Seven Types of Ambiguity

... Leeanne Walsman's a very good actor, as-and her recent excellent series 'Human Error' attests once again... here, she's not so much a part of each Seven Types of Ambiguity episode, yet when she does appear she makes the most of it, especially that final segment

... Xavier Samuel is actually only several years younger than Walsman, yet he appears onscreen to look much younger than her... and seeing that these two characters in this story are to have been 'lovers' in school, the 'look' of the two of them, and story-timelines of their ages just doesn't work-calculate... maybe as a younger lover of hers, fine... but together in college for several years, just isn't making sense, and it's distracting... in 2017, Walsman's a woman in her late thirties, Samuel his mid-thirties... with a script having them knowing one another for ten years

... all other actors work well in their respective roles... yet with Simon such an important character to the story, it's really difficult disregarding... added to a storyline having long stretches dragging out, and it makes at times for difficult viewing... it's a worthwhile production, yet flawed more than it should have been... Walsman and Samuel did great work.. most all others as well too... another good ABC drama.

I thoroughly enjoyed this - binged it over two nights. The first episode is gripping. We travel through events told through a different character's eyes each episode and we're teased with some answers of the mystery through each character. Each episode progresses the timeline. Great acting and a very clever character driven script. The ending is superb, landing back with our initial characters and satisfyingly wraps up the complexity of marriage that has experienced trauma. I think anyone who has experienced the isolation that comes from trauma - even when surrounded by people - will find this ending powerful, and encouraging.

I cannot quite fathom how this has such a decent rating. The plot and script have more holes than a tea bag. The acting redeems the show, especially Hugo, which is why it gets a 1 and not a 0 if that were possible to score here. 7 types? There are 6 episodes! The first two, possibly three episodes are great, after which, I don't know if they ran out of money, ideas, if the director changed or they lost the script, but something happens. The show loses all sense and reason for being. None of what you have learned about the characters carries forward into anything that might be deemed semi-realistic. It's absurd. The editor cannot even be bothered to check simple things like when Anna receives a text msg and we see that it was actually sent 3 hours ago (on May 7). A few days later she receives another text msg, sent 'now' but the date is May 5. If they cannot be bothered why should the viewer be bothered to watch.

It isn't worth my time carrying on, but if you're a glutton for punishment, then by all means, watch it, if only for the solid Hugo performance and the wonderful cinematography of Melbourne.

Finished the series in one day. Originally attracted by Hugo Weaving's stunning performance then the organization of the series really gets me. Loved it a lot. I'd give 10/10 if the ending could be better. Theatrically it is surprising, yet not so bright for characters' intentions.

It was a haphazard, erratic production. It started of very well & gave the pretense of being a classic show. However soon started to follow standard clichéd concepts and techniques of storytelling. Some episodes were disjointed, not linked with the story & seemed like fillers. The ending was pathetic, with most important questions not fully resolved. There were coincidents which seemed absolutely absurd. In conclusion its potential wasted. It could have been a much much better show. But it wasn't.