35 BEST/MOST ORIGINAL TV SHOWS AND MINI-SERIES EVER MADE REVIEWED

I got interested in ‘Utopia’ when I read that David Fincher was going to direct an American version of this British show for HBO. While it certainly will be interesting to see what Fincher will come up with, I’m having a hard time imagining he could improve upon the original: it’s absolutely perfect.

The visual style of the show, the amazing, crazy soundtrack (which fits the crazy conspiracy story so well), the fantastic characters and the wonderful cast and the pitch-black humor – I could go on and on. It all comes together to create one of the most unique and most original TV shows I’ve seen in a long time.

The only thing I know that would be kind of comparable among the current shows is the equally fantastic ‘Orphan Black’ – but ‘Utopia’ is even crazier (and a LOT more violent), has much weirder characters and makes for a more cinematic experience due to its stylish, Technicolor drenched photography.

The only downside to this show is that the finale of the second season sets the stage for a third season, which, sadly, won’t happen (for reasons I do not comprehend, the show got cancelled). But nearly all the loose ends are tied up, and the two existing seasons of ‘Utopia’ make for a fantastic watch. Highly recommended: 9 stars out of 10.

Lars von Trier's weird, creepy haunted hospital series with an amazing atmosphere and a great cast. Mixing scares and laughs to great results, this shows that you don't need a budget as long as you've got great actors, good writing and the perfect location. Shot entirely on an ordinary video camera, this is "no-budget" arthouse cinema.

Stephen King was such a big fan of this Danish series that he bought the rights to make a U.S. version (sadly, it didn't turn out very good) There's a second part to this series from 1997 which is just as good (I wish they would have been able to make the planned third part, but some of the lead actors died). 9 out of 10.

What you get to see here is a one-of-a-kind mini-series: this is as close to a documentary as it gets. The realities of modern warfare are shown honestly with no political agenda and you are left to draw your own conclusions.

When I watched this series I remembered a quote from another film, 'The Siege' from 1998, where Bruce Willis' character, a high ranking army official, says something along the lines of: "The army is a broad sword - not a scalpel. So trust me, you do not want to call the army, unless you have absolutely no other option".

From an artistic point of view what stands out the most is the ensemble of actors. Not once during the entire seven episodes did I not believe I was watching the actual characters - the performances and the direction in this production are flawless. I've never seen a series that felt as real as this.

This goes beyond mere entertainment - this is simply the best contemporary television has to offer. 10 out of 10.

The premise of 'Orphan Black' probably wouldn't even have to be half as intriguing as it is - and yet the show would still be fun to watch. Some TV-shows have such a great cast, you'd keep watching simply for the joy of seeing an outstanding ensemble act. To get those kinds of actors is a rare privilege for any show, and 'Orphan Black' is very privileged, indeed. Thankfully, it also has a fascinating story to tell, and that combination makes for one of the most entertaining and most original shows on recent TV.

This review won't contain any spoilers, so I'm not going into plot details - just know that 'Orphan Black' delivers a perfect blend of mystery, sci-fi, thriller, drama and comedy elements - and many wonderfully colourful characters - that will make you want to binge-watch entire seasons. And while everybody in the cast does an outstanding job, one thing can't be stressed enough: Tatiana Maslany, the lead actress, is a revelation. It's hard not to spoil anything for those who still have the joy of watching 'Orphan Black' ahead of the them (and I think the first few episodes are enjoyed best without knowing what the show is about), but let me just say: you're not likely to see so many different aspects of one actress' amazing acting capabilities in any other show or film.

So my verdict: Worth watching for the quality of the acting alone, 'Orphan Black' offers dark thrills, edge-of-your-seat suspense - and more than a few laughs along the way. Perfect entertainment from Canada - 8 stars out of 10.

Every once in a while a show comes along that catches you completely off guard; you only want to check out the pilot because you've read a comment or two on IMDb comparing it to some other show you kinda like – and BOOM: you're blown away. That's what happened to me with 'Banshee'.

It's amazing this show hasn't found a bigger audience. It has its fans, sure, but as far as the amount of steady viewers is concerned, it's nowhere near playing in the big leagues – yet. When I started to watch the first episode, I expected a decent, but low budget "neo-noir" crime show with some sexy women and a few good shoot-outs. What I got instead is high-octane pulp cinema that gets your heart pumpin' with adrenaline from the first second, and an opening chase/shoot-out that wouldn't have to hide behind any mega-budget action production Hollywood has churned out recently.

Needless to say, I was hooked. This show is raw, gritty, brutal and over-the-top; it's got everything most action films lack these days – and it's absolutely NOT PG-13. Granted, it's pulpy, trashy, sometimes even down-right ridiculous – but I loved every minute of it so far. The production values are among the best I've seen on TV and the cast is fantastic. Up until now, every episode felt like an injection of pure testosterone (and let's be honest: sometimes, that's just what the doctor ordered). My favorite guilty pleasure at the moment. 8 stars out 10.

Beautiful, epic old-school western with an amazing cast. At the time, TV-productions of such outstanding quality were not very common at all, and even though we now live in a golden age of TV-shows, this wonderful mini-series still holds up well. Worth watching for the priceless bickering between Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones alone, this small-screen marvel needs to be rediscovered by film fans. 8 stars out of 10.

While the Python's movies are very well known, I was surprised at how little known their groundbreaking TV-show still is. Some of the weirdest, funniest and most inventive sketches ever to be seen, I'm sure any fan of the films will enjoy this firework of creativity as well. Timeless, priceless fun that made TV-history. 9 stars out of 10.

After 'Flying Circus' was over, Python member John Cleese helped create and starred in this hilarious 12 part comedy series about a certain Basil Fawlty - who just so happens to run a hotel with his lovely wife. Problem is, Basil couldn't be more ill suited for the job; he's arrogant, incompetent and has a very short fuse - and to make matters worse, the hotel's cook doesn't understand a word of English. Some of the best comedy ever made, this show is absolutely one to rediscover for film fans. 9 stars out of 10.

If you want to experience the – real – old west first hand, look no further; you'll find it in 'Deadwood'. There has never been a show or a film that came as close to showing what life must have been like in those lawless young towns that got built nearly over night wherever gold was found. A magnet for all kind of fortune seekers (gold diggers, whores, outlaws – but also settlers who were just hoping to build a better life), the town of Deadwood was notorious even by the standards of the time. In the show, this "cesspool of vice" is brought back to life with great attention to historical detail. You'll find no romanticized view of pioneers who lived and died by "the code of honor", but real people whose moral standards are – in most cases – murky at best. And the world they inhabit is a rough, dirty, violent place where only the fiercest – and the most cunning – survive.

As far as the historical characters depicted in the show are concerned, the writers naturally had to take some liberties (after all, nobody knows exactly who said or did what at the time), but the depiction of the era and the historical background are very accurate. Yet this is not a history lesson; it's an immensely entertaining western-show blessed with some of the best writers and actors working in television and film today – and especially the cast of 'Deadwood' really can't get enough praise: there is not a single performance here that isn't excellent. Of course, the one who steals the show is Ian McShane. His Al Swearengen is one of the most morally complex and fun-to-watch characters I've ever seen (and he misses absolutely no opportunity to show you just what the first five letters in "SWEAR-engen" stand for). The power-struggles in Deadwood he is involved in – and since he wants to maintain his position at the top of the food-chain he's involved in all of them – are equalled in complexity and entertainment value only by those in top-notch shows like 'Game of Thrones', 'House of Cards' or 'Breaking Bad'. And the lengths Al is willing to go to achieve his goals secure him a place in the top ten of "all-time great bad-asses".

