Controversial song gets big cheer at Eurovision Grand Final
The 69th Eurovision Song Content Grand Final is underway is Switzerland, with one of the most controversial songs in ESC history scoring massive cheers, as rumours emerge of a global superstar taking the stage.
Australia competed in semi final two, however, Go-Jo's track Milkshake Man failed to secure enough votes to make it through to the grand final.
The hot favourite going into the Saturday night's grand final is Sweden with the song Bara bada bastu performed by KAJ, a quirky track about taking a sauna.
If you'd like to view this content, please adjust your .
To find out more about how we use cookies, please see our Cookie Guide.
The performance included three men in suits singing in a sauna set around Christmas trees. Classic Eurovision. KAJ from Sweden performs the song "Bara Bada Bastu" during the Grand Final of the 69th Eurovision Song Contest, in Basel, Switzerland, Saturday, May 17, 2025. (AP Photo/Martin Meissner) Credit: Martin Meissner / AP
Austria's JJ is also high in the odds for his track Wasted Love.
The soprano singer's unique mix of opera and hard techno could get Austria over the line.
If you'd like to view this content, please adjust your .
To find out more about how we use cookies, please see our Cookie Guide.
However, it may be Malta's 2025 entrant that has sparked the most controversy.
In Maltese, the word 'kant' translates to singing.
Malta's entrant, Miriana Conte has planned to sing her song Serving Kant - a mix of English and Maltese meaning 'serving singing' - however, was forced to change her song to just Serving due to the similarity of the Maltese word's translation to an English swear word.
It was the only Maltese word used in the track.
Although fans wanted Eurovision to give Conte the opportunity to sing her song as planned, fans in the stadium erupted with cheers as Conte danced around on a giant set of lips and bounced on a Swiss ball while singing Serving.
If you'd like to view this content, please adjust your .
To find out more about how we use cookies, please see our Cookie Guide.
Online, Eurovision fans have gone wild for Spain's entry, Esa Diva performed by Melody.
With 75cm hair extensions, a silver sequin body leotard, power vocals and heart stopping flip right at the end of her performance, Melody has proven herself as a crowd favourite.
If you'd like to view this content, please adjust your .
To find out more about how we use cookies, please see our Cookie Guide.
Eurovision, which has returned to Switzerland for 2025 after Swiss singer Nemo won with their song The Code in 2024.
It's a stunning return for the competition as Eurovision was born in Switzerland back in 1956.
One notable winner for Switzerland over the years is global music sensation Celine Dion with her 1988 entry Ne Partez Pan Sans Moi.
Speculation of a possible Dion performance is at fever pitch after the My Heart Will Go On singer's jet was seen in Basel, Switzerland on Friday, according the the BBC.
A winner will be crowned at around 8.55am AEST on Sunday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Courier-Mail
16 hours ago
- Courier-Mail
Comedian Margaret Cho says Ellen DeGeneres was ‘not nice' to her
Don't miss out on the headlines from Celebrity Life. Followed categories will be added to My News. Comedian Margaret Cho has spoken out about her 'creepy and weird' encounters with Ellen DeGeneres. Joining the chorus of people to air their unpleasant stories about the former talk show host, who now lives on a farm in the UK, Cho revealed she opened for DeGeneres at comedy clubs in the 1980s before they both hit the big time. Years later, Cho said she was invited as a guest on DeGeneres' talk show, where she claimed the host pretended they had never met before. 'Ellen was really weird and not nice to me for most of my career,' Cho said on The Kelly Mantle Show podcast. 'I opened for her in the 1980s, when she was a headliner in comedy clubs. Later, when I would do her talk show in the 2000s, she would act like we just met. And I'm like, 'Bitch, what?' That's weird. We go way back. It's so creepy and weird.' Margaret Cho made the revelation on The Kelly Mantle Show. Ellen DeGeneres has been the subject of claims she's 'not nice'. Picture: AP Things got weirder as Cho, 56, recalled a bizarre broadcast edit she felt was a personal swipe from DeGeneres, 67. Remembering how she attended a David Bowie concert in a 'Chinese emperor outfit', Cho said the late singer went on DeGeneres' show the very next day where he talked at length about the comedian's fabulous attire at his show. 