twilightshadows-428-400303

Reviewers commenting that this is not Mr Freeze don't know the full history of the character. This is closer to his origin in the 1959 issue as Mr Zero. His name was changed by the 1960s live action series, and his more well known origin story as a tragic villain trying to save his wife was created for the animated series episode Heart of Ice. It was so popular with fans that he was retconned in the comics. Given how well known and popular that origin is, it's odd that they would choose the original, but it's unfair to judge the episode on that basis. Ignoring that story, this is a solid episode that focuses more on Bruce remembering why he became Batman and coming to terms with his choice. Freeze is merely a vehicle allowing the point to be made that, vigilante or not, Batman is needed. The only criticism I would offer is that they should have spent more time developing that point, and a villain like the joker might have been better suited. But they may have chosen Freeze because his freeze technology is one of the most difficult for the average police dept to combat. Though as Mr Zero he was one of the joke villains, Mr Freeze has evolved to be one of the more formidable foes. The GCPD would likely not be able to catch him without Batman.

This is actually one of the better attempts of the DCU. It's fairly consistent with the post crisis stories from the comic books, so many issues viewers have may be with the comic books, not the movie. As with all comic book movies, there are always reviews that are clearly from people who are not fans and don't understand how the genre works. It should be noted, however, that attempts by studios to adjust the stories for mass appeal generally result in box office flops that don't appeal to anyone. At least this is isn't one of those. Then there are the comments about it not being as dark, which I think says more about our society than the movie. One of the sins bites a guys head off. I wouldn't call that Saturday morning cartoon fare or even WB 90s animated. The problem may be reflected in the contradiction of Billy/Shazam himself. Billy is a kid (younger even than Spider Man), and most of his interactions are with kids. And though DC has not yet managed the story telling ability of the MCU, and Asher Angel is no Tom Holland, the two are comparable in mood and tone. This is a kid's movie, in that it's the story of a kid. And that leads me to its one glaring flaw. It's always difficult for 2 actors to play the same person and have it feel like it's the same person, but these two don't even come close. Nor does either truly capture the source material. Zachary Levi does a great job of playing a kid in an adult body, but he comes across as much younger, closer to the pre-crisis version of Billy or the one from the Justice League animated series, somewhere between 10 and 12. In contrast Asher Angel seems older than his stated age of 14, which puts the 2 even further apart. Additionally, Billy feels more serious and intelligent, while Shazam comes across as childish and goofy. The result is a disconnect that almost feels like 2 stories about 2 different characters. Both are decent stories; they just don't feel like the same story.

It's not as bad as some of the reviews, and it gets better as it progresses. However, it could have been so much better. But Hollywood, particularly the DCCU keeps making the same mistakes.

First, they don't seem to have figured out who the audience is. Comic book movie audiences are mainly comprised of four types of people. There are the diehards who are like walking Wikipedias for the characters. They've read and seen everything with the character all the way back to the first appearance. Then there are the pseudo diehards, those who know everything about a specific era or version. Next you have the screen fans, who are only familiar with the movies or maybe grew up watching animated series but aren't familiar with the comics. Last you have the newbies, who might be complete novices or any of the first three who are just unfamiliar with this particular character. Creating a comic book based movie is then a bit of a balancing act. You need enough exposition so that newbies can follow the story, but not so much that you bore the diehards. You also need some original material combined with enough familiar material so the character and their story is still recognizable. Last, you need to know the current accepted canon so you meet the expectations of those who are already fans of the character. If you're going to change something, it should be better than the original.

With Black Adam, this is sort of a mixed bag. In the comics Black Adam has had a number of redesigns and reboots, which I expected to make composing a cohesive narrative difficult, unless the writer was willing to become one of those diehards I mentioned. And most comic book film writers pick a few key stories and proceed from there. Because of this, I was surprised they chose Black Adam. It seems like they're trying to appease the PC crowd and perhaps offer a counterpoint to the MCU's Black Panther. From that standpoint I think Vixen would have been a better choice, or perhaps Mr Terrific, if they wanted a male. However, Black Adams backstory has been rewritten for the film, and they actually did a decent job. They managed to combine elements from different incarnations with a different motivation which, as one critic noted, turns the typical superhero origin on its head. Many superheroes suffer the loss of a parent, but it happens in childhood, when that level of hope and idealism that only exists in children is still present. Black Adam, however, is revealed to be an adult who has already lost that and then suffers the loss of his wife, who he's unable to protect, and then his son, who dies soon after gifting Adam with his powers in order to save him. While the loss of a parent drives many superheroes to seek justice, the loss of a child creates a need for vengeance in Black Adam. It's an interesting reversal and one that I think finally makes Black Adam a solid antihero with a sympathetic and relatable history. Unfortunately, the beginning of his story is marred a bit with a predictable betrayal of one of the team whose actions result in his waking, a poorly executed fight scene, and a few elements that feel borrowed from other characters. That last, btw, does not include the use of the word Shazam. That's actually part of his original story. However, a better explanation and connection could have been made, particularly at the end when Waller sends a hero to speak with him. This should have been Capt Marvel, the current wielder of the Shazam powers, not Superman.

But the larger mistake is with the Justice Society, most notably with Hawkman and Dr Fate. These are well established and rather popular characters. Not only is knowing the audience important, but these characters, or at least the team, should have been introduced more gradually and with far more detail, which brings me to the next colossal mistake.

The second common mistake is introducing characters too soon or including too many new characters in one movie. One of the successes of Marvel that DC has failed to learn from is patience. Marvel spent years introducing individual characters like Iron Man, Thor, and Capt America before making the first Avengers film. DC has rushed ahead, perhaps trying to catch up with Marvel, and it's greatly reduced the quality of the story telling. They did this with the Justice League and now here again with the Justice Society. This film would have been far better, perhaps even epic, if it had been preceded with individual vehicles for at least Hawkman and Dr Fate, followed by a Justice Society film. Additionally, this film should have included at least some hints for Cyclone and the new Atom Smasher, just as the Avengers included references to Hawkeye and Black Widow's background. It's difficult for the audience to care about a character they know nothing about. And honestly, while the kid did ok and was clearly intended as comic relief, I'd have rather seen Henry Winkler as the original Atom Smasher.

But my biggest issue is the fate of, well, Dr Fate. Epic fail combining the two great mistakes I've mentioned. Pierce Brosnan did such an incredible job, and Dr Fate is one of the most formidable characters in all of DC. If they were going to kill him off, the DCCU should have been given him the same respect and amount of screen time as the MCU gave Tony Stark. He should have been present from the beginning, and his sacrifice and resulting death should have had a huge impact. Most certainly there should have been a post credit scene hinting at who the new Dr Fate would be. Talk about not knowing the audience's expectations. This, for me, hurt not only this film, but the DCU as a whole.

What I find most interesting in endeavors such as this series is seeing a favorite franchise from another point of view. Some reviews have commented this isn't Star Wars. I would argue that as I think it has all the quintessential elements and a number of recognizable features. This first episode includes a new droid who is quite reminiscent of R2-D2, Sith warriors, stormtroopers, a number of aliens, and a light saber duel, just for starters. And with what we learn about Ronin (I don't want to spoil it), it challenges our perceptions of good and evil.