So my verdict: While certainly not for the easily offended or those who prefer a "sanitized version" of the old west, 'Deadwood' offers a fascinating look at a time we mostly know from myths and legends and gives us a chance to revisit those and see them from a different angle. Great, intelligent and informative entertainment. 9 stars out of 10.

Having seen the films based on Thomas Harris' novels, I couldn't for the life of me imagine an actor other than Anthony Hopkins for the role of Hannibal Lecter (although I had seen - and liked - Brian Cox' take on the character in Michael Mann's 'Manhunter' which was released before 'The Silence of the Lambs'). Apart from that, I didn't see the point in retelling a story that had already been told very well on film – and with outstanding actors. For those reasons, I deprived myself of the pleasure of watching 'Hannibal' until the second season of the show started - but boy: am I glad I finally got over myself and did start!

To those who haven't watched it for the same reasons I didn't I can only say: knowing the storyline from the films (or the books) doesn't spoil this in the least; the writers cleverly play with your expectations and they have taken enough liberties that you can never tell what is going to happen. And Mads Mikkelsen makes for a terrific Hannibal. The cat and mouse play between him and Hugh Dancy's Will Graham is a thrilling joy to watch; the conversations between the two are an example of surgically precise writing where every word counts and could - literally – be a concealed weapon (the writing in general is top notch, especially the dialogues).

Visually, this series is unlike anything I've ever seen; the opulence of the images seems to be directly inspired by the aesthetic of oil paintings; whenever food is served or you see the interior of Hannibal's mansion you're reminded of still lives from the Dutch Baroque; certain dreams, visions and hallucinations even recall the works of Hieronymus Bosch. Don't get me wrong: first and foremost this is a gory crime show about an exceptionally well educated and highly intelligent serial killer (and not some "art show") – albeit one with a very unique look.

My verdict: 'Hannibal' offers gory thrills along with amazing images, fascinating characters and an outstanding cast. Perhaps the most visual – and visually daring – crime show ever. 9 stars out of 10.

You don't have to have seen the original Coen film to enjoy this series, nor does it spoil anything for you if you have seen it: the new TV-show 'Fargo' is entirely its own beast. So far, the only thing the series and the film do have in common is the title and that they both are - allegedly - based on true events that happened somewhere in Minnesota.

The writers (and the actors!) do a great job in creating new characters that are as strange and somewhat over the top as most of the iconic Coen creations we've come to love over the years - and Billy Bob Thornton's 'Lorne Malvo' might even reach cult status.

Watching bad situations get worse as bad decisions lead to even worse ones and the lives of ordinary people spiral violently out of control is told here with a wicked sense of humor that makes this show so much fun - so far, I've enjoyed every minute of it.

Now whether 'Fargo' will appeal to a larger audience despite its quirky characters and non-mainstream look and storyline the way 'Breaking Bad' did remains to be seen, but I would strongly recommend it to anyone who enjoys black comedies in general as well as pretty much anything the Coens ever did.

Great, pitch black entertainment - 9 out of 10 from me.

Well, I'm trying to write a completely spoiler-free review here, but I guess it's safe to announce that 'Penny Dreadful' looks positively gorgeous. Great production design and cinematography: by the time we get to see Victorian London as night descends upon the city and the fog starts creeping through those narrow cobblestone alleys, nearly every frame looks like a beautiful, Gothic painting (and not once did I spot a fake looking CG-background). As far as the actors are concerned, they portray their obscure, troubled characters with a certain kind of "theater intensity" that fits the story and the turn-of-the-century setting very well.

Story-wise I don't want to give away anything – but of course, there are unholy things lurking in the shadows that need to be fought (and they look rather convincing: the make-up effects are another strong point of this show). Like the iconic "Hammer Horror" films of old (usually starring either Christopher Lee or Peter Cushing – or both), 'Penny Dreadful' draws its setting, characters and general inspiration mainly from some famously dark tales written by Mary Shelley, Bram Stoker and Oscar Wilde (and to a lesser extent from sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories). And just like the Hammer films - who may seem rather tame now but were shockingly violent for their time - this show is neither for purists of said literary works nor for the faint of heart.

While some scenes are genuinely scary in a tension building, "old school" kind of way, we also get blood soaked action sequences that will probably put off some viewers, but seem entirely appropriate given the show's title (in the 19th century a "penny dreadful" used to be a booklet of cheap, sensational fiction printed on pulp paper which could be purchased for - wait for it: a penny).

My overall verdict: 'Penny Dreadful' dishes out a hefty mix of gory violence, classic horror creatures, sex and action, but it never forgets to build atmosphere. The B-movie elements are undeniably there, but they're deliberate (the title says it all), and this is by no means a cheap affair. Beautifully crafted and with a great cast, I strongly recommend this show to anyone who likes the old "Hammer Horror" movies as well as films in the vein of Tim Burton's 'Sweeney Todd' and 'Sleepy Hollow'.

But not just for the fans of "Goth Horror" is this well worth checking out; I would say that after 'True Detective' and perhaps 'Fargo' this is one of the most promising new TV-shows of 2014. 8 stars out of 10.

(This review is about the first season only): Right when the opening credits start and you hear that morbidly beautiful song 'Far From Any Road' by 'The Handsome Family', you know that this isn't going to be your usual cop show. Now, if you're more into action films, avoid this at all costs - but if you like amazing performances and dark, brooding cinema peppered with some black humor and a slight psychedelic touch, you're going to love this. The atmosphere and the southern ambiance of this show are so rich and the cinematography is so beautiful, I can hardly think of anything in recent TV-history that compares to this. To make a musical analogy: if the crazy, creative energy of 'Breaking Bad' felt like 'Led Zeppelin', this feels more like 'The Doors'. The slow, bluesy, hypnotic pulse of this show draws you in and hooks you - and then it doesn't let go. By the way, the original music is also excellent (T-Bone Burnett) and fits the mood perfectly.

As far as the actors are concerned, there's nothing but great performances. Even the smaller parts are perfectly cast and the two leads: wow, just - wow! Harrelson (freshly returned from 'The Hunger Games'), plays the "normal", more down to earth character, while McConaughey (still marked by his own personal hunger games) nails the part of his slightly mad, highly intelligent but nihilistic and severely depressed partner. Watching them play off each other (again, after 'Edtv' and 'Surfer, Dude') while their conflicted - and conflicting - characters try to solve a ritual murder is so captivating (and so much fun) I honestly don't care that much if they are ever going to solve that crime.

So for the moment, I'm giving this 10 stars (I can still take back a few if it all goes downhill from here), because in my opinion, there wasn't a single note out of key so far. The writing is top notch, and if the creative team behind this can keep it up, this could turn out to be HBO's next 'Wire' in terms of quality. Cary Fukunaga ('Sin Nombre','Jane Eyre'), who will hopefully one day adapt Stephen King's 'It', proves once more that he's a very accomplished director and a talent to look out for in the future.

My verdict: if you like a well told, character driven story (that might lead you to some very dark places) and if you're not put off by a rather considerate pace, I can't recommend this show enough - this is some great television.

