Reviews

Don't listen to the raving reviews as this good, not great, 2023 film entry is a missed opportunity. What you have are many critics and Scorcese worshippers wishing it was a masterpiece, wanting it to be a masterpiece, and hoping it would've been one so their confirmation bias going in was strong as they probably thought every good scene or cinematography shot was genius.

I actually really enjoyed the first hour to maybe ninety minutes of the film. It was surprisingly well paced and immersive and I questioned the reviews that said it was too slow and boring as a result of that.

However, it's true that starting close to the two hour mark, the film begins to really deteriorate in quality. It's still interesting, but the brisk pace and better editing diminish, and we're left with longer, drawn out scenes and choppy editing and uneven storytelling that in hindsight should've been reduced in time, edited, and had scenes cut out.

As if the second act didn't already reduce the momentum of the first hour or ninety minutes, then we get to the two and a half hour mark and an almost lifeless investigator arrives and pursues the case like he's playing marbles by himself on the table, with no energy, insightful reasoning, or inclination for hard justice. He's just monotoned and a cardboard cutout. It's more like a cameo. Still, the story is so interesting that the film is still watchable despite how uninvigorated the takedown is. There is very little suspense for the third act of a crime thriller about organized crime, which is truly a head scratcher, and here is where (one of the places where) the film truly fails. The other places it fails is in a lack of twists or surprises and in a lack of character development (although it does have some character development, which is much better than none that most movies have nowadays).

Finally, we get to a truly bizarre final scene, which shockingly sinks the film once and for all. The final scene is not brilliant, it's not profound, and it's utterly misplaced and disappointing. It shared nothing new that we didn't already know, and any extractions of meaning on the setup could've been better told or explained in other ways.

Acting is very good, especially DeNiro, but Dicaprio never fully reaches greatness here, another underwhelming character range from him, and Plemons just doesn't seem to know what he's doing. Frasier's brief appearance was more like a comedy gag, and Lithgow wasn't in long either, as he's relegated to only a couple of courtroom scenes.

It's a very flawed, but solidly made, movie that does have a very intriguing story, but you can't help but feel that despite all its entertainment values, it could've been told and handled better.

One of the first things you say when a movie finishes to measure its' value and likability is whether you would ever watch it again, whether rent or on cable, and I honestly don't think this movie has any rewatch value because there are no scenes that stand out and it lacks powerful suspense that creates entertainment value. There is a masterpiece sonewhere in this crazy story of the Osage tribe crime case; it's just not in this particular telling of it.

The story has huge potential to be a great movie, but this version of it is only fair, with solid and good technical components. It should've been edited down to 2 hours and 15 to 30 minutes and added some surprises. For example, how satisfying and awesome would it have been if Molly had put two and two together by the fifth time Ernest enters, when she says, "you're next", if she pulled a big gun out from under the sheet and blew him away? So we know that's not what happened in real life, but suppose he miraculously survives that and the true story reconnects from there. Instead, we get a sort of vanilla Scorcese tale with no real climactic moments or jaw dropping scenes. Here's another idea- imagine Tom White, Plemons, does his fingerprint investigation or does a masterfully acted, intense interrogation scene, or imagine he sneaks up on Ernest and doesn't take no for an answer to enter the house. Give him a warrant or something, just anything to increase tension, so the audience has something to remember about the four hour overly long runtime. I say four because between previews, credits, driving, and parking it's even longer than the three, twenty-six when you factor it all in. And at home, you'll be rewinding scenes because some actors speak with indecipherable accents or poor pronunciation of key words and names.

A good movie, but not a great one.

6/10.

This is a simple review in that every time Alec Baldwin and Jeremy Renner get screen time, the movie goes from feeling like an 8/10 to a 4/10. Fotunately, Rebecca Ferguson's storyline keeps the score above average and in "good" territory, and Cruise also delivers in the good acting range.