However, it's not canon, and the style, tone, and focus are a bit different. But I think that was the idea. We forget that even in watching the same films, the interpretation of those films is influenced by culture and personal experience. Lucas was influenced, in part, by Japanese films and lore, and those elements likely stand out more to the Japanese and affect their overall perspective, as well as their interpretation of the various themes. What we see in this first episode, and I hope the rest of the series, is a story set in the Star Wars universe, or more accurately a parallel universe, but illustrated in a different style and reflecting an alternate cultural perspective. For Batman fans, I suspect this series will be similar to the Gotham Knights series. This will appeal to some and not to others. However, Star Wars is not just a film franchise; it's an experience. By taking a step back away from our usual understanding and expectations and being open to a different point of view, I think we can actually deepen and enhance our overall experience.

Regarding the specifics of this episode, I am a huge fan of anime, but I'm not an aficionado, nor am I an expert in Japanese film or culture. There are a couple of reviews here that outline the technical aspects and how this episode compares to certain Japanese genres much better than I can. I can only say that I think the choice of black and white in a style that resembles pencil drawing is aesthetically gorgeous and will especially appeal to those with an artistic interest. It also makes the occasional flashes of color more noticeable and helps to highlight important aspects without the use of dialogue. There is actually minimal dialogue and virtually no exposition, which some viewers may find objectionable, but this is characteristic of the specific genre. Because this is a myth genre, with certain themes and archetypes being common, dialogue and exposition aren't generally needed. For Star Trek fans, think of it like "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra." For those not familiar with this Japanese style, reading trivia and reviews, and watching the extras videos may help. For this specific episode it also helps to know certain Star Wars background, such as Sith lore and the nature of kyber crystals.

Additionally, this is a rather short episode, but again, for the specific style, it doesn't feel rushed or incomplete. We might be left wanting to know more about Ronin's journey, and apparently there is a novel that expands on it, but this specific story is satisfying. The apex of the story, the fight between Ronin and the Sith, is really well done. The choreography is incredible, and there are some unique aspects such as part of the duel being conducted on a log floating down the river. Even the waterfall, a familiar trope, plays a different role, and there's a bit of a twist in Ronan's victory. We get a new style of light saber, and for those who object to its originality, I suggest you refamiliarize yourself with light saber lore and take another look at past sabers such as the one created by Ezra Bridger.

Overall I think this is a fantastic start to the series. Everything in this episode just works and is exactly what I expected for a Star Wars series created in the Japanese/anime style. In addition to the elements I've expanded on above, the editing and pacing are well done, the music and sound effects are a nice combination of vintage Star Wars and Japanese film, and the voice acting is excellent all around. Then there are the little details such as the loose flowing garments of Ronin and the villagers, the pieces of stormtrooper armor worn loosely like Japanese warriors by the bandits, the selection of alien guards, and the architecture combining rustic, wooden structures with more futuristic aspects. All combine to make this a wonderful addition to the anime universe while still being uniquely Star Wars. I recommend watching it more than once, each time focusing on different aspects. Like all great Star Wars moments, this episode is an experience.

This movie is perfectly described in one of the last scenes. It's a great distraction for a serious time. It's a bit of a black comedy with Hollywood poking fun at itself. And nice to see people who actually have a sense of humor and are not taking the pandemic so seriously. Great cast, some cool dance scenes, lots of parody and sarcasm, a couple of awesome cameos, and good laughs. It's David Duchovny and Karen Gillian in the same movie. What more could you want? However, you probably have to like silly, irreverent B movies to like this. Me, I loved it, and I want someone to actually make Cliff Beasts.

In reviews of this episode more than any other you can immediately tell who's read the comics and who hasn't. So far, they are basically following the original. The Sandman is a bit different than what viewers may be used to. It's an anthology series with different arcs that are all set in Morpheus' world, but which may or may not have any connection otherwise. Additionally, Morpheus is not always the central character. And for those complaining about the gruesomeness or depravity of this episode, it's actually been seriously watered down. The original was written in line with 80s horror, but even then it pushed the envelope. It's widely considered one of the most disturbing comics ever written. Unlike here, John is not remotely sympathetic; he's a sadistic psychopath who enjoys controlling and torturing people. At one point, when he briefly allows the others' minds to return, they ask him why he's doing this. His answer is because he can. The original plot plays out over 24 hours and descends further and further into madness. Just a few examples of what's left out - He causes a children's tv host to tell the children to slash their wrists and then proceeds to slash her own. He forces those in the diner to make confessions, which include Kate retelling a time when she engaged in necrophilia. He exploits their wildest dreams which include Gary having a hooker in his car and beating her and Kate holding Gary's severed head in her lap. When Marsh realizes Judy is a lesbian, he beats her saying she would turn heterosexual if she had a proper man to show her. John forces them to worship him and then, instead of the separate sexual encounters of this episode, he forces them into an orgy. It's revealed Marsh and Bette were having an affair which caused his wife to drink herself to death, but while driving nails into his hand he confesses that, while incarcerated, Bette's son sold himself to him for cigarettes. John gives them the minds of wolves and Gary tears out Mark's throat. Everyone dies bloody. The eye gouging scene is Judy, not Bette. Like I said, this version is tame. Both versions dive deep into the darker side of humanity, reminding us the greatest monsters are sometimes human, and the hero doesn't always arrive to save everyone. It's significant that when Morpheus arrives there's no one left to save. However, Gaiman's themes revolve around stories, what we control, and the idea reflected in that statement that all stories end in death. The show attempted to soften this scene by not only eliminating the more disturbing elements, but also in making John a tragic hero, at least in his mind, who's had a life full of lies and simply wants to free people to embrace truth. It's artfully executed by Thewlis who at first appears unassuming, fragile, and even vulnerable. This, coupled with his later apathy and complete lack of remorse as he sits and eats ice cream, makes him all the more chilling. Then there's a larger existential juxtaposition between John's view that dreams are lies and Morpheus' view of dreams as hope. The point is it wasn't the truth that destroyed these people; it was that it was revealed in a way that robbed them of their dreams. A battle plays out between them, in which the destruction of the ruby, one of Morpheus' tools actually increases his power. This echoes Lucifer's comment about over reliance on tools making one weak. It's an evolution of the character, as is his final act of mercy for John. Overall this is a brilliant episode, but like its source, the tone is much darker and more disturbing than anything else in the series, which some may find less palatable. It's a true walk on the dark side.

