Reviews

The more I think about this film, the less I like it. It's not that it was "bad", per se, but it portends to be much more than it is. It reminds me of a formulaic romance novel that was written in a factory of sorts, spurned out according to schedule, with every cliché dialed in to expedite the narration. While some may argue that this was against type - it deflated the ego of the urban protagonist and brought depth to the redneck hicks in backwater Texas - that is itself a cliché and the turnaround/redemption is necessarily predicated upon that formulaic reduction. While that may be Vengeance's most pressing flaw, the entire move is laden with them. Issa Rae is not only woefully under-utilized, but her character has no depth, resonating only a single note. At first, it's skepticism; later, it's encouragement. It's a pivot that has not been genuinely earned, so with the rest of the movie, the story is carried by formulaic unfolding that has been telegraphed from the opening scenes.

Perhaps I'm disappointed in Mr. Novak, as I would have expected more from him - broader writing, more intricate in the plot, and more exploratory in the characters, their strengths, their flaws, and the arc of their storylines. The irony is that this movie is about a man discovering how shallow his life has been, but that exploration itself is shallow in itself. In other words, this is like a run-of-the-mill romantic comedy in that we know that the guy is going to get the girl in the end in spite of the obstacles. If watching late-night on a streaming service, it's simple, non-nutritious, highly caloric mind candy. To translate into the entertainment realm, this isn't high art nor does it feed the soul or the mind. Rather, it passes time just like the empty calories in junk food offer little nutritive benefit. To be fair, this movie did get me thinking: How did it manage to receive an 80% rating on Rotten Tomatoes? This isn't, however, the type of thinking in which I was hoping to be inspired to engage.

As a late-night wind-down with a glass of wine before bed? Sure. As anything else, my vote would be to look for something else. It's not terrible, which is the basis for the five-rating. Some movies of this ilk are just unwatchable. This is not one of those. Rather, it's a movie with only one (also undeveloped) character - Mr. Novak's Ben - while everyone else is just a satellite around his foil.

This isn't a polished comedy, which is part of its charm. Dan Perlman and Kevin Iso aren't great actors, and the situations are rather simple: straight guys caught trying to do right in a theatre of the absurd (i.e., life). Some of the characters - such as Kareem and Dan's mother (love Maria Bamford!) - are ridiculous, but work beautifully in this environment.

I laughed out loud several times over the two seasons, which is more than I laugh at the typical comedy. Its dry sense of humor in spite of its straddling the fence between recognizable reality and the absurdity of navigating the hood is a breath of fresh air.

I hope to see more seasons of this.

I did not like The Matrix Resurrections. I don't think it added anything to the franchise. This was not an epic love story, as it was billed to be. It didn't even have the sexy, sleek, stylized look when characters entered the Matrix. There were novel and incredibly artistic sequences in the first Matrix that required 360 degree perimeter cameras to get the shot, particularly with the the fight sequences. I don't believe any such techniques were used here. The way that this film was constructed, the sloppiness of its execution was plastered over by the narrative, the "upgrades" to the Matrix program, CGI, and the enormity in scope of the numbers involved in the fights that were computer generated onslaughts rather than sophisticated choreographed sequences.

Morpheus didn't have much to do with this movie. He was needed for continuity, but narratively, it was an afterthought. The "new" Agent Smith, played by Jonathan Groff, was terrible. Both Laurence Fishburne and Hugo Weaving were missed. Neil Patrick Harris . . . Silly. I can't imagine it was only because of the pandemic.

I'm not going to recommend that people don't watch it. Of course they are. If one was a fan of the franchise, there is a compulsion, a curiosity, a desire to scratch that itch. Watch it. It wasn't terrrrrible. I have seen worse. For a $150 million budget, however, I don't think the studio got much value. It's not an epic film. It's not a great story. It doesn't have the allegory that the first movie did. It's rather a mindless movie with mediocre sequences, a substandard story, and uninspired effects. It was a disappointment. If Lana Wachowski wanted to resurrect the franchise, there should have been a more compelling story with more compelling filming to go with it. James Cameron didn't release his planned sequels to Avatar (2009) because he needed the technology to realize his vision. While I make no predictions about the quality of his sequels, at least there is a vision associated with their reason and an outlined arc for the narrative. Was the 18-year wait for the Matrix Resurrections worth it? Not that anyone was waiting, but it would be difficult to imagine that anyone could say so.

This is a fantastic story, extremely well-written and beautifully portrayed. The acting is superb. The storylines are well developed. And the underlying themes are true, even if some dramatic license has been taken. I am not familiar with the Swiss story of Jewish refugees post-war; only the Swiss complicity in stealing Jewish assets and protecting those of the Nazis. In Labyrinth of Peace, each of these themes surfaces, as they should. It is a shameful part of European, Swiss, and World history, and the cover-ups and protection for the sake of money, status, and pragmatic justifications exist to the present day. I saw this as part of a film festival offering. It was five hours long and well-worth the investment.

Highly recommended.

I've seen three episodes. Like it or not, the current 2.3 rating is incomprehensible. The worst movies of all time usually get at least a 4. Catwoman has a 3.4 rating; 50 Shades of Grey has a 4.1.

Chad is at times laugh-out-loud funny. The first sequence in the first episode was hysterical. The interchange between Chad and his sister immediately thereafter was priceless. In a way, this is similar to PEN15, a la Erskine and Konkle, though if I understand the history, Nasim Pedrad shuttled this concept around for several years before it finally made it to the screen. Concept aside, because PEN15 beat Chad to the punch, perhaps Chad isn't ground-breaking. There is a risk that Chad could never evolve beyond what it already is - an awkward, cringey, adolescent boy who seeks attention, popularity, and a role model. If there isn't growth in the character, then maybe Chad will get old and tired before it gets out of the gate. After three episodes, however, that cannot be ascertained. From where does all of this judgment emanate? I don't get it.

Nasim Pedrad does a great job. She is a beautiful woman who transforms into an unattractive, myopic, and self-centered adolescent. Is this anti-Muslim hate - because both Pedrad and the character she portrays are Iranian? Is this because she's a woman? I have no idea. All I can say is that a 2.3 rating is objectively difficult to justify.

If the narrative arc grows to support more than just a concept, I'd be happy to see multiple seasons, though after three episodes, that remains to be seen. Still, I'm looking forward to more episodes and more laughing-out-loud. It's funny. Pedrad is great.

I guess Taylor Swift was right: the haters gonna hate, hate, hate. Shake it off. Give it a look.