'The producer, who's a really good friend of mine, had to call me and tell me, 'I can't believe she did this, but she cut it out of the show,'' Cho said. '[The producer continued] 'But you need to know that he was going on and on about your outfit. God [Bowie] said your name. He loves you.'' While unsure if the comments were cut for another reason, Cho conceded, 'I'm going to take it personally.' Cho claimed David Bowie's comments were cut from the broadcast. Picture:/AFP DeGeneres, who is married to Australian actress Portia de Rossi, quit her long-running talk show in 2022 following widespread reports of a toxic environment on-set. It all started when a March 2020 tweet claimed DeGeneres was 'notoriously one of the meanest people alive', which was met by more than 1000 replies of people detailing their not-so-nice experiences with her. The aftermath was even more brutal, with countless Ellen staff coming forward on the record with their own stories of bullying. Addressing claims for the first time after her return to TV for the show's 18th season months later, DeGeneres admitted she was a 'work in progress' but pleaded to viewers that she is still 'the person you see on TV'. Ellen ended her talk show after nearly 20 years. Picture: Warner Bros 'As you may have heard this summer there were allegations of a toxic work environment at our show and then there was an investigation. I learned that things happened here that never should've happened,' she said at the time. 'I take that very seriously, and I want to say I'm so sorry to the people who were affected.' She admitted being known as the 'be kind' lady is 'a tricky position to be in'. 'Sometimes I get sad. I get mad. I get anxious. I get frustrated. I get impatient. And I am working on all of that. I am a work in progress,' she said. 'And I am especially working on the impatience thing because … and it's not going well because it's not happening fast enough.' DeGeneres moved to the UK with de Rossi late last year, shortly after US President Donald Trump was elected. X SUBSCRIBER ONLY She's shared brief glimpses on social media of her quieter life living on a sprawling property. It is unclear where in the UK DeGeneres and de Rossi have relocated to, but they are rumoured to have set up in the English countryside. Shortly after news of the couple's big move broke, the two were spotted out with a group of friends at The Farmer's Dog in the Cotswolds, a countryside region in England. They had earlier in the year sold two of their homes in Montecito, California, in March and August. Originally published as Comedian Margaret Cho says Ellen DeGeneres was 'not nice' to her
The Advertiser
16 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Australia's enduring love affair with the US is at a critical point
Few stories start in a more compelling way than Ian McEwan's brilliant novel Enduring Love (1997). Several men, strangers to each other, rush across an English field converging on a stricken helium balloon as they try frantically to hold it grounded long enough to free a child cowering in its basket. As the ungainly apparatus is gusted violently aloft during a wind squall, the men suddenly find themselves "treading air", each facing a terrible choice - whether to hang on in the hope their collective weight will bring it down again or let go before rising too high to survive the fall. It might seem rich to describe Australia's umbilical attachment to the United States as an enduring love, but that unanswerable question in the untethered balloon scene feels disturbingly apt. As does the book's title. The bilateral relationship has survived long enough to natural, even definitional. With that "enduring", though, has come less admirable attributes like unbalanced, fawning, and captive. Hence the reckless conservative boast that Australians have fought alongside Americans in every war they've undertaken since 1900. This includes moral, legal, and strategic outrages like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Like McEwan's disparate characters twisting precariously on guy ropes and slaves to untameable forces of physics, the existential question of whether to cling on or let go, is fast becoming existential. Not that the cheerleaders of the AUKUS caucus are awake to it. While the US talks openly of rehabilitating Russia, invading Greenland and seizing the Panama Canal, they mouth terms like strategic alignment, shared values, cooperation and interoperability. In so many ways, McEwan's exquisitely described dilemma seems like a fitting metaphor for this instant. A temporally reflexive metaphor that works, albeit in different ways, for Australia, for Iran, for Israel, and even for those democracies keeping schtum as another American president contemplates a Middle Eastern war. And as Israel reveals its bottomless reserves of military power and lawless vengeance. In short order, Iran must decide if it is to surrender its nuclear enrichment capacities - even for exclusively peaceful domestic purposes like medical isotopes - or face a US aerial bombardment of unimaginable ferocity. Israel must decide, in the same compressed timeframe, if it is to accommodate such assurances - should Donald Trump insist(?) - or fight on condemning Israelis to further carnage and the state itself to perennial insecurity in its region. It is a choice between an unlikely peace