We Were Liars Season 1 Review – A faithful adaptation with flaws and all
Episode Guide
Episode 1 -| Review Score – 3/5
Episode 2 -| Review Score – 3/5
Episode 3 -| Review Score – 3/5
Episode 4 -| Review Score – 3/5
Episode 5 -| Review Score – 2.5/5
Episode 6 -| Review Score – 2.5/5
Episode 7 -| Review Score – 2.5/5
Episode 8 -| Review Score – 2.5/5
It doesn't seem like Hollywood's era of reboots, adaptations and remakes is going to be ending anytime soon. Not with that perfect shot-by-shot live adaptation of How to Train Your Dragon. And now, say hello to the TV adaptation of the iconic novel, We Were Liars by E. Lockhart.
While we were mostly obsessed with dystopian books or John Green romances in the 2010s, E. Lockhart snuck onto us out of nowhere with her jaw-dropping thriller. And while it may have taken a decade to get an adaptation, the wait seems to have been worth it.
Adapted by Amazon Prime, this psychological thriller has everything from family drama and betrayals to teen angst and memory loss. We Were Liars Season 1 first dropped in June 2025 and has complex themes of manipulation, privilege, memory loss and burying weaknesses, perfect for those who are fans of thriller dramas.
The 8-episode show stars Emily Alyn Lind, Shubham Maheshwari, Esther McGregor, Joseph Zada and more. Additionally, it is helmed by CW regulars, Julie Plec and Carina Adly Mackenzie, while Lockhart herself worked closely on it.
Season 1 begins in Summer 17 with an amnesiac Cadence Sinclair trying to recall why she washed up on the beach of her summer house on Beechwood Island, injured and naked, a year ago. The Liars, comprising Gat and her cousins, Johnny and Mirren, were her best friends but haven't spoken to her all year. Desperate to figure out what went down and who is responsible, Cadence heads back to Beechwood for answers.
Summer 16 is happy, carefree and perfect, that is till Cady starts noticing all that is wrong with her rich and privileged family, the Sinclairs. Her mom and her aunts' sibling rivalry gets worse as they vie for the biggest slice of the inheritance. The racist and classist patriarch, Harris pits his children against each other to prove themselves. Gat seems to have gotten hot but also conscious of the Sinclairs' prejudice. And Johnny is hiding something that is more than just a kiss gone wrong.
We Were Liars Season 1 starts off strong with just enough exposition to keep viewers intrigued but not too much to bore them. All of the characters are fleshed out, including the supporting cast, so that there is enough suspense. One never knows if it is a Liar or a Sinclair adult that is responsible for Cady's incident.
But it is the main cast that are the heart of the show. Alyn Lind keeps the attention on the mystery as her Cady investigates Summer 16. Maheshwari and McGregor tug at heartstrings with their pitiable Gat and Mirren who only love and want to be loved. Zada steals the attention as the temperamental Johnny that you just can't hate.
The show goes all out on the aesthetics to bring to life the extravagant life of the Sinclairs. From themed events where everyone wears yellow, the food is yellow and the flowers are yellow, to illegal ivory elephant busts, Beechwood Island oozes luxury.
The two varying colour palettes of the two different summers continue to highlight their status, even though it is supposed to represent Cady's mind. Summer 16 is bright and vibrant which complements the classic Clairmont mansion. Summer 17 is cold, grey and clinical for Cady's emo phase and the new Clairmont's urban complex.
The show's budget for the music is wild because if one thing they did right, it was the soundtrack album. It's got a whole lot of Hozier, Khalid, HAIM, Conan Gray and alt-J among others. And we are bringing up the music because one of the highlights, without a doubt, is Johnny dancing to 'Old Time Rock and Roll'. If you weren't pumped for Zada as young Haymitch in the new Hunger Games prequel, you will be now with the range he shows as Johnny.
Hozier's 'Eat Your Young' is a nice touch when the kids are taking a stand against the adults. But it is a little disappointing given that this poignant anti-capitalist song is used for an actually shallow and performative storyline.
To put it simply, We Were Liars Season 1 is a bit of a mixed bag. Thriller-wise, it is definitely entertaining, keeping us on our toes every step of the way. The moment Cady figures something out, another shocking plot twist arrives and throws our predictions out the window. The final big plot twist is like a punch you see coming but still fail to avoid.