There is a lot to like about Banshee. It has good acting; good action, good stunts, and excellent cinematography. Its narrative, however, is flawed, and that compromises it throughout its run. The narrative issues compound over the seasons, getting worse in Season 3, and essentially sinking itself in Season 4, its advertised Final Season - with a truncated season of 8 episodes instead of 10 - before calling in a day. While I realize that most people aren't going to tune into Banshee for plot, necessary - it's the adrenaline, the action, the steamy sex that likely inspired many of its viewers - even those elements waned away to a fraction of what they initially were by the final season. In the last season, production had moved from North Carolina to Western Pennsylvania, and it showed. The outside scenes changed. The town layout changed. The City Hall and the Sheriff's Office changed; Carrie's house changed. The Sheriff's Department change was noted in the script, as was Carrie's house change, I imagine because the "Cadi" building and Carrie's house in the NC town where Banshee was shot in its first three seasons didn't exist in Western PA. I don't understand why the producers didn't use stock footage that they no doubt had accumulated during their first three years of shooting. Even Proctor's Mansion was vastly different, shifting from an enormous estate, to a more modest home without the sweeping staircases, but nothing was offered to explain this. What Banshee did right often compensated for what it lacked. By the final season, however, the action and fight sequences were a pittance compared to what they had been in previous seasons. Sure, there was an explosion and a fight here and there, but nothing like in S1-3. The budget must have been enormously curtailed, and it showed. What's more, without the compensating adrenaline rush, the narrative flaws in S4 became accentuated for their superficial treatment.

I won't give away any spoilers, although I imagine that there aren't too many newcomers to Banshee as I was years after its release (You can thank the double-whammies of COVID and the wildfires causing unbreathable air for that). As is the case for many action shows and movie franchises, such as Lethal Weapon, in which the Mel Gibson character was haunted by his past (is he crazy or he is just super sane?), once those issues get resolved, much of the momentum and motivation for the narrative is deflated. It takes two seasons for Banshee to exhaust the mileage from its initial setup, which, too, was flawed. The basis upon which the main character (Lucas Hood) went to jail and why (not a spoiler; revealed upfront as a premise) doesn't make sense when scrutinized. His character never would have made the choices that he did. It's a big problem, but the action, the fighting, the blow ups, the acting, the artistic filming, the sex and the sex appeal make this forgivable . . . or at least, allow one to suspend his disbelief enough to watch. Once that critical narrative arc is resolved, which was problematic to begin with, the story falls apart. Season 3 narrative flaws are somewhat ridiculous as the writers rely upon Chayton's storyline (though I loved the character, the story was problematic), and I only qualify that description because Season 4's are worse than ridiculous. As it is set up, Kai Proctor, the villian of the show and the nemesis of our protagonist, lives by a moral code, albeit compromised, notwithstanding his nefarious ways. By Season 4, the expansion of his business, his dealings, his "evil" becomes unrecognizable. The Kai Proctor we meet in S1 would never make the choices or deal with the types of people and organizations that he relies upon in S4. Even the tension among Brock and Hood often reveals its lack of substance. In one moment, Brock is calling out Hood for his lack of integrity, demanding that he leave the force; the next, he's demanding that Hood see what he started through. In S3, Brock demands to accompany Sheriff Hood out-of-state, and then once out-of-state, he accuses Hood into turning him into something he never wanted to be. This isn't depthful character development - yes, the tension of love/hate, admiration/disdain exists - but rather, it's poor writing. Ditto for the brother issues that arise between a future deputy in and his brother in Seasons 3-4. Terrible writing. Truly terrible. Is it love? Is it hate? Is it evil? Is it all of the above? The writers didn't consider any of it, it seems. The words that flow from the characters' mouths suit that moment only, even if they are not consistent with or undercut the narrative that came before. In the original Karate Kid, we learn that Mr. Miyagi's wife died and Mr. Miyagi never recovered from that loss. In the sequel, the story changes such that Mr. Miyagi's wife's love was stolen by a bad man who didn't deserve the woman. Which was it? Perhaps in a teen movie, no one cares, and these narrative problems are mitigated by the stand-alone nature of those movies, such that previous movies in the franchise are not required viewing and that one can enjoy each movie in its completeness without having to have made the investment of what came before it. But that is contrary to the serial nature of shows like Banshee. Worse, yet, the narrative flip-flops occur within respective seasons, not just season-to-season, to satisfy a particular moment, but they do not move the story forward. The shocking reveal in the later seasons are equally nonsensical. Never would have happened. Particulalry the principle one about which I will offer no detail, it never could have happened under the parameters set up in the show, absent much more character development to support it (and even then, I would find it hard to swallow). Season 4 starts off with a strong premise. It ends in ludicosity. By the final season, Sugar is hardly a character and Job's presence is largely reduced. Both of those characters, however, served the show well over the years. They provided needed color and rounding, but their stories, as Season 4 demonstrates, were not principal to the narrative vector or resolution of the conflict.

In my view, the writers and showrunners could have tightened the narrative up ever so slightly such that these inconsistencies would have been minimized or completely resolved. The issues between Carrie and her father, the backstory between Carrie and Hood, the issues with the Native American tribe and the town as well as between the Amish and Proctor could have ultimately made more sense. If we felt the truth that undelie the tension - the lack of black-and-white, even amongst the most extreme of circumstances - Banshee would have been elevated to an entirely different level.

Finally, I will add that none of the romantic arcs in the show worked on any meaningful level at all. The most powerful, of course, was the history between Carrie and Hood, but at its best, it is never believable. While Hood has relationships with many women throughout the show, there is another relationship that narratively is supposed to cut to our core and explain the depth of S3. It doesn't. It doesn't come close. It read as casual to me, but for the narrative to work, it would have had to have been a momentous love that rocked the core of who one was. Hardly. Again, I recognize that Banshee is not generally watched for its narrative integrity, but I write this because it does matter. It's what elevates a show from good-to-great. While Banshee currently has an 8.4 rating on IMDB, this is inflated. It's not the quality of The Sopranos or the first three Seasons of The Wire. It's a fun show, good to watch, easy to sip through, but it doesn't land. It's a shame because there is evidence that the creators and writers wanted that to be the case. There is an accompanying "Banshee Origins" series on Cinemax's YouTube channel that gets into the backstory and origins of the relationships among the characters and how life brought them to the point where they are when we first encounter them. That is all about character development and depth and integrity of story and design. How the final product skirted these issues, then, is a question I cannot answer.

