I fail to understand why Homeland gets so much support from tv-reviewers and tv-related-sites, like if they are in denial this show has gone so downhill since season 1.

I dont see any serious criticism for a show that is not what is has been especially in season 1. I loved Homeland's 1st season, enjoyed 2nd season even if it had problems but 3rd season is a mess. And Claire Danes' crying face is not enough to save it anymore.
For the Homeland I have seen so far, this episode is a D.…

I don't understand the love this show gets from reviewers. I have reached the conclusion that there are some kind of TV lobbies protecting specific shows.
A- for what? for the implausibility ? for the repetitive mannerisms of Claire Danes acting used to amplify the drama of a scene? for the boring action scenes?

A-

How you can give a B+ into a an episode that shows:
1) the house of the director of CIA has absolutely NO security (except if they tell us later Saul knew and left the spy/lover to put the bug which would make sense since Saul seems to know everything)
2) the villain-lawyer knows CIA is after him and call his guy and…

I think "the Bridge" and especially the original Broen is mostly (if not  all) about Sonya's character.