Who's watching ??


...

reply

I had problems to finish the first episode. Acting is amateurish, the whole thing looks really cheap.
Sad, because the premise was so promising.

reply

It certainly feels like it was made by CW or abc.

reply

I soooo agree..It was almost like a Lifetime movie. Very amateur.. Also annoying was the fact that a journalist didnt think to look on social media.. It was like a big lightbulb went off when her co worker suggested it. Ridiculous.

reply

This was my first time watching a Shondaland show. It seemed pretty typical of how people describe her shows: very modern, upbeat, protagonists are feminist type women who want to be very successful and are being held back by the patriarchy, etc etc. I'm enjoying it because I love Julia Garner. Anna Chlumsky's character (the journalist) is grating. The feminist themes are annoying. I find it tiresome when young, successful, attractive women, with upwardly mobile jobs, are presented to me as if they are somehow oppressed.

reply

Your description is accurate. I agree

reply

I was going to check it out because I like the actress but TV critics panned it.

reply

If you love Julia Garner then go for it, she gave a pretty much decent performance imo.

reply

I read negative comments about the accent, though

reply

The accent is atrocious..

reply

What kind of accent do you think she is supposed to have?

reply

Is she trying to do a German accent? 🤣🤣🤣

reply

The accent is accurate to the real Anna Sorokin. She sounds like Tommy Wiseau, so Garner did a good job there.

reply

Yeah, it's kind of a combination of accents. She spent time in Germany, I guess, but was from Russia and was trying not to sound like it. She ends up sounding sort of non specifically eastern european.

reply

The accent makes sense for the character. It was only jarring for the first episode and then it just flowed with the character and made sense in the context of the whole story and what the character was doing. I think actually the way Julia Garner deployed the accent was one of the really good things about the show.

reply

I shut it off after 30 minutes. The dialogue was terrible and the voice of the main character was just like listening to nails on a blackboard. Don't think I will continue to watch it.

reply

it's very entertaining, you should bear with it some more.

reply

Yes. I stuck with it and thought it was good. Not great but certainly well done and entertaining.

reply

I am watching as well but not willingly. When you invest time on a show it’s difficult to stop in the middle. The main problem is that there isn’t much story and they have to pretend that this girl was a Madoff level crook. She wasn’t! She just crashed some parties and stayed in some hotels without paying and conned a few people out of 200,000 $. All in all i’s a storm in a cup.

reply

Between the Marrakech bit, her complimentary stay at the Golden hotel, Nora's embezzlment, her stealing a private jet she knew how to pick her victims and swindle her way into their pockets. If looks could deceive!

reply

Even though she was a total crook, I still found myself rooting for her to get that loan.

reply

I thought the foundation was meant to be a success if the loan came through because it was her life purpose.

reply

Guessing that it is yet another TV series / movie that celebrates criminals who screw people out of their money. That's why "The Wolf of Wall Street" was so popular.

reply

Watched three episodes so far. The setup reminds me of Citizen Kane. A reporter is trying to figure out the mystery of who someone is. So it's a good premise. The show has been good enough to keep watching so far.

After bailing out of Gray's Anatomy in season 2 never thought I'd watch a Shonda Rimes show again, but it has happened.

reply