Reviews

The show is an attack on; extremism, woke allies, and Utopiainsts.

The most obvious "enemy" is the white supremacist. Which many people saw as a stand-in for Trump's perceived base (poor rednecks in trailer parks). But we soon realize that those fighting these "bad guys" have no respect for civil liberties; which for those of us who believe in civil rights (the mass majority of Americans) makes us realize these aren't necessarily the "good guys."

Later on, in the show, we find out that the "woke" allies of those fighting racism are in reality the leaders of the racist movement. Now does this fact have a deeper meaning? I'm not sure, so I'll refrain from speculation. And the "woke" ally in the White House (Robert Redford) has become a dictator whose policies; which were progressive and meant to right past wrongs, have led to the rise of this violent hate group. Letting go of the past is probably the seminal message of the show.

Now for the most nefarious and dangerous of the bunch; wealthy corprotists who are also highly intelligent Utopiainist. We see that the apple hasn't fallen far from the tree with regards to Lady Trieu. She like her father, is a narcissist, who that believes if only she had Jon's power, that she could fix the world. But luckily for the world her father has come to realize "Utopia" is impossible. Two things led him to this conclusion. Firstly, experiencing what was supposed to be Utopia on Europa, only to find out it was far from it. Secondly, despite him potentially saving the world from nuclear annihilation nothing much has changed; we still have a President that refuses to yield power, and our country is still dominated by fear and violence.

I hope those who hated or loved Watchmen for the wrong reasons discover that there was a message for them in this show: Whether you are trying to take us back to when "America was great" or trying to create a progressive Utopia, the ends don't justify the means.

Okay, the only way I can think to say everything I want to about this series somewhat succinctly is to compare and contrast characters and discuss some of the differences by segregating them into two camps; positive and negative.

First, we'll start with the latter.

Positive differences:1. Money, one can tell Amazon put more "Mula" behind this project than Channel 4 did with the original.

2. Killing Samantha, when I saw there was an extra character, I almost flipped, but then I thought, what if they kill her. She was the leader of the group, both morally and intellectually, and Jessica put an end to her in the best way possible.

3. A few minor differences I liked: Making the virus spread differently, more insight into the corporation, the way Arby went about executing Grant's setup, and the fact it was characters we knew instead of random school kids.

4. Michael's wife's betrayal highlighted the Networks (sorry, Horde is it?) power, reach, and dedication.

5. Artemis: finally, something that the remake handled better than the original. Christos and the lack of explanation surrounding his character was my biggest complaint about the original series. With Artemis, it's explained and quickly resolved.

Now for the negatives: 1. the witty asides, some work (Wilson) most don't (Ian)

2. Folks, we have a full-blown cult on our hands. In the original, it seemed to be a primarily intellectual pursuit, one that seriously made us question whose side you'd be on.

3. The Mr. Rabbit reveal was perhaps the most mishandled "reveal" in television history. If I were someone who hadn't seen the original, I would've thought, Milner, who's that again? Oh yeah, that lady we saw like once and added nothing to the story and did absolutely nothing to help our band of heroes. As the season moved along, I thought, they must be waiting until the second season for the Milner arch, but nope, lets just randomly tell you that unhelpful lady is Mr. Rabbit.

4. Becky and Ian's relationship is too cute and not in a good way.

5. It sometimes feels like a mix between Stranger Things and the Avengers, both of which are fine on their own, but annoying kids mixed with unfunny jokes and bad acting aren't a winning combination.

6. Becky's medicine plot or lack thereof.

7. Killing Lee, though I didn't care for the guy playing him. Btw, I'm assuming he's dead because, you know, an ax to the head is different than being gut shot.

Now, I'll quickly compare each character to the original.

Ian: A forty-year-old man stuck in the body of a twelve-year-old, he sucks.

Michael: I liked Paul Higgins's arch and motivation, but I find Rainn's different background and involvement with the conspiracy an intriguing change.

Becky: A sixteen-year-old girl who is in a relationship with a forty-year-old child. She's too nice.

Dr. Kevin Christie/Assistant/Letts: They combined two characters from the original into a more compelling one in the remake.

Wilson Wilson: He looks like the original Wilson Wilson and feels similar, though cracks a bit more jokes, and some are chuckle-worthy.

Arby: This guy is not as good as Neil, but he's decent. Unlike the original Arby, this one does get some affection and seems to have more emotion. Also, he seems to have flipflopped for little to no reason.

Milner: NOPE

Jessica Hyde: Shes more psycho, yet more emotional and capable of feeling. Also, not a fan of her and Becky's friendliness.

Grant: Underused! I was glad to see the gangster kid from Euphoria in this role, though he'd be the perfect Grant, Alice ruined all hopes for that.

Alice: Perhaps the worst character in the show. There's nothing wrong with a tough girl, but this isn't Alice. Alice is a smart little good-natured girl who's meant to be the antithesis to Grant's rough and tumble ways. But instead, the creators of this remake have rendered Grant useless by making Alice the female version of him.

P.S. Alec Baldwin has to play President Fillmore...Google it.