The editing is also bad occasionally, which is surprising. I wasn't expecting it to be so noticeable as it was. Baldwin is worse than Renner, but neither of their characters/actors fit very well with the rest of the film's tone. The movie feels very mediocre when they get screetime, whereas polar oppositely Ferguson makes it feel like a good movie in her scenes.

After watching DR1, Fallout, and now RN, this is the weakest of the three, and had the cheesiest scenes of them all. The ending was better than Fallout, the underwater scene was cool, but even the villain felt campy (though interesting) and the motorcycle chase scene, while fun, ended up being kind of pointless based on how it finished. It's just overall, after watching DR1 and Fallout, this felt like the weakest of them. It was still an okay and decent watch though, just nothing special.

6/10.

The title says it all. This is Nolan's best film by far and one of the top 20 movies of all time, if not top 10 or 5. Any movie/film this great will get the hipsters and wannabe intellectuals trying to find flaws and plotholes in it just so they can feel superior to everyone else, but truthfully no movie is perfect and every work of art has flaws if you want to feel special and find them. But personally, a work of art this grand and spectacular should just be appreciated since ones like this only come around about once a decade or two.

The Dark Knight is a chilling and profound meditation on human morality, good versus evil, political presentation versus reality, ideals, philosophies, and God versus Satan.

While every frame is beautifully filmed and riveting, something deeper is happening beyond the action and it is all summed up perfectly at the end.

While Ledger is phenomenal and makes it all work, it's really the evolution of Dent that makes it a true masterpiece. I'm not a Batman nerd, like many others, so by the time the big reveal came, I had totally forgotten about what Dent really is (credit to the editing and writing for making me forget). From the time he is manifested through til the end makes the movie a masterpiece, one of the greatest movies ever made by far, easily, and probably the best movie of the century so far.

10/10.

It's not a good movie, most would agree, but it's not a bad watch if you are looking for something that makes you think or something that's weird and a head scratcher, to be honest.

The first hour of the movie wasn't that bad as they are discovering the mysteriousness of the beach and what is happening around them. But after that initial development, it really goes downhill, out with the tide.

Camera angles and cinematography while characters are talking are pretty bad. It gets repetitive and actually uninteresting as more story develops because we're not invested in the characters due to the writing.

Oh, and then the big "twist", which I should have known. I've always given MKS credit for at least trying to make a twist, but that doesn't mean they're good. Here, it's a surprise at first, but then you immediately get a conventional kind of explanation of what it's about. It's not bad, but it feels like it's been done before many times, even by MKS himself. It's similar to the end of one of his older movies in several ways.

I don't know, it's bad at times, but it's also an entertaining watch if you want to see something that will make you think and present a mystery story. Some scenes were suspenseful, but many scenes were redundant and boring. I'd give it a 5 though for being a watch that while not good or great, at least was different and weird enough to make you think. The best I can say to give it credit is, while probably not being the story's intention, one can maybe see a more realistic version of this story being possible in a more believable way. Unfortunately, that point is completely missed. For example, mad scientists can use unwitting people as subjects, but this is more like supernatural sci fi.

Acting was about as perfect as you can get from the leads, directing was at times brilliant and other times superfluous, editing was timejumpy but made it compelling, seeing Einy was magical, ending was solid, writing was dialogue driven, the best scene was addressing the audience after the event.

This is Nolan's most realistic movie, and it is pure Oscar bait. It has a real shot at winning him Best Picture, which would be shocking with the way he's been mostly unaccepted when it comes to awards season.

However, as much as I thought it was a very good watch, brilliant at times, a good movie, and interesting, I also felt like it was a little bit too long and focused a little bit too much time on Strauss, when it could have been wrestling with Oppenheimer's moral dilemma or contained a shocking twist of some kind, even if it meant using creative liberties and stretching or embellishing the truth.

The Strauss twist just didn't land emotionally or powerfully for the script, even though it was true. And therein lies the biggest weakness of the film- because it's a true story, it plays out like a documentary with little cinematic umph at its climactic moments, but Nolan does better than anyone else could've done with the material to turn it into compelling cinema.