But while the mystery and its resolution are all well and good, the show fails thematically. The big plan that leads to the whole mystery is terrible and its execution is equally terrible. In a show about complex and morally grey characters, no one gets the justice or closure they deserve. And you may say that one can't change so quickly and it is not realistic, but this is a fictional show for teenagers with a really warped message.
While most 'rich perfect family' stories have the rich but likeable characters still coming out on top, there is usually a lower-class underdog who wins as well as seen in some recent shows like Sirens, The Perfect Couple and The Better Sister. However, We Were Liars ruins its underdogs and also doesn't redeem the snobby, rich, privileged brats that the Sinclairs are.
Let's be honest, the racism angle was pretty iffy in the book and is what prevented it from being a terrific story. We had hoped that in the show, the adults' bigotry would head somewhere different from the book. But by being a faithful adaptation, the book's weakness becomes the show's weakness.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
What does Shylock mean? Trump's antisemitic slur explained after president condemned
Donald Trump has been accused of using 'blatant and vile' antisemitic language at a campaign-style speech at a rally in Iowa. The president was speaking in Des Moines on Thursday, just hours after the House passed his cornerstone tax and spending bill. In his 'Salute to America' address, Trump railed against 'Shylocks' as he took a swipe at the Democrats for uniformly opposing the legislation. 'No death tax. No estate tax,' Trump began. 'No going to the banks and borrowing from, in some cases, a fine banker, and in some cases, Shylocks and bad people.' 'They destroyed a lot of families, but we did the opposite,' he added. His comments drew condemnation from Jewish leaders, who claimed his use of the slur was no accident. Here's what that term means, and how people have reacted. What does Shylock mean and why is it offensive? The term 'Shylock' comes from a villainous character in the play by William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice. Shylock is a Jewish moneylender who demands a pound of flesh from another character, Antonio, if they cannot repay his loan. Ultimately, he is thwarted and forced to convert to Christianity. The play itself has generated debate for hundreds of years over whether it is antisemitic. While it is classified as one of Shakespeare's comedies, much of its tone is more dramatic and often divisive. The prominent American literary critic Harold Bloom once wrote: 'One would have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to recognize that Shakespeare's grand, equivocal comedy 'The Merchant of Venice' is nevertheless a profoundly anti-Semitic work.' Shylock has been played in starkly different ways by performers over the years - sometimes as a repulsive character, driven by a desire for revenge, others as a more sympathetic figure. But many see Shylock as an offensive stereotype about Jewish people and money, and the name has become a slur to describe loansharks who lend money at extortionate rates. According to the Smithsonian Magazine, the play was a favourite in Nazi Germany, with more than 50 productions put on in the country between 1933 and 1939. Kevin Madigan, a professor of Christian history at Harvard Divinity School pointed out that in one Berlin production of the play, the director ' planted extras in the audiences to shout and whistle when Shylock appeared, thus cuing the audience to do the same,' the Smithsonian magazine reported. What has the reaction to Trump's comments been? The Anti-Defamation League said the term 'evokes a centuries-old antisemitic trope about Jews and greed that is extremely offensive and dangerous. President Trump's use of the term is very troubling and irresponsible. 'It underscores how lies and conspiracies about Jews remain deeply entrenched in our country. Words from our leaders matter and we expect more from the President of the United States.' Amy Spitalnick of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs said Trump's use of the term was 'not an accident.' 'Shylock is among the most quintessential antisemitic stereotypes,' she tweeted. New York Representative Daniel Goldman said it was 'blatant and vile antisemitism, and Trump knows exactly what he's doing.' California Rep. Eric Swalwell called on the ADL to take action, adding that if they 'cannot condemn this, they should pack it up.' He later shared an update that the league had condemned the president's comments. Have other senior American leaders used that term? Yes, most notably Joe Biden when he was vice president in 2014. Speaking at a Legal Services Corporation event, he used the term to describe lenders taking advantage of service men and women while they were overseas. Later, Biden acknowledged it 'was a poor choice of words' after the ADL said the then-vice president 'should have been more careful'. What has Trump said about it? Flying back to Washington D.C. on Air Force One, the president said he had 'never heard that' the word was considered antisemitic, and offered his own definition of the term. 'I've never heard it that way,' he said. 'The meaning of Shylock is somebody that's a money lender at high rates. You view it differently. I've never heard that.'