Along with TV-shows like 'Oz', 'Deadwood', 'The Sopranos' and 'Six Feet Under', David Simon's 'The Wire' was part of a revolution - quality-wise - in television. Although it is very entertaining, this isn't just entertainment; this is art, pure and simple - and the concept of this show was groundbreaking.

On the surface, one might think this is a show about crime, but really, 'The Wire' is about the life and soul of a whole city. Every aspect of the city of Baltimore gets its share of screen time, and the way this is done - the writing, the direction, the amazing performances by the terrific cast; the music, the camera work, the realism... I could go on and on - is just outstanding.

On par with 'Generation Kill' (no wonder, since the same creative team was behind both), this is as good as television gets. 10 stars out of 10.

If you are among the few who haven't seen it yet: believe the hype, it really is THAT good. It may not depict reality in the way 'Generation Kill' or 'The Wire' did - but then it's not about that, either.

From an artistic point of view - performances, writing, direction, camera, music - this show is every bit as good as the other two mentioned above, but unlike those, 'Breaking Bad' just wants to entertain and therefore enjoys a lot more creative freedom.

This show plays like the daydream fantasy of any underachieving, struggling middle class family man who's had to bury all his dreams (I mean: who wouldn't want to be a meth-kingpin for a little while?) - one could almost say that 'Heisenberg' is Walter White's 'Tyler Durden'(for those who don't get the reference: watch 'Fight Club' - you won't regret it).

For pure entertainment value, this is simply the best show I've ever seen. Every single one of the main characters has already reached the status of a screen icon - when does that ever happen?! Most fun I've ever had watching a TV-show and an instant classic. 10 stars out of 10.

The largely negative reaction to GAME OF THRONES final season(s) reminded me a bit of the debate surrounding STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI. Because as with that film, there's two fractions of detractors: those who hate the "unexpected" ideas and story developments presented, and those who don't mind the ideas - or even fully embrace them - but take issue with how clumsily they've been executed.

I count myself in the latter camp (that goes for TLJ and GOT by the way); while I theoretically don't have a problem with the unexpected story developments in season 8 and even believe that in broad strokes the final season delivered what G.R.R. Martin intended, the devil here very much lies in the details. But what exactly happened? Let's take a look.

Five years ago, when I originally reviewed this show after its fourth season had aired, my headline read: "Fantasy Has Never Seemed So Real." And it was true then, which is why I still stand by what I wrote:

"The sheer amount of quality and talent in this series is staggering. The actors (and I mean really ALL the actors), the costumes, the visual effects, the makeup: everybody working on this show seems to have wanted to make television history. And the writing is just phenomenal. 'Game of Thrones' may belong to the fantasy genre, but the world of Westeros and its surrounding lands has been so amazingly well thought through and is inhabited by characters that are so well drawn and credible that everything you watch feels real.

Every "country", every city, tribe or family has such a richly detailed history and even mythology that it just never feels like it was made up. Of course, the amazing worldbuilding was already there in George R.R. Martin's epic saga 'A Song of Ice and Fire' - but translating that so perfectly to a TV-show and with such care as was done here really is a rare achievement."

I would have been OK with leaving that short review at that - and I did for the past five years - but then season 8 happened (though to be fair, certain "cracks" had already started to appear before that, especially in season 7, but also the Dorne storyline in season 5 as well as the depiction of Euron Greyjoy in season 6 were heavily flawed - but those issues were no deal breakers).

If I had to name one key factor that led to the unexpected change in the quality of the storytelling during those final seasons it would NOT be the fact that the show's creators David Benioff and D.B. Weiss (aka D&D) couldn't draw from existing source material by George R.R. Martin anymore (because they'd had the same situation for years, yet they still managed to deliver some of GOT's best episodes, like 'The Door' for example) - no: it would be time.

Time has been the key issue since season 7 started: lack of time is what led to the many forced plot developments, sudden "plot armor" for characters (which was previously unheard of in GOT), the rushed conclusions to storylines that took years (and thousands of pages in the books) to build; it is what led to the at times striking disregard for detail and logic, and it is also the reason why the evolution of certain key characters suddenly seemed to be happening in fast-forward mode and left long-time viewers baffled.

As I initially mentioned, I really don't think it was the unexpected story turns and conclusions to the larger character arcs and what the protagonists did or didn't do that plagued the final seasons (though when it comes to the smaller arcs and details it certainly IS also that: some actions and situations just don't make a lick of sense no matter how much you're willing to suspend your disbelief): it's just that all those things were set up so poorly. Because unlike during the first half dozen of seasons, now the show was suddenly in such a hurry to rush to the finish line that it didn't spend enough time on the kind of character moments with our heroes and villains that would have been instrumental in making us UNDERSTAND them better.

It's the time NOT spent with them and their evolving relationships and inner conflicts that let the show down in the end (no offense, but Jon and Dany's intended epic, tragic love story felt more like a one-night stand one of them almost immediately came to regret) - time that would have been crucial to make us care more and make the spectacular final battles and the end of those characters' amazing journeys really resonate emotionally and give them the weight they deserved. And that's precisely what D&D's worst miscalculation was: the assumption that GOT's fans would be happy with two shortened final seasons if the show put even more emphasis on spectacle - when in fact the only reason fans ever cared about the spectacle was the detailed, perfectly paced, grounded and believable and character-based drama that accompanied it.

Instead, during the final two seasons, the time we spend in excess with our protagonists rushing from one major (oh so shocking) plot development and/or epic battle to the next, comes at the expense of the meticulous storytelling we've come to know - and love - in GOT, where actions had believable consequences and characters behaved in a way that remained consistent with how they were established before. And it was this sudden and unexpected change that finally took so many of us long-time viewers and fans out of the story. As any storyteller should know (especially those who spin their tales in the fantasy genre): the moment we stop being able to suspend our disbelief, the magic of the story evaporates immediately, no matter how beautiful and spectacular the images on the screen look.

I'm convinced that, had Benioff & Weiss been willing to spend a couple more years of their lives on the show instead of speeding up the pacing so they could pursue glory in a galaxy far, far away (and had they listened to G.R.R. Martin and HBO who would have been very much in favor of letting the show continue for as many seasons as were needed to do the whole epic saga justice), GOT could have ended up as the greatest achievement in television history. As it is, the show gave us 4 perfect seasons of a grounded, complex, intelligent fantasy epic the likes of which the world might never see again; it gave us 2 more seasons that were flawed (thanks to the Dorne storyline and the decision to make Euron Greyjoy a simple thug and mere plot device instead of a mysterious, evil warlock with a magical, dragon-binding horn) but still very, very good - and 2 final seasons that were very, very flawed yet still delivered sequences of breathtaking beauty and eye-popping spectacle as well as much needed resolution.

As an old Braavosi saying goes: "Show-ar Morghulis" (that means "All TV-shows must come to an end" for all you heathens who didn't bother to learn a little High Valyrian along the way ;-), and overall I'm still grateful. It may have been a disappointing ride towards the end, but boy: what a ride it was. So R.I.P. GOT: What is dead may never die (oh, and George: PLEASE FINISH THOSE BOOKS!!!).

The eerie atmosphere in this strange, beautiful series about returning dead people in an isolated mountain town is absolutely captivating and a unique experience. Beautifully photographed and with a haunting score by Mogwai, this French TV-marvel is as touching as it is frightening. I would call it a very original crossbreed of mystery and horror and a rather unique take on the zombie theme. This ranks among the best I've recently seen on TV or in the cinema. The whole production, from the opening credits to the fantastic actors, the cinematography and the music, is pure art. 9 stars out of 10.

