The characters are so engaging that I find myself talking to them in my mind while I'm bingeing (for the fourth or fifth time). It makes me want to launch straight into Breaking Bad again, but I've already seen the latter about 6 times, and the last time was too recent. Can't wait until I forget everything. As Margaret Lyons said over at the NY Times, the small details are great, too. The ice cream ant hill: metaphor. Okay, so what's up with the fish tanks metaphor? Slippin' Jimmy's whole adult life has been a fishbowl.
Quite a unique little ecosystem here, with the unofficial town mayor acting as fixer, troubleshooter and go-between vis-a-vis the local prisons (more than one) and the reprobate ex-cons who still inhabit the town. The acting is robust, and it's not too outlandish to posit that this show is what happens when The Sons of Anarchy and City on a Hill have a baby.
The show slow-burns for two or three episodes but draws you in more deeply as you go along for the full first season, wanting more. Essentially in the same genre as "Homecoming," but more claustrophobic. To me it's a slightly less compelling, less ambitious cousin to Homecoming, not quite as addictive-bingeable, but certainly belongs in the prestige ranks.
Elizabeth Moss and the dystopian view of the American evangelist world that many of them would love to see come to fruition just keeps on giving. Yes, the second and third episodes continue to inhabit that world, and it's like an opioid.
The show is immersive, cinematic and highly addictive, with vivid characters, sound design and **** cinematography. There are homage nods (or pop culture references, if you prefer) to All the President's Men, Columbo and much more. Those who give it ridiculously low scores are clueless and need to stick to Starsky and Hutch reruns.
Things went awry in the very first moments with a truly awful, corny, annoying background song and went downhill from there. If we could just have Pamela Adlon with better and more interesting characters around her, life at Sam's place would be worthy of more praise. For one thing, the aging grandma seems a carbon copy of the one in an episode of "Roar" with Nicole Kidman as the daughter. In fact, I had just watched it, and then the first episode of Better Things with the same grandma with aging issues, and it was jarring. Is this granny everywhere? And a raspberry for her super-duper brilliant kids, especially the girl with glasses who's supposed to be so precocious it's just so precious, but when the power goes out she goes "MOM! mom! mom! mom! mom! mom! mom! mom! mom! mom! and on and on until you want to reach in your 4K, 3d-like screen and strangle that horrid creature. Otherwise, the show is too frenetic. Give Pamela some time to breathe already, and time for us to enjoy her more.
The show is the most bingeable of all the European ones that have found our shores, but I don't think it deserves to be in first place over Better Call Saul--not by a long shot. What has always puzzled me is the flat persona of the protagonist. She goes around mostly acting like a robot, seldom a smile or a polite goodbye or any normal kind of acknowledgement. I know Neapolitans are jaded, but come on. But, as I said, bingeable--and good. Ciao, bella!
Quite an epic journey to the mountains of prestige TV, and you have to love our protagonist, the Lightning with Yellow Hair girl who "outsmiled, outloved, outfought and outlived me" (in the words of Sam Elliot's character) at the age of 18. People who call it "woke" are primitive trolls. It's not woke and it's not soapy, but it is tissue-worthy and unforgettable. A small quibble: the term "cowboy" was not used in the 1880s to refer to herders and ranchers. In the Tombstone era, "Cowboys" were the pejorative term for the worst kind of thugs, so noted by the San Francisco Chronicle at the time.
It appears the professional critics here are relying on just the first one or two episodes. This is a dynamite show, with a unique premise of just exactly who the protagonist is, great performances, and no nonsense.
Amateur reviewers here who give it a 2 or a zero have missed the point in complaining about the show's distance from the novels. I agree with another that they probably just don't like seeing women of color as protagonists. It's based on the novels--not novel--by Asimov. The series is epic in scope and visual effects, deep, well-scripted, and not a word of dialogue is wasted in trite, irrelevant, boring or shallow talk.
It's a slog, all right, and the female lead is particularly uncompelling, like the Rey character in Star Wars--only more bland what with the 1850s default restrictions on women and all. Four episodes would have been a better Halloween treat than the ten we're subjected to. Drive a stake through this one's heart and instead opt for the 3.5-hour 1979 version of Salem's Lot.
Pretentious techno-bore starts out well enough but the final four or five episodes are just static mood pieces with incomprehensible techie dialogue. No amount of fancy lighting or camera angles can save it and it's certainly not in the spirit of seasons 1 and 2. I expected character-driven drama, not "data points."
We may not all, or always, be in the mood for yet another lesson in the horrors of the Deep South slavery economy, but in this case it doesn't matter one way or another. You have to stay glued like a binge rat in a wonderful trap due to the sheer quality of this production. Amazing prestige TV.
The show is a brilliant selection of excerpts from John Douglas's book of the same title. The killers whom the Holden Ford character (based on Douglas himself) interviews are outstanding, and there's a full narrative of the Atlanta child murders in season 2. What a shame this series is apparently not going forward after season 2; there is so much more rich material that can be covered by Douglas's first book alone. I'm puzzled by the director's complaint that the project was far too exhausting. I don't see why, exactly. There's no fancy stunts or Hitchcock-like cinematography or CGI effects, and the scripts should write themselves--they're right out of Douglas's book. Why was there such a big problem with getting scripts done? Very disappointed that this may be all; the show has great future potential.
Season 4 doesn't "go around in circles." It's more a matter of June probably thinking to herself, "Just when I tought I was out...deyyyy pull me back in." The slow burn in the first four episodes doesn't bother me; I'm always up for some grim Extreme Old Testament vs. kick-ass June. The show and this season are still Prestige TV ranking with other current ones such as Better Call Saul, Ozark, etc. Eventually you should find this season satisfying.
It's a lot of eccentric hooey, and I have the entire season. Inventive but full of nonsensical magic and derivative nonsense. One episode is even very Indiana Jones. The only reason I stick with this overblown schlock is Jurnee Smollett, truly a great beauty and bright light without parallel. I want to marry her -- is that asking too much?
Here we go again with the formulaic, legacy-broadcast mediocrity à la Criminal Minds and CSI: A circle of smart people gather round and each one in turn says something astute and helpful, resulting in epiphanies. Only a small notch above Criminal Minds, the show is stuck way down in the well and will never reach anything like the level of Silence of the Lambs.
Lush period detail of 1896 New York, inspired direction, Hitchcock-like photography, compelling and likable protagonists. The three colleagues, including Dakota Fanning as NY's first woman police officer, pursue a hellish serial killer, creating criminal profiles from scratch. Thumbs up!
