วีดีโอ

I felt the same when he was in the car with Lazslo AND when he out the truck 🛻 at the house! I had to pause the show and take a walk into the kitchen. If you are going to give me implausible, then give me FULL on implausible. Throw in magic and teleportation! 😆

Thanks Mike. I wouldn't watch it unless you gave it props

Both the writer/showrunner , Graham Yost and the director Michael Dinner created one banger of a 2nd season opener. My only complaint with it is that some of the Silo 17 interior scenes, could have used less ambient lighting or (failing that) have been key lit at a different level and angles so the episode's visual storytelling was clearer. I had to re-watch several scenes like the one where it looked as though Juliette's rope was cut so that they better visually registered .

I just finished watching the first five episodes, and I'm enjoying it. The twist at the end of episode 5, with the Jackal being captured by someone, is NOT in the book or previous movies--so this is breaking new ground. Maybe this new narrative will justify the additional episodes. What would be beyond awful is if the Jackal has to rely on his wife in Spain to pay money for his freedom from his captors; while alluding the police. More likely "Zina" who hired the Jackal to kill "UDC" will come to his rescue. But, like most super-wealthy manipulators, Zina and her boss only want the Jackal to carry out the hit--then they will probably want him dead. To avoid anyone being able to connect them to the crime. The biggest mystery for me at this point is "will" the Jackal succeed in killing UDC? Neither side of the Super-wealthy "teams" are sympathetic. Maybe there ARE five more episodes worth of story to tell.

I thoroughly enjoyed it too. I appreciate how the flashbacks of Juliet’s childhood both magnified our understanding of her current circumstance and her character.

Good review. Other sites & fans have complained about this S2 premiere episode having so little action--and felt that there should have been a two-episode premiere. I felt that way, too. But, now I can also see your perspective about the little things that we could have zoned-in on and derived more satisfaction from. Now, about this episode. First, the very opening scene with the boy (Tim) running through the darkness with a fire torch illuminating his way. Tim is a Messenger to the others in silo--bringing them a message that leads to their deaths. Which may be one of the on-going themes of the series: knowledge CAN be dangerous and lead to destruction. And, yes, there is also a Prometheus element to Tim-the-Fire-Bringer. OK, enough of my "book report." Regarding the flashbacks, I see them as being essential to this episode, because these flashbacks remind us that Juliette is a problem-solver, going back to when she was a girl fixing & creating things from scrap. Which is what she does so effectively in the new silo. Otherwise, viewers would complain that it's unrealistic for Juliette to be able to figure out ways to overcome the challenges she faces in the new silo, by building things like the bridge; after the swing-rope failed. Note: some people are speculating that the rope was cut. Rewatch the scene after she climbed out of the water and is looking at the rope--the break is "even" and suggests it was cut. Is there someone (the man behind the door, or someone else) who has been watching Juliette? FYI, Juliette's original silo is #18, and the new silo--which is right next to #18--is silo #17.

I had a fairly negative reaction to this episode, and that's uncharacteristic of me. It wasn't the lack of forward plot momentum, since I'm not the kind of viewer who needs answers to all questions immediately. Some of it stems from just how dark (lighting-wise) it was and how much I struggled to figure out WTF was going on. Some of it could be that the episode starts off with people I've never seen before and don't care about (but I'm usually a more sophisticated viewer than that). And some of it could be that I was having a mood and didn't realize it. On paper, those scenes of Juliette engineering her way through the silo (pun intended) represent good writing, acting and narrative pacing. But the practical effect didn't hit that way at all for me. I didn't feel any of the tension you described. There were too many of those scenes, and I got frustrated after about 2 of the montages (they weren't technically montages, but you know what I mean). Now that I've heard your reaction, I'm gonna watch it again and see if my opinion changes. I LOVED the first season, so I really want this to work.

Ive been waiting to use my free three months for apple tv for this show.

I read the book. I only watched the first episode of the series so far. I didn't think the first episode was bad, but I think they screwed up by having Kirsten spend so much time with Jeevan. In the book, it's not like that. And I think the show suffers as a result, because you can't stop thinking "Where the hell are her parents?". The writers make a point of acknowledging how weird the situation is, but it's a situation *they* created. It's not in the book. It's a small point, going forward, but it's still an unforced error, IMO.

So sad about Harper's brother being a drug addict and how Harper who is supposed to know human nature, couldn't even figure out her twin brother. One can learn athletic skills and improve what's already there. The brother is broken and mentally weak. And one cannot learn or be taught mental strength. You're either born with it or you're not. And he doesn't have it and never will.

Definitely not a great show had to mute the narration On to bad sisters!!

It really was the only thing that made sense for them casting that kid as Tyler, the child of two of the most Nordic looking actors in the cast.

The development of the story wanted you to feel exactly like her husband did. Almost finding it easier to feel being raped was better than her being a couger. I mean think about it, as you watch the show you're like "what the hell". I think people are expecting way too much to button up issues that did not make sense to them.