Technically, it's great-10/10, but experientially, it lands a little shy from being a true classic. However, I prefer this kind of grounded Nolan like with Memento and The Dark Knight than his overly ambitious sci fi thrillers because they are more relatable to real life. This is one of those one-watch technical gems that get high ratings, but most people would probably never sit through again unless it was for a school history class.

7.5/10.

I just revisited the movie for the first time in about six years. I feel like when it came out ( I saw it in the theater), there was so much anticipation for it that everyone seemed to love it. It was probably the best movie of that year, but it is not on the level of Scorcese's best works. However, it is good and watchable compared to most movies. This is due to Scorcese's masterful directing. He can turn a relatively simplistic story into a compelling drama with attention to gritty details.

I don't think this should be ranked where it is at about 42 on Top 250. I could see it in the 140-180 range maybe. It's a fun movie, but some of it feels bloated, and some of the acting is mediocre.

Speaking of acting, DiCaprio, Nicholson, and Sheen all do great. Farmiga is good enough too as the psychiatrist. But the others- Damon and Wahlberg and some other supporting roles by the gangsters, are a little off. Fortunately, Scorcese has enough script and story to work with here to hide and cover up these weaknesses, especially when it first came out. It's a fast moving script that equally distributes screen time for the most part for most of the actors, so the weaker acting is overlooked on a first watch or two.

While I can totally agree with some of the 7 rating or less reviews, I still can't rate this under an 8, but that's solely because of Scorcese's directing of a good script. I also agree that elements of the "climax" scene at the end were a letdown. It comes on so quickly and not only did I not like that Colin takes out Costello, but I also didn't find it very believable in a way. I would have had Colin arrest Costello (by that time Colin had no idea that Costello was maybe going to give him and the other mole up to the bureau), as I didn't buy that Colin could be that ruthless, to basically his dad who made him everything he was. It was a violent and disappointing turn of events. But I get it- it sets up the epilogue twists to take Costello out I guess. Also, Damon may very well be and arguably is the worst of the five main actors in the movie.

I feel like The Departed is the most pop-culture movie that Scorcese has made, and that's part of the reason he finally won his first Oscar for it, as it appealed to everyone and didn't have much competition in 2006.

It's a very flawed, very good movie, but not great. It's not as great as Goodfellas and probably not as good as Casino. But it was fun to see Scorcese make another good gangster movie with a flamboyant cast of actors.

Based on a true story, Sound of Freedom is a triumph and low key 2023 masterpiece, showing the harrowing ordeal of young, trafficked kids and the rescuers who have to resort to sohpisticated ways to try to save them from the snares of powerful, high rollers in the human trafficking game.

Caviezel and Monteverde, director, lead audiences through the pain, struggles, and morality, along with Bill Camp in an excellent performance, that go into saving children from powerful crime syndicates throughout the world.

While the first act is entertaining, yet simplistic and riveting, the second and third act surprisingly take the tension up a notch to produce a successful 2023 classic thriller, even better and more meaningful and important than Taken (2008 hit).

Vince Gilligan masterfully directs the best episode of the series so far. There is no objective argument. This was exciting and thrilling from start to finish, and the camera shots and cinematography along with the music were perfect for what he had to work with. Even Rhea Seehorn as Kim Wexler finally gets a full dive into how dark the Breaking Bad universe can be. Oh, and by the way, I'm biased because Gus Fring is my favorite character, but just give Esposito the nomination and Emmy award right now, just splendid work from Giancarlo here in this that I've rarely seen in Better Call Saul, as he plays this episode meticulously nuanced with commitment. Everyone delivers. Nicely done.

I can't give it a 10 because it's not a perfect movie technically, but I loved it. I think this is one of the most underrated action movies ever made and is generally overlooked for some odd reason, perhaps being that for an Action genre movie by Tony Scott, it doesn't have very many "action" scenes.

Rather, this is a thrilling and intense high stakes, mono y mono, character contrast study between an old school "by the books" commander and a new, up and coming subordinate who is more articulate and an outside of the box thinker.