and the guarantee of endless war and an ever-enduring hate. The oafish Trump has no plan. He has bought himself a mere fortnight to decide between backing off or pursuing a path he expressly campaigned against. McEwan's well-meaning strangers who've sprinted towards the flailing balloon exhibit some characteristics of the international community. In the nine days since Israel's far-right Netanyahu government began bombing Iran's nuclear sites without warning, a kind of uncoordinated helplessness has taken hold. Those gathered in Canada for the G7 caved instantly to US and Israeli pressure, citing the Jewish state's limitless "right to defend itself". The group called Iran the "principal source of regional instability". While the criticism of Iran is justified, one might have expected the top liberal states to weigh more heavily the authoritative opinions of international legal scholars such as Professor Ben Saul, Challis chair of international law at the University of Sydney and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter Terrorism. Saul says Israel's claimed legal impunity simply does not apply here. "Israel claims that its attack is necessary to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and using them in the future. The problem is that under international law, a country may only defend itself from an actual or imminent armed attack by another country," wrote Saul in the Guardian. As the rules break down, such facts have become ethereal, prone to dissipating, like so much helium. READ MORE KENNY: It is worth remembering that the trend to American unreliability now so blatant, started more than two decades ago, when fragmentary intelligence was deliberately "sexed up" to look like solid intel ahead of the Iraq invasion. America's "forever wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the attendant abuses of Abu Ghraib and the eventual surrender to the very Taliban it had expelled - signalled a loss of prestige internationally. But they also sparked a crisis at the moral and institutional core of America. The nativist, protectionist, anti-establishment Trump is its indignant progeny. A vulgar up-yours to the compromises of democracy and the checks on executive power by laws, courts, multilateral bodies and international norms. As Hugh White notes in his latest insightful Quarterly Essay, "Hard New World: Our Post-American Future", the nation which had saved democracy, then created and policed a post-war rules-based international order, has gone and is not coming back. Now, an avowed America First isolationist scoffs at such an order (globally and domestically) and ridicules the haughty ethics that had underpinned it. Even last week, Trump arrived at the G7 only to complain that Vladimir Putin should be there too. To bend McEwan's balloon dilemma further, Australia might ask itself a further question: are we the poor sods clinging white-knuckled to guy ropes? Or are we perhaps the panicked child cowering in the basket, too frightened to determine our own survival as a sovereign nation? Few stories start in a more compelling way than Ian McEwan's brilliant novel Enduring Love (1997). Several men, strangers to each other, rush across an English field converging on a stricken helium balloon as they try frantically to hold it grounded long enough to free a child cowering in its basket. As the ungainly apparatus is gusted violently aloft during a wind squall, the men suddenly find themselves "treading air", each facing a terrible choice - whether to hang on in the hope their collective weight will bring it down again or let go before rising too high to survive the fall. It might seem rich to describe Australia's umbilical attachment to the United States as an enduring love, but that unanswerable question in the untethered balloon scene feels disturbingly apt. As does the book's title. The bilateral relationship has survived long enough to natural, even definitional. With that "enduring", though, has come less admirable attributes like unbalanced, fawning, and captive. Hence the reckless conservative boast that Australians have fought alongside Americans in every war they've undertaken since 1900. This includes moral, legal, and strategic outrages like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Like McEwan's disparate characters twisting precariously on guy ropes and slaves to untameable forces of physics, the existential question of whether to cling on or let go, is fast becoming existential. Not that the cheerleaders of the AUKUS caucus are awake to it. While the US talks openly of rehabilitating Russia, invading Greenland and seizing the Panama Canal, they mouth terms like strategic alignment, shared values, cooperation and interoperability. In so many ways, McEwan's exquisitely described dilemma seems like a fitting metaphor for this instant. A temporally reflexive metaphor that works, albeit in different ways, for Australia, for Iran, for Israel, and even for those democracies keeping schtum as