I still give Banshee a good rating. Had more attention been paid to the narrative consistency, Banshee could have been sublimely satisfying. Instead, it sells out for the adrenaline rush and the sex appeal, which waned to almost nothing in the final season anyway. As I said from the outset, there is a lot to like. By changing almost nothing but paying attention to the narrative and its detail, there could have been a lot more.

Bar none, this is the best effort from Mindy Kaling's writing/development career. I'm a man in my fifties, not a teenage angst-ridden boy-band wannabe, but I found this show to be perfect in its tone, its tenor, its casting, and its depiction. The show flies by. It is well-written, at times, really funny (I found myself laughing aloud several times), and relatable without being preachy. Maitreyi Ramakrishnan was beautifully cast as the lead, hitting the delicate balance between awkward and attractive, cool-but-nerdy, and down-to-earth. It showcased the Indian-American experience without making the show about Indian-Americans, per se. Rather, it was about a teenager, in high school, her friends, her sexual awakening, and her desire to fit in with her friends and the more popular crowd and trying to balance and juggle these competing concerns against the backdrop of her more traditional family. I even liked John McEnroe's narration, which was awkward in its own right, and added to the charms of the show's gestalt.

I loved this show. Netflix should renew it, and Ms. Kaling should make more than 10 episodes for subsequent seasons. Devi and her friends were sophomores in this season, so perhaps they could squeeze another couple of seasons out of this show. The charm wouldn't carry over into Devi's college years, as her innocence at some point would be lost through life experience and watching her bumble her way through the difficulties of her teenage years would be simply uncomfortable (and immature) if she were depicted at a more mature age.

Highly recommended.

It's a good thing that Gad Elmaleh is HUGE in France because this show is TERRIBLE in the United States. There are many problems with this show, but the most fundamental problem stems from lack of clarity in concept. This results in a muddled tone.

The concept could have been excellent: Gad, a hugely successful comedian in France, comes to the United States and falls flat on his face. The humor gets lost in translation. The hiliarity of his observations and insights, which we as the audience appreciate, seem unimportant against the headwind of the vacuous American sensibility, particularly in Los Angeles. That concept could have been hysterical. Then again, that would have required good writing and some reflection about the differences between France and the United States. Instead - despite the obvious concept indicated by its title, Gad comes to the United States trying to develop a relationship with his estranged son. What does being famous in France have to do with that? He could have been a chef in France or a gardener in France or a doctor in France. Similarly, what would the titles, "Chef in France", "Gardener in France" or "Doctor in France" have to do with a plot about developing a relationship with his son? Nothing.

The character depictions are unidimensional. Everyone is a narcissist, including Gad, including his estranged son, including his ex-wife, including his ex-wife's new husband, including Gad's manager in France. It's not funny. It's HUGELY unfunny, although I did manage a chuckle here and there, such as the opening scene at the airport which teases the carrot - a bait and switch, I might add - that the show will be about the concept it should have been: his struggles at finding a comedic audience State-side. Curb Your Enthusaism uses this conceit, whereby Larry David is always getting into trouble, always putting his foot in his mouth, and always offending everyone's sensibilities. We as the audience enjoy the self-deprecation, as we sympathize with Larry's predicaments and recognize that he's not always to blame as much as his cast members make him out to be. Gad should have utilized this as well. While I am not familiar with the comedy of Gad Elmaleh, this vehicle could have inspired me to explore his English-language offerings had it been funny (Netflix now has an English-language comedy special of his, which I will be sure NOT to check out). Seinfeld (the show) was based upon and inspired by the observational humor of Jerry Seinfeld. Why wasn't this show based upon Gad's unique perspective on the world?

Terrible writing. Terrible development. Terrible concept. Terrible execution.

It's a BIG pass.

Not recommended.

I caught this on Amazon Prime one day before its offering was to expire. While today Israel has a budding film industry with some top-notch offerings and concepts that the entire world licenses to remake, I was curious to see what the standards for its industry were back in the 1980s. If "Goodbye, New York" is any indication, it was shlock.

The story is idiotic; the acting is worse. At one point, I wondered whether a after-school special's dialogue from that time period would have been better (it may have been). Later, it occurred to me that the dialogue sounded as leaden and as robotic as say, an 80s porn film. And then, in the film - no joke! - one of the characters claimed to have been a porn actress from the States! Honest to God, the development of the characters, the acting, the storyline was about as developed as it would have been in any 80s-era erotic offering, which is to say, not much.

Some reviewers here criticize this movie as pro-Israeli propaganda. I disagree. Every character is reduced to a stereotype. While the two Arabs (store-owner, Beduoin) were one-note, so were the idiotic Israeli men. So was Julie Hagerty, the American. So was her husband. So were the people on the Kibbutz. So was the story. So was the Romanian character who was trying to "cheat" on a business transaction. So was the boyfriend of Julie Hagerty's girlfriend from the kibbutz. So was Albert, her quick-lived fall-in-love romantic affair. So was the adult-film actress in the bar. Every character in this film was one-tone, stupid, and uninteresting. The only redeemable character was the lead actor (also director and writer), Amos Kollek, who started off the movie, as a womanizer as well.

Terrible movie.

The one interesting aspect of the film was to observe how much Israel has modernized over the past 35 years. I visited in 2008, and by then, Israel was a country of modern highways, tech companies, and skyscrapers. In 1984, when this movie came out, Tel Aviv was Israel's most modern city and from the shots from this film, it looks 80s-worn and weathered . . . nothing like today. Most of the shots - including those in Jerusalem - look rustic and rural, which is how Israel was. This is before the mass-immigration from the former Soviet Union that caused great growing pains to this tiny country. This was also before the first and the second Intifadas (December 1987; October 2000). This was before the bus bombings and the suicide bombings in the streets and corridors of Main Street and the shopping malls. This is before the Peace Initiatives and before the Palestinian Authority. It was a different world back then. This movie's value lies in its time encapsulation, which occurred through no intention of its own. It's like seeing an old James Bond film from the 60s or 70s from Italy or Thailand or New Orleans and observing how those same areas have changed in the past forty or fifty years.

It's a time capsule of Israel from the 80s with the quality of an adult film from that same era. Other than the comparing and contrasting the modernization and development of Israel in the past 35 years, an adult film is probably more interesting.

