Reviews

For those who read and understood Edgar Poe's stories, the new Flanagan's work would be a revelation. I agree with some other reviewers that the naming of this show is somewhat misleading, especially for viewers who are trying to compare it to "The Fall of the House of Usher" story. It is not an adaptation. It is a hommage to Poe's legacy and the ideas the author encapsulated in his works. You can easily notice the reference to at least one of Poe's stories or poems in each episode: "The Masque of the Red Death," "The Black Cat," "The Pit and the Pendulum," "The Tell-Tale Heart," "The Gold-Bug," "The Raven." And maybe even more (I read Poe a long time ago). Flanagan captured Poe's gothic atmosphere and core ideas and translated them through the modern context and language, which many, I think, did not like.

I did not know how I missed Raylan until I saw the trailer for Justified: City Primeval and the first 2 episodes. Everything's great, but Willa and some gaps in the script. From all the adult audience to the creators of adult shows - please, stop adding annoying teenage characters to the script. The actress playing Willa is absolutely horrible. Also, Willa does not act as a daughter of a U. S. Marshal. Come on. She acts as if her dad did not teach her anything about crime and violence. It is so unlikely that the Marshal's daughter will walk the dangerous Detroit streets alone, as well as it is unlikely that she will meet an unknown dude because he said he knows his dad. Really? Also, I do not believe that two guys trying to kidnap Marshal and his daughter would ever walk free from the court. It is nonsense.

Anyway, Olyphant and Boyd Holbrook are awesome. I'll continue to watch the show.

The show told two completely different stories that aimed at generating a similar message - "women have to beware." After watching it, I would agree with it with one condition. Women must take some responsibility for their actions as well. I'm not victim-blaming. I'm afraid I have to disagree with the people saying here that Debra was a doormat or she was weak. No. Debra was a businesswoman who attained all her wealth on her own and raised three children. At the same time, Debra is entirely naive and clueless in interaction with men, primarily due to her upbringing. Her mother is clueless and naive as well. Yet, Debra is a grown woman who had to be able to read all the red flags which were popping all around John. Betty is another story. It is way more tragic. I would not understand why women dedicate their lives to the success of their husbands and forget about their own ambitions. But I could sympathize with her at first. I had to admit that her anguish and obsession bring all of them to such a tragic ending. If she let go and followed her lawyer's advice, she would receive decent financial support, more money from her husband's law practice, and split custody. Everyone would be alive and well.

BTW, Amanda Peet is phenomenal. Her work was so nuanced and precise. You have to watch the 2nd season at least to see her play. Christian Slater was just okay, nothing special. Eric Bana was pretty good in 1st season as well. Connie Britton was good, but her screen children were miscast (both actresses are great, but roles were not for them).

The documentary is engaging, allowing viewers to look at that event from several perspectives. People who remember that era or listened to that music during their youth would appreciate this docu. Clearly, the organizers were in the wrong, and it was their responsibility. It was a cash grab for them. I'm shocked that no one sued them.

Inviting such bands as Limp Bizkit, Korn, RHCP, etc., selling tickets to 250k people, having no proper security, and no amenities (even no clean water on site in such hot weather) is not ok. But more importantly, giving CANDLES to a mob full of exhausted, drunk, high, and angry young people is beyond stupid. Of course, women have got harassed and raped there. I mean, look at the number of men there (drunk, high, and aggressive).

The men in charge of this wreck looked utterly clueless, in denial, and arrogant. That co-creator guy with a constant smile on his face is the most annoying human being I've ever seen. It seems that he got high in the 1960s, and it had never left his system.

Overall, I'm glad Woodstock will never happen again.

After watching half of it, I've realized that it was not Moore that annoyed me (don't get me wrong, he is a monster) but the entire culture that made him famous. There are plenty of guys like him everywhere, but you do not know about them because they do not have a platform. Moore is not that bright to be the mastermind, come on. I would say the American culture is the issue.