Daily Mail
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE I used to make $12k a month from content creation... but now I am struggling to find work
A woman who used to rake in over $12,000 a month as an influencer but is now struggling to find work after being left with 'nothing' has lifted a lid on the harsh realities of content creation. Lisa Jean-Francois, who is in her 40s, from Massachusetts, has been a social media star for over a decade. She started off as a fashion influencer before switching her content to parenting after she became a mom. With over 100,000 followers, she once made upwards of $12,000 per month as sponsorships came pouring in. But in recent years, she has struggled to land brand deals and now, she is desperately looking for a job after realizing content creation is not something she can rely on forever. So what went wrong? Well, Lisa laid bare her rollercoaster-ride journey and opened up about the downsides to social media stardom that no one talks about exclusively with the Daily Mail. Lisa explained that she first found viral fame back in 2012 after she launched a blog that focused on 'showing women how to look good for less.' 'My first blog was called Beauty on the Cheap, where I focused on drugstore makeup,' she said. Lisa Jean-Francois, who is in her 40s, has been a social media star for over a decade. She started off as a fashion influencer before switching her content to parenting 'And I featured clothes from... affordable fast fashion brands. It was all about making beauty and style accessible.' By 2014 she was raking in money from ad revenue on her blog, and it dawned on her that she could make a full-time living from content creation. She quit her job and began to build her brand on Instagram, but it wasn't easy. She had to invest thousands of dollars, spending on cameras, editing tools, website designers, wardrobe, props, and more. 'I also paid photographers and video editors. People don't realize you have to spend real money to make your content look polished and professional. It all adds up fast,' she shared. By 2017, her hard work had paid off. She was a full fledged 'fashion influencer,' bringing in anywhere from $8,000 to $12,000 a month, and sometimes even more if a 'big campaign came through.' 'By around 2017, it started to feel like a real, full-time career,' she reflected. 'Brand partnerships and ad revenue from my blog really started to come in consistently, and I treated it like a business.' But while the pay was high, Lisa admitted that there were tons of downsides to the world of content creation. She said there was a 'constant pressure to stay relevant' and 'keep up with the trends,' which was 'exhausting.' Lisa also pointed out that you 'can't control how people perceive you,' which can be extremely difficult. 'It can feel inauthentic, too, trying to maintain a perfect image,' she added. And while she was making a lot, she was still spending a lot to keep her content fresh. 'I never repeated an outfit on Instagram. It always had to be fresh and bold to stop people from scrolling,' she explained. Lisa also recalled her followers leaving cruel comments about her body after she welcomed her son. 'Someone even suggested I should hide my belly pudge,' she said. In 2021, Lisa posted an intimate video to Instagram opening up about an incident she had with her then-toddler son. She explained that she had been angry with him and threw away one of his drawings, then felt terrible and apologized to the youngster. The video resonated with tons of other parents and gained almost a million views, and it made Lisa realize that she could post more mom content. At the time, she confessed that her mental health had been deteriorating and that as a new mom, it was becoming harder for her to keep up with her account. 'It was my first time showing my audience I was parenting differently, and the response made me feel people would be open to it,' she explained. 'At the same time, I was deep in my own healing journey. From 2019 to mid-2021, I was working as Head of Influencer Marketing & PR for a beauty brand, and I was treated horribly, my nervous system was shot. 'I had a new baby. I couldn't get on Instagram and talk about lipstick when my life felt like it was unraveling.' Soon, she switched her focus on social media from fashion to 'conscious parenting,' and boy, was it popular. Her videos exploded, leading to her having more viral fame than ever before. 'I never cracked more than 50,000 followers on Instagram [when I was a fashion influencer]. But the parenting content doubled that,' she said. But more attention also meant more hate, as Lisa added, 'The harshest comments came when I switched to conscious parenting. 'Parenting is a hot-button topic. I had to weed through comments from people describing how they harm their own kids, or wishing harm on mine. 'Some people literally told me they couldn't wait to see my children shot or locked up because I chose not to hit them. That was far more painful than any comment about my body.' In addition, Lisa explained that parenting isn't as much of a lucrative topic as fashion is, and she began to lose brand deals. 'I did a three-month partnership with in 2021, in 2020 I went on a brand trip with Sperry. I mean business was booming,' she dished. 'Now it's like I don't even exist to businesses. For example, I worked with Hood Ice Cream for a couple of years, but once I [switched to parenting content], that stopped. 'Even when a local Cape Cod resort enthusiastically invited me recently, they ghosted me when I asked for basic coverage like meals in exchange for content. 