1. ggreen says

    I love it Political Animals. I cant believe everyone isn’t watching it. Stellar cast and great writing.

  2. Ken says

    It looks like a great show. Too bad the internet has ruined my attention span for watching shows like this.

  3. Ricco says

    I like the show, and do watch it despite the throw-away, boring character of the journalist, Susan Berg, and Ciarán Hinds’ cartoonish portrayal of Bud.

    The show will have an uphill battle because the obvious parallels to Hillary and Bill Clinton requires such a disconnect from too current events that I think will prove too trying for too many people.

    Sigourney Weaver is the big draw here.

  4. says

    I’m already a little tired of the idea that the Secretary of State can solve any problem by dating the ambassador/congressman/lobbyist/former president involved. But otherwise, it fills that gaping void left when President Bartlet left office so many years ago.

  5. turlie says

    love the show and the cast is amazing, a power house. It has the potential to being a the best show on television or the computer but sadly the network is only doing a mini-series. fingers crossed the renew or give it a full season!!!!! Weaver, Burstyn and Hinds will certainly take home a Emmy and Golden Globe this year maybe even a SAG. Stan’s character has potential he just needs better writing.

  6. says

    I like the show, but it is a guilty pleasure for me. The ex-president character is a horrible caricature. And Sigourney Weaver is both too hot for him but not nearly not enough for all the ambassadors to be lusting after her or grabbing her ass.

    And don’t get me started on that journalist. No newspaper story would read like her voiceover in the last episode.

    Ellyn Burstyn is my everything, though.

  7. Chris says

    I’m enjoying the show. The writing isn’t great, but the performances make up for it. I’d call it a guilty pleasure more than I would call it great television.

  8. Paul R says

    I love the show but agree that the Bud character is annoying. I’m also sometimes annoyed by the suicidal, addict, alcoholic, unemployed, sex freak former First Son shown here. Yes we’ve all known guys like that, but still. The straight son is her assistant (nepotism like that wouldn’t be accepted), while the gay one is a tragedy.

  9. Jerry says

    I think it’s fun so far. Ellen Burstyn is great fun. Bud is ridiculous. I am horrified by the gay character, yet glad that we’ve come far enough that a character who is gay can be good or bad or in between and doesn’t have to be a caricature.

  10. MiloTock says

    Watching it, enjoying it (more or less), but view it as the equivalent of a summer “beach read.” Also, I’m a little bit annoyed that Berlanti made the trite choice to make the gay son a troubled, promiscuous, profligate addict. A more interesting choice would have been to have the gay son be the powerful and integral part of the Sec. of State’s team and have the straight son be the one with all the problems (problems larger than a bulimic fiance).

  11. cadence says

    “boring character of the journalist, Susan Berg, and Ciarán Hinds’ cartoonish portrayal of Bud”

    I like these two characters a lot more than I like TJ and the soon to be daughter and law, who seem to be necessary plot points, instead of independent three dimensional characters.

    I might also suffer from internet induced ADD, because I can only watch the show on HULU. It’s not the type of show that I can continue to watch, when the segments are broken up by a lot of commercials.

  12. cadence says

    I wouldn’t count on the show continuing. The critics love it, but the ratings are bad. It draws in around 2 million viewers, which would be okay, but only gets a .5 rating in the demographic that advertisers love. That’s why USA has made a point of saying that it is just a miniseries.

  13. Frank says

    I LOVE the show. And I love the troubled gay son. It makes him a hell of a lot more interesting and a lot more places to take his character.

  14. Bob R says

    I’m watching and enjoying it, especially Sebastian Stan. He makes great eye candy and beyond his physical beauty, he is a very talented actor, facial expressions, body language, he’s very believable to me. My problem is every time I see Ciarin Hinds, I think of him as President Nemerov from “Sum of All Fears”. Just shows as an actor he has a broad range. Even as a cheating SOB, he’s likable, a lot like Bill Clinton on whom I’m sure his character is based.

