Screen Queen TV Reviews: Dept. Q, The Quilters, And Just Like That . . . and Pee-wee As Himself
There are few television shows that have as fond a place in my heart as British crime drama The Bill. Growing up, it was a staple in our house and, quite honestly, I've struggled to find anything to plug its hole since it was unceremoniously yanked from screens back in 2010.
Don't get me wrong, there have been plenty of great police series in recent years — Apple TV's excellent Slow Horses and the darkly brilliant Happy Valley spring to mind — but The Bill hit different. Though it took a crime-of-the-week format, the ever-revolving detectives were always brilliantly cast, and over seasons and years I felt as though I knew them personally.
My favourites were the crotchety-but-clever detectives — DCI Jack Meadows, played by Simon Rouse, and DCI Frank Burnside (Christopher Michael Ellison) were top tier — but I also loved the rank and file, particularly Sgt June Ackland (Trudie Goodwin).
Which brings me to Dept. Q, a new series from the writer of The Queen's Gambit, based on the novels of the same name by Danish author Jussi Adler-Olsen.
I can't tell you much about this new police series as there's an embargo in place, but I will say this: the central character in this Scottish series, DCI Carl Morck (played by Matthew Goode) has big Bill energy. He's rumpled, cranky, and fighting his own inner demons (his police partner and friend was shot in front of him not long ago, and he's still reeling from the fallout). It makes him perfect 'TV detective' fodder.
Morck has been given the job of overseeing a newly formed cold case department, the titular Department Q, which he's running from a dank basement in the bowels of the Edinburgh police station. He assembles a not-so-crack team to help him sort through files, and the case they're assigned ends up being the through-line of the series.
I'm genuinely excited for you all to see this. And TV execs, if you're reading this: bring back The Bill!
My Netflix algorithm knows me better than I know myself. It's been recommending I watch this doco, about a group of prison inmates in the US who are part of a quilting program, for days now. Eventually, curiosity got the better of me and I dipped in — and loved it! Even better, at only 30 minutes long, it also ticked my Early Night criteria box. Who knew watching a bunch of inmates make quilts for foster kids could be such a wholesome and life-affirming experience? Netflix did. And I thank them for that.
Look, haters gonna hate. But I'm going to continue to watch Carrie Bradshaw and her postmenopausal besties traverse this next stage of their lives. The new series drops this week and — good news! — Che Diaz is nowhere to be seen. Thank heavens for that.
Nadya Suleman is the Californian woman who gave birth to octuplets back in 2009 — unbelievably she was already mum to six other kids. This doco series explores her, ahem, life choices. She's not who you think she is.
I absolutely adore Paul Reubens and his comic creation, Pee-wee Herman — I was genuinely devastated when he passed away in 2023. This documentary, which was filmed before Reuben's death and uses personal archive footage from the star, gives an insight into who the comedian actually was. Or does it? Fans will be fascinated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
A new kind of drama is set to unfold with changed privacy laws
An Australian scandal is a like a sudden southerly on a clear summer's day – unexpected, jarring and liable to leave everyone shivering in its wake. From political pitfalls to celebrity slip-ups and the ever-rumbling corridors of Parliament House, we are a nation that guards privacy with one hand and refreshes newsfeeds with the other. Little wonder, then, that a show like Bridgerton – with its heaving corsets, whispered secrets and illicit entanglements – has a devoted fan base here. It's not just the drama that captivates us, but the tension between the private and the public, discretion and spectacle. While fans must wait until 2026 for the next episode, take heart 'dearest gentle reader': whispers among case-starved defamation lawyers suggest a new kind of drama is set to unfold. From Tuesday, a new statutory tort of privacy makes its debut on the Australian legal stage – and it's expected to dance to a familiar tune. Australians who suffer a serious invasion of privacy may claim up to $478,000 in damages and seek remedies including injunctions. As the age of unchecked intrusion draws to a genteel close, Lady Whistledown herself might remark that society's most prominent figures will breathe easier behind their velvet curtains. Or so they may think. As far back as 1960, US professor William Prosser identified four privacy torts: intrusion upon seclusion; public disclosure of private facts; false light portrayal; and appropriation of likeness. By 1977, all four were recorded in the US Restatement of Torts, a treatise issued by the American Law Institute. While not uniformly adopted there, intrusion and disclosure are well established – especially in celebrity-laden California. Britain took longer to get there. In 1991, two Sunday Sport photographers posed as doctors to snap a British actor in his hospital bed. The Court of Appeal famously declared: 'In English law, there is no right to privacy'. By 2000, however, the House of Lords changed course in Naomi Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers. The action for 'misuse of private information' was born. By 2014, it was recognised as a tort, and today, privacy suits in London have become de rigueur. New Zealand recognised a general tort of privacy in 2004. By 2012 it recognised intrusion into seclusion as a standalone tort when a young woman was secretly filmed in the shower and awarded damages. That same year, Canada did likewise when a bank employee whose financial data had been improperly accessed received damages. Australia, by contrast, wasn't even at the races. It relied on defamation and breach of confidence – a patchy and much-criticised regime. This nearly changed a quarter-century ago in the Lenah Game Meats case. The chief justice urged better protection for privacy; the Australian Law Reform Commission echoed this in 2014. Lawyers even tried to open cracks left by the Lenah case, but these mostly faltered. In 2016, former High Court judge Michael Kirby said the inertia made Australia a ' laughing stock '.
