DVD Talk review of 'MI-5, Volume 2'

[tasha99]

I read Holly E. Ordway's DVD review of MI-5, Volume 2 at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=14040 and...


I was surprised that this got such a poor review since the first season was fabulous. Has anyone here who watched the first season seen the second season? I'm concerned now that maybe the show went downhill in its sophomore year. I'll rent it anyway (next in my Netflix queue), but I'm wondering if it will live up to my expectations.

I do wonder why dvd talk is having people review films that are part of sequence if they haven't seen the previous films. I noticed a similar situation with Holly's Farscape reviews too. Maybe it's just me, but I think watching the previous series is a prerequisite for giving a review of a newer one.

[Holly E. Ordway]

I do wonder why dvd talk is having people review films that are part of sequence if they haven't seen the previous films.
In an ideal world, it would be great if we could review TV series starting from the first season. In reality, though, there are two main reasons why a reviewer might pick up in the middle of the season:

1) The studio never sent the earlier season(s).
2) A different reviewer reviewed the earlier season(s) but isn't here any more, or isn't interested in reviewing the later seasons.

In these cases, the choice is between "having a review that lacks in-depth background" and "no review at all." I'll go for the former any day. Even if long-time fans of the show don't agree with the movie part of the review, I think it's helpful to them to get a review for the technical part, at least.

And anyway... why not? After all, when these shows were originally on the air, many viewers will likely pick up the series after the first season or two (and a good thing, too, or shows with small initial audiences would be doomed to never get any more viewers). I bet if you hear about a show that people are saying is really good, you'll give it a try... you won't say "Nah, I missed the first season, so I'll won't start it now."

I've actually discovered many great shows (and given them really good reviews) midway through their seasons. You mention Farscape, for instance - sure, I'm at a disadvantage, but it's an indication of the high quality of the show that I *did* enjoy it even starting late. I started reviewing Stargate SG-1 with the second season (never having seen it before) and loved it. Felicity I started in Season 3 and also found it to be excellent. So for every MI-5 that didn't click with me, there are other shows I've jumped into midway and had a great time.

Anyway, this is just a long, wordy :D explanation to give you a sense of what's going on with mid-run reviews. Hopefully this all makes sense! It's kind of a wild, wooly world of getting stuff to review sometimes, and we do the best we can with it.

I'll also add that I, personally, never choose to review something unless I think there's a reasonably good chance I'm going to like it.(*) For MI-5, I'd heard a lot of good buzz about it, so I was looking forward to seeing it. It didn't click with me, but hopefully fans will find the rest of the review informative.

*) OK, I do keep reviewing the Andromeda DVDs, but there's kind of a morbid fascination going on there... plus nobody else wants to review them! -ptth-

[jrobinson]

I've been known to review one or two TV on DVD releases here, and my thought on the matter is that whether a reviewer has prior experience with a television series or not, it shouldn't matter.

In my humble opinion, a television season should stand on its own merit. Sure there might be important details from the past, but most of the important details are usually presented in previously on recaps and such. However, a lot of TV seasons do not have story arcs that span multiple seasons, and I am referring to story arcs that cover ENTIRE seasons and not just closure to a season finale. Anyways, most TV seasons should be able to stand on their own. If a season is good, it should be able to capture a reviewer's attention, with or without the full background.

Of course, I do agree it can help if the reviewer has background with the television series. Preferably of a positive nature. They can provide a little more detail, perhaps comparing why this season is better than this one. Or what is worse about this cast change, etc. However, those elements alone are not what make a particular TV season better than not.

[tasha99]

I do agree that many shows should be able to stand on their own (and to some extent, MI-5 seems like one of those), but lots of my favorite shows don't. I'm really surprised Holly even liked Farscape without starting at the beginning since I'm sure I wouldn't have. Anyhoo, I think dvd (and Tivo) has changed the way tv shows are watched--at least for me. I used to watch stand alone tv and not worry about continuity or missed episodes, while now I wouldn't dream of viewing anything but sitcoms out of order.

Of course, all this is a sign that I'm taking my tv watching much too seriously . . . :p

tasha

[jrobinson]

I used to watch stand alone tv and not worry about continuity or missed episodes, while now I wouldn't dream of viewing anything but sitcoms out of order.

I know the feeling. I stopped watching broadcast/cable TV because I hate not being able to watch that next episode, (in most cases). But not having cable or access to local TV is also a big factor. :p

Of course, all this is a sign that I'm taking my tv watching much too seriously . . .

Have you met <b>das Monkey</b> yet? You guys should go bowling... ;)

[Josh Z]

In these cases, the choice is between "having a review that lacks in-depth background" and "no review at all." I'll go for the latter any day.

Ummmm....

[das Monkey]

• Josh Z •

Ummmm....
Agreed.
• jrobinson •

Have you met <b>das Monkey</b> yet? You guys should go bowling... ;)
Like I'd ever leave the house. -rolleyes-

das

[Holly E. Ordway]

Ummmm....
D'oh! That's what I get for revising sentence structure in my head on the fly. Edited to actually make sense.

[tasha99]

Well, I've watched season 2, and I thought it just kept getting better and better (I gave it 5 stars on Netflix, though I think there were a few flaws).

I didn't think the resolution of the explosion in the first episode was lame at all; in fact, I'd been thinking the only way it could reasonably end it was with no explosion. If the bomb could take out a 4 block area, and Tom was standing there refusing to leave, there was no way they could have the bomb go off and keep him in the show. Besides, I think the damage done was more interesting than if his family had died. One of the problems I did have was Tom even being in love with that woman in the first place--people in the show kept saying she was great and perfect for him, but I thought she was selfish and a whiner through most of season 1. Even so, after what happened, I thought the breakup was the right thing to do. Tom was dead wrong bringing a laptop given to him by terrorists home, and the show kind of ignored that.

But . . . I thought the acting was good, the dialogue a little less so (in the last episode in particular, there was a bit of As-You-Know-Bob dialogue where the villain explained things for the audience's benefit more than a real person would have). In my opinion, MI-5 is what 24 or Alias could have been, a spy show without the stupid stuff or the fantasy stuff, and I liked it a lot.