In season 1, The Royals showed us that depravity and royalty went hand in hand. This time around, it’s all about anarchy in the monarchy. When we last looked in on the ruling family of Britain, King Simon was assassinated, and within seconds of his death, his opportunistic brother literally pried the royal seal off his fingers. I mean, his body wasn’t even cold yet, and there is Cyrus grave-robbing.  Liam had the opportunity to walk away from the all the pressures of being the heir apparent and be with the girl of his dreams, but chose duty and familial obligations (yeah, because that always ends well). Helena’s reputation was in ruins; however, there was light at the end of the tunnel after a powerful interview. Finally, Eleanor discovered that her older brother, like her father, was assassinated. Needless to say, their entire world turned upside down. I was excited to see what came next.

Season 2 picks up not long after the events of last season. Following the death of King Simon, Cyrus has ascended to the throne, mostly due to his manipulations of having the rightful heirs, Liam and Elizabeth, declared illegitimate. Unlike his brother before him, Cyrus is not fully embraced by the people and finds himself forced to buy their affections. In a move to secure their loyalty, King Cyrus restores the twins’ titles. Unbeknownst to him, the pair intends to use their positions to further their investigation and expose the conspiracy that is responsible for the death of their father as well as their older brother before him. Meanwhile, Queen Helena, reborn from the scandal of her infidelity, sets in motion her own plans to seize the throne right from under her brother-in-law and former partner in crime. Her ambitions are not without obstacles in the form of the prime minister and her mother.

I don’t find House of Lies funny. In fairness, I don’t think it’s supposed to be funny, or it’s trying to be funny in the most cynical and unpalatable way possible. It’s a half-hour format airing on Showtime, which would normally suggest a sitcom. It’s not a sitcom, but a brash dramedy. Our main characters all have MBA’s but frequently act like teenagers on drugs. They are smart enough to analyze things brilliantly but are so corrupt that they will do the absolutely worst thing possible if it satisfies their personal interests. House of Lies should not be confused with House of Cards, which also features high-level leaders with horrendous morals. It seems to promote undiluted self-interest at all costs.

The show is based on a tell-all book (House of Lies: How Management Consultants Steal Your Watch and then Tell You the Time) by Martin Kihn. The main character on the show is Marty Kaan, played by Don Cheadle. It’s safe to say that the Showtime series is heavily fictionalized and is not about Kihn.

"From the chaos of the New York City streets rises a legion of visionary gangsters. Vicious killers and criminal geniuses determined to create their own version of the American Dream."

If you are looking for an actual documentary on the evolution of the mafia and famous Five Families of New York, this is absolutely a bad place to start. I'm a bit uneasy with AMC's use of the word documentary next to drama on this series. It pretty much follows the book The Last Testament Of Lucky Luciano by Martin A. Gosch and Richard Hammer. While neither author is listed in the show's credits as writers, I have found the material pretty much supports that narrative of the story. That's fine, except the book itself has been the subject of controversy since it was first published in 1975. At first there was a rumor the material was based on recordings that Lucky made while in exile in Italy. The authors never made that claim but did claim the material came from various sit-downs between Gosch and Lucky in the early 1960's just before his death. I'm very sure it's the story he might have told. But we're talking about a huge ego here, and much of it is embellished, just as much of Making Of The Mob: New York is quite embellished. This is no history lesson. But is it entertaining.

For over 15 years the CSI franchise has been a solid stable of programming for the Eye Network. The original show blasted through all initial expectations and lasted for 15 years. CSI: Miami went on for a decade, and CSI: New York for a little over five years. Now the original has bowed out of the game, and after 30 years of seasons, the franchise's future hangs with newcomer CSI: Cyber. All dynasties eventually come to an end. Some pass quietly in the night. Others do so quite horribly. After watching the short 13 episode run of CSI: Cyber, I'm afraid it's the latter path for a once-brilliant franchise. Catch it while you can, if you're interested. While it will be back this fall, I do not anticipate a long life for a show that is CSI in name only. Now is your chance to decide for yourself.

It all starts with Patricia Arquette as Avery Ryan. The character was first introduced in a back-door pilot the previous season on CSI. She is a psychologist who had her files hacked and made public. The resulting cybercrime caused one of her patients to die. So she joined the FBI and somehow became the nation's leading authority on cybercrime and now heads that team for the FBI. Forget that this is a weak character back story. It's too much been there, seen that. Characters who change the course of their lives over a death are cheap shortcuts trying to gain sympathy from the audience. But let's overlook that for now. The fact that she became such a knowledgeable techie in whatever time there was is completely unbelievable. It's hard to believe she was even much of a psychologist. Human empathy is something I find in neither the character nor the actor.