So here it is at last; one of the most highly anticipated new TV-shows of the year: the spin-off from probably the most highly praised TV-show in the history of Television. Naturally, expectations were over the roof - and it was a forgone conclusion that meeting those expectations would be next to impossible. Well, here's the good news. Judging from the first episode, 'Better Call Saul' will be good. Just how good remains to be seen, but as far as promises go, that first episode was a big one.

For those who haven't seen it yet: relax - I won't spoil a thing about the storyline. Instead, I'll concentrate on all other aspects of the opening episode. The first thing you notice (as was the case with Breaking Bad) is the camera. The photography is simply gorgeous. All the visual trademarks I've grown to love so much in BB are there: the playful camera angles; the creative ways to establish even a simple scene with unusual, interesting shots (yet without ever distracting from the storytelling) - it's just beautiful to look at.

Then there's the music. From the wonderful introduction (before the opening credits) to the last scene of this first episode, music is not just used as background "noise": carefully picked songs are there to give clues and are as much an integral part of the story as they help establish the tone of certain scenes. And the original music by Dave Porter feels as organic to 'Better Call Saul' as it did in 'Breaking Bad'.

The writing, directing and acting (so far) are on par with BB; anyone afraid this would be a rushed production trying to surf on BB's success can relax; not for a second did I get the feeling this was somehow not well thought through or cheaply done by a committee of writers - and although we do of course get some of our favorite characters back, new ones are introduced that promise to be just as original and interesting as the ones that helped turn BB into a cultural phenomenon. And adding high caliber actors such as Michael McKean ('This Is Spinal Tap') to the cast is probably an indication that Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould will not content themselves - or us - by mainly exploring the characters we already know.

And then, finally, there's the magnificent Bob Odenkirk. Starting off as a slightly one-dimensional character and comic relief in BB, the character we've come to love as the sleazy, slick Saul Goodman has already shown more layers in this first episode than over his entire run on BB. And that's as much thanks to Odenkirk as the fantastic writing: the actor obviously relished the opportunity to show what he's capable of as his character charms, squirms and threatens his way through his scenes, but - somewhat unexpectedly - he also manages to move you during the more quiet moments.

To sum up my overall impressions from this first episode: 'Better Call Saul' will be a darkly comic, multilayered story that could end up being just as unusual and exciting as we all dared to hope. The tone may be consistent with 'Breaking Bad', but make no mistake: this is very much its own thing. The writing, directing and acting - as well as the production values - are top notch, and if what we've seen so far is anything to go by, we're in for a great first season of a very promising new show. My (provisional) rating: 9 stars out of 10

Amazing British anthology series with a very intriguing concept. The premise: taking contemporary phenomena (ranging from the wild popularity of talent shows on TV to the impact of social media and smartphones on our lives) as a starting point and speculate how such phenomena could/would evolve in the future.

Each episode tells a different story with different protagonists and focuses on a different theme. Of course, the series doesn't explore the beneficial aspects or any positive trends - (where would the fun be in that?) - but clearly approaches its topics from a pessimistic, cynical point of view (hence the title). As the show's creator Charlie Brooker ('Dead Set') puts it: "...They (the different stories) are all about the way we live now – and the way we might be living in 10 minutes' time if we're clumsy."

The resulting mix of bleak sci-fi, drama, satire and black comedy makes for highly intelligent television and ranks among the most original and entertaining shows I've ever come across. The writing and directing are excellent and the cast includes such talented thesps as Domhnall Gleeson, Rory Kinnear, Toby Kebbell, Hayley Atwell, Jon Hamm, Jason Flemyng and Rupert Everett - to name but a few. Unique, fascinating and highly recommended. 9 stars out of 10.

Well, we’ve had to be patient for nearly a quarter of a century to finally see Ash wield his chainsaw again, but trust me: it was well worth the wait. Ash vs. Evil Dead fires on all cylinders.

After so many years had passed since Army of Darkness (aka Evil Dead III) came out in 1992, it looked like a direct sequel just wasn’t going to happen anymore, yet apparently, the Raimi-Campbell gang had been working on one for some time. According to recent interviews with the show’s creators Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell, what was first supposed to be a new feature film and the fourth entry in the franchise, over time turned into an idea for a TV-series, and I believe fans will be very happy with the result. Instead of a 2-hour film for a sequel, we now get 5 more hours with Ash and the Deadites (possibly more if the show’s going to be a success) and judging from what I’ve seen so far, those 5 hours are going to be an absolute blast.

(This paragraph contains some – very – mild spoilers; there won’t be any in the rest of this review). At the beginning of the show we meet Ash leading a lazy, but apparently happy slacker life, residing in a run-down trailer and working as a stock boy at a Value Stop (for some obscure legal reasons, the writers couldn’t use the name S-Mart from Army of Darkness’ iconic last scene). In the show, 30 years have passed since Ash’s last encounter with the Deadites, and while he might be well into middle age now, he hasn’t matured one bit. Ash is still the exact same guy we last saw fighting walking skeletons and other ghastly undead things in Army of Darkness, cracking wise and appearing as cock-sure of himself as ever (despite still not being the "smartest cookie in the jar" - to put it mildly). These days, he likes to spend most of his spare time either getting wasted in his trailer or picking up random ladies - or both (mostly both). I won't go further into any of the story details (because that would only spoil the fun); suffice to say that his rather irresponsible lifestyle ultimately won’t go too well with his duty as keeper of a certain (slightly) dangerous book, and (very!) bloody mayhem soon ensues.

In my opinion, Ash vs. Evil Dead does everything right. Instead of going down the "gritty drama" route of shows like The Walking Dead or taking the "straight horror" approach of Fede Alvarez' Evil Dead remake, creators Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell fully embrace the over-the-top goofiness and playful tone of Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness, while still delivering the scares of the first film and plenty (and I mean: PLENTY) of gore. The Deadites are frightening, but they're also kind of comical in that they don't look too realistic (don't get me wrong, their make-up is gorgeous, but they don't look like the zombies from George A. Romero's films or The Walking Dead). The production values in general are absolutely great; the writing is in the vein of the first three films (no wonder, since the episodes were mostly written by Sam and Ivan Raimi); the music, the pacing and the direction: really everything just falls into place. It’s clear that this wasn’t some lazy attempt to cash in on the name of a beloved cult-franchise, but a labor of love for all involved.

Another great plus of the series is the cast. Seeing Bruce Campbell step back into this iconic character is simply hilarious fun; it still fits him like a glove (or, perhaps more accurately in his case, a chainsaw). But there was never a doubt in my mind that he would deliver (it seems Ash is character Campbell was born to play); what really surprised me was how well the rest of the cast fits into the show. Ray Santiago as Pablo and Dana DeLorenzo as Kelly (they’re Ash’s co-workers at the Value Stop) are completely able to hold their own; they are fully fleshed-out characters and just as fun to watch as Ash. The same goes for Jill Marie Jones who plays state trooper Amanda Fisher, and I’m really looking forward to seeing more of Lucy Lawless’ mysterious character Ruby.

So my verdict: Ash vs Evil dead brings back everything that I loved about the original Evil Dead films, but it also manages to introduce interesting new characters and storylines which help maintain the element of surprise for long-time fans. And the show works just as well as a stand-alone story, so people unfamiliar with the original trilogy need not worry either: they will find just as much to love here as those who know and cherish Sam Raimi’s classics - as long as they have a certain affection for gory horror comedies and don't expect serious drama (Six Feet Under this is not). In my book, this show is already a winner: 9 stars out of 10.

