so I'll add that I'm angry that much better films probably did NOT get made because this piece of dreck did.

I LOVED this show in its early seasons. It was about dance--all kinds of dance. And the judges had strong backgrounds in in the art form, particularly Mary and Nigel and--sorry I forget the names, but there were a few modern/contemporary choreographers with thoughtful criticisms. A variety of styles were explored, and dancers working outside their genres was fascinating to watch.

Then is started to be all about getting an audience reaction to every little move--so naturally it became all about the sexy moves--woo woo!--not about technique or interpretation. I love me a good paso doble, but it's hard to enjoy a dance with the audience screaming and swooning so loud you can barely hear the music. Also, the contemporary pieces started to look more and more alike.

The range of dance styles grew narrow, the original judges were replaced by non-dancers, and I stopped watching. But I checked it out this year (2022) and it's gotten even worse (Leah Rimini as a judge???). As other reviewers have noted, we've got the sobby back stories and all the judges GUSH about the dancers rather than offering constructive criticism.

This is so disappointing for me. I'm not a dancer, but I truly used to get caught up with, even emotional about, the routines performed on SYTYCD. It was a wonderful tribute to the many aspects of a beautiful art form. Now it's just a burlesque.

The first few episodes of this series were geared toward teaching about aspects of interior design, helpful things like focus, balance, and color. I felt I was learning something. Then it turned into a basic before and after design show, with these elements: clients (always a hetero couple as far as I've watched) hire Candice to fix up a room. We never learn what their budget is. In the rehab/redecorating process, there's a problem to solve-usually an unforeseen, costly one, like replacing an entire fireplace with the flooring and the chimney to boot (admittedly, this is educational). Candice visits suppliers and stores and gets her stuff while her (largely attractive) crew discovers the problems in the house. Candice does have good taste, so at least the results are quite lovely.

The problem? As the series wears on, Candice's personality and personal life take over. She's got a sense of humor and is a little wacky, but a little bit goes a long way, and sometimes several minutes of this 22-minute show are devoted to her eating at cafes, getting lost in the countryside, planning her child's birthday party, etc. I don't care, Candice. I came here to learn about design, not about your love of high-heeled shoes and how many parking tickets you and your crew rack up. (It's also a little cringey when this married woman with children flirts with her crew-kinda harrassing, you know.)

I'm not crazy about how tied Candice seems to be to gender roles either: If a couple is making decisions, it's always assumed that the woman likes "girly" stuff and the man likes moose heads on the wall. Is that because it's a Canadian based show?

The title is "Candice Tells All." I didn't realize that "All" includes the boring details of her personal life. Blech.

If the role of Chad was played by a 14-year-old boy, I would not be as interested in this show. Certainly it's a little odd watching a woman in her 40s play an adolescent boy, but I find it interesting and I find her watchable and totally committed to what she's doing.

That crying jag in the pilot show? Some say no 14-year-old boy would cry like that. Yet I watched it, and I believed it, and Chad is NOT everyboy. I'm sure that there are boys who WANT to cry like that but can't because of their upbringing and societal expectations. So let Chad cry-let him cry for all those of his peers who want to but can't. The show takes Chad's emotions to the limit, and I like that. He has a completely overblown and flawed perception of what others think of him-which is adolescence-painful and endearing to watch.

Now, I've only watched the pilot, and I'm wondering if I want to watch more because in general shows about adolescents is not my jam, but (a) I've read the AV Club review about how this show improves and (b) I think "Chad" deserves more of a chance than others are giving it-including the people who gave it 1 star on this site.

I've read a couple of Elizabeth George's Inspector Lynley books and after the second one I gave up: George's style is to get into the heads of everyone, which is fine, but those monologues go on and on and are often not relevant to the plot. I found her treatment of Havers, which apparently is supposed to provide comic relief, precious and time-wasting. The books are overwritten, but who am I to argue with her popularity.

The TV show dispenses of most of the interminable inner character monologues (of course). Yay. I know there are those who complain about Lynley and Havers being miscast, but I don't care about that-I think Nathaniel Parker is great as the principled, but emotional detective inspector who is quite inept with the opposite sex; Sharon Small's Havers is smart and insecure, mouthy, sensitive-well played. The characters are fleshed out through the action for the most part, and the glimpses into their personal lives are just enough. And the stories with their characters and twists and turns are interesting and moving-and not overly sentimental.

Sadly, in the latter seasons the show tried to imitate the popular American CSI high-tech procedurals. Little by little the producers worked on Sharon Small to be more attractive and less rough. Car chases entered the picture and subtlety started to disappear. As much as I loved the show, I'm glad it stopped when it did. It became too much of a carbon copy of the American stuff. (Mind you, I loved the original Law & Order procedural, which shared the same restraint as the Lynley Mysteries.)

Wow. I agree with the one-star reviewer on this one.

Actually, part of the premise of this show is good. The hostess on this one admits that she doesn't have artistic talent - and that's refreshing. Many of us can't draw a straight line and there are little tricks on this show to help those who are lacking in the artistic department.

However, the show mistakenly relies on the charm of the hostess to stretch a limited amount of information to a half-hour, providing lots of lingering closeups of her face and scripting her and her guest with off-topic dialogue that is so flirty that it is cringe-inducing.

I have seen a couple of good ideas on this show and have learned of a couple of tools and supplies that could help create craft objects, but the lethargic pace and the lame attempts at being "rock 'n' roll" have made it unbearable to watch.

There must be dozens of craftspeople and producers who could combine their talents to create a really good crafts show - a show far better than this one.