Without outlining the the story - presuming you've read the other reviews or watched the episode - it's clear that this story contains two smaller episodes. Both are interesting, but ultimately also not really thought out.
The first half of the episode is about a scientist trying to prevent historical moments which had horrific consequences for thousands - and in one case millions - human beings. This part of the episode has many plot holes, nicely outlined by one of the reviewers here. This dark side of the coin is accompanied by a brighter side, however, because this episode leaves room for a debate for the historians about 'how the could change history if you could go back in time'. I have my own thoughts, for instance, for how Nazism was 'born', but the other might hold on to a whole other theory about the same subject.
The second have of the episode has a whole other kind of pacing: its slower, it has more eye for details, and it develops a romantic story, which is executed very well. However, one small segment annoyed me very much: why untying the horses if the character KNOWS the lantern at the back is the cause of the fire? WHY NOT JUST GRAB THE LATERN? When I saw this for the first time, I just had to pause the video, close my eyes for a moment, and get ready for the unthoughtful writing of the story. So this latter half has also a dualistic nature: its story is a very good concept to work on - stating that destiny is inevitable - but its told in a very unthoughtful way.
It's not a bad or good episode; its somewhere in the middle...perhaps in the twilight zone? ;)
The first half of the episode is about a scientist trying to prevent historical moments which had horrific consequences for thousands - and in one case millions - human beings. This part of the episode has many plot holes, nicely outlined by one of the reviewers here. This dark side of the coin is accompanied by a brighter side, however, because this episode leaves room for a debate for the historians about 'how the could change history if you could go back in time'. I have my own thoughts, for instance, for how Nazism was 'born', but the other might hold on to a whole other theory about the same subject.
The second have of the episode has a whole other kind of pacing: its slower, it has more eye for details, and it develops a romantic story, which is executed very well. However, one small segment annoyed me very much: why untying the horses if the character KNOWS the lantern at the back is the cause of the fire? WHY NOT JUST GRAB THE LATERN? When I saw this for the first time, I just had to pause the video, close my eyes for a moment, and get ready for the unthoughtful writing of the story. So this latter half has also a dualistic nature: its story is a very good concept to work on - stating that destiny is inevitable - but its told in a very unthoughtful way.
It's not a bad or good episode; its somewhere in the middle...perhaps in the twilight zone? ;)