I love spectacular TV-shows with amazing production values like Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead, but I have to say: although House of Cards has little interest in jaw-dropping images or gruesome make-up effects, it delivers just as many dark thrills to keep you glued to your seat as the action-heavy flagships of HBO and AMC. It's a testament to the writers', directors' and actors' talents that a show which mostly consists of people talking is as much a prime candidate for binge- watching as the shows I've mentioned before, so for those of you who haven't started watching it yet, be warned: House of Cards is highly addictive.

The show is based on the acclaimed BBC mini-series of the same name from 1990, but while the original show focused on the inner workings of British politics, the remake is entirely US based and concentrates on the rise of power-hungry congressman Francis Underwood who is played by Kevin Spacey. On the surface, the show might appear to be a political drama - which it certainly is - but it's also so much more than that. House of Cards combines a vast number of genres; it's a thriller, a love story, a black comedy and a satire - and a very interesting lesson in US politics, which, given creator Beau Willimon's profound knowledge on the subject (he used to work as a campaign aid for Hillary Clinton, Bill Bradley and Howard Dean), is probably a lot more accurate than what we would like to believe.

It's also worth mentioning that House of Cards was heavily inspired by certain works of William Shakespeare. The character of Francis Underwood is a combination of Richard III and Macbeth, and in true Shakespeare manner, he often addresses the audience directly to inform us of his evil schemes. As in the bard's two famous plays, the villain is also the protagonist and - to a certain degree - the person you root for. And what makes him so much fun and so compelling to watch here, is - regardless what you think of him as a person - Kevin Spacey's performance.

Spacey's portrayal of a charming but deadly predator is simply perfect; despite the character's obvious willingness to go to extreme lengths to get what he wants, Spacey always keeps him believable and avoids the temptation of making him appear like a caricature or as over-the-top as Richard III in the play. But many of his co-stars are just as impressive; some of them actually downright outshine the famous oscar winner, and especially Robin Wright gives an amazing performance as Underwood's equally ambitious wife and partner in crime (yes, season 6 is a let-down, especially the final episode, but that's not Wright's fault).

To sum up my overall impressions: Under the guidance of David Fincher (who serves as an executive producer on the show and also directed the first couple of episodes), Beau Willimon has developed one of the smartest and most entertaining TV-shows - with one of the most impressive casts - contemporary television has to offer. Seasons 1-5 are highly recommended. 9 stars out of 10.

This new show certainly knows how to get your attention. Within the first five minutes of the first episode you will have a very clear picture of what it meant to have to undergo surgery at a time when even today's most common surgical procedures had hardly been tested – let alone successfully. With this new series, writers Jack Amiel and Michael Begler have created a fascinating – and gripping – look at the humble beginnings of modern medicine, and frankly: it made me realize just how lucky I am to live today.

The show's title is derived from the Knickerbocker Hospital, a fictional hospital at the turn of the century in New York which serves as the center stage around which the lives and struggles of the protagonists revolve. 'The Nick' shows us an uneasy, turbulent time where everything is in motion, and although the benefits of the so called "modern age" are already waiting around the corner, the situation for people without money is grim. Immigrants live in horrible sanitary situations, little children have to work in factories and social frictions and racial prejudice run deep within society.

Clive Owen does an excellent job portraying a conflicted but passionate surgeon who's constantly trying to push the boundaries by inventing or refining surgical methods in the hope of lowering the mortality rate among his patients. The rest of the cast is also terrific; their performances - along with the great writing - help create a sense of realism that is rarely seen in films or TV-shows depicting that era. The same can be said of the fantastic production values – the team behind 'The Knick' obviously went to great lengths to portray everyday life of that era as accurately as possible. Virtually every frame oozes quality: the city of New York at the beginning of the twentieth century has been meticulously recreated and every busy street corner, alley or candle-lit room feels authentic. Small wonder, perhaps, given that the director, producer, cinematographer and editor of all 20 episodes is none other than multi-talent and Oscar winner Steven Soderbergh.

My verdict: This is a fascinating, gripping portrayal of the dawn of modern surgery as well as an intense human drama and an authentic look at an era we normally only get to see in films about Sherlock Holmes or Jack the Ripper. Highly recommended. 9 stars out of 10.

Let me start this review by stating that I've never read the comic books, so I can't testify as to whether or not this crazy, grotesque, violent and hilarious new AMC fantasy series is a faithful adaptation of the source material. But what I can tell you as an avid fantasy and horror fan is that the pilot left me with an immediate urge to watch the next episode.

Just so you know, this review won't contain anything story related, so if you want to learn what the show is about, read the IMDb synopsis or go to Wikipedia. I believe most films and TV-shows are enjoyed best without knowing anything other than maybe the genre, cast or filmmaker (plus, personally, I like to know about as many aspects as I can about the actual quality of the filmmaking itself).

What becomes immediately evident in 'Preacher' is that the casting of the title role was a stroke of genius: Dominic Cooper ('The Devil's Double', 'Captain America: The First Avenger') makes for a fantastic lead. His charismatic but nuanced performance as conflicted preacher Jesse Custer was enough to convince me after only one episode that he will be able to carry this series. It's always a balancing act to portray this kind of character with just enough vulnerability to make him appear relatable and human but still have him come across as larger than life, and judging by what I've seen so far, Cooper manages to pull it off perfectly.

I'd say the cast in general is very solid, but the two actors that need to be mentioned most apart from Cooper's preacher are Ruth Negga in the role of Tulip and to Joseph Gilgun as Cassidy. Both are wicked fun to watch (and obviously they're relishing their parts) and both have completely bonkers introduction scenes for their respective characters that will give audiences a taste of just what kind of crazy, ultra-violent mayhem we're in for with this new show.

Now just to get this straight: there are darkly comic moments abound in 'Preacher' but it is not a black comedy - nor is it as over the top as, say, 'Ash vs the Evil Dead' (despite being pretty over the top at times). Fans of the show's creators, Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, would be well-advised not to expect a similar tone in 'Preacher' as in some of the duo's previous works like 'This Is the End' or 'The Interview'. What we have here is probably best described as "dark fantasy" and while it IS peppered with a large dose of dark comedy, I'm pretty sure there will also be some rather unfunny shît down the road for this preacher to deal with.

As for the production values, the visuals (and the visual effects) in general look very nice and the sets convincing; the southern locations have a "lived-in" and appropriately run-down look and the whole small-town, Texan atmosphere is tangible. The cinematography was expertly done (the pilot's DoP was none other than The Matrix' Bill Pope) and the soundtrack is even downright fantastic (if you can appreciate southern songs from the likes of Johnny Cash, that is). The one thing that didn't always work for me was the pacing/editing and the way certain scenes were established, but a slightly uneven rhythm is not uncommon for pilot episodes, so I'm not worried yet.

My overall verdict: 'Preacher' is a show that doesn't try for a second to cater to a mainstream audience; it offers a unique blend of pulp elements and dark fantasy for genre fans who most likely won't have the slightest problem digesting the hefty mix of drama, horror, gory violence and humor. Needless to say, I'm totally on board (and I can't wait for the next sermon). My provisional rating: 8 stars out of 10.