Several unforgettably great scenes between Hackman and Washington built from a great script make Crimson Tide a great watch and a classic. For people who haven't seen it yet, probably going in with low expectations, most will be very surprised and rewarded by how good this underrated flick is.

8.5/10.

The first time I saw Casino, I like it and thought it was good, but the second time I saw it, it was even better. The first time through, it is a challenge to keep up with all the "moving parts" going on in this true story. Scorcese masterfully edits his scenes quickly and stylishly, sometimes making it hard to get the key details to understand the set up going on in Vegas. But on the second viewing, you know what to look and listen for, especially in the first half hour to an hour.

Although the movie does lag at times with the James Woods character (Stone's ex boyfriend), the first hour of the movie is stupendously good. Of course, a movie this good will deliver iconic scenes, scenes that you will always remember and most people will have favorites, much like Goodfellas. Among several others, my favorite scenes include the intro of Sharon Stone's character and then the montage where DeNiro's voiceover is explaining how she works her illegal operation for the casino, the surprise twist at the end relating to the beginning, and I think the ending is my favorite when the voiceover explains how Vegas has changed so much from the old days. There are many other good or great scenes, but these were the best for me.

The second time I watched it, I couldn't get out of it even though I didn't intend to watch the whole thing. I just couldn't stop watching it every time it came back from a commercial, and that just shows how good it is. There is a valid legit argument whether this is better than Goodfellas, but I'd give a slight edge to Goodfellas while still not being sure about it.

The first time I saw it, I liked it, but I wasn't totally sure how much. The second time I saw it made it official- I love it

10/10.

This should be on the shelves at CVS in the aisle for insomnia remedies. Put it maybe next to the nyquil that makes you drowsy, asbolutely one of the worst movies to be hyped up that I've ever seen.

The acting is horrible. Pitt acts like he himself took the drowsy Nyquil medicine in most scenes. The characters all talk to each other like they are tired and falling asleep, in synchronicity with the way the movie is filmed and edited.

The baseball game scenes are ridiculous. It looks like scenes of the game of baseball were filmed by someone who didn't know anything about the game, but they tried to capture activities that made it seem like they were experts on it- a pitcher from the catcher's POV, a runner on first base taking a lead, a boring double play fail, etc. In actuality, none of these "plays" on the field are of any significance to people who know baseball.

By the way, see The Natural or A League of Their Own even to really get a glimpse of what constitutes the important plays and scenes in a game of baseball. It's funny because most people aren't experts on baseball and I could see them watching this movie with the scenes the director filmed thinking that they are "learning" something about it or that the scenes matter to the game, when in actuality they are filmed ridiculously and almost pointlessly. Again, I urge anyone to see The Natural or ALOTO to really get a good image of how to capture the game of baseball.

I'm afraid this is a movie that was hyped for some reason (Was Weinstein connected to it doing his Oscar campaigning to the Academy or something?) so the audience feels coerced into pretending that they like it because a few critics hyped it and because Pitt and Jonah Hill were in it, maybe the director had a few good prior movies they were fans of. But there is no way people actually organically like this movie other than thinking they should because other people told them to.

I've tried to watch this movie about 4 times on cable and it simply cannot hold my attention for more than 2 minutes at a time, it is so bad, so horribly acted, and so awfully filmed. SHelf this on one of the most overrated movies ever made, and put it in the top 10. It's that bad.

2/10.

It's fun. Everything you loved about Breaking Bad, Ozark will match and slightly alter into its' own thing. Instead of ABQ, it's Ozark Lakes, MO. Instead of Jesse Pinkman, it's Ruth. Instead of Walt, it's Marty. Instead of Skyler, it's Wendy. Instead of Gus, it's Del. Instead of Lalo, it's the season 4 imitation. Instead of Gale, it's Wendy's brother. Instead of the Disappearer Bob Forster, it's another disappearer selling new identities.