The best part of this episode was Hal's drag performance. Enormous talent displayed in those few minutes. I gave an extra star just for that. As for the rest of the episode, it's hit or miss, and part of that is in the unnecessary changes. However, some of the other complaints in the reviews are unfounded. The switch to Rose Walker's story is part of the comics, though they skipped the backstory of Morpheus' love affair with Nada. And in the comics Morpheus is in the background, with Rose being the central character. Though The Sandman is basically Morpheus' story, it's structured a bit differently than what viewers are used to, with some arcs focusing on characters other than him, but which are largely connected to him. Additionally, Desire and Despair are quite true to their comic counterparts, with Desire being a standout. That being said, significant changes have been made; some were necessary and some weren't. Lydia and Hector's stories have likely been changed due to licensing issues. We fans all wish the various studios, networks, etc could just learn to play well with others, but it isn't likely to happen. Thus virtually all DC references have been removed, including Lydia and Hector's superhero roles. They have kept Hector being dead and Lydia being connected to him in dreams, but in a very different and, so far, less significant way. Rose is far more proactive here, and while it's just an ok performance, Rose wasn't a great character in the comics either. She was kind of moody and pathetic, so this might be a slight improvement. But why portray only Jed's foster father as abusive, when both parents were abusive in the comics? What, a woman can't be the abuser? She has to be a victim? If they were trying for woke they missed the mark. Making her a victim is a step back. Then there's the shift in the Corinthian convention plot. The Corinthian has been given a larger role overall, and the portrayal of the character is excellent. But why change from the hotel to the diner and have the convention organizers lure him to be the guest of honor instead of his already being an attendant and then being asked to fill in for the no show guest? Why have him looking for Rose instead of showing more of his activities as a serial killer? And while I don't object to LGBQ scenes when they fit the story, his was unnecessary in a story where that community is already well represented. It's also completely out of character for him not to kill the guy. They did do well with the boarding house members. All of those characters are straight out of the comics. However, they appear to be diminishing Gilbert's role, and not only is he a key player in the comics, he's played here by the incredibly talented Stephen Fry. I sincerely hope his role will be expanded in the next few episodes. However, Rose has entered the dream realm and met Morpheus much sooner, and now they're teaming up?? I'm afraid they may be placing Morpheus in Gilbert's role to fulfill audience expectations regarding screen time for the protagonist. Additionally, she already knows she's the vortex, but there's no real concern much less any mention of Morpheus having to kill her. This changes both the order and significance of certain events, which has created confusion and a disjointed storyline, as well as deflating the climax that was set in the original. And then there's the nightmare attached to Jeb. In the comics it was actually a duo who were trying to establish their own dream realm in Morpheus' absence. No idea who Gault is or where that story is going, but again the change feels unnecessary. Hopefully this will all get sorted out in the next few episodes, but it's a mediocre start. The original plot for this arc was complex, but it was more cohesive than this. They should have stayed closer to the source material.

I love Constantine. He's one of my favorite DC characters, and there's far too little of him beyond the comics and graphic novels. They finally had a good start with the live action series, but then they stupidly cancelled it. In true DC fashion they followed with 3 animated films that centered on him and were even better. But then the animated movies went in a different, and not so great, direction with nothing more with Constantine. Not that I don't like the other characters when the stories are good, but lately the animated universe has been kind of hit or miss. This, however, felt like a short return to both Constantine and the better animated storylines. This is, however, a short that is part of a series of other unrelated shorts. The run time for this segment is about the same or less than animated series eps. And while some shorts are stand alone, this is a continuation, so you have to have seen at least JL Dark Apocalypse for it to make sense. But as part of that story, it's an excellent contribution to the DC animated verse. Matt Ryan, who so perfectly embodies Constantine, continues in the role, and the tone and style are similar. But it's just a tantalizing glimpse of what's happening with Constantine and a brief peek into the Spectre. I'm hoping this means they'll be continuing with more follow up from JL Dark Apocalypse and specifically with more of Constantine's story. This is good for what it is, but we need more.

I will avoid spoilers other than possibly for previous Star Wars stories, but you really need to have at least seen the films to know what's going on anyway. And here we go. In reading reviews on a variety of different things I watch, I've decided there are just some people who like to criticize. Note that they're rarely specific. At most they'll say, for instance, the writing is bad or production is poor, but never give details as to how. I've been a Star Wars fan since the beginning. I saw the original in the theater with my dad on opening weekend, and while I haven't read the books or comics, I've seen all Star Wars related productions, both film and tv. Other than a couple of minor inconsistencies with the original that can be explained away, this is vintage Star Wars. For a tv series, the production is quite good, but what I really like is that it feels like the original films. Maybe for some, that feels cheap or underdone, but I personally think it allows the audience to once again become immersed in the world Lucas created. The tone, the colors, the costumes, the props - everything sounds and looks the same, right down to the light speed visual reminiscent of the old Windows screen saver.

They also made the very wise decision of using, where possible, the same actors from the films, including the iconic James Earl Jones as the voice of Darth Vader, as well as adding some fresh new faces so it doesn't feel like a rehash.

The standout in the cast is newcomer 9 yr old Vivien Lyra Blair as a 10 yr old Princess Leia. She's compassionate, smart, sassy, and at times a bit disobedient and even irreverent. In short, she's Leia all over, as well as being a bit like Padme and Anakin, before he turned. People saying she doesn't act like a child have clearly never met an intelligent child who had their own mind and way of doing things. I happen to have raised one of those, and considering who Leia becomes, she's not unrealistic at all. Though, to be fair, the actress is petite for her age, so maybe some people are thinking she's younger than she is, but it is mentioned that she's 10. And children are as smart, capable, and resilient as we allow them do be. In modern times, we've become far too protective. Additionally, we need to take into account that she's not like other children. Because she's never trained as a Jedi it's easy to forget that she too "is strong with the Force" and thus senses and knows things others don't. Moreover, she's a Princess expected to someday lead, so she has both lessons and responsibilities that will contribute to her growing up faster than the average child, even those that aren't overprotected. But she is still a child and so prefers playing with her droid and running through the woods to her Princess duties, and she sneaks off to do just that. Perfectly normal kid behavior for any kid that can reasonably get away with it.

Then there's the story, the foundation of any production. Without a good story, nothing else matters. And this is not only a good story, but one that feels like Star Wars. Both the plot and the characters' actions fit with established canon while still being a new story. There are some nostalgic moments and easter eggs, but not so much that it feels like they're retelling the same story in a different time period, which was a failing in some parts of the last trilogy.

This story occurs about midway between the second trilogy and the first. The rebellion hasn't yet started, but we see the seeds being planted. Obi-Wan has become a recluse, not just to watch over Luke, but because he's a bit broken, having been emotionally scarred by the events after Order 66 was given. His Jedi powers being rusty makes sense both because he hasn't used them, and because he's lost confidence. It was his Padawan and best friend, after all, that became Darth Vader. He now has to face him again after nearly a decade. If those scenes are missing suspense or tension, it's only because we already know they both survive. But the emotions are still there. The anger, pain, anguish, guilt, etc are there in every expression and every syllable uttered. Don't want to give too much away, but in their final confrontation Obi-Wan is close to tears when he concludes, as he tells Luke years later, that his friend is truly dead. However, we also know that he was wrong, and Hayden Christensen gives a wonderfully nuanced performance that could suggest a desire to kill his former master, but despite his protestations, might also be a plea for help or anger that Obi-Wan didn't try harder to save him. You be the judge. A story like this that's sandwiched between 2 prior stories needs to connect to both while also adding something. In this case, we not only get a glimpse of events, but we also get a deeper level of meaning to events we already knew.

However, though this is Obi-Wan Kenobi, we also get a lot of Leia. And it's nice to see further into Leia's story, not because she's a girl, but because she's always been equally as important to the story as Luke. She too is Anakin's child. Luke became the Jedi because he was the one Obi-Wan watched over and spent time with, albeit a relatively short amount. If Obi-Wan had lived, it's possible he would have trained them both. I also think people misunderstand in thinking it's anti-feminist, or that it implies Luke was more important because he was a boy. Luke grew up on a remote planet raised by farmers. Leia's adoptive parents were rulers of their planet, and her father was a Senator of the Republic. Luke needed protection more than she did overall. They only bring in Obi-Wan when she's kidnapped to avoid drawing attention, and they do briefly explain that. Leia has always been a very strong female character, particularly considering the time period she was created in. But again, it's nice to see a story that focuses more on her. And it's a complex story that takes a direction that allows it to tie in to the larger picture, both for the current period and what happens before and after. And that's exactly what a story of this type should do.