* May contain slight spoilers *

(This review is about the first season only): As many sci-fi fans will know, the show 'Westworld' is based on the 1973 feature film of the same name (written and directed by Michael Crichton), and the premise is basically the same as it was then: In a future where technological possibilities are seemingly endless, a highly sophisticated theme park offers rich clients the chance to visit the long gone era of the Old West (Crichton later explored a variation of that theme in a certain well known novel – which was then adapted by a certain Mr. Spielberg - albeit with slightly different creatures than cowboys populating a slightly more "jurassic" environment).

The show does a great job pulling the viewer immediately into Westworld. Within 10 minutes of the first episode, the basic rules of the theme park are established: paying guests called "newcomers" get to interact with androids called "hosts" (which to the naked eye are indiscernible from the guests) in a world dressed up like the Old West – and in this world, the guest truly is king. The rules are brutally simple: the visitors get to do whatever they like with – or to – the androids. They can have a friendly chat with them, flirt with them or embark on a spontaneous (or scripted) adventure with them – but they can also shoot them, rape them, torture them and kill them at will. Imagine a real-life version of the game 'Grand Theft Auto' (in a slightly different setting) and you'll get the idea.

The androids, on the other hand, are constructed and programmed in a way that is supposed to inhibit them from physically harming "living" creatures. At the beginning of the show - thanks to an interesting choice of storytelling - we get to experience Westworld from the perspective of the androids, which reveals a cruel detail about their nature: they apparently experience emotions. Artificial or not, they do feel pain and fear – as well as affection and anger, and they have no idea that they don't count as "real" people (at least not to those who call themselves real people). And while that detail certainly makes the "game" even more thrilling and more realistic for the visitors, it means that the shocking abuse some of the androids have to suffer is harrowingly real to them.

The way the show is constructed - so far - it immediately confronts the viewer with very uncomfortable questions. How do we as humans behave towards creatures we consider non-human? How excessive do we become and how thin does our layer of morality turn out to be if we're allowed to live out all our fantasies without having to fear any consequences for our actions? And at what point should a creature have rights similar to those we demand for ourselves? How do we define "sentient"? How do we define "human"? And how well do we actually understand - and how well are we able to control - the amazing technology our species seems to have acquired so suddenly?

As an avid film fan, I found 'Westworld' immediately intriguing; not only because it dares to challenge the viewer with fascinating philosophical questions and scientific concepts, but also because its premise offers the chance to explore a wide range of film genres: sci- fi, western, drama, horror - to name but a few. In the first few episodes alone, there are hints of many of my favorite films and stories such as (obviously) 'Frankenstein', 'Blade Runner', 'A.I.', 'Ex Machina', 'Jurassic Park', 'The Truman Show' and 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes' (and I suspect somewhere down the road there will be a strong 'Spartacus' vibe). As for the non plot related aspects of the show: production design, music and effects are fantastic – as we've come to expect from HBO's high concept productions – and, with very few exceptions, the impressive ensemble of high caliber actors do a great job at bringing their respective characters to life (artificial and otherwise).

A special mention needs to go to Ed Harris and Anthony Hopkins: their charismatic screen presence is once more just impossible to ignore and they simply own every scene they're in. Generally speaking, there really isn't much to complain about in 'Westworld' (so far), and I'm pretty sure HBO have another winner. Given the amount of talent involved, anything else actually would have been surprising. Produced by J.J. Abrams, created by Jonathan Nolan and Lisa Joy Nolan based on a concept by the late – great – Michael Crichton; directed by Neil Marshall and Vincenzo Natali (among others), and with a cast most shows would kill for, the stars really seem to have aligned for 'Westworld'.

My overall verdict so far: 'Westworld' is intelligent science fiction for adults (some scenes are very graphic) which offers more than just eye candy and is full of mysteries for the patient viewer to uncover. The show's main themes may not be new, but I found the way they are presented never less than compelling. It succeeds in creating a powerful metaphor for oppression, and by showing how quickly humans tend to deem "un-humane" treatment of other beings acceptable - once they've managed to convince themselves they're "less" human than they are - the show drove a point home that resonated strongly with me. 9 stars out of 10.

Wow: This was by far the biggest surprise for me in 2016. And apparently, I was somewhat late to the party, as the show already began to air in 2015. I'm an avid sci-fi fan, but I hadn't heard or read anything about 'The Expanse', and yet it's one of the most ambitious sci-fi (or generally high profile/concept TV) shows I've come across in recent years.

First, I believe a little (spoiler-free) information might be helpful prior to watching the show, because the viewer is thrown right into an incredibly detailed world where much is shown rather than explained (which is certainly an elegant choice in terms of storytelling and world-building, but there's so much going on and every shot is packed with so much visual information that it can be a little confusing during the first 2 or 3 episodes). So what you need to know is this: A couple of hundred years into the future, humanity is spread out throughout the solar system and divided into 3 opposing forces who are on the brink of an all out war for resources (mainly water - which is harvested in the form of asteroid ice). The 3 fractions consist of the two superpowers Earth (governed by the U.N.) and Mars; the third party are the "Belters", which is basically everyone unfortunate enough to be living on poor dwarf planets like Ceres or other large rocks in the asteroid belt (hence the name "Belters").

Those "Belters" are the future equivalent of the "3rd World" population, as they represent the poor, exploited and underdeveloped colonies in the solar system. Most Belters feel represented by the "Outer Planets Alliance" (short: O.P.A.) which is a radical group demanding more autonomy and fairer distribution of resources for the inhabitants of the asteroid belt, but is viewed as a terrorist group by Earth and Mars. Belters are badly affected by the harsh conditions in low (or even zero) gravity (which is often referred to as "low-G" or "zero-G"), as well as low oxygen levels and the strict rationing of water; their bodies develop less muscles and their bone structure has less density compared to that of humans born and raised on Earth or Mars. The Belters' life expectancy is roughly half of that of humans living on Earth.

So that's the backdrop to the story told in 'The Expanse', and it all may seem a little complicated at the start, because the plot unfolds through several seperate storylines. The key parts of the story are told through the eyes of three different protagonists: a high ranking U.N. official on Earth named Avasarala (played by Shohreh Aghdashloo); a cynical Belter police detective named Miller (Thomas Jane) whose story starts on Ceres; and a young executive officer named Holden (Steven Strait) working on an ice freighter in space. Although those three don't know it (yet), their stories are connected, - and that's all I'm gonna say about the plot, because this show deserves to be watched unspoiled.

Featuring visual and narrative elements that reminded me of almost every sci-fi film I ever loved - 'Alien', 'Outland', 'Serenity', 'Blade Runner' and many more - this is an R-rated space opera no sci-fi fan should miss. And although it probably can't compete with 175 million costing blockbusters like the new 'Star Trek' movies in terms of visual effects, 'The Expanse' looks fantastic. Given the insane amount of effects work involved, it must have been a very expensive affair for SyFy (who ordered the series from production companies Alcon Television and The Sean Daniel Company), and although I doubt they were able to afford the kind of budget HBO usually spends on shows like 'Game of Thrones' or 'Westworld', in terms of scope and complexity, this new SyFy show easily matches HBO's flagships (it appears Syfy is trying to get rid of its reputation as "shlock-channel").