Mum is a beautiful slice-of-life dramedy. It's deceptively nuanced, as the premise is strikingly simple. Each season spans an entire year; however, each episode takes place on only one day, and all episodes are at Cathy's (Mum) house. In other words, an entire year's worth of narrative is revealed in only six days over the course of the year, all in the same physical location. Each episode is like a self-contained one-act play but it builds upon what came before it. There could be two or three months in between episodes - "May" and "August", for instance - and the viewer can infer what has or has not happened or how certain events were processed or disregarded by the manner in which the characters relate in the following episode. There is much that "happens" off-camera; much is unspoken. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it. It allows for a rich and nuanced narrative despite that an entire season is literally only six days out of a year. With such a set-up, the viewer learns to appreciate the characters, their personalities, their motivations, their strengths and their frailties, as the narrative simmers beneath the surface and in the time in between each interlude. The writing is phenomenal. Bravo to Stefan Golaszewski, the show's creator, writer, and oft-director.

Lesley Manville is perfectly cast as Mum. She portrays Cathy delicately, as in many ways, Cathy is the straight-person to the other characters' peculiarities. The rest of the cast is excellent too. Cathy's son, Jason, his sweet and often (but unintentionally) insulting girlfriend, Kelly, Cathy's in-laws, her brother (Derek) and his uptight, status-conscious girlfriend (Pauline), and a family friend Michael round out the core cast. I love the characters; I love how they interrelate. There is something realistic about this show even though no one in the world has the presence of mind to be like Cathy, have her patience, and accept everyone and their eccentricities in the manner Lesley Manville portrays. Still, it's beautiful to watch. All of its brilliance would likely be lost were this to be a Hollywood production. In most American productions, characters are largely caricatures, which makes the shows fundamentally uninteresting, as they are plot-driven rather than character-driven. In Mum, the characters are what drives the show - their perceptions, their wants, their insecurities, their personalities. Again, each episode occurs only on one day and always at Cathy's home. In a sense, "nothing" happens. There is no forced narrative device to manipulate the characters to do something; there doesn't need to be.

There are presently two seasons; the third and final season has completed filming and is supposed to air sometime in 2019. I understand narratively why the third season will be the last, but I am sorry to see it go. Mum is a near-perfect character-driven show with outstanding writing.

I love this show. I wish there were more like it.

Highly Recommened.

I loved this show, probably - but not only - because it was Japanese. The romantic arcs and some of the story lines were actually quite simple, but they were more honest than the syrupy cliches that often dot the landscapes of American counterparts. What's more, the cultural element of Japanese society was present during every moment of the series, from the formal and respectful manner in which people disagreed to the male/female formality of interaction even amongst love interests. Age dynamics was a large part of the narrative of this story. Were the same to be portrayed in an American series, it would seem vain, but the pressure on maturing women and the value on youth and marriage is something that may be more pronounced in Asian (and certainly Japanese) culture, and I found it fascinating. The protagonist is a stunningly beautiful 40-something Japanese woman. How anyone could look at her as old, over the hill, past per prime - as anything but gorgeous - is beyond me, but this dynamic was portrayed convincingly. Good soundtrack too (though the same songs played in every episode) and the other two female leads were lovely, shining light on other aspects of the feminine Japanese mystique. I understand why there isn't and cannot be a Season 2, but I am going to miss these characters and their charms. The male leads, as well, were excellently cast.

It's a romantic dramedy, but it's not a soap opera. Not a tear jerker, though at times I wish the characters would have stopped being so formal and just admitted their feelings. I imagine that is also a part of Japanese restraint. Fun, entertaining, beautiful to watch.

Recommended.

This was a delightful, short, minimal-commitment that took me two or three days to breeze through. It's nothing mind-blowing and it doesn't move mountains or shift paradigms. Rather, it's a character-study of two (extended) families who come together - one from Wales and the other from England - after the connection and marriage of a couple. It's an easy, fun, friendly watch. I wish there were more shows around like it, where each of the characters is good-hearted, loving, communally-minded, and thinks about and expresses love towards those in their lives, despite their faults. It's not ground-breaking, but it isn't contrived either. It's an honest slice-of-life, and it's lovely. It's not the laugh-a-minute slapstick comedy that British comedies often are. Rather, this is driven by the characters.

Highly recommended.

The title says it all: Mary Elizabeth Winstead is excellent in this role. The movie itself, however, is not good. The characters are not developed. The flow is not organic. The structured reveals that lead to the movie's denouement are so forced that authentic emotional truth reduces to cliche. I am less forgiving of movies like this because they (attempt to) manipulate the audience. A better movie would illicit compassion and empathy through the identification with the character, perhaps. All About Nina, rather, vomits telegraphed "depth" (which is, in truth, shallow) all over the screen in an effort to bypass development, story, character arc, and narrative and get to the "point". The truth is that few people are going to climax if their lover doesn't pay attention. Here, the "lover" is the screenwriter/director who doesn't pay attention to any of the needs of the viewer, In an attempt to "move" the viewer, we're manipulated at every turn. The big moment of the movie, however, fell on its face. There was nothing true about it for the story; there was nothing true about it in the development; there was nothing true about it for the character. It was just meant to shock, and by implication explain the rest of the movie. Without the "foreplay" of good writing and characters, I wasn't turned on, and the big climax didn't give me the pleasure or satisfaction that I would have wanted after spending two hours in bed with this movie.

That said, Mary Elizabeth Winstead is terrific as the sexy, acerbic, wounded comedianne. There is more enjoyment in watching fragments of her routines than there is in the rest of the movie.

Is it worth a watch? It isn't. Do I recommend? I most certainly do not. Would I like to see more Mary Elizabeth Winstead? Without a doubt.

One Day at a Time (ODAAT) is a throwback to the traditional, multi-camera sit-com of of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Indeed, ODAAT is a reboot of the Norman Lear sitcom that debuted in the late 1970s. This reboot, however, is one of the few that may actually improve on the original (in its own way) while adapting to modern times, cultural diversity, and sexual identification politics, all the while, doing so sensitively.

I have seen all three seasons, and each season more-or-less follows the same trajectory. It's corny (like a traditional sit-com), but it has a heart, which is rooted in myth of the perfect-albeit-imperfect nature of progressive family. At the end of the day, everyone sees everyone else's point of view, truth prevails over delusion, and light illuminates the dark. Just like real-life, right? Despite its being rebooted by Netflix, ODAAT remains true to its legacy network sanitized version of reality while still tackling (or at least addressing) real issues of the modern age, such as sexuality identity, teenage sex, teenage drug experimentation, alcoholism, and mental illness. Unlike a traditional sit-com, it doesn't avoid the darkness completely, but rather adroitly finesses the deeper issues without getting lost in them. Like a traditional sit-com, however, it never strays too far into the deep-end. The uncomfortable moments are broken with lapses of levity, and the hard-core flirtations are never more than a couple of minutes, at most, before a resolution surfaces. In this respect, it reminds me of CBS' ground-breaking show, MOM, which brilliantly centers around substance abuse while still finding the lightness and humor of the situation.