Very few primary characters does Ozark not blatantly steal from Breaking Bad, but it does at least attempt to be different enough to convince deniers that it is "its' own thing": KC mob (Declan or Jack's gang), FBI agents are the one difference, although they are part of the cat and mouse Hank and the DEA represents, and Ruth's family seem mostly different in their part.

But seriously, the direct imitations of major details and storylines (as well as conversations and scenes) throughout of Breaking Bad are so incredibly obvious, it's like copying your smart classmates' homework for a final paper or project, knowing it will pass the course because the Professor and the class liked BB so much, you had nothing to lose by aping the plot points. There are actually dialogue scenes and important action scenes that are exact imitations and almost verbatim from BB.

It's a very good show for what series are. How could it not be when it matches about 75% at its' core of what Breaking Bad already established, but just in a different setting?

For those who don't know, this is where it started. This, Top Gun in 1986, changed the entire future of summer action movie blockbusters. If you've seen any popular action movies of the 90's, 00's, and 2010's, then you can thank Tony Scott's original Top Gun for the vast majority of them. It also launched Tom Cruise into a career that would see him become one of the most sought out and successful movie stars of all-time. Even though he had some good movies prior to this, Top Gun was the key to him being as big of a star as he became.

So to appreciate this movie (the 6.9 IMDB rating is baffling), you have to see it in context as the groundbreaking summer blockbuster that influenced or served as the blueprint for so many that came after it. Style was the key here- combining a relentlessly great soundtrack blasting out hit after classic hit with bombastic aerial action sequences and high testosterone driven dialogue and characters with melodrama and beautiful women, along with some tragic beats, Scott established the ingredients that audiences would continue to flock to for the next several decades.

It seems like many people come in to rate this movie based on reading preconceived reviews that trash it and mock it. One of the RT reviews calls it a music video, which it is far from being. Others mock it and talk about it as if it's some kind of bad movie, which it also is far from.

Credible, excellent performances by Cruise, Kilmer, Edwards, Skerrit, McGillis, and Ironside elevate Top Gun to not only a fun action movie, but a great one. People who go into seeing it who underestimate it based on its current rating or reading critical reviews already think it's going to be 80's cheese so they'll be looking for confirmation bias and pretending it's not a good movie.

Instead, Top Gun is about heroic fighter jet pilots who encounter and struggle with the dangers and struggles of being elite, aerobatic maneuvers, and dogfights. Cruise's Maverick must learn what it takes to be one of the best at what he does, following in his dad's footsteps while maintaining loyalty to his friends and classmates at the school.

Putting it in perspective, Top Gun was the #1 movie of 1986 in box office sales. You don't reach that peak of any year unless it is a good movie. From a consensus, considering all demographics, Top Gun deserves at least an overall score of around 7.4 on IMDB, if not higher.

The ending events pretty much suck, but the first hour and a half are tear-jerking, emotional nostalgia for the 80's original, which I loved. I'm very critical of movies of the last ten years, so it's all relative when you say this is a good movie. It has elements of it like patriotism, popcorn entertainment, romance, and nostalgia that I loved, but the hyped up reviews by critics are baffling. It's a fun sequel, but it's not great nor better than the first one; there simply is not enough depth and the ending devolves into suspension of disbelief and deux ex machina. Also, there are no songs except for Danger Zone from the original soundtrack. But did I love the thrilling and nostalgic experience? Yes. Was it a happy ending? Yes. Do I think it was worth the price of admission? Yes. Could it have been better? Yes.

It's really a solid 6/10 movie, but because it's Top Gun, an 80's classic, and one of the greatest movies ever made (if you were not born before 1980 then you would never know that), I round up my score to:

7/10

Just have fun and leave your critiquing brain at the door. It's summer popcorn fun just like the original, but just not as good. Part One is simply underrated and great

One thing that needs to be pointed out to everyone: Tom Cruise is a "movie star", not a social media "attention seeker", a "movie reactor", a "TikToc star" or a "reality TV star". He earned his fame when talent was required, as well as dedication. For this current (hopefully shortlived, C Eye A controlled world of Dopamine Hit- Vanity Projects of "wannabe" fake stars and fake-fame seekers through the Federal Government controlled social media narcissistic attention seekers) moment, Cruise got famous when "talent", true talent was required. And yet, he never would've gotten famous today because it's not about real talent, but vapid narcissistic attention seeking losers.