There's one other story for a new character, but I'm trying not to give anything away. So, I'll just say Reva will be a character to watch and leave it at that. All in all this is an excellent addition to the Star Wars franchise, and I'm hoping for more. Take time to watch and judge for yourself.

Sam Raimi has been quoted as saying they cut 40 minutes because they were concerned it was too long. Depending on what was cut, they could maybe have left it in. The movie is very fast paced and didn't feel anywhere near 2 hours. I'd have liked more of the multiverse, and some of the scenes could have been expanded. That's probably my biggest criticism. Overall, it's still an excellent film. The only significant character addition is Gomez as America Chavez, and she's superb, particularly for a young actress who doesn't have much film experience. She's incredibly likable and makes you care about her character. The other major actors are familiar faces and do their usual amazing job. The visuals and effects are incredible, even better than the first Doctor Strange, and possibly some of the best in the MCU. Not only are they very well done, but there are also some that are unique, particularly within the MCU. I was especially impressed with the rendition of Gargantus, much more realistic looking than the B movie quality of the starfish monster in Suicide Squad. The creators at VFX have stated they began working on it nearly a year and a half before the movie's release, and it shows. Additionally there's a scene of Wanda crawling out of a shield that is uber creepy and a scene of 2 versions of Doctor Strange battling with music notes that is truly inspired. There are many many others, but I don't want to give too much away. Then there's the actual story, which is, even in a blockbuster, an important part. I've seen people complaining the movie is more about Wanda than Doctor Strange (it's not) and that it didn't continue from the first Doctor Strange. Did these people know nothing about the movie before seeing it? They've been saying for months that it was changed because of COVID delays, releasing Spider Man before, when it was originally scheduled after, and the series released on Disney+. They've also said it would pick up from where Wanda Vision left off. Additionally, a lot has happened within the MCU since the first Doctor Strange, so it makes sense his story would have to be adjusted. I'll admit the story was different from what I was expecting (I don't want to say how as that would spoil it), but it was still a good story. My biggest disappointment was it didn't involve Loki. But it has many of the elements of a good comic book story. For starters, it's a very human story. Part of it is heartfelt, and part of it is tragic. There's also character growth for all of the main characters. There's redemption and sacrifice. There's even a memorable quote by our favorite wise man in the wheel chair that may well become iconic. There are complex themes, and it leaves us with larger questions to discuss. However, some of it is subtle, it's not in your face or spoon fed like so much of what's coming out of Hollywood these days. I personally appreciate that. It is not a movie about a cursed book, and the inclusion of that book in the movie has nothing to do with Sam Raimi directing. The Darkhold is simply a plot device, one lifted directly from the comics and which was introduced to the MCU in Wanda Vision. It is violent, as are most comic book movies. Oddly I've seen criticisms it was too violent for the MCU or not violent enough for Sam Raimi. Though it's the first in the MCU to be classified as horror, I honestly don't see how it garnered that classification. I didn't notice that much of an increase in violence between this movie and Avengers Infinity Wars/Endgames. It's not scary, and there's certainly no blood or gore. There is an animated corpse and a few of what Strange refers to as the souls of the damned, so maybe that was it. As for Sam Raimi, yes he's famous for the Evil Dead films, but he also directed the Toby McGuire Spiderman trilogy and The Great and Powerful Oz. Despite the corpse scene, which incidentally wasn't his idea, this is much closer to his Spiderman than Evil Dead. Why anyone would except anything else I can't imagine. He was hesitant to do the corpse scene, but I'm glad he did. It's both an incredible visual scene and an ingenious solution to a problem Strange faces. Like the fight with music notes, it's unique, out of the box thinking, something we haven't seen a thousand times before. Overall I think this film is very well done and well worth seeing. As for the criticism, I've come to the conclusion recently that there are just a lot of people who like being negative and probably never post a positive review.

After a few shaky episodes near the beginning, where they segued into unrelated political commentary, they gave us a story worthy of Picard and STNG. A good, solid save the galaxy quest with some great action, suspense, a few twists, science fiction tropes, thought provoking lessons, and some very human scenes which all tie together in the end to bring us full circle, in more ways than one. Best of all, the question of Q's motives is finally resolved. I won't spoil it; I'll just say have some tissues ready.

Despite the clear reference to the climate change agenda in one of Q's comments, the first 2 episodes were excellent. It felt like we were back to what made Star Trek great: a quest, some great action scenes, suspense, a twist, and some thought provoking commentary from one of my favorite characters. But here we are in the third ep, and the story has to be interrupted by diving head first into the political rabbit hole. Sci-Fi is one of those genres that has always dealt with social issues. However, the great stories deal with them in a smart way, by presenting more than one side, using metaphor, or turning the issue upside down. What they do not do is pass blatant judgement. Nor do they deviate from the story they're telling. If they want to deal with a social issue, then that's what the story is about. Additionally, they deal with SOCIAL issues, NOT POLITICAL agendas. I would hope that humans from several hundred years in the future would have evolved beyond judging people of the past, that they would recognize that we learn and change over time. Isn't accepting other cultures supposed to be part of the Star Trek credo? Does that not apply to their own people in a different time period? Rather ironic considering how angry they get regarding Q's judgement. But then I've been wondering if Q's point this round is that they haven't evolved as much as they think, because like the people of this decade, they're still driven by fear, to which they still react violently. I'm hoping Raffi's reaction to Ernol's death, as well as Seven's attitude towards the Borg Queen, are meant to show how close they actually are to the people of this alternate timeline. That's what I'd like to see the rest of the season focus on. Stick with the story. Leave the political commentary to the media.

For some of the negative comments, if you hate the show so much, why are you still watching? This is the 2nd season, not the 2nd episode. And it's not supposed to be like any of the other Star Trek series. It's an irreverent, satirical version. It's the franchise poking fun at itself. They could have deeper moments and character development along with the silliness, but at this point they've pretty much established they aren't going to. They made a choice for it not to be that kind of show. It's mostly campy, stupid, over the top humor, with a few awww moments, and that's it. It's basically Star Trek meets Looney Toons or The Three Stooges. And a guy getting kicked in the balls is a long time trope of the genre, for which the target audience is usually guys. If you don't like that sort of thing, you don't have to watch it. Admittedly, I like the show Final Space more because it did combine the silly, slap stick humor with dramatic, heart wrenching moments and complex characters, but this show is ok for what it is. It's mindless entertainment, good for when you want something light to bring a smile or a laugh, and for long time fans, a touch of nostalgia.

When will Hollywood learn? Stop and compare how often changing an iconic character works versus how often it ends in massive, colossal failure. If you want a different character, then feel free to create one. There are so many things I could criticize, but I probably could have overlooked most of them and given a decent rating. What I can't excuse is creating an idiotic back story for Poirot's mustache and then having him shave it off at the end. NO NO NO!!!! Not in any alternate universe would anything short of life and death convince Hercule Poirot to shave his mustache. While the term canon is often overused to refer to a fan's favorite version of a character, it does exist. And Poirot being a "dandy" (that means prissy, not gay) who's obsessively proud of his mustache definitely qualifies as canon. It is reiterated in every single Poirot story. And adding insult ti injury, it's for a woman who never existed in the books when every Poirot fan knows his only love ever depicted is the countess Vera Rossakoff. These stories were written by the brilliant Agatha Christie, who is one of the best selling authors of all time. Nearly a century after Poirot first appeared people are still reading his stories. They don't need to be improved upon. And even if they did, this wasn't it. This was a travesty. I may never watch another Kenneth Brannague film. I most certainly won't watch any future Poirot films he makes. This was an insult to the character, the author, and the tried and true Christie fans.

