NY-LON

Unlike the other review... I think this show is innovative and very interesting...

I have gotten my friends into the show and can't wait to see more episodes..

Everyone who I know that watches the show finds it entertaining and well worth searching for it..

It is a TV show not an Oscar winning documentary... So I find the 1st review very brutal.

Tivo it and make up your own mind about it..

The characters are interesting and multi-faceted.

This is as it's producers describe: cool with a capital "C". It helps that the entire cast are beautiful, especially Edie, and the two lead roles are played by very talented actors who clearly have a long and successful road ahead of them. I guess this is not aimed at a 30-something audience, but I am enjoying it nonetheless.

It's a really a joy to see the use of split-screen, largely pioneered by Kiefer Sutherland's '24', and I really enjoy watching events from a number of different characters' points of view.

The settings of the grungy second-hand NY record store, Michael's docklands loft apartment, Edie's tiny boho NY.flat and the impersonal environment of Michael's overcrowded open-plan City office are all very well thought-out. The character development is also very intelligently planned. I am only onto the third episode, the plot is a bit thin so far, but I have been drawn-in and I hope that it develops with greater depth and complexity over the rest of the series.

This fascinating piece of television drama reflects the reality of the fact that the world is getting smaller and affairs of the heart are increasingly spanning the globe and there's no stopping it. It also speaks volumes about the need for innovative and creative direction and camera work which can grab the attention of an increasingly critical audience.

Right, this programme was quite simply terrible. I mean, just so bad. The leads were totally wooden, had no chemistry and were totally unsympathetic, so the whole will-they-won't-they dynamic never really seemed to matter; these people are so uninteresting and didn't even seem to like each other, so why the hell would any viewer want them to get together? The bloke, however, was at least fairly entertaining to watch, due to the fact that with his abnormally large head, he was obviously a Thunderbird puppet, whose Pinocchio-like wish to become a real boy had been granted... In fact, all the characters are fairly uninspiring, especially the Thunderbird puppet's nephew, who is in the film solely to allow other characters to reveal their sensitive sides. Perhaps if he'd been a baby seal, who made eyes at the camera (with a studio audience obediently 'awww-ing') he would've been more bearable. There were only three characters who actually came across as anything more than insubstantial twats: Macaulay Culkin's ex-wife, who gets her bits out on several occasions; Thunderbird's sister, who actually seems human, rather than a hologram of a pretty person, as the rest of the cast; and Thunderbird's ethnic minority best friend, solely because he was in Teachers and is, in Teachers, a top actor. Apart from these honourable exceptions, the characters are dreadful finger puppet people, anxiously trying to be cool and do cool stuff (never before have I seen so much self-conscious smoking). You can almost imagine most of them lying in bed at night, unable to sleep, as they fret and worry: "Am I cool?" The writers made a real stab at making the people do interesting things, or utter interesting, quotable lines, but these were so obvious, almost signposted, that they just seemed to be trying too hard. Believe it or not, there were actually some small parts of the series that weren't too bad: the music is cracking, though it has obviously been picked to hammer home the fact that the characters are hip, happening, cosmopolitan bright young things. Don't watch this. No, actually do, its very funny. Shame it wasn't a comedy.

Thoroughly enjoyable, well acted, well written; however, didn't amount to what it could have.

The production seemed to be a bit mismanaged, never really getting its legs despite strong and true performances from the cast and an intelligently written script. The show suffered the fate of too many cooks in the kitchen, where it needed a single style, single direction. For example, the split-screen effect was not altogether a bad idea, but it was rarely used for any real benefit. Likewise, there were story ideas that were never fully sussed out. In the end it looked like a jumbled product of three directors who could have benefited greatly from a single executive producer's vision.

Still, it was one of the better programs of 2004, it just hurts to see so much effort and such talent amount to an "almost".

So funny that this show has been over for nearly five years and 2 of us here stumbled across it (Hulu) just this week. I did like it enough that I wish it had pulled itself out of its aggravating, self-destructive Will they/won't they? trajectory and become something more, with more episodes to provide the quite diverting qualities that the show did have going for it. Loved the male lead; thought Rashida Jones was miscast (at least opposite Stephen Moyer). Loved Michael's supporting cast: sister, nephew, Indian friends, sister-in-law. Edie's friends not so much (may say something about my own social milieu) as they seemed much younger, phonier, grungier and a bit hopeless. Good soundtrack. Lastly, speaking of music, I could never believe that Rashida's Edie would be seriously into rock music, while I would easily believe that the Michael character would be, while he was evidently music clueless.

So--close, but a miss, as statistically most shows are more likely to be. Think the US version that's been done but never released, would probably be not as good, but more successful, like The Office.