This underrated film was everything that 1917 could never be.

It has heart, soul, substance, meaning, and purpose, and outside of the expected comic book elements, it brought to life so many aspects, and better aspects btw, about World War I than 1917 could ever dream of.

This movie is a Masterpiece.

9/10

The guy who played the villain Pascal just won the Razzie. Absolutely the worst acting I've seen in decades.

Chris Pine is a cardboard cutout who evokes absolutely no emotion whatsoever. The attempts to evoke emotion are so bad and some of the worst acting I've ever seen.

Wiig is actually pretty good at first, but as she changes she also loses interest. Gadot is meh. This is the first role I saw her in, and she has a good body, but while she is kind of cute, she is definitely not as hot and beautiful as her title lead role would have her seem. She definitely has a good body and legs though.

It's way too long and should have been edited down to about 60 minutes with only a handful of decent scenes. Most of it is cringeworthy and awful.

Head to tor, as a whole, this is the greatest movie of all-time, hands down.

It is the greatest narrative ever put on screen from start to finish.

Thanks Nolan. Most people are tired of the same old dumbed down scripts and comic books.

This movie will guaranteed blow, if not stretch, your mind. The budget is so big, no wonder there is nothing to lose watching it as, at the least, you get a blockbuster action flick that delivers, but at most you get a look into futuristic time travel with excellent acting, directing, production values, and score.

Penultimate episode was horrible for a penultimate episode. This show never had any gas in its tank, really, but you would think if they had 2 entire years to make 10 lousy episodes, they would at least put a little more effort into the penultimate one, at least. But once again, no, nothing even happens. Imagine waiting two whole years to arrive at this lousy, cheap show. The actors are even overacting now since the writing has nothing to offer them. I can see some actors falling asleep on the set in between scenes after reading the script. It's so boring and bad.

This show is one of the most shilled ever. It's actually decent (at times), but it is so jumbled, disjointed, lacking in consistency among a dozen other issues which are too pathetic to even mention (for example, Jimmy is supposed to be in his 30s but Odenkirk is 50 years old or so and you can tell, and the same with Mike, who is supposed to be younger than in Breaking Bad (which takes place years later than this story) but he looks older, too....Also, for 5 seasons Kim and Jimmy are supposed to be in love or in a relationship, but in honesty, I still do not believe it since they have no romantic or sexual chemistry in their interactions).

I have seen lawyer movies and shows before, and this show doesn't even get that right. It's not a comedy either since the jokes almost never land. It's not a crime thriller because there is no tension (which btw could have easily been added simply by using Kim as a tension point- have her get kidnapped, get hooked on meth or drugs, or cheat on Jimmy with his stepdad, etc....but no of course this show misses on ever creative decision as it pretentiously tries to unsuccessfully imitate Walter White's downward spiral for Saul....It fails on a grand scale because "Jimmy" is unlikable and a troublemaker from episode 1 with no redeemable values at all).

What might be the worst part about this show that truly makes it so despising is its fan base that foolishly goes around trying to convince people it's better than Breaking Bad. Anyone with two brain cells knows that is just simply not true, so they are lying to try to get more people to watch it since this show never took off and gained the viewership or fan base Breaking Bad did. Please, stop with the B.S. since there is already enough of it in this disappointing, boring show.

It's still okay, though, just not what it should have and could have been by keeping the story simple and more coherent, and details less lazily established (once again, like Kaylee Ehrmentraut looks older that she did in Breaking Bad, but this is supposed to be 6 years earlier. Give us a break). And one final point- I love Gus, but his character is completely screwed up with the writing in this, and the same actually goes for Mike and Saul too. This show is a disaster. If it wasn't for Breaking Bad's greatness, it would be unwatchable.