Reading the comments it's like some people didn't watch the same movie. Their complaints are literally the opposite of each other. For example, some say it's not enough like the original trilogy, while others say it's just a regurgitation with nothing new. Some say there isn't enough action, while others say there's too much. Though we didn't necessarily need another one, I still enjoyed it. For those who don't know, and that seems to be most reviewers, Lana Wachowski wrote this due to the death of her parents. Her sister chose not to participate for the same reason. The studio likely greenlit it for the same reason as other late sequels to a successful franchise - they hope to capitalize off of nostalgia. Note there will be spoilers in the rest of my review.

I thought the plot made perfect sense, and I'm not sure why some people didn't get it. Yes, there are things for which you have to suspend your disbelief. HELLLOOO! This is science fiction, which is always a mixed bag. You'll get more actual science than a comic book, but creative license will still be taken. If you want nothing but science fact, stick to nonfiction. Though it wouldn't surprise me if some of the real world theories being explored wouldn't seem just as unbelievable to some reviewers. Personally, I didn't notice anything that was any more fantastic than Terminator, I Robot, Inception, or the original Matrix trilogy. So, where are we now in relation to the end of Revolutions? Basically, though Neo defeated Smith, and the Architect kept his word to end the war, another rogue program saw an opportunity and took control. If you recognize how many programs, particularly the rogues and exiles, behaved like humans, this is perfectly logical. Take down one power hungry dictator and another will rise up and try to fill the void. It's why we don't have world peace. However, this new program, the Analyst, understands human nature a bit better than the Architect and, after a few failed attempts, has created a new Matrix where there are far more blue pill people. Though the red pills are still trying to free people, they're having less and less success. The Analyst leaves IO, which replaced Zion, alone, and the free people live a relatively peaceful and vastly improved life. This was partly made possible by shifting their mindset and learning to work with some of the programs and machines that decided, after Neo ended the war, and due to scarcity of resources that caused them to turn in each other, that they too wanted to be free of the Matrix. The one major hiccup and central part of this movie is that the Analyst somehow managed to save Neo and Trinity, slow their aging, and prolong their life. This is one of those areas where we have to suspend disbelief. And hey, who knows what medical science will be able to do in the future? But the Analyst saved them and then used them as a key component to creating his new Matrix. Neo is back to being Thomas Anderson, but is now a video game designer, with the Matrix being his most successful game. He's been convinced his memories are a delusion, and he's receiving psychiatric treatment. Trinity is married to someone else and has children. Both accept the Matrix as reality and rationalize or ignore any feelings to the contrary. Neo's subconscious is strong, however, and he inadvertently creates a program that leads Bugs, one of the free people still trying to free others, to a new digital Morpheus (the original died), which subsequently leads her to Neo. Neo is rescued, and the rest of the movie is focused on rescuing Trinity. The Analyst, however, is more powerful and has more control than the Architect did, so the first attempt fails. The second attempt is a complex plan that involves Neo distracting the Architect while the rest liberate Trinity's body. There's a bit of science fiction mumbo jumbo explaining how they disconnect her body while she's still in the Matrix. Again, suspend your disbelief and move on. Those are the main points. Remove the sci-fi trappings, and it's a pretty basic plot. Boy who loved and thought he lost girl realizes she's alive and, with the help of some new friends, goes to rescue her. What's difficult about that?

The fact that many of the old characters are gone makes perfect sense, considering it's been 60 years. For that matter, how many characters from the first film survived? Both the 2nd and 3rd films introduced new characters as the story evolved. I actually like the new characters, particularly Bugs. I'd have liked to see more of them, but again, compared to the original trilogy, I didn't see a huge difference. This is Neo and Trinity's story and always has been.

Neo's fight scenes not being quite on par is also quite logical considering both the character and the actor are older and a bit rusty. Neo has been living an action free life in the Matrix for over half a century, and he's not given much time to get his mojo back. If anything, I thought Trinity's sudden resurgence followed by a huge leap stretched credibility. But again, I just accepted it and enjoyed the dose of female empowerment. It wasn't a deal breaker. As for Keanu Reeves, considering he is almost 60, I think he's pretty bad ass. I'd like to see those complaining do better. And while I haven't done any time comparisons, I didn't notice any real change in the level of action. It felt on par with the others, which fyi had a lot of exposition because the studio insisted on it. They didn't think the original scripts would make sense to the audience. But this film has plenty of fighting, bullets flying, vehicles crashing, things exploding, and an added bonus of people being used as projectiles literally going splat on the pavement. What more do people want?

As for those missing, mainly Laurence Fishburn and Hugo Weaving, sure it would have been great to have the original actors, but after almost 20 years that isn't always possible. It's not even always possible with a sequel that closely follows. Usually the audience just has to accept it. At least here we get reasons that fit the story. Smith having a different appearance actually makes sense in regards to convincing Neo his Matrix life is real. And Morpheus is explained well enough. Don't know why the actors didn't return, and unlike some other reviewers, I'm not going to make assumptions to support my own opinions of the film. I will say, regarding Laurence Fishburn, the one comment I did see from him did not lead me to think he didn't want to participate. There are a number of reasons actors don't end up doing a sequel. This is nothing new. The new actors did a good job. They were enough like the originals to make the connection and different enough considering the time that's passed and the fact that they aren't exactly the same characters. They're both programs, one based on a living person and one an upgrade to an older program. So again, the changes make sense within the narrative.

Overall, this felt very much like a continuation of the original story. We can have stories with a satisfying ending, but there's always more we could tell. As Smith tells Neo, stories never really end. For me, the best part of this chapter of the story, and a good reason for it to be told, is seeing Neo and Trinity get their happy ending. I wasn't dissatisfied with their sacrifice in the original ending as it was true to their characters. But it was also the epitome of life isn't fair. After everything they did, after making so many sacrifices, they deserved more. So I'm not unhappy seeing them given a second chance at happily ever after.