another American president contemplates a Middle Eastern war. And as Israel reveals its bottomless reserves of military power and lawless vengeance. In short order, Iran must decide if it is to surrender its nuclear enrichment capacities - even for exclusively peaceful domestic purposes like medical isotopes - or face a US aerial bombardment of unimaginable ferocity. Israel must decide, in the same compressed timeframe, if it is to accommodate such assurances - should Donald Trump insist(?) - or fight on condemning Israelis to further carnage and the state itself to perennial insecurity in its region. It is a choice between an unlikely peace and the guarantee of endless war and an ever-enduring hate. The oafish Trump has no plan. He has bought himself a mere fortnight to decide between backing off or pursuing a path he expressly campaigned against. McEwan's well-meaning strangers who've sprinted towards the flailing balloon exhibit some characteristics of the international community. In the nine days since Israel's far-right Netanyahu government began bombing Iran's nuclear sites without warning, a kind of uncoordinated helplessness has taken hold. Those gathered in Canada for the G7 caved instantly to US and Israeli pressure, citing the Jewish state's limitless "right to defend itself". The group called Iran the "principal source of regional instability". While the criticism of Iran is justified, one might have expected the top liberal states to weigh more heavily the authoritative opinions of international legal scholars such as Professor Ben Saul, Challis chair of international law at the University of Sydney and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter Terrorism. Saul says Israel's claimed legal impunity simply does not apply here. "Israel claims that its attack is necessary to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and using them in the future. The problem is that under international law, a country may only defend itself from an actual or imminent armed attack by another country," wrote Saul in the Guardian. As the rules break down, such facts have become ethereal, prone to dissipating, like so much helium. READ MORE KENNY: It is worth remembering that the trend to American unreliability now so blatant, started more than two decades ago, when fragmentary intelligence was deliberately "sexed up" to look like solid intel ahead of the Iraq invasion. America's "forever wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the attendant abuses of Abu Ghraib and the eventual surrender to the very Taliban it had expelled - signalled a loss of prestige internationally. But they also sparked a crisis at the moral and institutional core of America. The nativist, protectionist, anti-establishment Trump is its indignant progeny. A vulgar up-yours to the compromises of democracy and the checks on executive power by laws, courts, multilateral bodies and international norms. As Hugh White notes in his latest insightful Quarterly Essay, "Hard New World: Our Post-American Future", the nation which had saved democracy, then created and policed a post-war rules-based international order, has gone and is not coming back. Now, an avowed America First isolationist scoffs at such an order (globally and domestically) and ridicules the haughty ethics that had underpinned it. Even last week, Trump arrived at the G7 only to complain that Vladimir Putin should be there too. To bend McEwan's balloon dilemma further, Australia might ask itself a further question: are we the poor sods clinging white-knuckled to guy ropes? Or are we perhaps the panicked child cowering in the basket, too frightened to determine our own survival as a sovereign nation? Few stories start in a more compelling way than Ian McEwan's brilliant novel Enduring Love (1997). Several men, strangers to each other, rush across an English field converging on a stricken helium balloon as they try frantically to hold it grounded long enough to free a child cowering in its basket. As the ungainly apparatus is gusted violently aloft during a wind squall, the men suddenly find themselves "treading air", each facing a terrible choice - whether to hang on in the hope their collective weight will bring it down again or let go before rising too high to survive the fall. It might seem rich to describe Australia's umbilical attachment to the United States as an enduring love, but that unanswerable question in the untethered balloon scene feels disturbingly apt. As does the book's title. The bilateral relationship has survived long enough to natural, even definitional. With that "enduring", though, has come less admirable attributes like unbalanced, fawning, and captive. Hence the reckless conservative boast that Australians have fought alongside Americans in every war they've undertaken since 1900. This includes moral, legal, and strategic outrages like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Like McEwan's disparate characters twisting precariously on guy