I watched this because a bunch of people were hyping it up online saying it was better than the Sopranos. Sorry, but it just did not live up to the hype and that's an honest opinion. There are at least twenty shows since 2000 I've seen that are better than this, but it has a fanboy fan base who seem to live in an echo chamber constantly saying it is the best show. It's not bad, and it is good, but it just does not live up to the hype. Of course, its cult following faced with cognitive dissonance will not be able to be convinced of that.

5/10

Episode 1 of Season 5 just premiered on AMC. It was okay. Like most Saul episodes, it has some short, great scenes, but also lots of uninteresting parts, too.

I just don't get the praise for this show, other than it is the offspring of Breaking Bad. I gave it a 6 so it's not an awful show per say, but it's just not even close to being as good as Breaking Bad. And I am trying to like it and want to like it.

Just some minor issues, even as it has somewhat improved here in season 5, are: the lack of tension in the Gus/Mike scenes since you already know how it plays out and who lives and who doesn't, the new characters are unlikable and annoying because you would rather they stop wasting time on that end of the show and focus more on the main character Jimmy; it makes it feel disjointed and you lose interest, it's a pretty bland and too dark at times- Breaking Bad only showed the drug stuff when it mattered to Walter and Jesse but this show is always showing the new characters who aren't very likable slinging drugs and acting tough, and all of this combined overall makes the script feel like it doesn't make much sense.

For example, sure maybe one day these storylines will converge, but it's been forever and we don't know how any of this pertains to Saul, whereas with Walter White, any converging stories with him and any outside characters would happen relatively quickly and they would continue to repeat in the future. This show just feels stretched too far all over the place.

The writing in Breaking Bad was just about perfect, but BCS makes lots of missteps and mistakes that an objective person cannot deny or ignore. It's not horrible, but it's just flawed.

There is still one aspect of Saul that is excellent, and that is the few and far between black and white scenes, which unfortunately are only shown briefly for a few minutes at the start of each season. All of these scenes have been on a Breaking Bad level of suspense and quality, without question, but they only visit them once a season for about five to ten minutes. Creative decisions matter- if they would have done more of these scenes from the beginning, say at least 3-5 more scenes like this sprinkled throughout each season and for longer periods of time, this show might actually stand out and be pretty great, but out of all storylines, these are the scenes they minimize the most.

So in summary, the first season 5 episode was overall decent, the opening ten minutes were once again the best part-9/10, but the entirety of it is still only about a 6. It is improving a little bit from where it was in seasons 1 and 2, but there is still something missing, and it might be as simple as tension and suspense, which for this kind of storyline is crucial.

This is by far the greatest TV show ever.

I was expecting the typical path every show takes with the same old predictable directions they go in, but luckily I didn't read online and knew nothing of the spoilers. As a result, I was taken in and blown away.

The casting alone is brilliant. Every single character was casted perfectly, and I mean perfectly. That alone is genius and falls along the lines of Pulp Fiction with the way Travolta, Thurman, and Samuel L Jackson were casted, along with Harvey Keitel.

But then you get absorbed into this world you never thought you would meet, nor have you ever seen before. You keep waiting for it to become a typical show and for it to "jump the shark", but as the seasons progress, you just never witness or experience that at all.

Instead, the show actually takes you to a place that you never saw coming (if you didn't know spoilers), and it is actually a place of truth. This experience defies twenty or more years of cinema, including the movies.

No matter what anyone says, I don't care, this is possibly the greatest cinematic experience I have witnessed as a whole since the mid-90's. You cannot even compare it to other TV shows, really, because it is not a TV show as much as it is a 60 hour movie that never circles or tangents itself like every other "TV show".

The acting is incredible. Every single actor or actress nailed their role. The subtexts, themes, and profundity is all in there, but not everyone will find those things. A masterpiece?.....Is there a term for something beyond a masterpiece? If there was, then this is it.

20/10