I had a quick look at "dead in a week" but I didn't like it. It reminded me of why I am not a fan of comedy. It is typically British - very sort of dead pan - not my sort of humour at all. I have to say that I am not a fan of War films in general - there are some I have enjoyed - King Rat - Stalag 17 - The Great Escape - 36 hours - (James Garner as a soldier the Germans are trying to convince that the war is over and he can give up his secrets - but he has a paper cut on his finger which makes him realise they are lying to him) mainly older ones I suppose because modern films tend to concentrate on limbs being blown off etc which I cannot stomach. I shall check out Amazon Prime again - I had a look before and I am sure there are some things on there we both might like.

I mostly like the older war films over the more modern ones. Even Saving Private Ryan, which was a good film, went for so much realism in the landing on D-Day that it was hard to watch. It did help people get a sense of the hell the men went through and the sacrifices they made. But overly graphic depictions of injuries and death scenes are tough to watch. As a viewer you are unable to take cover when you realize you should; you must vicariously experience what the character you're watching goes through, though you would have done something differently. That traumatizes the viewer. The viewer must experience what the lead characters they identify with experience, yet they have no active input; they are debilitated and can only watch, anticipate the danger which is clearly revealed to the viewer, forced to be injured or killed along with the actor. The older films, many made during the war at a time when public morale was meant to be boosted by the films, alluded to death and injury but didn't show them graphically, forcing the public to experience the hell of war in that way.

Modern films also fail in other ways. Directors now often splice together different camera angles, changing them rapidly to simulate action. they do this in fight scenes. Camera angles are switched several times per second in some sequences to give the view the impression of motion and action. This technique cuts down on the time spent practicing and shooting the scene since most of the work is done in the cutting room.
This technique also disorients the viewer, making them dizzy as their frame of reference shifts so frequently. Apparently the director feels this razzle dazzle motion sickness technique improves the film.

Another modern technique used frequently, which I hate, is to show something or someone suddently and rapidly approaching directly at the camera. This is accompanied by a loud noise or a scream.
In older films, if the director wanted to induce fear in the viewer, he would develop a scene, using the actor's facial expression, lighting, a menacing looking bad guy, and other such devices, using intellect and skill to create the feeling.
This awful, modern technique relies on reflexes. You will blink if something flies directly at your eye, you start when a sudden loud noise surprises you. This awful, modern technique is analogous to someone sneaking up behind you and shouting BOO! loudly in your ear. That doesn't take skill or intelligence, and there is no acting required. I guess there are some people who enjoy feeling frightened like that: simple, immature people. Babies and 1 year old children are entertained and amused when you pull your hands away from your face and say "peek a boo". And there are teenage children who still enjoy surprises like that. But that scare technique is a cheap trick, a poor excuse for film making.

Those are just a couple of ways that modern film media has fallen drastically in quality and value.

I absolutely agree with everything you say. I abhor that rapid angle change camera work - one of the worst series I have seen for that is "Blindspot" - the premise was stupid and the camera work now makes it unwatchable. I cannot watch anything that makes me dizzy so I simply switch it off - is this what film makers want? I think most stuff today is geared to appeal to the teenage market and they seem to like blood and gore and crazy camera work. I was never like that - even as a teenager - maybe it is a response to how casually violent the world has become. Years ago if somebody wanted to rob you in the street they would just grab your bag and run for it - today they are quite likely to stab you to stop you pursuing them. They think nothing of it - it is more prevalent with certain cultures as a matter of statistics. I believe that some films encourage this kind of violence - it's no good saying that people are not influenced by what they see - if that was the case then companies would not spend billions on advertisements and violent video games would not be banned. Monkey see - monkey do.

The crazy camera angle, motion sickness inducing technique is so common now that it is mostly all the young people know unless they watch older films, and most don't. Film makers save money this way, I think. Even if the actors are willing to work to choreograph a fight scene, the film makers don't want to spend the time and effort to make it by the older methods. If all they need are a bunch of very short clips of arms moving and bodies falling, they can put several cameras on the actors and get all they need in a short time. The actors move for a couple of seconds, and they probably get 5 to 10 different clips out of that, spliced together in the cutting room. The viewer sees arms and bodies in a dizzying blur for a few seconds before showing a body crashing through a wall or something, then back to the same blender motion fight scene. It is awful. And I've never seen any critic talk about how bad this is.

Society has become more violent. There are social reasons for this, and political reasons for this. But I won't go into my thoughts on all that again. You're heard me before on all that.

I am watching Justified now. I never saw it from the beginning and am watching the first season in order now. I only ever saw it on reruns, whatever episodes happened to be showing at the time.

I have a faint recollection of "Justified" I think I watched a couple of episodes a while back - I know I didn't see it all. I can't recall why. The trouble with Amazon is that they never give you the entire series of anything - it's always 1-4 included and then you have to pay for the rest. This annoys me as we are paying for the channel already. I have only wanted to see the last series of "Dexter" "Ray Donovan" and "The Americans" and my daughter bought those for me for Christmas and Birthday presents. I watched about four seasons of "Arrow" and I absolutely refuse to pay for the rest !! Can you give me a brief precis of "Justified" so as I can figure out if I am likely to like it or not.

A U.S. Marshall in Kentucky goes after criminals in his home county of Harlan Kentucky. IMDB describes it this way: Old-school U.S. Marshal Raylan Givens is reassigned from Miami to his childhood home in the poor, rural coal mining towns in eastern Kentucky.

