NinadeL

The "Little Women / Good Wives / Little Men / Jo’s Boys" tetralogy was written by Louisa May Alcott between 1868 and 1886. These women's sagas deal with the transformation of girls into women, women into wives, mothers, and grandmothers in a whole range of emotions and small stories. Alcott is particularly concerned with the girls' relationships with their mothers and the dynamics of sisterly love. The subject matter is important and understandable, so what is so disappointing about this adaptation? First of all, the classic aspects include focusing only on the first book and the incredibly quick ending. As if the broad scope and series format of the narrative should be a minus and not a plus. The acting is weak, with Angela Lansbury being the only standout name. Appropriately capturing the headstrong Jo is a frequent challenge, and even the likes of Katherine Hepburn once failed, but later Wynona Rider became the ideal. We often expect a careful and faithful adaptation from the BBC, but unfortunately, it was simply not a good idea to make Little Women with just three episodes and cheap sets. These books are the subject of a saga. What's important are the realities of the Civil War, and the difference between the city and the countryside, and there's none of that here. Even Amy's trip to Europe seemed to take place in the living room, just as Beth's trip to the sea remained untapped. Yet there are already many more adaptations in the pipeline, so I'll be hoping for a quality feature film now that the series has disappointed.

After March 15, the classic chaos really begins. The period of the end of the Republic, the courtship of Mark Antony and Cleopatra, the rise of Octavian Augustus... And, of course, several storylines on the side. Unfortunately, at the time, HBO chose the most played-out story, which was already hackneyed in Shakespeare's time. IMHO, even the story of Vorenus and Pullo's friendship won't change that. In addition, the time management was very strange in the series, the first episodes went nowhere, and the ending was accelerated to the point of being unclear. Even the snake scene wasn't great.

Suffragette is, unfortunately, a very important film. Fortunately, Suffragette is backed by a trio of big names - Carey Mulligan, Helena Bonham Carter, and Meryl Streep - and so at least thanks to them the film has a chance to fight its way to get noticed. However, we live in a time when many people have gone through primary school and have never heard of suffragettes. Women's suffrage is taken for granted by many women, who are unaware that "little things" such as their other rights, whether they concern children or property, are not automatically a given. After a very difficult 20th century, it is indeed painful to live in today's times, in which people do not know their roots, neither in the individual nor in the main course of things, deeds and actions. Suffragette is not a pleasant watch, but it is very important to think about what you see here.

We're at that stage where it's all weddings, pregnancies, breastfeeding... just where the original idea wasn't supposed to go. But at the same time, there was too much Step by Step, so by some miracle, Will Wheaton was brought back, Professor Proton was brought back, Bill Gates came in, and Penny and Sheldon started meeting again in the laundry room. Wow. Then Peter MacNicol surprised me and Neil Gaiman's cameo was even funny. Shocking. And there was even talk of a DC Rebirth omnibus. I'm speechless. So what about the finale? With Kathy Bates and Mark Hamill? OMG.

Charles Dickens’ classic novel of 1852-1853 was already loved by the likes of Chesterton and King. This is the latest adaptation to become something of a watershed moment among the BBC's series leading up to the 200th anniversary of Dickens’ birth. Oliver Twist, Little Dorrit, Great Expectations, and The Mystery of Edwin Drood all followed. The cast is strong, Carey Mulligan is wonderfully fragile and Gillian Anderson is excellent in the suffering she has to bottle up. I just think 4 or 5 episodes would be enough because 8 is really too much. Although, the critical theme of a protracted justice system that has been destroying entire families for generations is, of course, excellent.

If you are one of those who enjoyed the storyline with Cleopatra in the biography of Gaius Julius Caesar, you will probably despair a little. However, everything runs like clockwork, and March 15 will indeed come at the end. Will a 2nd series about the chaos after his death be more interesting?

Squeezing out the long dried-up potential of a once entertaining sitcom is a truly brilliant idea. On the other hand, if there are separate elaborate spin-off storylines from Jane Eyre that no one ever cared about, then apparently anything is possible.

God bless you, HBO GO. With zero energy expended, I wanted to give The Big Bang Theory a second chance. As a backdrop for a day or two, any late series can come and go. It's even painless. But it's not an important part of the show's life. It was just the reality of the past years that prevailed, which made me realize that I find the feeling of finishing the series very pleasant. Audience development is a magical phenomenon. Oh, and Sheldon's getting married. Wow. And don't tell me anyone else remembered Riki Lindhome from Season 2. Perhaps vaguely so.

Season 8 So the only interesting thing about the whole season is that Penny cut her hair? What could that mean? Routine? No, that was the last few seasons. This is a crisis that not even Nathan Fillion or the dating Raj can chase away.

There are some shows that I would be happy if they made it to a season 7. Not TBBT, though. The second half of the series is made up of episodes I've only seen once and never found a reason to revisit.