Underbelly

IMDb should actually have separate entries for each series, rather than filing in it as one show with three seasons. Each "season" is a separate crime story, set in a different era with different characters. My review of 8/10 is simply for season 1. The first season was a fascinating story and the series was fairly well put together, though it did become a fraction "soapie" at some points. Nonetheless, the tone set by the acting was well conceived and the accuracy was pretty much there, even though a few events and aspects were simplified.

Engaging plot, engaging characters, a few well-placed humorous touches, great acting. Enormous success.

Following this, we had the second year which was titled Underbelly: The tale of two cities. This show was set in the 1970s and 1980s and was, in a nutshell, unengaging. The story was a bit thin, it was hard to find characters to sympathise with and several mid-season episodes seemed to play no role in advancing the stories, while others covered areas and stories that were covered in previous productions such as Blue Murder. I lost interest and its dwindling ratings throughout the season were well deserved.

The first episodes of the third "season" (The Golden Mile) has just been aired (at the time of writing this) and it similarly appears that the characters will be largely uninspired and a suspicion that material will run thin and ratings with dwindle.

Why didn't they just leave it at the first "season" and launch other crime stories under a separate title? Answer: unoriginal channel 9 executives in Sydney!