Hmm - sounds OK. I might revisit it. I am on Season 2 of Harrow - Season 1 is on Amazon I think. It annoyed me because he is a brilliant Australian pathologist - and yet when he is suspected of using drugs he doesn't suggest a hair follicle test to prove his innocence. I tried another Russian series called "The Method". This is about a "brilliant" detective who solves all his crimes via "The Method" - only thing is - there is no method - he finds the psychopaths because he is as crazy as they are. This is illustrated by him getting into pointless fights and jumping into fountains. He takes on a pretty young woman (even though he always works alone) and off they go - the only trouble is they only show him catching the criminals - they don't explain how he did it. I have only watched two and a bit episodes and I doubt I will return to it. What's your take on "Justified" - do you enjoy it?

Marshal Raylan Givens is quick with a gun when he needs to be. Harlan County Kentucky is coal mining country and home to a lot of criminal activity. Raylan knows many of them and has history with some of them. I like it. I am up to season 3 now. I like it.

I am on S1 E3 of "Justified" and I don't remember it - so I must have gotten it mixed up with something else I watched briefly. I like it OK - it's sort of a drama with humour mixed in. I like Timothy Olyphant. I will continue to watch this. I tried watching another Turkish show called "Filinta". About a detective in roundabout 1900's Istanbul. It was so strange - The busy street was there again - and the women are dressed as Western Victorian women with long luxurious dresses - gloves - and weirdest of all - hats. It's like they stepped out of Victorian England and straight into Istanbul The men wear Fez's so the contrast is really strange. The acting and the dialogue are like a pantomime script - as is the acting - it's the kind of series you keep watching because you can't believe what you are seeing!! I tore myself away though.!! I tried Unit 42 - that empowered cocky female got on my nerves - I wanted to slap her down. Can't see myself watching it again - especially as it was so obvious who the super hacker was going to be - why - another empowered female. Give me a break.

Yeah, Unit 42 is not that great. Besides the female you mentioned there is a male detective who turns out to be a closeted gay, and the hacker chick realizes it and tells him to go after this "hot" guy she saw him talking to. So there is that. I kind of stopped watching it also.

So far I have not seen any gay people in Justified. Raylan Givens has a dry wit about him, and some of the other Marshals sometimes use those funny law enforcement euphemisms to refer to criminals, death, prison, and so on. But that is just normal life. It's not a comedy so I figured you could get by that alright.

In real life, the people from the mountains of Kentucky have long had a reputation for being clannish, and seeking their own form of justice, and this is reflected in the story also. Compared to most other shows this one doesn't have much PC stuff, and it keeps my interest.

In the episode I am watching now where his father has stolen drugs and he finds out about it - one of the policemen is played by Brent Sexton - I don't know if it is just me - but I always get this guy mixed up with David Zayas!! They are both very ubiquitous in tv series. I am happy that this show is much less pc than the usual moronic fodder we have to endure today. In Unit 42 I also noticed the "hot guy" reference and how he sprinted off after him - all so liberal and broad minded and accepting as the norm. If it was the norm then humanity wouldn't exist - no matter what people say - it is against nature for those very reasons. Accept homosexuality as a fact of life by all means - but don't try to make us believe it is normal.

Yeah, those two guys have sort of broad faces and somewhat similar look to their eyes. I never noticed David Zayas until I saw him in Dexter. I think that gave him a lot of exposure and he has been in some bigger roles since then than before. He worked for about 10 years before Dexter but I never saw him or noticed him. Funny how one role can break out a career like that. Brent Sexton is one of those guys whose face you know, but you cannot necessarily remember why or where from. He does solid supporting character work and I notice that he has been in several series as a recurring character.

Marshal Raylan Givens is another flawed hero, personal life problems as well as continual job issues, though his actions are generally always justified, which is where the show name comes from I guess. He goes through a couple of old flames in the first few seasons, but the nature of his work isn't conducive to the kind of life most women really want. Law Enforcement wives often complain about worrying when they kiss him goodbye in the morning if it will be the last time they see him. It is not as dangerous as some jobs perhaps, but the risk if higher than most I would guess. There are plenty of good characters in the show.

One criticism I have of the show is the theme song. Why do they have a country music rap song with rap singers and lousy stupid lyrics? Sounds like someone wrote those lyrics on the fly, giving each line a half a second of thought.

It occurs to me that I write mostly about things I DON'T like about a show. But I do like the show.

I think it is only natural to notice things you don't like about a show rather than things you do like - they impinge on your consciousness more. I watch most things on mute because of my hearing difficulties - ambient sounds - especially music - make it impossible for me to understand conversations - I will never understand why film-makers do this - and it is constant. I wouldn't mind so much but their choice of "cool" music is dreadful - for me - rap music is an oxymoron - the worst disservice done to music for years. I used to write a lot of country music - it appealed to me because the lyrics told a story ( usually of love or loss) that had to be told in verse in 20 lines or less. It was a huge challenge and I loved doing it. But today everything has to be either violent or sexual or both and spoken because that is the level of their musical ability. It's a standard theme in any cop show really - the wife who left him because he was never there - because his work was dangerous - because he was obsessed with it rather than her. I hate whining women - you knew he was a cop for God's sake - what did you expect ? !!You will rarely find a happily married policeman unless it is in a cosy British country village and she makes jam and acts in Amateur Dramatics. I can't stand those either!!! I like the show as well - although it does fall into the trap of maverick cop always being at risk of his job because of his methods. Clint Eastwood territory really. Never mind - as long as he doesn't appear out of the mist or stand on a bridge as the villain approaches I'll keep watching !!

I just noticed a new limited series on Netflix called "I - Land" sounds like an interesting premise - what do you think?