The ODAAT reboot adds depth (and also credibility) by giving the focus-family a Cuban-immigrant experience. Would a multi-generational American family still be this close-knit? I haven't seen it, but I can believe it (or at least more easily suspend my disbelief) given the origins of this protagonist unit. ODAAT may be Netflix's best experiment with situational comedy. It's short (22-25 minutes per episode), topical, relevant, somewhat honest, and funny. The characters are endearing in a two-dimensional sit-com manner. All sit-coms, as goodie-two shoes as they are with positive outcomes, love conquering all, and family being the undoubted and unquestioned priority in word and action, are flawed. But ODAAT is as good as it gets. Each season starts corny and slow, drawing the viewer into an arc of deeper drama, and finds its resolution by the end of the season. This formula can no longer work for the legacy networks, but Netflix has found a way to make it work for its platform. Bravo, Netflix. I would easily watch several more-seasons of a show with this much heart that helps me believe in the myth of humanity despite all evidence to the contrary. And isn't that why we watch such shows? To see ourselves but to believe that people can, for once, act in the best interests of the greater good instead of for their own selfish ends? In this regard, ODAAT is a quintessentially American show, ironically, viewed through the lens of first-and-second generation immigrant eyes.

Highly recommended.

Friends from College could have been a wonderful production. It wasn't. All of its promise was wasted on a narrative with no soul. The acting is good and the production values are first-rate, but the character development and the characters' intertwinement are not thought-out. Why are these people friends? What do they have in common? They went to Harvard?!?!? They are all idiots. While I understand that intellectual intelligence does not correlate with emotional intelligence, none of these people can see beyond herself. Not only would these folks not have been friends beyond college, there is no way they would have maintained their so-called friendship two decades later. Those reviewers who complain that they didn't like the characters are, in my estimation, on-point. There was little redeemable about any of them (Marianne is perhaps the exception, but she's also a tangential role and the quirkiest among the bunch). Things happen, but there is no purpose. At the end of the day, it's a stupid show with no point. To some extent, the writers and the creators need to create more exaggerated forms of personalities (and personality disorders) in order to hook us into the premise of a show. There always has to be some suspension of disbelief and once we can get beyond that, the show can unfold. In Dexter, that suspension was that Dexter was a serial killer who worked for the police department and channeled his thirst for killing to adhere to some code. With The Sopranos, that suspension was that a mob boss could have panic attacks and seek counseling. It was the hook. Neither could ever happen, but that premise provided the springboard for our peering into their world and appreciating their stories. In Friends from College, the disbelief is merely that any of these people would be friends, but the view can't get beyond that because that, itself, is the premise of the show. I cannot see any world where these people would be connected. Nothing has brought them together other than Harvard, and each is self-centered and emotionally-challenged. There is nothing else beyond that, so the entire show falls flat.

It is not uncommon for reviewers to complain about unlikable characters. I recall Amazon Prime's Transparent - an excellent show - where many reviewers complained about the characters and their unlikability. That was different. That was a family, and family, by definition, is dysfunctional. There was a point to their personality disorders. There was a reason why these people resurfaced in each others' lives while the events of the show unfolded. It's been a while since I've seen Transparent, and I'm sure there were plot points that I could dispute, but there was a point to the grating personalities depicted and how they dealt with each other, their respective messes, and the events that unfolded in their lives and how those events/challenges/conflicts were addressed. In Friends from College, there is an easy answer: just leave. Have nothing to do with each other. There is no integrity. There is no genuine love or emotion. There is no connection. There is no romance. In a word, this show is written as if six random people were forced to live in a world with each other with virtually nothing in common and no emotional skills to cope with the world, let alone each other.

The best part of Friends from College is that it is a half-hour show (26 minutes, really, per episode), and only eight (8) episodes per season. Very few shows on television - network or streaming - are half-hour productions that require minimal investment to entertain. I saw both seasons, as some reviewers insisted that Season 2 takes off. It doesn't. This show is a waste of time. It could have been something much better. It could have depicted honest characters, with flaws, who love each other but hurt each other through their respective blindspots. Instead, it's just a pointless exercise; a waste of time. It's a shame that the budget, the actors, and the production values were as good as they are because had it been amateurish in feel, I would have bailed before completing both seasons.

Not recommended.

Cobra Kai is a bit of a blast from the past, but that in and of itself doesn't make it good. It's fine, but amateurish. I wonder what the budget for this 10-episode series was, as there is something about YouTube Originals that is cheap. And it shows. The production values aren't top-quality, like they are with the legacy networks, Netflix, or Amazon Prime. The film quality is not as sharp. The effects are lazy. The writing is second-grade. Cobra Kai would have been fantastic had this been a high school production or even, possibly, an undergraduate project for a non-film student, much like the third-party internet-based Star Trek spin-offs are, but for a real show with a real budget, it doesn't compare. So, as of today (19 January 2019), it has an 8.9 rating on IMDB and a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes (which is how I discovered it), these are overstated. It's not quality. It's not even a guilty pleasure. It's just a story. I have certainly seen worse. I wouldn't even necessarily say that I wouldn't watch Season 2, because the episodes pass quickly and the investment is minimal. This is not an ambitious show. The storyline is as simple as it gets; the trajectory of how it unfolds is predictable. It's decent. I'm not upset that I watched it, but it is certainly not a must-see.

YouTube Originals can be - and should be - better than this in every way.

