I watched season 1 because a work mate suggested it as good comedy. To me, that definition should provide at least an engaging kind of humour, or a good, strong plot.
Being used to traditionally witty comedy (take Frasier as a baseline) I was expecting a much more interesting sense of humour, but I get stuck in some predictable, naive and superficial jokes (really, should we be praising the writers for something like "what the fork?").
Regarding the plot, what was a potentially good idea tries here to stay alive for the thirteen episodes without really going nowhere. Each character is stuck in a superficial portrait that makes it just a caricature, with exaggerated features and no real inner development. The twist at the end of Season 1 is on the same line: a trick that keeps some trite television alive for some more time. An (exaggeratedly) indecisive person is a bad person that deserves hell (or: "a Bad Place")? A serial fund-raiser should be sent to "a Bad Place" only for not being fully involved with each one of the persons she's helping? An (exaggeratedly) bad person in real life should try to become good after death just because is confronting the menace of eternal suffering? These kind of questions are so unnecessary that all of them are not worth any time from anyone.
Giving a 3 because I feel bad giving a 1. But I doubt it to be an ethical development after watching this!
Being used to traditionally witty comedy (take Frasier as a baseline) I was expecting a much more interesting sense of humour, but I get stuck in some predictable, naive and superficial jokes (really, should we be praising the writers for something like "what the fork?").
Regarding the plot, what was a potentially good idea tries here to stay alive for the thirteen episodes without really going nowhere. Each character is stuck in a superficial portrait that makes it just a caricature, with exaggerated features and no real inner development. The twist at the end of Season 1 is on the same line: a trick that keeps some trite television alive for some more time. An (exaggeratedly) indecisive person is a bad person that deserves hell (or: "a Bad Place")? A serial fund-raiser should be sent to "a Bad Place" only for not being fully involved with each one of the persons she's helping? An (exaggeratedly) bad person in real life should try to become good after death just because is confronting the menace of eternal suffering? These kind of questions are so unnecessary that all of them are not worth any time from anyone.
Giving a 3 because I feel bad giving a 1. But I doubt it to be an ethical development after watching this!