ropes and slaves to untameable forces of physics, the existential question of whether to cling on or let go, is fast becoming existential. Not that the cheerleaders of the AUKUS caucus are awake to it. While the US talks openly of rehabilitating Russia, invading Greenland and seizing the Panama Canal, they mouth terms like strategic alignment, shared values, cooperation and interoperability. In so many ways, McEwan's exquisitely described dilemma seems like a fitting metaphor for this instant. A temporally reflexive metaphor that works, albeit in different ways, for Australia, for Iran, for Israel, and even for those democracies keeping schtum as another American president contemplates a Middle Eastern war. And as Israel reveals its bottomless reserves of military power and lawless vengeance. In short order, Iran must decide if it is to surrender its nuclear enrichment capacities - even for exclusively peaceful domestic purposes like medical isotopes - or face a US aerial bombardment of unimaginable ferocity. Israel must decide, in the same compressed timeframe, if it is to accommodate such assurances - should Donald Trump insist(?) - or fight on condemning Israelis to further carnage and the state itself to perennial insecurity in its region. It is a choice between an unlikely peace and the guarantee of endless war and an ever-enduring hate. The oafish Trump has no plan. He has bought himself a mere fortnight to decide between backing off or pursuing a path he expressly campaigned against. McEwan's well-meaning strangers who've sprinted towards the flailing balloon exhibit some characteristics of the international community. In the nine days since Israel's far-right Netanyahu government began bombing Iran's nuclear sites without warning, a kind of uncoordinated helplessness has taken hold. Those gathered in Canada for the G7 caved instantly to US and Israeli pressure, citing the Jewish state's limitless "right to defend itself". The group called Iran the "principal source of regional instability". While the criticism of Iran is justified, one might have expected the top liberal states to weigh more heavily the authoritative opinions of international legal scholars such as Professor Ben Saul, Challis chair of international law at the University of Sydney and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter Terrorism. Saul says Israel's claimed legal impunity simply does not apply here. "Israel claims that its attack is necessary to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and using them in the future. The problem is that under international law, a country may only defend itself from an actual or imminent armed attack by another country," wrote Saul in the Guardian. As the rules break down, such facts have become ethereal, prone to dissipating, like so much helium. READ MORE KENNY: It is worth remembering that the trend to American unreliability now so blatant, started more than two decades ago, when fragmentary intelligence was deliberately "sexed up" to look like solid intel ahead of the Iraq invasion. America's "forever wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the attendant abuses of Abu Ghraib and the eventual surrender to the very Taliban it had expelled - signalled a loss of prestige internationally. But they also sparked a crisis at the moral and institutional core of America. The nativist, protectionist, anti-establishment Trump is its indignant progeny. A vulgar up-yours to the compromises of democracy and the checks on executive power by laws, courts, multilateral bodies and international norms. As Hugh White notes in his latest insightful Quarterly Essay, "Hard New World: Our Post-American Future", the nation which had saved democracy, then created and policed a post-war rules-based international order, has gone and is not coming back. Now, an avowed America First isolationist scoffs at such an order (globally and domestically) and ridicules the haughty ethics that had underpinned it. Even last week, Trump arrived at the G7 only to complain that Vladimir Putin should be there too. To bend McEwan's balloon dilemma further, Australia might ask itself a further question: are we the poor sods clinging white-knuckled to guy ropes? Or are we perhaps the panicked child cowering in the basket, too frightened to determine our own survival as a sovereign nation? Few stories start in a more compelling way than Ian McEwan's brilliant novel Enduring Love (1997). Several men, strangers to each other, rush across an English field converging on a stricken helium balloon as they try frantically to hold it grounded long enough to free a child cowering in its basket. As the ungainly apparatus is gusted violently aloft during a wind squall, the men suddenly find themselves "treading air", each facing a terrible choice - whether to hang on in the hope their collective weight will bring it down again or let go before rising too high to survive the fall. It might seem rich to describe Australia's umbilical attachment