pascaloetterli

At this point I feel like I myself could have done it better. This was painful.

No, I don't want to be taught about income equality and slavery. France in 1790 must speak for itself, no need to explain anything.

The amount is modern day swearing makes the dialogue not better either.

We have only a limited amount of episodes and the backstories aren't a great addition because they only influence emotions against certain villains or sympathies for the heroes. There's just a high rate of come and go of different characters in short time. Depth outside of backstories would have helped.

The powerlevel is totally confusing. At one point characters are super weak and inept and at other way overpowered. The plot armor is just cringe at some point.

It was too easy to predict outcomes aside of just introducing the next level hero or villain. We had certain tropes already in the first installment of the animated adaption. Also, I hate to see the connection of predictability and skin color - which is maybe "en vogue" but for sure not helpful for the suspense or thrill.

I also cannot explain why this is for 18+. Not even kids age 14 can be too shocked or thrilled by this show and I know because working with that age bracket is my profession, expertise and experience.

For a mature audience, expand the amount of uncertainty and drama. Nobody should be safe and have several groups playing out their schemes. The villains are just cardboards but we know well from hundreds of vampire novels that there can be so much more facets to just being "evil" and wanting to destroy humanity and or earth.

The Castlevania franchise has huge potential, but this installment was utterly dissapointing.

First let me tell you that I am a Swiss living at the French border and every once in a while I am in France although it has been years when I was in Paris. I am also a guy who doesn't binge at relationship dramas in TV.

I happen to be a bit torn by how I should look at "Emily in Paris". Admittedly I watch it, admittedly I like the main character and some others and I have no problem with the acting. I am no actor and can't comment on that like so many critics seem to be capable of.

The show is good at evoking good emotions. They producers bring a lot of production value and show Paris from its very best side. The truth is, that even in my own family, it happens that people fall in love in Paris and having said, many other clichès are absolutely true.

To be honest, the sugary coat on the French capital is just the icing while below, life can be tough for many, if not most Parisiens. The criticism of the show being superficial is well understood and it can't be denied. But Emily in Paris isn't a social drama, it's a fantasy. I would call it a spin off of "Sex and the City", just in a different location with a different set of the Dramatis Personae. Maybe also like the next level of every teenage or coming of age show. Because it never wants to something else than being a lightweight romanticized drama it's got its place on the market and I am fine with it. It is escapism for certain people and escapism is one of the pillars of entertainment.

The cinematography, well, let me just tell you that I like to mix of day and nightlife, the awesome sets, the beautiful fashion, food, colors, backgrounds. Does it look like advertisment? At times it does and it is allowed to be advertisement.

The actors are all very beautiful, looks matter here a lot. My problem is the overacting at some part and that there is no room to expand on the sidecast. They are often just mannequins for the developing love affairs. There's plenty of room for improvement.

The plot makes you wonder about all the coincidences in the life of Emily. Often you pray that the next totally contrived and trivial move doesn't happen until it happens. The show is also pretty open when it comes to free love and affairs of all sorts. It may startle conservatives a bit (being a European conservative myself), but here in Europe I witness that kind of behaviour a lot. As already mentioned, it's merely Sex and the Parisian city.

Social media and communication is also a big part in the series and that makes it more real than an American picket fence tv show. The vibe of 2020+ is definitely for real and that might be reason why people watch it.

As a conclusion I'd say that Emily in Paris is kind of a guilty pleasure for me, even with all flaws I find it entertaining, inspirational. Easy on the eye and mind. I would give it a six but because critics are so harsh on the show I give it a seven.

Season one was great, would have rated it with eight stars. Season two was meh, worth six stars. The main problem of the series is that too much is put on the shoulders of Anna Friel. In the first season, Jason played an important role, but in the second season all side characters were strange, bland, predictable or in a horrible unpredictable. The usual problem with shows is the overabundance of plot twists nowadays and that shows need to be needlessly stretched in order to yank out seven or nine long episodes. Also, let's not forget the usual bashing of the rich and elite on the behalf of everybody else. It's very common, very boring and tropic.

Also the numbers of deaths, missing persons, incidents, shootings etc. Are irresponsible when it comes to realism. The main protagnist is just a wreck of emotions who somehow guesses the right conclusions. As said above: too much is put on the shoulders of Marcella. It must be said, that Anna Friel plays her character amazingly, it's not her fault, that Marcella started to annoy me.

One last thing is the bashing of the white guys characters in favor of "diverse" ones. That kind of stuff is really going on my nerves lately and I am myself part of the the non-white group.