Qui est la taupe?

I don't think it's bad. I do think they fall into some of the same pitfalls that plague so many other reality shows.

The weird thing is that this version is very clearly based on the latest Belgian run (some games are almost literal copies) but they don't quite get why that version is superior.

* You barely see people interacting when not playing a game.

* The constant skipping to the interviews/contestant voice overs make it seem very scripted. They need to limit those. Let the action and interactions speak for itself.

* Notebooks! Bring back the notebooks!

* Diversity. What you have is a group of people from a fairly narrow age range (25-40) who all look like they could start a modelling career and whose hobby is cross fit. Diversity is more than a bunch of attractive millennials with a different skin color. The Belgian runs have people between 18 and 50+. It's their personalities and different experiences that bring so much more to the game.

* I do like the use of cell phones instead of the large screen they use in the Belgian version.

* I didn't like the "ending on a cliffhanger" of the episodes. Why does everything have to end on a cliffhanger? Just finish after the selection. It destroys the pacing of the episodes because the elimination should be the emotional high point of the episode. Not the lead in.

* More of a personal note but the Belgian presenter, Gilles de Coster, has a very dry, factual way of interacting with the contestants during the games. I think that works better than Alex Wagner's.

If you want to see how good it can be, try and find the current Belgian version (especially series 9 (Germany) ).

The revival doesn't hold a candle to ABC's Season 1 & 2. I feel a lot of the cast members are caricatures and the production team's edits are very suspect (such as the countdown clocks, contestant confessionals, and how the missions are structured). In contrast to earlier seasons, we really don't get a full sense of the competitors' motivations. I really can't say that I'm rooting for any particular player to bring home the prize money. The show is a way to eat up my time; I'm not as fully engaged in it as I thought I would be. This is because very few of the missions are exciting. Many of the games have ambiguous rules or just seem downright impossible. I felt lost when I tried to make sense of some of them, especially the Detonator mission and the bank heist mission.

Alex Wagner is a fair host. She has a good mixture of motherly warmth and seriousness. I can't rate her as highly as host Anderson Cooper, who incidentally also is a journalist.

The aforementioned ABC seasons were set in France, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, and Monaco. This season in Australia simply doesn't have that same spark.

It's just another scripted reality show. Watch at your own leisure but be prepared to be let down.

I am a huge fan of the original series: The mole Belgium (De Mol), that is running since 1998 and has 10 seasons and more to come.

Also I like the Dutch version (with celebrities), Wie is de mol? Which has done 20+ seasons.

Now I am enjoying this Netflix version set in beautiful Australia. The landscapes and locations are great, the group not so much. They are a bit to sporty, goodlooking and "in to it" for my taste. I would have loved a more diverse group, different body types etc.

The games and missions look very familiar is you're a The Mole Belgium fan, a lot is copied from season 9, which was set in Germany.

The part that's missing for me is the interaction between the contestants on location, that is we're the original series is so strong, you really live with the kandidates and can do your own mole search.

No one saying "Who is...the Mole?"

It's okay. But missing some of the elements that made the first ones so great. A better host to amp the suspense. Where are their handy dandy little notebooks they were always writing in?! I remember them always writing notes in their little notebooks. Also the phones instead of a big screen is a bad choice. The huge screen was fun to see turn color.

Overall I am glad it is back. But don't ditch the things that made it so good the first time.

I really miss Anderson Cooper, though I get her has other things to do. But the host could really do a better job of saying things to build suspense, etc.

First let me say I've come to love "reality" television - that while it's over-the-top at times, the sense that a real human is behind the screen draws me into their story. I also love spy shows and mysteries. So I was pumped about this show, and the first several episodes had me hooked. There were so many characters sabotaging, the Australian views were incredible, and there was a fun energy in the cast. Above all, I wanted to see if my prediction about the mole was right, so I kept watching.

But, a small missing piece grew into a gaping disconnect when I realized that 6 or 7 episodes in, I knew NOTHING about these people. I saw no footage of them interacting during down times that weren't missions or quizzes to see their personalities come to life. Their confessionals were SOLELY about the mole and the missions, nothing else, so I knew nothing about their lives outside of the game. We didn't get to watch them interact off-script, and that started to feel empty.

"The Mole" needed Survivor-esque moments where a player catches two people forming an alliance, or finds them plotting. What about times where characters get to read letters or watch video from their family? Why are these people on this show? The "real" drama was just missing here, as was character building. By the end, I found I didn't care who won the money. And once it became more obvious who the mole was, the show dragged - it appeared the contestants felt that as well.

I hope they continue and build the concept, but if it continues as only a game show without any "real" people or vulnerability, I don't see this lasting beyond another season.