to the United States as an enduring love, but that unanswerable question in the untethered balloon scene feels disturbingly apt. As does the book's title. The bilateral relationship has survived long enough to natural, even definitional. With that "enduring", though, has come less admirable attributes like unbalanced, fawning, and captive. Hence the reckless conservative boast that Australians have fought alongside Americans in every war they've undertaken since 1900. This includes moral, legal, and strategic outrages like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Like McEwan's disparate characters twisting precariously on guy ropes and slaves to untameable forces of physics, the existential question of whether to cling on or let go, is fast becoming existential. Not that the cheerleaders of the AUKUS caucus are awake to it. While the US talks openly of rehabilitating Russia, invading Greenland and seizing the Panama Canal, they mouth terms like strategic alignment, shared values, cooperation and interoperability. In so many ways, McEwan's exquisitely described dilemma seems like a fitting metaphor for this instant. A temporally reflexive metaphor that works, albeit in different ways, for Australia, for Iran, for Israel, and even for those democracies keeping schtum as another American president contemplates a Middle Eastern war. And as Israel reveals its bottomless reserves of military power and lawless vengeance. In short order, Iran must decide if it is to surrender its nuclear enrichment capacities - even for exclusively peaceful domestic purposes like medical isotopes - or face a US aerial bombardment of unimaginable ferocity. Israel must decide, in the same compressed timeframe, if it is to accommodate such assurances - should Donald Trump insist(?) - or fight on condemning Israelis to further carnage and the state itself to perennial insecurity in its region. It is a choice between an unlikely peace and the guarantee of endless war and an ever-enduring hate. The oafish Trump has no plan. He has bought himself a mere fortnight to decide between backing off or pursuing a path he expressly campaigned against. McEwan's well-meaning strangers who've sprinted towards the flailing balloon exhibit some characteristics of the international community. In the nine days since Israel's far-right Netanyahu government began bombing Iran's nuclear sites without warning, a kind of uncoordinated helplessness has taken hold. Those gathered in Canada for the G7 caved instantly to US and Israeli pressure, citing the Jewish state's limitless "right to defend itself". The group called Iran the "principal source of regional instability". While the criticism of Iran is justified, one might have expected the top liberal states to weigh more heavily the authoritative opinions of international legal scholars such as Professor Ben Saul, Challis chair of international law at the University of Sydney and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter Terrorism. Saul says Israel's claimed legal impunity simply does not apply here. "Israel claims that its attack is necessary to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and using them in the future. The problem is that under international law, a country may only defend itself from an actual or imminent armed attack by another country," wrote Saul in the Guardian. As the rules break down, such facts have become ethereal, prone to dissipating, like so much helium. READ MORE KENNY: It is worth remembering that the trend to American unreliability now so blatant, started more than two decades ago, when fragmentary intelligence was deliberately "sexed up" to look like solid intel ahead of the Iraq invasion. America's "forever wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the attendant abuses of Abu Ghraib and the eventual surrender to the very Taliban it had expelled - signalled a loss of prestige internationally. But they also sparked a crisis at the moral and institutional core of America. The nativist, protectionist, anti-establishment Trump is its indignant progeny. A vulgar up-yours to the compromises of democracy and the checks on executive power by laws, courts, multilateral bodies and international norms. As Hugh White notes in his latest insightful Quarterly Essay, "Hard New World: Our Post-American Future", the nation which had saved democracy, then created and policed a post-war rules-based international order, has gone and is not coming back. Now, an avowed America First isolationist scoffs at such an order (globally and domestically) and ridicules the haughty ethics that had underpinned it. Even last week, Trump arrived at the G7 only to complain that Vladimir Putin should be there too. To bend McEwan's balloon dilemma further, Australia might ask itself a further question: are we the poor sods clinging white-knuckled to guy ropes? Or are we perhaps the panicked child cowering in the basket, too frightened to determine our own survival as a sovereign nation?