Despite having most of the original cast, this was not remotely the same as the original. I can see why they didn't continue it as a series. The writer and director are different, so maybe that had something to do with it. But it's like they never watched the show. The set is too modern looking, and the overall tone has an almost 70s sci-fi feel to it. The original could be silly, but it had an endearing charm that is lacking here. This is like a satirical, campy version with a plot that's just stupid instead of charmingly silly and which, in the end, doesn't make sense. The villains start out with surveillance equipment that is pretty high tech, particularly for the 70s, and they focus a lot on "deciphering the code" of the Addams' language, but they turn out to be ordinary thieves. It's like the writer started with a different plot and then changed it. The subplot regarding Gomez and his lodge was out of character for the show, particularly in his reaction. Part of that endearing charm the show had was the Addams' naivety and their way of always painting things in a positive light. Also lacking is the chemistry between the characters, even between the original actors. Part of the appeal of the series was the relationship between Gomez and Morticia, the way they worshipped each other. Even when Morticia would rebuff Gomez for being too passionate at the wrong time, the attraction was there underneath. Here, what's underneath feels like irritation. I'm wondering if Caroline Jones was ticked off at John Astin. Or maybe she was ticked off that the new powers that be had ruined what had been a really great show. Then there are the other characters. Lurch is all wrong; he was always incredibly shy and reserved. He would never have even asked a woman to dance, much less been forceful. And then there was that ridiculous, pointless obsession with pterodactyls. It wasn't even used as a plot device for catching the criminals. Itt's costume is cheap and the voice is awful. I can't imagine the original series had much of a budget, but Itt was not only realistic but had beautiful hair that was probably envied by much of the audience. But the worst part was that the voice was nothing like the original. Since that voice was created through a special effect that would have been easy to duplicate, it shows laziness and a lack of concern for details, as does the fact that the party is supposed to be attended by their relatives, but there were no oddities among the guests. Not all of their relatives are abnormal in appearance, but considering the number that are, there should have been a few. The casting of the grandmothers was terrible, and what was the point of the two "junior" children? That just felt weird, especially since they were like clones of the other two, even having the same names. The thing with the flute was never given an explanation, and it also didn't fit within the show. This is the Addams family; there are number of better options. Even just dumb luck would been more in keeping with the established narratology. Add to all of that a lack of cohesion and continuity with the overall progression of the story, and the result is a very disappointing movie.

Note I'm writing this after viewing the 1st 3 eps, but my review for ep 3 is from a different angle due to the direction that ep took.

Season 3 faced the danger of becoming repetitive with Joe once again becoming obsessed with a stranger. Though I'd have liked the Natalie plot line to have been stretched out a bit with a little more detail given on her and her motives, Joe's usual obsession, as well as the overall narrative, have been given some interesting twists that show promise in keeping the story fresh.

For starters, becoming a dad has affected Joe deeply, and it's presented an opportunity to build on the complexity of Joe's character. Part of what makes Joe an appealing and even sympathetic figure, despite being a serial killer, is he's not a one dimensional character. He's capable of developing deep emotional attachments outside of his obsessions and has displayed some very protective instincts in the past. Watching him struggle to bond with his son offers deeper insight as well as some rather touching, poignant moments that juxtapose nicely with his more violent tendencies. We also get some nicely ironic moments like Joe and Love arguing over where Henry should be while they dig up a dead body, with Love stating not leaving a child in a car is parenting 101.

But parenthood is not the only new role Joe finds himself in. He's used to being on his own and in control. However, he's now married to Love, who knows him and recognizes the signs of his obsession manifesting, so he can no longer hide. Further, Love killing Natalie undermines his control on a number of levels. He's pledged himself to curbing his impulses, though given his psychopathy it's unlikely he can maintain it. However, he's then forced to deal with the consequences of Love's impulses.

This leads to possibly the best new element, couples therapy. Unlike many people who enter into therapy, Joe and Love don't completely hide their darker moments. They find ways to discuss the elements that are central to their conflict without revealing those that would land them in prison. It allows for the therapist to actually help them while offering some revealing insights, many of which are presented in a darkly humorous way. We also get a nice twist with Love, via flashback, revealing Joe had not actually been that successful in suppressing his obsessive impulses.

Ultimately this leads to the two identifying the root cause of much of their behavior, and it turns out to be the same - fear of abandonment. This allows them to rediscover the feelings that initially brought them together and to move forward as a team, though it's revealed they both still feel the need for a backup plan. I think this is a positive direction, as Joe's former animosity for Love could have only ended one way, one that would have been detrimental to the show. Bringing them together as a loving couple trying to overcome their psychotic sides and be good parents leading a normal life adds another layer to both of their characters. Watching them struggle with this against the backdrop of hiding the fact they killed their next door neighbor and buried the body is what promises to make this season worth watching.

My 2nd favorite ep of the season after Ba'al. This was a solid story with believable characters and good acting. It was paced well and had some good scares. And it didn't reach too far; it didn't pack too much in or try to be more than it was. Note that the 2 most popular eps of the season are about parents and their love for their children. One of the problems writers face with anthology stories is there isn't a lot of time to build a connection between the audience and the characters, and that is reflected in the number of reviews for this show that have complained that they don't care about the characters. But parents who have lost or are trying to protect their children are instantly recognizable and easy to sympathize with. Note that many of the people who didn't like this ep cited the ending. Not sure what they were expecting; this is a horror series. It wasn't going to end happily ever after. Narratologically, there were 2 options: they get eaten, or they get turned. I'd have preferred the second with a darkly humorous twist, but this was ok too. I've also surprised at people complaining this wasn't original, yet they loved Ba'al. But maybe they missed the era of the demon child movies like Rosemary's baby. On a different note, many of the eps this season have been subpar, and looking at the 6 eps, I think the problem might be a lack of experience with this kind of writing. Which seems odd to say considering who the writers are. Though, Ryan and Brad actually only wrote the first and last eps. On the other eps, Manny Coto is the writer, with Ryan and Brad listed only as creators. However, considering the first ep, I'm not sure they'd have done better. All 3 have have impressive filmographies that include some extremely popular series with incredible stories and rich, complex characters, but none of them have done much with anthologies. Working on a series, where the story and characters are built over an entire season is very different from writing stories that play out in a single ep. The stories have to be simpler, with readily grasped plots, faster pacing, and characters that can be sized up quickly. Looking back at the last 6 eps, I think they just haven't transitioned well to the different format. Unfortunately, there are fans who keep complaining that this isn't like AHS, and they're basing their reviews on that, causing them to rate it lower than they might otherwise. They seem, like the writers, to want the same complexity of the AHS stories, and that's just not possible in an anthology format. Despite it existing in the same universe as AHS, we need to look at this show as if it were a completely new series, which because of the different format, it kind of is. For the 1st season of a new show. It's not bad. I would expect it would get better over time as they work out the kinks. Additionally, the reviews are also reflecting a trend we usually see in comparing full seasons, that of people not liking the sub genre of horror that governed a particular season. That's not to say some seasons aren't better than others, but I often see fan complaints that reflect a dislike of the type of horror presented as opposed to the actual quality of the season. Sometimes they don't even recognize it as horror because it's not the type they're familiar with. As this series is a collection of different stories, each a different sub genre, reviews are reflecting that across this single season. I wish more people understood that horror includes a variety, not all of which are scary, and being a fan of a particular type does not a horror fan make.

Given that this is an anthology with individual eps shot while Covid is still a thing, I didn't think it was too bad. People don't seem to understand that Ca has some of the strictest requirements. Though they're allowing productions to go forward, it's with very strict guidelines that will continue to affect quality. The comments that they just used a bunch of celebrity's kids who aren't actually actors just shows people don't bother to check their facts. A quick review of the actors' IMDB pages shows that only 2 are related to celebrities, and only one had no previous experience. Additionally, it's not unusual for Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuk to use young actors with few to no credits. Just check the cast list for Glee, another of their creations that was very popular. Everyone has to start somewhere. Most had relatively minor roles, and I thought they did well with what they were given. The story did repeat some from the original 1st season, but there could be a number of reasons for that, and it wasn't enough to really bother me. Part of the lore of Murder House is that history repeats itself. As for Scarlet, the main character, a 2 ep story isn't enough time to really get to know a character and develop any attachment, especially one who is a murdering psychopath. Many of us love Tate, but we had a whole season to get to know him. We got a lot of back story that helped to explain why he was the way he was. And he's played by Evan Peters, who could probably kill people in real life, and many of us fans would be like what's wrong with our baby, we have to help him, because... he's Evan Peters. By the end I was warming up to Scarlet, and I'd like to know more about her. One question that was left open was whether or not her kidnapping created her psychopathy. I did like the relationship between her and Ruby, and I especially liked the ending. I don't want to give anything away, so I'll just say her fate is not a rehash and may even be a first. Last, not sure how people can say a story involving a psychopath in a house full of ghosts is not a horror story. It's true it wasn't that scary, but not all horror stories are. It wasn't the best ep. The story was a bit rushed and could have been better written. But it wasn't the worst ep either. It was a solid start and good enough that I'll keep watching.

