User Reviews

I can understand the public having a problem with insensitive animal killings, but standing up for a cause has absolutely NOTHING to do with TV production quality, acting, or any artistic performance. If we graded all films, TV Series, or any on-screen production based on its moral content, then the majority of genres would be rated garbage and unacceptable.

Depicting truth on-screen is not always pleasant but that doesn't mean it's a trash production. In fact, reality is often more harsh than what's depicted on-screen. Every horror film deserves a 1/10 ? Crime shows ? The infinite displays of infidelity ? Any story with horrible truths, no matter how well produced and acted, should automatically receive a poor rating ? Where do you draw your line ? Kidnapping, murder, and adultery are suitable for viewing but animal cruelty is not ? Humanity must be confused.

Viewers need to understand how reviews work. You are NOT rating the morality of the content on a scale of 1 to 10. You are rating the quality of the film making, the storylines, the acting and the script writing. In actuality, evoking such emotional response most likely indicates the product was of the highest quality.

Attempting to discredit an episode based on support of animal rights or a scene being too realistic is not only unfair and self-righteous, but defiles and taints the rating process. There are some very unfortunate truths in life that are difficult to accept and I don't think a film or TV production should be penalized for portraying those truths, especially when it is relevant or important to the story and character development.

The 1/10 user review based on animal cruelty needs to be discarded and omitted from the rating.

11.22.63 - Episode 2 Continuing my marathon and what a heavy episode. I forgot to mention that in the previous episode, I hadn't recognized any actor, just James Franco, but in this episode I recognized the actor Michael O'Neill (the war veteran at the inn) from 24 and Bates Motel. Annette O'Toole is unrecognizable in the role of the fanatical Christian at the inn but I remembered that I knew her from somewhere, and she played Martha Kent from Smallville. About the episode, the slaughterhouse part was very heavy, the scene with the guy beating the woman is also very heavy. There's no way not to compare it to the story of Michael Myers from Halloween, right? The difference is that the child is not the killer. Episode two watched on March 15, 2024.

Why mess with a good thing? Why is it so hard for people to faithfully adapt King's writing to the screen? Where is Frank Darabont when you need him? This episode was terrible, for several reasons. James Franco is miscast, as noted in the review for Episode 1. He is no way near serious enough for this role that demands seriousness. As you read the book, we guarantee you there's no way you pictured Franco in your mind. Maybe someone like Patrick Wilson would have been a heck of a lot better. Franco literally ruins every scene he is in. The gambling thing is totally overplayed here in this episode, as is the Frank Dunning character -- although admittedly, Josh Duhamel does a good job in the role. But there's no trial- and-error to the whole situation like there was in the book; thus, it's not very plausible the way it plays out on screen if you've read the book—which actually made sense. This? Does not. The worst is at the end of this episode, where there's an obvious 180-degree departure from the book's excellent narrative that adds unnecessary complications to everything that's left to come in the series. Are you kidding us, Hulu?? TERRIBLE screen writing choices and terrible casting has already made this series almost unwatchable for anyone who loved the book. Boo!