    I’m entertained by it. I don’t think it’s realistic and of course there are some parallels between the show’s characters and some of our real life pols, but it’s just a TV show. While it’s no “West Wing”, it is fun to watch and the dialogue is clever. I hope it becomes more than a mini-series, but if not I’ll no doubt watch it til the end. After all, there’s still Sebastian Stan in various states of undress!

  15. BSmart2 says

    While the writing and the acting isn’t the best, I have enjoyed it as a summer replacement. I think the gay son has to be troubled, what would you do with him if he was on the ball and running his mothers office? Just my opinion. The show would be better without Bud, his character is that of a bafoon (sp?).

  16. Shibby says

    The premise and the acting talent is certainly promising, but the writing doesn’t seem to match up. I really want to like the show, but it plays out like one of those “Lifetime Movies for Women” parodies where the main character suffers so much, but is still able to solve nearly everything.

    I’m also a little bit torn about the gay son being portrayed as another self-destructive caricature, but at least there’s a reason behind it and not just because he’s gay. He’s the son of a very prominent political figure who was forced to come out against his will. I imagine that kind of stress could drive anyone to suicide, drugs, etc.

    I’m giving it one more episode to see if it gets better, but I’m afraid the ensemble can only do so much with what little they have.

  17. Zlick says

    I’m kinda liking it, but just as others have mentioned, the Bud (Bill C.) character is too over-the-top for my tastes, and I find the gay son being such a hot mess a little trite, too.

    No worries, though – this is not Shakespeare, or even The West Wing by any stretch. It’s a taudry pleasure, and I’m enjoying it. But I wouldn’t be watching if Sigourney Weaver weren’t headlining.

    Oh, and it does seem a little amateurish – but go back and check the first season of ANY series you came to admire. If this goes beyond the miniseries limit, it may become more polished and of better quality all around.

  18. Randy says

    I like the first two episodes so far.

    I’ve been catching up to the show on CTV’s streaming service, however, and that totally sucks. If I see that damned caching circle one more time, I may throw the TV out the window. It’s crap like this that makes people find other means of watching.

  19. Seattle Mike says

    It was so horribly written and acted (esp. the Bill Clinton character) that we had to turn it off after the first 20 minutes. Srsly among the worst TV I’ve ever seen. Sigourney Weaver must be dying inside to have to work with that actor and to have to say those lines.

  20. Dw says

    Love it! It’s my new ”favorite show’.
    I’m continually surprised, scene by scene, how enjoyable it is.

    Ciaran hinds is usually good, but the director apparently has asked him to go ‘big’ here. He’s waaaay too much.
    Otherwise nearly perfect.

  21. MattS says

    It may not be the best writing and Bud is horribly cast, but I am thoroughly enjoying the show.

    Loving James Wolk, too.

  22. AladinSane says

    Don’t have time to watch too many shows so I had to choose between this and Sorkin’s The Newsroom. From the clips I’ve seen so far I think I chose right with The Newsroom which is probably one of the best shows in almost every sense to come out in a while.

  23. Robb says

    too bad it isn’t the heterosexual son who’s the train wreck, but America loves their gays dysfunctional….

  24. Lee says

    So lemme see if I’ve got this straight:

    There’s one gay character who actually has a name who is a suicidal, drug-addicted, alcoholic, manipulative, whiny, self-pitying kleptomaniac who steals from his own grandmother; and a number of other gay characters who have no names who exist for the sole purpose of having anonymous, promiscuous, unsafe, drug-fueled sex with the first guy. And that’s it for the LGBT characters.

    These characterizations are horrendous TV stereotypes from the homophobic 1970s, when any gay character had to be a woman-hating mass murderer, an alcoholic sadsack, or a narcissistic party queen.

    Has anyone at GLAAD contacted the producers of this gay-loathing garbage, or is GLAAD still picking up the pieces following their AT&T/Troup Coronado sleazefest?