The storytelling is meticulous and perfectly paced; the world-building richly detailed and always credible, and the patient viewer who doesn't demand everything be explained within the first episodes is rewarded with a thrilling, mysterious tale of adventure and discovery. The cast is terrific (especially Thomas Jane who seems to fit his character like a glove) and the writing manages the astounding feat to elegantly lead us through a very complex world and complicated story without ever feeling forced or weighed down by expository dialogue. Show-runners/writers Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby (known for their Oscar nominated work on the screenplay for 'Children of Men') really have done a fine job bringing the series of novels by James S. A. Corey (aka Daniel Abraham and Ty Franck) to life. Highly recommended to every sci-fi fan: 9 stars out of 10.

Now in its 20th season, South Park still dissects the most ridiculous behaviour in our society with merciless precision, and nobody comes away clean. And it's funny how people still react the same way to the show as they did 20 years ago:

The self-proclaimed flag bearers for our nation's moral standards still can't see anything in the show beyond its naughty language and (perceived) vulgarity (and while half of them are genuinely offended by the show for those reasons, the other half secretly loves the show precisely for its naughty language and overall vulgarity and toilet humor).

The ones who make fun of the self-proclaimed flag bearers still believe only they are smart enough to see anything beyond the obvious naughty language and overall vulgarity in it (and while most of them pretend to only love the show for its satirical elements, the majority of them actually love it because of its naughty language and overall vulgarity and toilet humor).

And then there's the third group of people who get the satire but just flat out admit that it's effing hilarious seeing Gerald getting peed in the face by his loving wife Sheila or when the boys protest the girls' protest by proudly taking their tiny wieners out while raising a fist.

If anything comes close to good satire and ruthless comedy in the vein of Monty Python's 'Life of Brian' today, it's South Park. Blind followers of any movement beware: Matt and Trey have it in for all of us, nobody is safe. God help us all if they ever decide to retire, society would be all the worse for it.

Come to think of it: Let's start a petition for a co-presidency in the U.S. so they both can run for president and save the country (and the world!) from either the giant douche or the turd sandwich.

Damn, that last comment makes me a follower too.

9 stars out of 10

*** some mild spoilers ahead ***

"What is your name?" Jesus asked.

"My name is Legion," he replied, "for we are many." (Mark 5:9)

I hope you'll forgive me for starting this review by citing this (rather obvious) excerpt from the bible, but I just couldn't resist. Apart from these opening lines, I'll try to avoid any spoilers for the show, so you won't read anything specific about the storyline here. As with all my reviews, this is supposed to give you an overall impression of the show without giving away any details regarding the plot.

For those among you who, like me, love some of the slightly weirder superheroes out there (especially of the mutant kind and preferably in the X-Men universe) but feel most of those guys' screen outings so far were either constricted by the 2-hour format or held back by the need to appeal to mainstream audiences, I'm happy to report there is finally a full length TV-show that dares to fully embrace the craziness of its source material without taking any prisoners. The show's name is 'Legion' (and I'm already pretty sure its fans will be many), and compared to its central character David Haller, even Deadpool looks almost sane.

Following the storyline may seem a little difficult (at least at the beginning) for 'Legion' plunges us head first into the confused mind of its hero, and the narrative is - deliberately - often just as fractured as David Haller's personality. Right from the start this show makes it very clear how committed it is to convey its protagonist's unstable state of mind - and boy does it succeed: through David's eyes we experience an often terrifying (albeit colorful) world where we can never be sure what's real and what's imagined; nor can we get a grasp on where we are, when we are, or even WHO we are.

But this trip down the rabbit hole is well worth taking (even if it does turn into a horror trip at times) for it's a psychedelic ride that has been designed by very talented people. Creator Noah Hawley, who has already given us the excellent show 'Fargo', obviously knows what he's doing, and watching the show feels like listening to a perfectly composed concept album from a seventies rock band (btw, watch out for a cool Pink Floyd reference). The cast is terrific (especially Dan Stevens as David Haller); the visuals and the production design are a wonderfully weird mix of retro and modern elements which fits David's distorted perception of time and reality like a glove, and the mystery surrounding David as he desperately tries to cut through the haze and figure out what's going on will keep you glued to the screen throughout.

Insanity is a tricky subject to tackle, and the possible pitfalls are many; present it with too much levity and you risk the accusation that you're making fun of people with a terrible illness - yet if you portray it as tragic and bleak as it often is (I am saying that as someone who has a family member who suffers from schizophrenia) you will lose your audience. So to find the right tone here was not an easy thing to do, but I believe the show - just as Marvel did in the comic books - does an outstanding job at never coming across disrespectful while still offering fantastic entertainment.

So to sum up my first impression: 'Legion' represents a refreshingly different side of Marvel (compared to the films and shows based on Marvel Comics' more "grounded" creations that we've seen so far) and by fully embracing the source material's "weirdness" the show is a testament to just how insanely (in the true sense of the word) inventive and versatile Stan Lee and his band of brothers were/are. This show is wilder, more surreal and generally much, much crazier than your average superhero story and there are moments where you feel reminded of the works of David Fincher, Charlie Kaufman or even David Lynch. I'd highly recommend it especially to adult comic book fans and those among you who don't demand everything be explained within the first episode. Personally, I feel this is Marvel at its best and most complex: 9 stars out of 10.

Watching an almost 8-hour long documentary mini-series may seem a daunting task at first, but trust me: you'll have a very hard time to resist the urge to binge watch the whole thing once you've started. This documentary (which to me felt more like - a very long - feature film) is, in my humble opinion, one of the greatest achievements in American filmmaking and utterly captivating from the beginning to the end.

Where the equally brilliant but fictional series 'The Wire' took the topic of crime as a means to cast a look at all aspects and social layers of a whole city (Baltimore), 'O.J.: Made in America' examines the life and crimes of a single man (albeit one leading a very public life) to cast a very close look at American society as a whole, and the result is the most complete, in-depth analysis of the divided nation's collective psyche I have ever seen.

The portrait that emerges is so fascinating and so revealing and educational (and I hate to admit: thrillingly entertaining) that this should be recommended viewing in schools and colleges across the country. And if you think: "Meh, I know the O.J. story, it's been all over the news - not interested", think again. Trust me, you do not know that story (or better: those stories). And there's a big chance you'll understand a great deal more about America once you've finished watching this masterpiece.

I know I'm dishing out superlatives here, but it's like director Ezra Edelman made the ultimate documentary - perhaps even the ultimate movie. This film functions on so many levels; it's like watching a whole collection of films where the same protagonist inexplicably lives through a wide array of very different stories (which somehow STILL manage to end up as ONE cohesive tale). I tried to count the stories and most important themes of this "American tale" and found at least 10 (although you could probably find more):

1. There's the fascinating story of a poor kid from the ghetto rising through sheer will and enormous talent to become an American icon and superstar

2. There's a great - and uplifting - sport story (especially for Football fans) that is usually the material of Hollywood films

3. There's the very human drama of a genuine love story turning into an abusive relationship

4. There's the mesmerizing and shocking murder mystery

5. The thrilling courtroom drama

6. A razor-sharp satire about our and our media's unhealthy fixation on celebrities

7. An unbelievable, surreal story of a nationwide man-hunt that gives Spielberg's 'Sugarland Express' a run for its money

8. A close examination of the U.S. judicial system

9. The story of the rise and the very, very steep fall of a man who had it all and lost everything

10. An eye-opening story about race relations in America over the past 50 years

And as incredible as it may seem, those stories are all real.

The way Edelman managed to put them all together to forge this groundbreaking documentary can't be praised enough. A unique experience. 10 stars out of 10.