First, the fact that this was during the pandemic is a factor. People saying oh but they still could have done this or that clearly don't understand how the real world actually works. CA has had some of the strictest rules, and studios do not get to arbitrarily ignore them. It's also possible the actors themselves might not have wanted to take the risk for what would likely have been only a few minutes of onscreen time. Remember that many of the actors don't live in CA, so it's not just being at the studio, but the risk of travel as well. As for those accusing the show of homophobia, that is truly unfair. Crowley was always portrayed as at least bisexual, and Charlie, a beloved regular character, was a lesbian. If they are referring to "Destial", then I find it astounding that the same people who want to see that portrayed within the show are some of the same people calling out the show for moving away from the characters' development. I think they got as close as they could, while still maintaining the characters, with Castiel's farewell speech. He states the thing that would truly make him happy is something he knows he can never have, which could easily be taken to mean a relationship with Dean, especially since he then tells Dean he loves him. But it would be completely out of character for Dean to reciprocate. Dean has always been portrayed as heterosexual, and he shouldn't be criticized for his sexual preference any more than Crowley or Charlie should be criticized for theirs. His friendship with Castiel is platonic in the sense that Plato defined it, a pure and spiritual love, a love that's actually deeper and more meaningful than a romantic or sexual one. Some of the other criticisms, I think, are misinterpretations. For example, those saying that Sam stopped hunting when Dean died were apparently not paying attention. Very soon after it showed him taking a call on Dean's other other cell phone and telling them he was on his way. Showing him having a family does not necessarily mean he stopped hunting. It didn't show him having another job. His son had the characteristic tattoo, which I took to mean he might have joined the family business. I thought it was nice that Sam finally got what he had always wanted, but at one point had given up on ever having. And I don't think the moments he was shown missing Dean indicated he spent his entire life mourning Dean's death. Anyone who's experienced that kind of loss knows you never get over it. You learn to live with it; it becomes part of you. Sam was also shown having many happy moments. Ultimately, he had a good life. As for whether or not the wife was Eileen, that part wasn't made clear, and clarity would have been nice. However, I got the impression that Jack didn't bring back the people from the alt world, and maybe Eileen was included because she had been resurrected by magic. Not sure if we were supposed to assume something prevented their return or that it was a choice he made having learned a few lessons from the past 15 years, or if, this being Supernatural, it was a plot hole. Anyone watching this late in the game and not expecting plot holes hasn't been paying attention. If you want cohesive plots all tied up in a neat little bow, this is not the show for you. They've always had plot holes you could drive a truck through. We ignored them because the show offered other things those shows don't. The one criticism I do have is Dean's death, though I shouldn't have been surprised. The show has a history of anticlimactic ends for major characters, including both Crowley and Gabriel. Dean absolutely should have had a much more heroic, kick ass end, and I would have liked it to have been a little later, but as for why he wasn't brought back, it's hinted at in their last conversation with Jack, and Dean himself spells it out. They've all learned from past mistakes, both Chuck's and their own. Far from undermining their character development, this brought it to fruition. It was a mark of maturity. They finally learned to accept death instead of fighting it. They learned that there are consequences to messing with the natural order, that there are things we cannot and should not control. Life has meaning, in part, because it ends. Sam and Dean, who know for a fact Heaven exists, can find comfort in knowing they'll be together again. Additionally, this actually supports the conceit of free will. Jack stated he would be hands off, which is what Dean had once said he wanted from Chuck, to not interfere and let free will reign. But then he would get upset that Chuck allowed certain things to happen, that he didn't help them. You can't have it both ways, and it felt to me like both they and Jack finally understood that. Jack respects free will in a way Chuck never did. He made a few improvements so that things are as they always should have been, and then he let go. As for Dean spending years just driving, I don't think we were supposed to think that's all he did. Again, I think they were limited by COVID, so they went with an iconic part of the show, Dean driving Baby. But for that moment, it's perfectly in keeping with Dean's character. I think Bobby's comment "he'll be along soon" is meant to remind us that Sam isn't the only one grieving. Dean is grieving his separation from Sam, and it's typical for him, in those moments, to go off on his own. I think the fact that Castiel was mentioned was meant to indicate they would reconnect, but I think his being there would have detracted from this moment. No, family does not end with blood, but Sam and Dean always had a stronger bond with each other than anyone else. It started with them, and it ended with them, but it's made clear that in the end it isn't just them. As for accusations this was just nostalgia, series endings often are. It wasn't near as bad as Jeffrey Dean Morgan's last appearance, which had no point whatsoever other than pandering to nostalgia, yet fans loved that episode. Maybe that's why they thought fans would be happy with this. They underestimated the fickleness of their fans. For what it was, and given it was filmed during a pandemic, I thought they did pretty well. That being said, they could also have ended with the previous ep, and that might have been better. I was binge watching and not paying attention to what ep I was on, and I thought 19 was the last one. But I'm not unhappy with this one, and I think many who are missed the point, not only of this ep, but of the show overall.

The low reviews probably reflect expectations that were not fulfilled. I'll admit I scored it a bit higher than I normally might have to counter some of those low ratings that I think are unfair and based solely on it not being the kind of movie the reviewer was expecting. If you are looking for something like Scarface or Goodfellas, you will be disappointed. This is a drama, not an action film, though there are a few action scenes, which are rather gruesome. It is about a man suffering from dementia, who just happens to be Al Capone. We get a look inside his head, and there are times when you don't know what's real and what isn't. It's realistic and, I think, relatively accurate. Unfortunately, because it's about Capone, it may not reach the audience who would appreciate it. Again, this is a slow moving, cerebral film. The film could have been better had we had more of those action scenes in flashback. I would also have liked more background on some of the characters and their relationship to Capone. However, as it stands, it's a good movie and worth seeing if you like this type of movie. The entire movie is almost completely from Capone's perspective, and perhaps the writer tried to stay a bit too accurate and too much inside Capone's head. There are things that are never fully explained. It's also possible some scenes ended up on the cutting room floor. That being said, it is an interesting peek into the mind of Capone in his last days. The film is beautifully shot with some wonderful scenes following Capone down dark hallways as well as some really nice outdoor shots. The acting is superb all around. There are characters who have few to no lines, yet still manage to be noticeable. Standouts are, of course, Tom Hardy as Capone, incredibly believable as both Capone and as a man suffering dementia. He manages to capture the sheer presence of a man who was, arguably, a king in his world, and in some ways still is, while at the same being vulnerable as confusion and paranoia overtake him. Despite his reputation as a mafia kingpin and a stone cold killer, this Capone elicits sympathy and compassion and appears to show great regret as well as possibly suggesting he was not, at least, directly responsible for some of the stories attributed to him. Other standouts are Linda Cardellini as his wife May, Noel Fisher as his legitimate son, and Matt Dillon as his old friend (pay attention; things are not what they seem at first). Like Hardy's, Cardellini'a and Fisher's performances are spot on, very realistic as his concerned, devoted family. I Just wish they, particularly Noel Fisher, had been given more to do. Linda Cardellini is excellent, however, the perfect mix of loving wife and no-nonsense, takes no crap, Italian woman married to a mob boss. Noel Fisher is perfect as the devoted son, but there is little of the Mickey Milkovitch tough guy on display here. Though he is Capone's son, there is no hint he has been groomed for the business. What we see are compassion and concern. He is not overly emotional or wimpy by any means, but if you're looking for Mickey, this is the Mickey that takes care of Ian Gallagher when he's sick, not the Mickey of the streets. Still, as always, his scenes were some of my favorites, and I wish there had been more. Matt Dillon, too, needed more scenes, but those he is in are key to the story being told. He too, is perfect in the role, believable and charismatic without trying too hard. All of these actors can be praised for their subtle, realistic performances. There is no overacting, no melodrama, just good solid performances. It doesn't feel like we are watching a film. It feels like more of a voyeuristic view of the inside of Capone's head and a family's private moments as they are occurring.

