maria-ricci-1983

I find very climactic the already well-known British device of presenting the episodes with an initial sequence apparently not related to the main timeline, but whose relevance will later be revealed (see Vera, Endeavour and many etcs.) This is, to me, the 'antipasto' for a most palatable 'crime dinnertime'.

I warn against the not-very-realistic reviews of people who don't even deign themselves to watch a full first episode and, based on a few minutes of hasty viewing, mark poorly a whole season or the show altogether. If you will take the time and trouble to write a review, at least take the time and trouble to see the whole season first. Otherwise, what worth is there in assessing something you haven't actually watched?

For those who have really watched Bookish, the experience seems to have been delightful. And Mark Gatiss plus Polly Walker, what a fantastic cast. A crowd-pleaser of course, but always delivering!

I liked the atmosphere, the bookish thing in itself, the character development and the 'magnetic' traction of the show, which drew myself in from the very beginning. So what else can I do other than recommend it, especially for those lovers of British crime series.

In agreement with the rest of the reviewers, Redmayne is truly golden, a not obvious but surprisingly good choice who nails it with flying colors.

There was not a single episode in which I didn't feel that Lashana Lynch's performance was unconvincing, off-putting and sub-par in an otherwise fantastic production.

The action, suspense and rhythm are... tremendous. RIght from the very first minutes you sit at the edge of your sofa and it keeps on like that until the finale.

The whole action and interest of the plot evolves around the Jackal, of course, a villain commanding our admiration who (others have mentioned it) reminds us of a James Bond gone rogue--- his savoir-faire, his poise and control, his perfect planning and execution of each job, the sophisticated paraphernalia, his multiple identities... Who can wish for more? And with such a bland, not likable antagonist, there you are, rooting for the killer!

The problem with Bianca is that she is an ugly, unpalatable character with a sum of anti-empathic traits. And if your 'good' character inspires no empathy or identification in the viewers, you really, really need a strong actress who can get things done!

As in every trivia game, it is always fun to test your own skills and knowledge at home with your family against the contestants.

The premise is interesting in an overall outlook. But when you actually see the show, you find that it is less about skill and more about luck, random chance, and uneven rules.

I summarize and suggest some changes which could really add to the show's potential:

1) Contestants who excel and win several games in a row should be «saved» for the final round. In this way, you make sure the final will be exciting and batlled among the very two, three or four best. To watch a poor contestant who is called for duty just in the last round and wins it all is very disappointing and anti-climactic.

2) A failed answer by a contestant should be transfered to the opponent, that is, a pass or fail would be 'inherited' by the other, just as you inherit categories. This makes chances more even every time a difficult item is shown in the screen.

3) The required level of specification is uneven and unfair across categories. In some matches, just the last name is enough, but in others, a detailed and full compound answer is needed for the answer to be validated. Arbitrary criteria should be rectified to make matches fairer.

4) Also the level of difficulty across categories is uneven. Some involve the easiest images of everyday items (a spoon, a notebook, traffic lights), and other categories have a different kind of prompt which makes them quite more difficult, such as showing Shakespeare's quotes to guess the name of the work. This might be interesting but it is not fair and suggests suspicion of rigged hands.

5) Finally, all the «scripted» short remarks by the contestants, shown between matches as fillers, sound fake, and they put viewers off instead of creating expectation or interest. Less is more, in this case.

Rob Lowe is okay. Not smashingly good or epoch-making, but fulfills the role well enough.

In short, the show is promising and basically good, but I expect more changes and adjustments in next seasons.