West Australian
a day ago
- West Australian
Screen Queen TV Reviews: Pernille, Stranded On Honeymoon Island, The Bear, Squid Game S3 & The Gilded Age
Has it ever been harder to be a middle-aged woman? Seriously — it's tough out there. We've got young children to raise, and elderly parents to care for. Add in a bit of perimenopausal rage and honestly — it's a s..t show. And I get it — had I been born a couple of hundred years earlier, there'd be every chance I'd not have made it this far. And had I survived to the ripe old age of 47, I'd be considered positively ancient, hurtling towards the grave. Or being dunked in a village pond, or burned at the stake — or all of the above. So yeah, I guess in relative terms, it's not so bad. But it certainly feels like hard graft as I navigate life in The Sandwich Generation; that group of us born in the mid-to-late 70s and early 80s, stuck raising kids and caring for ageing boomer parents. Maybe that's why I identified so much with this great under-the-radar series. Pernille, or Pørni, as it's known in its country of origin, is a Norwegian comedy/drama all about a woman my age going through it. It originally aired on SBS, but Netflix picked it up and commissioned two more series, and honestly, it's one of the best things I've seen this year. Actor turned writer/director Henriette Steenstrup stars as the eponymous Pørni (pronounced Pernille), a recently divorced social worker raising two teenage girls. She's dealing with the grief of her recently deceased sister while also caring for her sister's son and elderly father, who recently came out as gay. To say her life is a hot mess would be an understatement. And yet, she approaches it all with so much positivity and relatability and grace, that it's literally impossible not to fall in love with this superb series. While you can watch it dubbed in English, I urge you to check out the original-language version — there's something lovely about listening to the lilting Norwegian, a language I mostly associated with grizzly Scandi Noir dramas. This is beautiful, heartwarming television that shot right to my heart. Women of a certain age: you'll feel SEEN. I don't get why so many people had such beef with season three of The Bear. Sure, it didn't have the urgency of those brilliant first two seasons, but in my mind, it was an essential building block for a story reaching crescendo with season four. The clock is ticking — literally in the trailer, which shows a clock counting down the money the team has left before Uncle Jimmy (Oliver Platt) shuts their doors for good — and it's make or break for Carmy (Jeremy Allen White) and his crew. Seasons three and four were shot back-to-back, and this picks up immediately where we left things, with that review, and Sydney's (Ayo Edebiri) possible departure hanging over their heads. Can't wait to see where it takes us. Your next favourite guilty pleasure is here! This 'MAFS-meets-Survivor' dating series sees newlywed strangers dumped on a deserted island in nothing but their wedding attire — what a concept. This crackers show will have you hooked. Before she was having existential crises over pina coladas at The White Lotus, Carrie Coon was trussed up in a bodice and bustle in this historical series from Downton Abbey creator, Julian Fellowes. It returns this week for its anticipated third season. Consistently enjoyable. It's one of the biggest shows in the world, with an audience in the hundreds of millions. So get ready for literally everyone you know to be talking about the third series of this Korean classic, which wraps up for good. Get ready for one heck of a showdown between Gi-hun (Player 456, played by Lee Jung-jae) and Front Man (Lee Byung-hun) — can't wait.
