I actually watched a few eps of Aquarius today and they were good for another cop show but set in a specific period; 1967.
If anything the writers play it smart by using Duchovny's talents and writing his character to his strengths. Shows about the rise of Charlie Manson and this one unit that crosses paths with him with one detective really going after him. Obviously some of this stuff is based on actual events.
After the first ep though I felt it hard to believe that this Manson dude wasn't simply caught or killed with the quickness. Writer's manage to jam in other stuff to pad for time and I guess to reflect the actual events due to police incompetence or being preoccupied with other stuff (crime sprees, killing sprees, Black Panthers).
I do feel they pushed it with everything they tried to put in to the show. It has the grizzled cynical noirish detective trying to get justice, the younger undercover cop that's in some ways a Serpico rip, the females dealing with sexism in the work place and lack of respect, gay ppl in the closet, racism, etc. I felt they really went hard with the whole Vietnam and it's corrupt war dealings in Cambodia/son is going to commit treason subplot though.
Okay show all in all.
You beat the movie/show down, prove how dumb the direction of it is in comparison to how you would have done it.
Then you give a small praise.
You beat the cast down, expel their validity in said project.
Then you give small praise for a role they performed well in.
You beat the execution down, because it was was was was.....
Bruh, you remind me of that broad in "Birdman" that was going to give Keaton's character a bad review just because, on GP/General Principle.
I mean I just gave positive reviews for The Lizzie Borden Chronicles around when it had it's finale. I got nothing but praise for Person of Interest and Elementary but hey maybe when you do read my reviews it tends to only be for the shows/movies I didn't like which I admit is possible.
For clarification though, I'd even go as far to say all my reviews that end up negative for shows, movies, w/e I don't like are definitely not all the same. However, if you see me constantly bringing up execution, acting, writing, direction, story, etc. it's because that it was I feel is important in making good/great television and cinema. That'll usually not change saving few variations.
I mean my reasons are my reasons. This is what I like in things I watch and this is what I don't like. It'll probably only get more anal and detailed if we start talking specific actors. Perhaps if you're that interested in my reviewing habits you could follow some of my reviews I make in movie and tv threads (The Americans, The Following, Bates Motel, Breaking Bad, LOST, Mad Men, Hannibal, House of Cards, Daredevil, Shameless, Game of Thrones, Homeland, Ray Donovan, The Strain, Tyrant, Louie (a post is coming for how great this season has been), The Comedians, Orphan Black, Sherlock, MCU movies, I can't think of many recent movies at the moment I have been slacking on watching there but etc.)
I tend to have this thread filled with reviews for tv shows or movies that don't have their own thread and usually some of these don't have threads cuz they don't have a following and more times than not it might be cuz the show or movie isn't that good anyway but not always.
Not that I particularly need to defend how I review or my reviews in general. If you don't like my **** you should just not read it