Great recaps as always! Did you watch the Matt Reeves The Batman movie? If not, (or even if you did it was way too long) that may be why you feel the The Handman plot line was unresolved. In the movie there was a Carmine Falcone/Selina Kyle subplot that introduced and ultimately resolved The Handman story. He is killed in the film which sets The Penguin in motion. (spoilers I guess) so show serves to give a bit more background on how messed up Carmine blaming him own daughter and the chaos that ensues in Gotham as a result

Show has plenty of flaws, some storytelling issues. But filmmaking, premise, atmosphere, and acting were top notch so kept me hooked.

This finale elevated the whole series from me. It delivered surprising moments that functioned on a plot and character level. Oz killing Vic was both shocking and inevitable given his character and arc. How could a man capable of killing his own brothers as a child (!), someone who’s shown himself capable of loving only his mother, do anything less than cut another emotional tether hanging in his path? My only complaint is the pacing and, in agreement with you, some of the dialogue in the therapy session torture scene with Sofia, and the weak character Julian (how is he back at Arkham at the end?) The moment with Oz and his mother seems to tie to the title and the poem for which it came. Love causes transformation and corruption. Horribly great and consequential things stemmed from little things (Oz locking the door on his brothers to have his mothers love all to himself; Vic not getting on the bus with his girl to have a better life in Gotham, etc.) reverberated with irony throughout this final episode. I don’t hold up your comments in the last video as short-sighted but maybe your criticism reflected a desire for a plot twist that the show wasn’t trying to present. Killing Francis would have not only been a predictable plot choice but a flat one in terms of characterization. It would have left Oz with no real motivation other than to kill Sofia. Oz wanted power for his mother as much as himself. He also wanted to prove that killing his brothers was not in vein. His mother had to be alive for that. Plus killing Francis would have robbed us of that sick scene at the end when Penguin dresses Eve up as his mom and pays her to play the part while Francis lies comatose in the other room (broken promise or punishment?) I don’t want a S2. After Oz killed Vic I was ready for Oz to die.

Man, that scene with Vic was dark as hell. Your reviews are great! Thanks Mike!

This movie actually hits harder if you finish the series first, which I did. I found out about it after the finale. I think it wouldn't have been as impactful if i had seen it in chronological order.

That was a great finale. The acting on this show was phenomenal, which is why I'm overlooking some of the narrative flaws. Colin Farrell is rightfully getting a lot of attention, but Cristin Milioti was incredible. She had to display a range of extreme emotions and nailed every one. Still think episode 4 may be one of the best episodes of TV ... ever. Did I hear you say "mediocre to shitty videos?" Silly Mike. It's actually pronounced "insightful to deep." At first, I chalked it up to differences in regional dialects - I am Southern, after all - but then I realized you are just RIDICULOUS!! :)

After this episode...I need Batman to rake Penguin across the eyes with his forearm blades and blind him. I need the Penguin to get a hellacious Batman beatdown. I'm mad at the showrunners too...Vic could have done a plethora of things at the showdown or heading towards the final meet-up. The Penguin can be evil or dastardly...but he didn't need to kill Vic.

Man, this review didn’t age well. You definitely missed a couple things. This Penguin series of off the chain.

I *think* you'll be pleased with the finale - with some caveats (that I can already guess!).

A lot of this was ridiculous. In the first episode you could see something was off as in her POV Nancy was going out of her way to paint Sasha as a “slut”. That was basically Jonathan’s nickname for her and she was presented as sexually experienced and even promiscuous and Jonathan as inexperienced but going along for the ride. You did see hints of his selfishness with the scene in the train (his yanking the blanket away) and the gondola ride (his arguing with the gondolier and rocking the boat) which suggests Nancy knew her son had issues but was minimizing them. Clearly something happened between Jonathan and Sasha that caused her to flee Italy but they never explain it. Also, the way Stephen is able to flawlessly manipulate this wealthy family based on nothing but a few photographs strains credulity. The whole thing is very implausible.

All the hospital stuff was just so corny…. Really seemed ridiculous…

Mother of the year.

