GatewayRedbirds.com

8.8 - overall IMDB reviewers disagree with my views on Ozark.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5071412/

Freed Roger wrote:8.8 - overall IMDB reviewers disagree with my views on Ozark.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5071412/

Aggregated fan ratings are terrible.

Honestly, television reviews are kind of tricky. Rotten Tomatoes is always either 100% or 30%. Places like AV Club are kind of useful, but break it into episodes--and then, only their pet shows, for the most part. I used to really like Andy Greenwald at Grantland, but he's sort of moved on from tv, and his pieces were generally more feature-y anyway.

Unless you have the insatiable thirst for Game of Thrones everyone has except me (I've just never really given it a shot), or want to chat with fanboys totally absorbed in the world of the show, it's pretty tough to get a good idea about the quality (and personal fit) of a show, or read interesting takes on television. I know that series reviews are sometimes based on a screener of two or three episodes sent to critics, which is certainly part of the problem.

Or perhaps people here could recommend some good channels to do so...

But the good news is Ballers is back. If you liked Entourage, but found it a bit too challenging, Ballers is the show for you. Before they've even fully introduced a conflict (like concussions or money issues) it's put to bed and right back to the speed boats and boobs. (That's my take on 1.25 seasons anyway.)

ghostrunner wrote:

Freed Roger wrote:8.8 - overall IMDB reviewers disagree with my views on Ozark.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5071412/

Aggregated fan ratings are terrible.

yep, and I have to think series ratings are less honest. People are vested in series whether they suck or not.

Freed Roger wrote:

ghostrunner wrote:

Freed Roger wrote:8.8 - overall IMDB reviewers disagree with my views on Ozark.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5071412/

Aggregated fan ratings are terrible.

yep, and I have to think series ratings are less honest. People are vested in series whether they suck or not.

I finished it last night, and lets just say there was a lot of unanswered questions...well, pretty much everything was left unanswered. The end was so much of a direct copy from Breaking Bad it was kind of embarrassing on their part. The end just created more plot issues beyond what the series already had.

cardinalkarp wrote: I finished it last night, and lets just say there was a lot of unanswered questions...well, pretty much everything was left unanswered. The end was so much of a direct copy from Breaking Bad it was kind of embarrassing on their part. The end just created more plot issues beyond what the series already had.

I jumped off the train when:

[SHOW]

When the cross was put on the church and that forced Jason Bateman to give up over 700k. I mean, really? Also, I still don't really understand why they need to run drugs on the water. My brain was rebelling the whole time. It was all stupid plot devices.

Also, what's up with a son and dead animals? So dumb.

Michael wrote:

cardinalkarp wrote: I finished it last night, and lets just say there was a lot of unanswered questions...well, pretty much everything was left unanswered. The end was so much of a direct copy from Breaking Bad it was kind of embarrassing on their part. The end just created more plot issues beyond what the series already had.

I jumped off the train when:

[SHOW]

When the cross was put on the church and that forced Jason Bateman to give up over 700k. I mean, really? Also, I still don't really understand why they need to run drugs on the water. My brain was rebelling the whole time. It was all stupid plot devices.

Also, what's up with a son and dead animals? So dumb.

[SHOW]

Yeah, the whole "original" Ozark family plot line of them growing poppy flowers for their heroin ring was beyond ridiculous. I think the reason they gave for running the drugs on the water was that the MO Water Patrol only has 4 boats to patrol the whole lake, making the ease of transport w/o getting caught much more likely. Of course the fact that every patron of the "Church on Water" looked as if they were strung out on heroin wouldn't raise any red flags. Oh, and they wanted us to believe that the kid was ripping the guts out of dead animal carcasses because of his interest in vultures and ripping out the guts caused the vultures to dive bomb from the air to feed, completely plausible.

BottenFieldofDreams wrote:Honestly, television reviews are kind of tricky. Rotten Tomatoes is always either 100% or 30%. Places like AV Club are kind of useful, but break it into episodes--and then, only their pet shows, for the most part. I used to really like Andy Greenwald at Grantland, but he's sort of moved on from tv, and his pieces were generally more feature-y anyway.

Unless you have the insatiable thirst for Game of Thrones everyone has except me (I've just never really given it a shot), or want to chat with fanboys totally absorbed in the world of the show, it's pretty tough to get a good idea about the quality (and personal fit) of a show, or read interesting takes on television. I know that series reviews are sometimes based on a screener of two or three episodes sent to critics, which is certainly part of the problem.

Or perhaps people here could recommend some good channels to do so...

I'm with you, it's a lot easier to tell if I'll enjoy a movie rather than a show. I do think reading a few reviews can help give context to whether or not a show lives up to impressions you might have going in(e.g. I watched Friends from College despite several reviews giving off warning signs that it would not be my jam and they were right), but I can't take a number or recommendation and apply it to a show like I can with RT for most movies.

I just discovered The Middle a month or so ago because I'm generally late to everything. Not the best show but not bad either. I just can't think of Neil Flynn (is that right?) as anything other than the Janitor from Scrubs but it was nice to discover Eden Sher. I like her.

And this next season is their last.