When Heroes Fly has a compelling premise: four soldiers who survived peak combat experience in the 2006 Lebanon War reunite to find a long-lost lover/sister who had been presumed dead for years. The production values, the concept, the ambition are cut from the cloth that Grade A productions are made. The problem lies with its execution, which sometimes is cut from the cloth of Grade C. When Heroes Fly is like dining in an elegant restaurant with crystal stemware, linen tablecloths, but plastic knives, forks, and spoons. The dialogue is clunky, particularly when the characters speak in English (none of the actors is a native English speaker; they hail from Israel or Latin America). The emotional notes and nuance are frequently missed in both words and in plot. And narratively (as in plot), there are several swings and strike-outs that one has to wonder whether these players are professional despite being in a Major League Stadium in prime time. I won't give away any spoilers, but, for example, the emotional miscues could be akin to the Apocalypse's imminent arrival and the response being, "There is a sale on mayonnaise at the supermarket." With respect to the plot failings, I cannot understand why the authors didn't up the ante by making each of the former soldiers gifted with respect to some sort of talent such that their "mission" to save their former lover/sister/friend would be more thought-out. One soldier could have been prodigy with technology; another with survivalist instincts to aid them in their jungle expedition; another with sharp-shooting - the constellation of which would have had them attempt the impossible with a fighting chance, all the while recognizing their underdog status. Instead, narratively, this plays as if the Three Stooges fall ass-backwards into some Deep State cabal and somehow think that they, ill-equipped and clueless, can capture the flag and reign victorious. The narrative, at times, is so sophomoric, I had to question whether I was watching a remake of The Goonies or whether this was some sophisticated production featuring grown men with real-world weighty concerns. To add insult to injury, the cult-component to the story really made little sense, and as it played out, undercut the narrative thrust for the story's denouement. Did the writers even take note? Did they realize that the core of their conflict was hollow?

When Heroes Fly could have been great. It wasn't. It didn't come close. It was fun, because I've been to both Israel and Colombia, and I am intimately acquainted with both cultures. It was the writing that failed. It was the lack of thought into the depth of the characters and what was driving them, as well as the lack of narrative sense to the story that ultimately compromised this production's aspirations.

I don't necessarily recommend or not recommend. I've seen worse and been more bothered by poorer treatment in the past. As I wrote above, this was like going to an elegant restaurant and drinking from paper cups. There was a lot of good. At the same time, it was sloppy, and it wouldn't have taken much to have tightened the story and had it resolve in a meaningful, logical, and emotionally resonant manner. When Heroes Fly had the potential to haunt me after I was finished watching it, thinking about its implications and still shaking from its impact. Instead, my thought was of what to watch next. It could have been a nutritious and delicious meal made from scratch. Instead, it was a frozen TV dinner.

I have been wanting to see Arcadia for some time, and with its recent reappearance on Amazon Prime, I was able to finally view it. I liked it, but it lacked. This is the type of indie-film that could rock one's smaller screen with its understated power and economy of dialogue and action. In movies such as this, the context and the subtext - what is not spoken - is what (could/should) drive the movie. Coming to mind - although it's been a while since I've seen it - is SHORT TERM 12, about a couple who works at a house for at-risk teens. The tone and the ambition of Arcadia seemed to strive for that elegance, but there wasn't much more than met the eye. The primary narrative device of questioning the father's (John Hawkes) motives was thin, instead of rich, and the growing pains and coming of age of Greta (Ryan Simpkins) was described more through plot more than confusion or grappling.

I liked it. There was the possibility of love. Not a must-see and preferable to watch if/when one is in the mood for a contemplative picture (even though this didn't inspire too much contemplation).

Romantic comedies are not supposed to be "realistic". It's the genre. In Pretty Girl, Richard Gere, an uber-rich businessman, falls in love with a prostitute and they end up together. Realistic? Hardly. But everyone wants love to conquer all (and in the Rom Com genre, it does). One of the reviewers here lamented the depiction of Elsa, the female lead, as unlikable and awkward. In spite of her quirks, put-offs, and faux pas, we love her anyway and want her to succeed. That's the genre. Rom Coms are not meant to reinvent the wheel or cover new territory. If we're lucky, they are munchable mind-candy. If we're not, they are an annoying waste of time (we're talking about you, Jennifer Lopez). Most Rom Coms are terrible, sold by the weight of their leads. Throw Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks together (You Got Mail) and as terrible as the script may be, people will watch and extract what little blood can be squeezed from that anemic turnip.

Plan Coeur was delightful. It's nice to have something light and that doesn't require a huge commitment (there are eight (8) twenty-five minute episodes instead of 10-12 one-hour episodes) to invest for the ride. Yes, the story is implausible. Of course, it would never happen in real life, and if it did, everyone would be horrified and there would be no chance of redemption for any of the characters. Real life is not a genre. Romantic comedy is.

There is something honest about genre pieces in foreign languages and foreign settings. It isn't over the top. The characters are more subtle than they otherwise would be in their black-and-white counterparts in American cinema and television. Despite the exaggerated characters, the dialogue and the personalities ring more authentic than, say, 97% of the characters on Californication (or name your US-based Rom Com), even if the scenarios are not grounded in the same. I appreciate the stripped-down versions. Less is phoned-in, and more of the success of the show is based upon the story and the acting instead of the plot. In American Rom Coms, the scenarios often become so exaggerated to compensate for the sheer lack of thought, character development, or structure. This was a show that took its time to tell a simple story about a man and a woman meeting and falling in love under unlikely (improbable/ impossible) circumstances. But, for what it is, it works. I wish there would be more shows like Plan Coeur - fun, easy, endearing, mindless, but developed enough to be worth the while. While I would like to see more of this - in tone and levity - I would understand if there is not a second season. Within the Rom Com genre, there probably isn't anywhere for this story to evolve, unless subsequent seasons became more Sit Com instead of Rom Com.

Zita Hanrot, the actress who plays Elsa, is lovely for the part. Her naivete, honesty, and awkwardness translate without telegraphing. It's a fine line that she walks beautifully without overplaying. I hope to see more of her in the future.

Recommended.

There is a lot to like about Killing Eve, but in the end, it's spread too thin and there just isn't enough to justify what happens (or doesn't) in the story. Some reviewers describe this as a cat-and-mouse game - and to some extent it is - but such a description suggests a taut thriller that keeps one on the edge of one's seat. This does not. Make no mistake: the best part - and the saving grace of the show - is Jodie Comer as Villanelle, the psychopathic killer whom Eve tracks. She steals every scene, with her frightening facial expressions and the intensity of her gaze. While I'm not a Sandra Oh-o-phile, as many here seem to be - I like her, but her character is too straight-laced (as written) to carry the show. She's vanilla . . . the straight-man to Comer's colorful characterizations.

Beneath the thin characterizations, after binge-watching eight episodes in 24 hours, I'm not sure that Ms. Phoebe Waller-Bridge has a idea where this is going. It wasn't difficult to predict where the "twists" were - who was double-crossing whom - and the big reveals felt more like cliches. At the end of the day (which would take us into Season 2 or later), I'm not sure the seeming layers of espionage will amount to much because I think the purpose of narrative devices employed was to shock and "keep us guessing". But those narrative twists were neither shocking nor were they meaningful enough to keep us guessing. Why? Because there was little other than the thin reveal to hold the suggested enormity of the exposure. Ideally, in a show like this, one would constantly be left guessing - who is who and what is what? Are the good guys really bad? Are we rooting for the right team? Is what we think we know really the truth behind what's happening? To the extent that the story builds that tension - constantly keeping us guessing, with multiple possibilities, all supported by the weight of the evidence - that drives us to a thrilling conclusion (or, as is in this case, cliffhanger). Instead, it's a fairly simple narrative with a lot of red herrings that aren't meant for anything other than the simple man's fancy.