Many people who supported and reinforced his behavior are a problem. Journalists, radio stations, and TV shows who gave him the platform are a problem. Women who did all that stuff on camera and lined up to Moore are a problem. For example, that "butt girl"...I was shocked to know that she had children. I really hope she lost her parental rights forever. His ex-girlfriend is clearly mentally unstable (you can tell it by looking at her once and hearing how she speaks) and potentially anorexic (why has no one addressed this issue?). I do feel bad for all victims who were hacked or whose exes uploaded their naked pictures. No one should experience it. I believe in a person's right to privacy. However, I feel no sympathy for those uploading their photos or videos willingly.

My question is why only one woman stood up to him. That marine guy... I don't know, I find him weird. Like how come there are so many victims, and no one did anything... Anyway, my point is that the culture of cult-like idolization of an individual is the biggest issue here. Yet, the documentary does not address it whatsoever.

I liked the show so far even though it is somewhat naive (a very old CIA agent against the entire machine... sure), but it is entertaining and well-played. We cannot expect realism from a film or a TV show about the CIA or any other spy agency for obvious reasons. Until this episode, the only gap in the scenario for me was that the U. S. agencies give a rat's ass about some Afghani militant (even if he got rich and powerful). However, maybe there is some plot twist or information we do not know yet that could explain it. But Zoe... I do not understand why some creators make up such annoying female characters (I know that the actress is not guilty). Zoe is not a believable character. At first, she is a typical damsel in distress with an evil ex, a disrespectful son, and money issues (because apparently, she was unable to earn and take care of herself financially for some reason). In a second, she is this courageous woman demanding half of fortune from a professional killer for some ...um...e-mail..? It's hilarious.

I was initially skeptical regarding Dexter's revival, considering the horrific ending of the original series. I was pleasantly surprised by this season. The writers created a more hostile environment for Dexter adding challenges and moral dilemmas. I think this season was brilliant except for the last episode. Why kill him in such a stupid and cliched way? I get it. Sons killing their fathers refers to the Freudian Oedipus complex. However, why? Why does his son have to kill him? For what? And more importantly, what for? Asking your son to kill him could generate massive trauma as well as trigger violent tendencies rather than releasing an adolescent from them. It is not a happy ending for Harrison. By doing so, he could become an even more violent killer with no moral code whatsoever. I mean, Harrison has already put an innocent guy in prison and broke another one's hand just to blend in. Also, the writers made Angela an unstable, impulsive mess who arrests a potential serial killer with no backup and explains all her plans to him. How dumb.

This film has two advantages - Benedict Cumberbatch and his character (Phil). I'm not a super fan of his, the plot is very weird. It seems that Jane Campion (director) spent all her talent on creating Phil's character because everything else is completely bland. I know that this is an adaptation but she could have created a more interesting plot allowing all characters to develop. Heroine of Kirsten Dunst (Rose) is just there. She is just standing and staring at the camera or other actors. Rose starts drinking only because of few negative remarks made by Phil. Why does the director have to make her that weak? Her son is weird in an unpleasant and unsettling way, you will never root for him even though you should becuase he is constantly bullied by other men. Plemons' character (George) is also just there. Both Rose and George are completely passive, have no character or guts. They both do not do pretty much anything. Plemens and Dunst are brilliant actors. I assume the director decided to make them like that. As a result, Cumberbatch stands out very vividly in the film and you do not care about anybody else. When he died at the end, I was dissapointed.

The issue with sound is probably the main pitfall in terms of production. I had to watch it with subtitles because it was challenging to understand the speakers, especially during the footage from the interrogation room. However, I would say that creating a documentary on the basis of the family's social media, police body cameras, and interrogation was on a plus side for me. It added realism to the story. I understood what happened from the very beginning. It was an expression of relief on her husband's face that made everything clear. Yet, I would never understand why such cases occur. It is beyond my grasp. Yes, the wife was incredibly annoying or at least it appears so in the documentary. I would understand why her husband would want to divorce her. However, what is the point to continue living with a person you hate or, more so, conceiving another child. I'm more than sure now that he killed her and children instead of divorcing simply because of money issues. Divorce would meant that he had to pay child support, move out of the house, and find a better job because she earned the most of money and it was her house. It is possible that he married her for money as well because I do not believe she became that annoying and incredibly controlling all of a sudden. The documentary conclusion was correct, the murders were premeditated.