It should be noted that eventually "Six Feet Under" became a very mediocre show. Even at it's best it was never a great show. Character personalities changed at the whim of plot, it lost it's narrative to extremeisms, it ran two seasons too long. However it had possibly the greatest season finale of any TV show ever, save "Newhart". So it's reputation as a quality shows seems to stem from that. "True Blood" was out and out bad at times, mostly bad toward the end. (I didn't watch his Cinemax show).
I LOVE "Here and Now". It seems Ball took everything he learned from his previous HBO outings and is applying it here. Again, I love this show.
2
I don't think I can wait any longer for this show to come together. The cliches and stereotypes are setting my teeth on edge. It's a waste of a beautiful cast.
1
Where Six Feet Under was original, delightfully macabre and inspired immediate empathy to hook the viewer; and True Blood was a hoot with addictive blood-gushing twists, Here and Now feels to be in a state of rehearsal. The actors have their lines down but their characters are not coming to life. They're more like androids spouting the current depressive themes, slights and oppressions highlighted daily by network and cable news. The whiff of supernatural presence should serve to elevate one's consciousness not serve as a welcome distraction, a relief and a reason to continue watching.
4
A striking thing about this show is that the cast of characters fills out every checkbox of what the liberal intelligentsia say we should seek in our society, and yet are mostly unhappy, abusing drugs, and cheating truth in some way or another. The one person who ironically seems satisfied in his own skin is Malcolm, about whom we were told in episode one was a Republican "before Trump". So, is Mr. Ball satirizing his own kind in this show? That being said, the show is very well done, and except for the deluge of self-help clichés noted by the author, will be worth following to see how the supernatural angle plays out.
3
I've been trying to figure out whether it's a wholesale send-up or there's some earnest searching going on. The "earnest" factor is routinely sabotaged by the characters' hewing so strongly to stereotypes and by the cringe-worthy canned dialogue. The philosophical discussions alone are so amateur that I would laugh if they weren't played seriously -- so they piss me off instead.
I'm curious to see what happens with Farid and Navid but confess that I don't care how anyone else's story line turns out.
3
I enjoy this journey, as I have most of Alan's previous work. The one thread I seem to be getting so far is that the conventional is just that, and not working for many of the characters. I see these characters as what they are supposed to be, and dancing with that idea, which as a viewer I find refreshing. And I appreciate the un-typical characters shown here, Ramon, Fred...they feel familiar to me, I don't need their backstory because I know these people. I look forward to the pushing of conventional wisdom, I am hooked.
2
How does how does someone who brought us “Six Feet Under” and made those characters seem so engaging, bring us this show where every single thing just about every character says seems contrived? I’m waiting for the real show to show up.
2
You're not alone.
1
I'm watching the show but still waiting to see if it goes anywhere? I just hope it doesn't go into magical thinking. I want the show to remain reality based.
1
Audrey (Holly Hunter) is "humane" only with regard to servicing her own ego. She is a textbook smug, self-satisfied therapist whose whining about failure is not about letting her patients down but rather entirely about herself. She has everyone figured out; she needs to be wanted; she needs her children to be perfect, because if they aren't, then she hasn't been the perfect mother. I feel no empathy for her, or for the crackpot philosopher she married, or for their kids.
Farid (Peter Macdissi) and Navid (Marwan Salama), however, are the only two flesh-and-blood characters who are subtle, complex, wounded, and not spouting didactic nonsense every time they open their mouths. (Ramon has his moments as a sympathetic character as well, although his story arc is taking all the predictable turns.) It's a pity that Henry seems to have taken a powder, because I liked him, too.
3
Everyone is a critic....here's my two cents....I love this show!
7
I was just about to say the same thing. For me these characters are fascinating. I hope that doesn’t make me shallow.
3
With a critic who considers a husband telling his wife that "there’s no greater task than holding a family together" a bromide, I'm starting to wonder what's worse: the show or these so-called recaps.
3
I'm having a hard time finding likable characters on the show.
There's the Tim Robbins character, Navid, and the ginger imam, I guess.
The others either don't act like normal humans or don't have redeeming characteristics.
3