lewis-51
Joined Oct 2004
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges4
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings802
lewis-51's rating
Reviews76
lewis-51's rating
I like this series, and I like this episode. It's well done, as usual. Good acting, good plot, very good cinematography. I like the lead detective and the second-in-command. She is much better than the second-in-command in the first series. There are fun little flourishes of characterization.
That's all great, but there are two main problems. The first is an unnecessary side-plot with Ashley, the medical officer. I understand they want to give the characters depth, but this was just too unlikely. Secondly, a big part of the plot hinges on a speech the victim is about to give. In real life, he would not have given such a speech. Not even close.
That's all great, but there are two main problems. The first is an unnecessary side-plot with Ashley, the medical officer. I understand they want to give the characters depth, but this was just too unlikely. Secondly, a big part of the plot hinges on a speech the victim is about to give. In real life, he would not have given such a speech. Not even close.
I love the first seven seasons of Shetland. Jimmy Perez and company are a great set of characters. The plots, inspired by the books of Ann Cleeves, are excellent.
Unfortunately the new characters staring with season eight are not as compelling. Season eight was pretty good, but this season, nine, is not. It's confusing and manipulative.
I wouldn't think of giving away any spoilers, so I won't. It's tempting. Suffice it to say there are many intriguing subplots and threads. Some are well developed and plausible, the best being the thread with Annie Betts as mathematician. As we approached the final episode, we were struggling to remember all the characters. The final episode is a huge let-down.
It's not the acting or the production values. It's the silly threads, most of which are left hanging like an old worn macrame. Really, this series is not worth your while.
Unfortunately the new characters staring with season eight are not as compelling. Season eight was pretty good, but this season, nine, is not. It's confusing and manipulative.
I wouldn't think of giving away any spoilers, so I won't. It's tempting. Suffice it to say there are many intriguing subplots and threads. Some are well developed and plausible, the best being the thread with Annie Betts as mathematician. As we approached the final episode, we were struggling to remember all the characters. The final episode is a huge let-down.
It's not the acting or the production values. It's the silly threads, most of which are left hanging like an old worn macrame. Really, this series is not worth your while.
A nice mystery with an unexpected ending (but aren't they always?). Good acting, good direction, lovely scenes, and classic English small-town setting.
The plot involves three women, ages around 40 - 65, who become involved as amateur sleuths in a series of murders. The leader is Judith, a retired archaeologist who lives in a classic old mansion bequeathed to her by her great aunt. The other two are a vicar's wife and a dog walker.
The police officer in charge of the investigation is also a women, due to a recent retirement or similar change of personnel (frankly I forget exactly). That opens up the well-used plot twist of the new "guy" trying to prove herself. It also makes it slightly more probable that the police would actively enlist the services of the three amateurs. Slightly. But in real life? It's not going to happen. This is one weakness of the plot.
Another is the basic improbability of it all. I won't go into any more detail, as I don't want to reveal any spoilers.
The other big weakness is the heavy-handed "women in charge" aspect. It becomes almost a political tract.
Too bad. The basic idea could have been handled a lot better with these good actors and lovely sets.
The plot involves three women, ages around 40 - 65, who become involved as amateur sleuths in a series of murders. The leader is Judith, a retired archaeologist who lives in a classic old mansion bequeathed to her by her great aunt. The other two are a vicar's wife and a dog walker.
The police officer in charge of the investigation is also a women, due to a recent retirement or similar change of personnel (frankly I forget exactly). That opens up the well-used plot twist of the new "guy" trying to prove herself. It also makes it slightly more probable that the police would actively enlist the services of the three amateurs. Slightly. But in real life? It's not going to happen. This is one weakness of the plot.
Another is the basic improbability of it all. I won't go into any more detail, as I don't want to reveal any spoilers.
The other big weakness is the heavy-handed "women in charge" aspect. It becomes almost a political tract.
Too bad. The basic idea could have been handled a lot better with these good actors and lovely sets.
Recently taken polls
2 total polls taken