I think you completely missed out the point of the show. Years ago, I saw the film Billy Eliot about the boy dancing ballet. All through out the film we see him interested in taking ballet classes with the girls and we suspect he might be gay. But towards the end his childhood friend plucks up the courage and kisses Billy on the lips. But Billy says he's not really gay and he doesn't share these feelings. Of course as audience we are left with the notion that Billy is not actually gay because of that specific scene. Later on we see Billy growing up and becoming a famous grown up ballet dancer after he had moved from his small village to the big city (possibly to London). Now years later after I've seen the film, being gay myself, I felt a little bit disappointed that Billy was not gay. I kinda wanted him to be gay because that would have given a "stamp of authenticity" to his interest in ballet and dancing. Years passed after watching the film and I was speaking to another good gay friend of mine about Billy Eliot. I mentioned that I liked the film but that I felt disappointed Billy turns out not to be gay in the end. At which my friend responded: "Well, I think he IS". Which brings me to my point. The fact that Billy didn't return feelings for his childhood friend and practically rejected him doesn't make his necessarily not gay. That scene only showed that Billy is not tuned on by this specific friend and the he didn't share those feelings for him. That was a moment of realisation for me about how to watch films and TV in general. What we see on the screen happening between the characters is merely what we see externally. But that doesn't make it necessarily the truth. And the same goes for Disclaimer. Yes in the end we are told in that last episode that Catherine was raped by Jonathan and that there's another side to the story. Steven, being Jonathan's father, confirms in the end this is what indeed happened because we assumes he knows his son and what he's capable of. But if we zoom out from the show for moment. As a viewer, do we actually know which of the two narratives happened? No. Did Catherine tempt Jonathan into her room and indulge in a romantic and sexual affair? Could be yes and could be no. Was she brutally raped by Jonathan? Could be yes and could be no. The point is we don't really know what happened. Even after the last episode. It's left for our interpretation. Hollywood franchises like Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones and Harry Potter have made us all used to the idea that everything needs to be explained in the end. Everything needs to have a reason. Everything needs to be resolved. The idea of "resolution" in plot is problematic because Art is fascinating because of the 'unknown' the 'unexplained'. Reveal who's the killer in the beginning of a whodunnit and you haven't got a plot anymore. Disclaimer rejects this Hollywood approach. Yes it seemingly shows us the other narrative in the end, of what actually happened. But are we absolutely certain this second narrative is the correct one? We don't know. Has Catherine been raped? We don't know. Even after that last episode. And that's why I think Cate Blanchette's portrayal was spot on. She said she was raped but I also felt it through her acting that she might be lying to us. That she was acting that she's acting it. Ultimately each viewer will decide which version happened and maybe it's something else completely that actually happened but the fact of the matter is only 3 people were present in that hotel scene in Italy - Jonathan, Nicholas and Catherine. Jonathan is dead, Nicholas as 4 year old doesn't remember anything and Catherine. So she's the only who knows inside out. So we, the audience, can't really know what is the truth.

So many questions...Why didn't she give Robert more detail about what Steven was going to do to their son in her message? Why didn't she make that call the second she came to? Or call the hospital when Robert didn't answer. Even stranger, why did Johnathan of all people rush in to save baby Nick? Surely the moment they all returned safely to shore she would have him arrested, right? What was the character's motivation because it's made clear he's not a good person, even according to his own father. Also, why did Johnathan's parents keep saying "she" let him drown as if they somehow knew she was watching him struggle with all of the commotion on the beach? And so It turns out baby Nick was in one of the photos but he doesn't remember anything, so why did he hate his mom?

It was not believable after everything..

Robert was an idiot.

The reason Nancy wrote the book because she blames Cathrine for her son dying. She couldn’t believe her son was a bad person.

It was good tho. Mess, narration and all

Wholeheartedly agree. They were pushing the one side so hard that I was almost preparing for her story to indeed be a lie at the very very end (something Shyamalan might’ve done)

I agree with you 100% i was think all these points you made it was messy

I was anxiously awaiting your review on this episode! As I was watching the episode, I thought about some of your complaints and how some of them were addressed.

So much not being discussed here. This was a crazy episode.

I had a feeling this was going to drag out. Now im just listening to reviews. Maybe this is what happens when a filmmaker tries their hand at TV... they just don't understand pacing and audience buy-in due to the extended format.

In the book she keeps saying it’s not true

I think this show is being intentional in its methods of portraying events. I think the book is intentional and so is Curon. Its shows from different perspectives with doubt on how the events actually were portrayed. However the execution is up for debate, I myself dont like some of the choices here. But I love the filmmaking, vibes, and the acting.

What worries me is that the showrunners are not saying anything about why Sasha left Italy, I'm afraid that the reason may be related in some way with Catherine's story. I really hope Catherine's version doesn't exonerate her from any guilt. If that happens it would be awful and frustrating.

I’ve been looking forward to hearing your take on the series. Still haven’t watched ep 6 but watching ep 5 I thought the IG friendship seemed unrealistic. I’m hoping some clarification about Stephen’s version of the story comes out. After being late to watch Midnight Mass a couple weeks ago and now this. I’ve definitely gotten a new appreciation for perspective

I like this show. But I have to chuckle every time I hear narration after your last review. Off topic, have you watched the Gentlemen? I don't see reviews but feel like you must have

The kitchen scene with Sal and Sofia was excellent; both are the best actors in the series.

Agreed about Julian. It's like he wandered over from another movie and just happens to know Sofia Gigante.

I agree with all this EXCEPT that joke was fire 🔥😂

Came here instead of finishing the episode. Saw about 3/4 of episode - just wasn’t totally engaged.

Yayy! I commented on your FB page yesterday, and I'm happy the review is up. This series is getting better and better. I'm definitely enjoying the ride.

Gotta continue disclaimer

The bar scene was my fav of these 3 eps

This was an excellent review, and I enjoy your passion. I bought the complete series on Blu-ray a year ago, but, haven't started it yet, but your enthusiasm makes me want to now. personally, I prefer foreign language films over English speaking ones, so, it's nice to see that you embrace them too, rather that avoid, like a lot do. I concur, 'The Leftovers' is phenomenal.

love your videos! have you ever considered doing film reviews?