The more I watch Ms. Waller-Bridge, the less I enjoy. She's the darling of the so-called alternative mainstream these days, and I find her work rather thin. Fleabag was perhaps her best work, also predictable, but it was only 30 minutes per episode and it was billed as a comedy (not really, though). The hour-long (minus commercial interruptions) format has proven too daunting. She struggles with narrative and she's terrible with character development. Pretty much everyone and everything is the same at the end of Episode 8 as it was at the beginning of Episode 1. Sure, things have happened, but no one has grown. Our sympathies haven't shifted. Our concept of right/wrong, good/bad, right/left is exactly what it was when we first started watching. Season 2 might begin in Croatia or in Bermuda - it really wouldn't matter - and that's all narrative anyway. In these supposed thrillers, the season ideally would have ended with the viewer not having any idea what was what and where this would possibly go. Guess what? It'll just be more of the same. What's more, who cares?

At the end of the day, this show is better off stripping it for parts. The acting and the production values are far better than the narrative concept, and that is the basis for this show's reception. Perhaps it wouldn't be as obvious were one to watch as a weekly serial show. It's good enough mind-candy, I suppose, but it's not nutritious. It doesn't really satisfy. It's a frozen dinner at best, and even it's organic, it still only a $3.99 meal with 450 calories that one pops into the oven when one doesn't feel like making a more elaborate spread. Perhaps I'm being too critical because this show was over-hyped. Had I simply discovered it on my own, I would feel the same, but it wouldn't have been touted to be the next-best and latest-greatest. Yes, it's better than a formula-procedural (like Law and Order, CSI, or NCIS), but those shows are terrible and literally are the same show every god-forsaken week. Clue here, interview there, mix together, put in the oven, and voila - crime solved. The best of the procedurals is a snooze-fest after a handful of episodes because every episode is the same . . . like going to a Chinese restaurant with only one sauce. Chicken, beef, or lamb - at the end of the day, it's more or less the same flavor.

Killing Eve could have been so much more. Is it a waste of time? Sort of. The Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan on Amazon could have - should have - been better, but it was more interesting than this. That, too, suffered from narrative unidimensionality, but it wasn't intended to be a psychological thriller inasmuch as it was an action-based one. In Killing Eve, not much happens, so the dialogue (not tight) and the psychological games needed to carry the show. They were absent. Eight episodes is a long time for nothing to happen and our minds not to be toyed with.

Will I see Season 2? Unlikely.

Dead Like Me grew on me. It didn't take long; the show was barely on television, lasting only two seasons and 29 episodes. Had the show been produced today - fifteen years later - it would look different, have a higher budget, more complex plots, better characterization, undoubtedly more adult content, but it still works. It's a lot like a network show would have been at that time (and exactly the same length, without commercials - about 45 minutes) except for language. It was the beginning of paid-network shows delving into more elaborate ideas. Is it The Sopranos or The Wire or Games of Thrones? It is not. Does it have elaborate characterizations with thoughtfully dissected psychological profiles? Not at all. But it's fun and it works.

One can see the fingerprints of Bryan Fuller. When he left Dead Like Me, he went on to a parallel-theme with Wonderfalls, and the set-ups were similar. At the core was a sarcastic, talented but unmotivated girl who gets thrust into a paranormal-type "extra-worldly" situation and has to deal with the nonsense of that responsibility. Wonderfalls is not as well-done as Dead Like Me, and both shows met similar fates of quick cancellation. Bad news for Fuller: Wonderfalls was on-and-off the air before Dead Like Me was cancelled. The official Showtime statement for canceling Dead Like Me was that it was worried about maintaining quality standards, so DLM was canceled. After seeing both seasons (via Amazon Prime), I do not believe that statement to be credible. There must have been political issues and personality conflicts. Fuller left after five or six episodes - around the same time as Rebecca Gayheart was written out of the show for political reasons. Fuller complained about the network and the difficulty of working with them. Even after his departure, however, the show was as good as ever. While I loved Rebecca Gayheart as Betty, her replacement with Laura Harris as Daisy was an excellent choice and I grew to love her quickly too. She may, in fact, have turned out to be better than Ms. Gayheart. Who's to say? Gayheart barely had enough time to establish her character before she was written out. Suffice it to say that Harris turned out to be much more than a replacement beauty; she made her new character indispensable and a pleasure to watch despite the cliched beginnings with the overwrought references of sexual trysts with famous movie stars of days old. Once the writers moved beyond that, the chemistry between her and Mason was fun and flirtatious. She was damaged and had a heart. In fact, ultimately, her character may have been the most developed of all by the time the second season concluded. Had the show been produced today, I believe that the mother, the father, and the sister's characters would have been more developed. In this concept, they were merely placeholders, and that was an opportunity missed.

I'm not sure where the show may have gone had Showtime not abruptly canceled it. It certainly could have managed a third season without getting tired. Without a deeper mythology or development of Reapers' post-life-mission, it would have been difficult to keep this series afloat indefinitely. Maybe that's what Showtime meant? Still, its death was premature. I liked the characters and I was sorry to see it go so soon (even though I discovered it fifteen years after its first airing).

The follow-up movie Dead Like Me: Life After Death, however, was one step better than awful. It's a hard miss.

I enjoyed the series so very much. All of the charm, chemistry, quirkiness of the series was absent from the movie. It was poorly written. The characters were so much more shallow and simpler than the show. I suspect this is because the movie also attempted to appeal to those who had no prior exposure to the series or the storyline. So part of the movie backtracked to explain how reaping works and to establish the relationships among the characters. The sets were so much more elaborate. HappyTime - a temp agency - looked like Google, encased in glass, super hi-tech, on the top floors of a downtown building with spectacular views, and real office space. While the movie brought back many of the original characters (save, as everyone points out, Rube . . . . and, yes, the new Daisy is as bad as everyone reports), it did nothing with them. Everything about the movie was mediocre at best, and the writing was worse. In one online comment, someone wrote, "The best thing about the movie was how attractive Reggie had become". I get that. Britt McKillip had blossomed into a beautiful woman by the time the movie was released, but even her character in the movie - and the culmination of her struggles - were so superficially addressed that it was hardly a joy to watch her scenes.