Perth Now
2 hours ago
- Perth Now
Jonathan Daviss to play Snoop Dogg in biopic
Jonathan Daviss has been cast as Snoop Dogg in the upcoming biopic of the rap star. Director Craig Brewer has cast the 25-year-old actor - who is best known for playing Pope Heyward in the Netflix drama Outer Banks - in the film's lead role, Deadline reports. The upcoming movie is being produced by Snoop, Brian Grazer and Sara Ramaker, the president of Death Row Pictures. The biopic explores Snoop's rise from humble beginnings in Long Beach, California, to the top of the rap industry. Snoop's route to stardom saw him join the Death Row record label in the 90s, where he worked with rap legends like Dr Dre and Tupac Shakur. Snoop released his debut album, Doggystyle, in November 1993, and he's now one of the best-selling rap artists of all time. The What's My Name? hitmaker has enjoyed success in other spheres, too, including starring in movies such as Half Baked and Training Day, as well as releasing his own cookbook, From Crook to Cook: Platinum Recipes from Tha Boss Dogg's Kitchen. The 53-year-old rap star has also become well-known for his innovative and unusual investments, which included launching a brand of cannabis products called Leafs By Snoop. Snoop is now set to be portrayed by Jonathan - who previously starred alongside Camila Mendes, Sophie Turner, Maya Hawke and Austin Abrams in Do Revenge - in the eagerly-awaited biopic. The project has actually been in the works for a number of years, with Snoop being announced as a producer back in 2022. He said in a statement at the time: "I waited a long time to put this project together because I wanted to choose the right director, the perfect writer, and the greatest movie company I could partner with that could understand the legacy that I'm trying to portray on screen, and the memory I'm trying to leave behind. "It was the perfect marriage. It was holy matrimony, not holy macaroni." Donna Langley, the chairwoman of Universal, was also excited by the project. The 57-year-old film executive hailed Snoop as a "singular artist". She said: "Snoop Dogg's life and legacy make him one of the most exciting and influential icons in popular culture. "We met with Snoop shortly after he acquired Death Row Records and had the opportunity to hear his story in his own words. We are humbled to be able to create the lasting document of this singular artist." Universal previously enjoyed huge success with the Oscar-nominated Straight Outta Compton, which grossed more than $200 million. The upcoming biopic will feature some of Snoop's most popular songs, and it will also be the first film from Snoop's Death Row Pictures, which he acquired in 2022.
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
A new kind of drama is set to unfold with changed privacy laws
An Australian scandal is a like a sudden southerly on a clear summer's day – unexpected, jarring and liable to leave everyone shivering in its wake. From political pitfalls to celebrity slip-ups and the ever-rumbling corridors of Parliament House, we are a nation that guards privacy with one hand and refreshes newsfeeds with the other. Little wonder, then, that a show like Bridgerton – with its heaving corsets, whispered secrets and illicit entanglements – has a devoted fan base here. It's not just the drama that captivates us, but the tension between the private and the public, discretion and spectacle. While fans must wait until 2026 for the next episode, take heart 'dearest gentle reader': whispers among case-starved defamation lawyers suggest a new kind of drama is set to unfold. From Tuesday, a new statutory tort of privacy makes its debut on the Australian legal stage – and it's expected to dance to a familiar tune. Australians who suffer a serious invasion of privacy may claim up to $478,000 in damages and seek remedies including injunctions. As the age of unchecked intrusion draws to a genteel close, Lady Whistledown herself might remark that society's most prominent figures will breathe easier behind their velvet curtains. Or so they may think. As far back as 1960, US professor William Prosser identified four privacy torts: intrusion upon seclusion; public disclosure of private facts; false light portrayal; and appropriation of likeness. By 1977, all four were recorded in the US Restatement of Torts, a treatise issued by the American Law Institute. While not uniformly adopted there, intrusion and disclosure are well established – especially in celebrity-laden California. Britain took longer to get there. In 1991, two Sunday Sport photographers posed as doctors to snap a British actor in his hospital bed. The Court of Appeal famously declared: 'In English law, there is no right to privacy'. By 2000, however, the House of Lords changed course in Naomi Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers. The action for 'misuse of private information' was born. By 2014, it was recognised as a tort, and today, privacy suits in London have become de rigueur. New Zealand recognised a general tort of privacy in 2004. By 2012 it recognised intrusion into seclusion as a standalone tort when a young woman was secretly filmed in the shower and awarded damages. That same year, Canada did likewise when a bank employee whose financial data had been improperly accessed received damages. Australia, by contrast, wasn't even at the races. It relied on defamation and breach of confidence – a patchy and much-criticised regime. This nearly changed a quarter-century ago in the Lenah Game Meats case. The chief justice urged better protection for privacy; the Australian Law Reform Commission echoed this in 2014. Lawyers even tried to open cracks left by the Lenah case, but these mostly faltered. In 2016, former High Court judge Michael Kirby said the inertia made Australia a ' laughing stock '.