'So it feels like I'm shut out [from brand deals] for reasons I don't fully understand. It's different now.' But she said it 'feels more rewarding' and authentic posting about motherhood than fashion, so she has no regrets about making the switch. 'It's never too late to pivot. It's okay to outgrow something that once defined you,' she encouraged others. Even so, Lisa is now coming to grips with the realization that she's not making enough from content creation to make it her full-time career anymore. She recently launched her own jewelry line called The Consciously Lisa Collection. She also wrote a book on parenting and sells virtual styling consultations. But she is now looking for a steady job - and she admitted that things are 'tough' right now because 'nobody will hire her.' 'I can't live off of the jewelry income and what I take home in a month isn't what I used to take home,' she admitted. '[I get] one brand-sponsored Instagram post [per month]. 'Brands always chase what's new and fresh. If you don't build something you own, you're left with nothing when they move on.' While reflecting on her journey as an influencer, Lisa - who currently has 124,000 followers on her account @ConsciouslyLisa_ - admitted that she wished she had done things different. And she hopes that sharing her story will help teach others not to make the same mistakes that she did. 'After nearly 14 years [as an influencer], I know this space deeply, but I don't always feel respected in it,' she shared. 'I think every creator should diversify their income and build multiple streams at once. Brand money is great, I know creators who make $20,000 for a single post, but it's risky if you don't manage your money wisely. 'One reason I struggle now is because I didn't always spend wisely or keep good financial records. 'If I could do it again, I wouldn't have abandoned having a steady W-2 job entirely. I have a master's in writing, an undergraduate degree in English and journalism, I have experience teaching, marketing, and office management, but it all feels worthless now. 'No one will hire me. I wish I'd kept some steady income outside social media. It would have made these tough seasons easier.'
Times
38 minutes ago
- Times
A Single Man review — can dance do justice to this gay classic?
The choreographer Jonathan Watkins's ambitious new dance-and-song adaptation of Christopher Isherwood's 1964 gay literary classic A Single Man, which also became an acclaimed movie starring Colin Firth, has is full of dualities. For starters, he has pulled off a double-casting coup. From the classical realm is Ed Watson, former principal dancer at the Royal Ballet and one of the most distinctive talents to come out of that institution during the past quarter-century. Jonathan Goddard has demonstrated equally stellar skills in a slew of abstract and narrative-based contemporary dance performance for about as long. For anyone familiar with their work the prospect of seeing the pair on stage — and playing lovers, no less — is frankly mouth-watering. The actual result in this co-commission by the Royal Ballet and the Manchester International Festival, however, is problematic. Set over a 24-hour period in sun-drenched southern California circa the early 1960s, and in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Isherwood's novel is a highly internalised account of the dissociation experienced by George, a middle-aged English professor mourning the untimely loss of his lover Jim. Throughout the day George's encounters with a handful of people — including students, one of whom sparks an attraction, and a close female friend (the excellent Kristen McNally) — test his feelings of loss, longing and alienation. Will he cling to grief, memories and fantasies or instead embrace life? Watkins's two-act take on Isherwood's slippery, restrained text is never less than intelligently considered. His boldest decision was to split the character of George in two. For the initial run of performances in Manchester, it is Watson who, with one exception, embodies him. (Goddard plays George at this Saturday's matinee and, when the production transfers to the Royal Opera House in September, he and Watson alternate in the role.) George's mind and thoughts, meanwhile. are mellifluously voiced by the singer-songwriter John Grant, a burly figure occupying a central area of Chiara Stephenson's striking, object-adorned split-level set. • Read more theatre reviews, guides and interviews Further carried along musically by Jasmin Kent Rodgman's lyrical original score, played live by the five-piece Manchester Collective, and featuring a capable supporting ensemble of dancers, A Single Man is sensitively attuned to the anxious, homophobic time and hedonistic place in which it is set. It helps that Goddard and Watson's dancing is shot through with grace, tenderness and lust. But Grant's songs sometimes tip over into banality, while the work overall is both curiously emotionally muted yet, ultimately, overly sentimental. We watch George lecture, shop, visit the gym. We sense the underlying ache, especially when Watson doubles over breaking into sobs. But Watkins's desire to offer George — and us — a redemptive glimmer of hope feels shallow, even sugary. There are things to admire here, but this production is an exceptionally mixed affair.★★★☆☆115minAviva Studios, Manchester, to Jul 6, Linbury Theatre, Royal Opera House, London, Sep 8-20, @timesculture to read the latest reviews