Imagine a man with the shaman-like charisma and borderline madness of Jim Morrison (at least as he was depicted in Oliver Stone's film 'The Doors') but equipped with the vicious fighting skills of Wolverine. Add to that the intellect and strategic talents of Francis Underwood from 'House of Cards' as well as a - very large - dose of trauma induced mental problems (especially mother issues; well: some sister issues as well) – and you've almost got James Keziah Delaney (Tom Hardy), the central character of the new show 'Taboo'. And let me tell you: he just so happens to be one of the most compelling and most original protagonists I've seen in a TV-show since Ian McShane blessed us with the character of Al Swearengen in 'Deadwood' (ok, there was that other guy from that cooking show, you know: 'Baking Bread' or something like that - he was pretty singular too).

'Taboo' is certainly not an easy show to describe - it's simply too unique for that - but Iet me have a go at it anyway. As with all my reviews, this is supposed to give you an overall impression of the show, so you won't find any plot details here, although some very minor spoilers are possible. Please bear in mind that I'm a hopeless screen junkie who has long lost the ability to properly use language unless it's in the context of film, so forgive me for constantly referencing other films and TV-shows in order to describe this series. If this grave condition of mine bothers you, you might want to stop reading now.

Still here? OK: imagine the dark, brooding atmosphere of 'True Detective' (I'm talking about the first season, of course) and transfer that mood to the city of London in 1814, at a time when the war between Britain and America is still going on but slowly nearing its end. Now further imagine that time period (candlelit rooms, horse carriages riding over cobblestones, fog rising from the river Thames and creeping through dark streets and busy docks) captured through the breathtakingly beautiful cinematography we usually find in a Ridley Scott film. Are you with me so far? Good. Because now that we've established the tone, mood and look of this show, we can explore the world of James Delaney a little further.

The end of the Anglo-American war is in sight, and as peace negotiations between the warring parties are secretly taking place, there's a third major player involved who is scheming to protect its influence: the East India Company, one of the first - and perhaps most powerful - corporations in history. It's this fascinating time of upheaval and secret battles for power in and around the New World which provides the backdrop for 'Taboo', and the show does an amazing job at transporting the audience to that era. This series features some of the best production design I've ever seen in a show (or a feature film, actually); everything looks lived-in and genuine; whether it be ships, houses, clothes or landscapes; every grimy cobble stone in every dimly lit alley virtually oozes authenticity.

When we first meet Delaney, he makes an entrance worthy of the Count of Monte Cristo. In case you don't know the story, that's the guy who was framed for a crime he didn't commit and then locked away for so long everybody eventually thought he was dead - only to return one day, rich beyond imagination, and with an elaborate plan on how to take revenge on everyone that had wronged him. This theme of a man returning from the dead with unexplained riches but a mysterious plan on his mind is sort of the starting point for 'Taboo' (but it's only the starting point, so this isn't a spoiler). As we'll soon find out, Delaney's actually more like the Count of Monte Cristo's disturbed, savage twin, for he does things Edmond Dantes (that's the Count's real name) probably couldn't conceive of in his wildest dreams. Through his return - and by carrying out his plan - he puts himself in the impossible position where he's not only up against the sinister forces of the East India Company, but also against the British Crown as well as the Americans, and it will take all his cunning and every dirty trick and violent skill at his disposal for him to stay alive and protect his interests.

Thanks to Tom Hardy's charismatic screen presence (and great writing), watching Delaney as he plots, threatens, kills, steals and hallucinates his way through this utterly unique piece of television is a thrilling joy and never less than compelling. Hardy creates the chilling portrait of a man who is haunted by the ghosts of his past; a man who seems to have one foot already firmly rooted in the afterlife and who communicates with the spirits of the dead - yet at the same time he's a relentless force of nature who pursues his goals with unwavering determination. There are many reasons to enjoy 'Taboo': this dark tale of dark passions and even darker secrets is beautifully written (by Hardy Sr., Hardy Jr. and 'Peaky Blinders' creator Steven Knight), gorgeous to look at (it's produced by Ridley Scott and shot by Scott's frequent collaborator Mark Patten); it features great performances by such prominent British thesps as Jonathan Pryce, David Hayman or Stephen Graham - but make no mistake: this is 100% Hardy's show. The role of Delaney is tailor-made for him, and I honestly can't imagine 'Taboo' working with any other actor.

So to sum up my review: I highly recommend 'Taboo' to every Tom Hardy fan, but anyone who likes their tales dark and twisted and doesn't mind a somewhat deliberate pace (I'm talking to you, 'True Detective' fans) is equally well served - especially fans of original material. Great, unique television: 9 stars out of 10

This isn't an easy watch, but it's one that I would highly recommend nonetheless. I watch many documentaries, but I have only rarely seen such an insightful and comprehensive portrait of a chapter in history.

Over the course of 16.5 hours this docu series takes the viewer from the earliest roots of the conflict in Vietnam and the country's sad colonial history to its modern-day reality after the war. Along the way, it tells a mesmerizing, shocking, appalling, tragic - but most of all: incredibly immersive and informative - story from the perspective of the people who were affected by this man-made tragedy.

Unlike most other documentaries on the subject, we also get to hear first hand accounts from North- and South Vietnamese officers, ARVN and Vietcong fighters, civilians from both the South and the North, in addition to learning more about the American experience and about the profound effect the conflict had on US society.

What Ken Burns and Lynn Novick have accomplished here can hardly be overstated; this is more than "just" an in-depth look at the Vietnam War: this is nothing less than the portrait of an era. A masterful work. 10 stars out of 10

(This review is for Season 1 of STRANGER THINGS only):

There were two dominating forces in the eighties that had a lasting effect on my cinematic taste for ever after and also resulted in my undying love for fantasy, sci-fi and horror stories: Steven Spielberg and Stephen King. I guess it isn't an overstatement to say "The Two Steves" probably influenced and shaped the imagination - the dreams AND the nightmares - of an entire generation.

The main factor why I loved their movies and books was that kids roughly my own age figured so prominently in many of them. King wrote 'Firestarter', 'It' and 'Stand By Me', and Spielberg either directed or produced (via his company Amblin) 'E.T.', 'The Goonies' and 'Gremlins'. Those were stories where the young protagonists encountered aliens and monsters or where they themselves had supernatural powers - or where they just went on an adventure (to find a body or a long lost treasure) with grown-ups largely out of the picture. Now if you've seen 'Stranger Things', that should sound pretty familiar, right?

Of course it does: because 'Stranger Things' deliberately pays homage to all those stories - and it does it very, very well. And it's not a rip-off, it's a love letter. The show emulates the themes and a certain style from those eighties treasures, and while it is a (for me) very welcome callback to some of the favorite stories from my youth, it's also very much its own thing. I won't give away the plot here (I guess you get a pretty good picture what it's about from what I wrote above), but I would like to mention that it's beautifully shot, the effects and generally the production values are top-notch, and the period-inspired music is fantastic. The biggest shout-out, however, has to go to the ensemble of actors, especially the kids who play the protagonists: their charming performances are the key to why the show works as well as it does.

To sum it all up: If you're an eighties kid like me, this show is a must. For everyone else, it might depend a bit more on whether you're a genre fan or not, but if you do like supernatural stories, 'Stranger Things' is a treat. I'd rate it eight stars out of ten, but with an extra star for nostalgia, that's a 9.