The addition of Noel Fisher as Little Ed has breathed some much needed life into this floundering show. I hope he will be a recurring character, as his scenes with John Goodman were some of the best in a while. There is a lot that could be done with that character, particularly in relation to Dan. Here's hoping the keep Noel Fisher and can figure out what to do with him. Having Emma Kennedy hit on him at the end was genius. It was a humorous moment in and of itself, but for fans of their other show Shameless, there was an even deeper layer, particularly in regards to the last episode of Shameless Season 10. One of the other bright spots of this episode were the scenes of Ben and the baby, and the development of his relationship with Darlene. One of the elements lacking in The Connors, that was a core part of the original Roseanne, is strong bonds between the characters. They have, thus far, been relying too much on those that were created in the original show, while doing little to develop new ones. As they have introduced so many new characters, that is a serious flaw. It's a shame because some of the new characters, such as Mark, Louise, and Dwight are actually interesting. Mark, in particular, as a gay child who borders on cross dressing, while also being intelligent, idealistic, kind, and funny could offer an interesting juxtaposition to other characters, not to mention an opportunity to explore the kinds of social issues Roseanne was famous for, while still feeling organic to the story. Though, admittedly, with the current writing team it might still feel like a forced liberal agenda. Roseanne had a gift that they are sorely lacking.

The people currently running this show need to learn the cardinal rule of know your audience. Many of the fans of the original, which they are now trying to build on, are working class people like the Connors, and they are mostly Republicans and Trump supporters. A quick review of other comments supports that. Roseanne understood that and created a balance of political commentary that offered intelligent discussion and debate with views from both sides. She was also smart enough to allow it to occur organically, so it felt natural and not forced. They could easily continue that with John Goodman taking over as her voice, but instead they have chosen to push a one sided agenda with most of the comments coming from the very liberal members of the family. I suspect this is mostly Gilbert's doing, as she appears to be trying to fill Roseanne's shoes, which are far too big for her. Unfortunately, the show also falls a bit flat in the most important aspect, the one that made the original an icon of American television, the relationships between the characters. The show focuses far too much on the main adults, whose bonds were created in the original show and is doing little to build up new ones. They have some great actors and characters in Mark, Louise, Dwight, and Ben, but with the exception of Ben, they are highly underutilized, and little has been done to develop any real connection with other characters. That's a serious flaw, particularly with Mark who, as Darlene's son, should be a major character. His being a gay child who borders on cross dressing is a seriously missed opportunity to create the kind of stories that the original Roseanne was famous for, those that dealt with social issues in humorous, but sensitive ways, while still feeling like a natural part of the story. The show has potential, but unfortunately, that potential was created by Roseanne, and without her, there doesn't seem to be anyone who knows what to do with it. I gave it a six for John Goodman's incredible portrayal of a man who is struggling to deal with the loss of his wife while being presented with a relationship he is not ready for. I hope Katey Sagal will return to explore that further. The relationship between Darlene and Ben is also a bright spot, mostly due to Ben being such a likable character. I also have some hope that Noel Fisher will be a reoccurring character, as the addition of him as Little Ed added some life to the floundering show by giving John Goodman someone new to play off of. Their scenes were some of the best in a while. As it stands, the show is hit or miss, and it lacks much of the heart and authenticity of the original. I think the main problem may be one that is common in Hollywood, breaking the writers rule of writing from experience. People forget that Roseanne was writing about a world she was familiar with, the one she grew up in, so her stories felt real. Melissa Gilbert is a child actress, who grew up in Hollywood and is part of a family of actors. Having never known the kind of hardship faced by blue collar families, she has nothing to draw on, and it shows. Roseanne's stories had an authentic voice that spoke directly to the audience; Gilbert's just come across as the typical liberal Hollywood agenda forged by those with no real understanding of what it's all about.

This was a horrible episode. The political commentary was expected, but the acting was just so bad. The only good part was John Goodman and his struggle with coming to terms with the loss of his wife while developing a relationship he isn't ready for. The scene with Mark and Harris could have been good, but they haven't done anything to build that relationship, and there isn't much chemistry between the two actors. The scene would have played much differently on Emma Kennedy's other show Shameless. Mark is a highly underutilized character. One of the things that made the original show so special was the strong familial bonds, as well as the balance of screen time between the characters. The show now focuses far too much on the adults and auxiliary characters without giving any of the them the focus needed to make the audience care. The only reason we care about any of them is due to the relationships that were built on the original show. They would be better off focusing on the characters and building a good story and allowing any political commentary to occur organically.

Took me a while to come back to this show after the issue with Roseanne. The only reason I came back was because Noel Fisher was guest starring and then I decided to catch up. It's ok, but not as good as it was. It's just not as funny without her, and it's lacking the political balance she brought. This ep was one of those that annoys me because it pushes an agenda from a one sided point of view. They only talked to one college, and they did not explore anything on their own. There are scholarships offered by private companies. They also did not discuss anything in regards to her grades or test scores, which often factors in to the availability of scholarships. It has previously been hinted at that she is not always the best student. However, there are grants available for the poor that are not merit based. They didn't even mention the Pell Grant, which almost anyone can get. The show could have tackled this issue with real info, such as money being offered to students they do not actually need, but accept because they think it's free money, or the fact that while the parent's income is a factor in what students qualify for, the parents rarely have any say in what money the student accepts. They could have talked about the rising cost of tuition, in part because there are so many loans available that the college knows they will get their money. They could have even compared to when Darlene went to art school and how much more difficult it is now. Or Harris, in particular, would have been a perfect example of a student who has ability and talent, who now actually wants to go to college, but is hindered because she has not always applied herself in high school. I will give the show credit that Harris is pursuing a different path, not just giving up and crying poor me, and that they highlighted how important family support can be, but I would rather have seen them pull together and find a way for her to pursue her dream, instead of just an avenue to a career, that while it may offer her financial stability, may also be something she isn't happy doing. The show has suffered greatly with Melissa Gilbert at the helm, and I only watch it when nothing else is on.