This movie reminded me of the 1989 TV movie called "Get Smart, Again!", based upon the 1965-1970 series of Get Smart. Unlike Dead Like Me: Life After Death, it was a TV movie (when networks still produced them) with commercial breaks, and more than anything, it was a reunion of as many of the original cast members as they could find (and were still living) without there being much of a plot. Over half of the movie was spent assembling the "team" together, thereby reintroducing the characters to those who may not have seen the original show. I can understand that, but just like this movie, it's a waste of time. There is nothing meaningful about the reintroductions; it takes a lot of time; if unfamiliar with the original, it does not endear us to the show or the characters nor does it inspire us to go back and watch the series. So, at the end of the day, what's the point?

The one thing that this slightly-better-than-terrible movie did was provide closure to fans of the show after its abrupt cancellation. It was an uninspired, largely waste-of-time, with idiotic "upgrades" and "workarounds" for actors who could not participate. It went straight to video, never airing on Showtime or any other network, so before the power of streaming services, one would have had to rent it from Blockbuster or a now mostly extinct video store concept.

Is it a waste of time? It is. Does it add anything to the show? It does not. Does it ruin the show? No, but one's life won't be any less fulfilled not having seen this 95 minute poor excuse of a movie.

I only recently started watching Fresh Off The Boat on Freeform, as I have spent some time in Asia and wanted to see how a comedy from an Asian perspective might be portrayed. Given it is on ABC and it's on Friday nights, I feared it would be too sanitized (it is) and narratively-challenged (it is, sort-of, as well). Most of the comedies today - particularly on ABC - follow a formula these days, without much narrative structure or character development, and to a great extent (Modern Family is a notable exception), FOTB suffers from these shortcomings as well. That said, given its take on the Asian-American family experience, it relies on Asian-American stereotyping (in a good way), and is thus not as plot-driven or character-driven. The one character who holds the show together, without exception, is Constance Wu's portrayal of the wife and mother, Jessica Wang. She's a helicopter parent, Type A (for anal), achievement-oriented mother who plays these Asian stereotypes as a First Generation Chinese mother might. And it's funny. I find it a bit reductive, at times, but it's done intentionally - to exaggerate the cultural differences (and biases) and because of this, there doesn't really need to be deep character development or well-thought out plots. Sibling rivalries, cultural clashes, success and status issues speak for themselves - we can all identify with them - and immediately we can appreciate the Asian/Chinese-American perspective, competitiveness, and pride. This alleviates the anemic plots and weak characters and emphasizes the culture, which apparently is what is intended. I've only watched some of Season 1 and part of Season 2 (what's available on Freeform currently), and although I know the show is currently in its fifth season, I'll be interested to see how the writers continue with this thread without more substantial development. Constance Wu, at least in the beginning, is the glue. The kids are like just like any other American kid, with quirks and desires that any child with any ethnic background could have. The three children could be African-American, Italian-American, Puerto Rican, Jewish, or Bosnian. There's a slacker, a poet romantic, and a scientist. Nothing terribly Chinese, necessarily, about any of them. And the father is a dorky father type who doesn't push the Asian card much either. Everyone, rather, goes along with the mother, Jessica's (Constance Wu), direction. The writers truly write for her character, her bias, her achievement mentality, her strictness, and everyone else in the family is pretty much like any other person in a similar position in any other family. But it works. It's fun. Its different. It's fresh. And I do find myself laughing out loud sometimes. Could this have been done more intelligently on HBO or Netflix? You bet. It's too Windex and whitewashed. No real issues of fitting in or acceptance are addressed. It's not a true or accurate reflection of the Chinese-American experience, but I don't think it portends to be. Rather, it's just a basic ABC comedy with Chinese characters, bring that perspective to mainstream television. While I wish comedies on network television were better (particularly ABC, which is so far behind the curve compared to NBC and CBS), given this unique orientation, it's a breath of fresh air for now. It could get stale in the later seasons, but a third of the way into Season 2, it's still fun. Recommended for something different.

I didn't mind the pace. In fact, I quite enjoyed it. I liked the characters. I enjoyed the production values despite that one could tell that the budget was fairly modest. My issue with Lodge 49 is that it portended to have a depth that was not forthcoming. There are "alchemic" elements to the Lodge's mythology, and while there were several allusions during the course of the ten-episode season to mysteries and secrets suggesting an origin far more profound than a drinking lodge, those elements were poorly devised and not entrenched in a well-thought out narrative. Periodically, a character would talk about the "Real lodge" or something alchemic, but other than some gross nods in that direction and some forced threads that tied together, I am not confident that there is more to that aspect of the show (or more that was already devised as subtext for the show before it was written) than what was revealed. It felt like throwing crumbs to the pigeons. We, as the audience, are pushed to believe that there is something deeper and mystical going on, but the story as it unfolds is mostly carried by the meandering and laid-back tone. And I liked it. But after ten hours of watching, I'm not sure it paid off. If there were more grounding mythology and if the writers really knew where they were going with these mythical and mystical elements, the show would have been so much better. Instead, it's a character study - which in theory is great - except that a lot of quirky characters appear who have nothing to offer other than their quirk. How does it all fit together? It doesn't. If there were deeper analogues, the audience would be able to make parallels - right or wrong - and debate the meanings and the purpose. I just didn't see it here. Don't get me wrong: I liked it. But I think it's a lot more superficial than it hoped to be. It reminded me of a book I read almost thirty years ago called The Tao of Physics. From the title, I expected the author to fuse and inform spirituality and science. Instead, it was 99% science with a paragraph or two at the end of each chapter bringing in some spiritual themes generically. The dryness of the writing and the topics betrayed the brilliance of the book's title. Here, I felt it was kind of the same thing: it wanted to have more, but the "more" was plot-driven, not thematic. Movies like (the first) Matrix or HBO's Westworld (Season 1) are modern day parables about life, God, spirituality, purpose, and place. After ten episodes of Lodge 49 (watched over three days), there is nothing to talk about. That speaks volumes. Lodge 49 poses more than delivers. Not satisfied. Not unsatisfied.

I'd consider watching Season 2, but if the writers don't up their game or have any idea what the foundation of this story really is (re: the Lodge and its origin myths), then Season 2 will fall apart pretty quickly.

Great tone; compromised execution of an underdeveloped concept.