Reviews

There was enough Beauty to the Art Direction and CGI to keep me watching. Fantastic other worlds, spaceships an action pieces. My only objection to the effects is that I thought the ultra slow motion was overdone. On the other hand, the audio in 5.1 surround is outstanding.

I thought "taming the bird" was pretty cool, but the nasty Spider Woman fight was a fail. If the warrior had flaming hot blades at her disposal why did she wait so late to heat 'em up? Oops, sorry for bringing logic into the review. If I attacked all the logic flaws, my review would be 6000, words rather than 600.

The script and dialogue are unimaginative, and embarrassingly bad. The good guys may be decent Warriors but they their motivations are consistently ludicrous, and they can't read a room.

I don't expect any improvements in part two because I'm certain that the script was written and in the can for both parts. But who knows? It starts streaming today so I'll give it a watch.

If you come to "Fallout," as I did, not knowing the games, you might want to Google the backstory. Otherwise you're sure to be puzzled.

The first scene of the show occurs in the year 2077, however, the furniture, clothing, hair styles and electronics are totally1950s era. The only thing out of place is a fleeting glance at a robot. It says to the lady of the house: "Ready to be of service, madam."

The explanation? We are viewing an American /Earth alternate universe. Apparently the fear of nuclear war, which gripped our America after WW2, was so extreme that it's stunted this America's social & technological growth. In many ways, leaving America style-stuck in the fifties.

The stunted technological growth has prevented the invention of the transistor and circuit boards. That's why radios, TVs and such are all still dependent on Tube Technology.

And so it seems, from the building fear of Nuclear war in the 1950's, up to the first scene of this show, in 2077, America's industry have focused their efforts on building elaborate life-sustaining vaults. These are designed to house Americans underground. Thus keeping an elite segment of the population safe from nuclear war FALLOUT.

That is a clever premise indeed. Making this dystopian universe unlike most others. Frankly I had grown a bit tired of shows exploring apocalyptic and dystopian worlds. Especially the ones which are midnight-dark and depressing. Happily, that's not the case with Fallout. While some scenes are genuinely terrifying, there are more than enough scenes which treat us to intelligent and logically placed comedy.

Another factor which lightens the brooding atmosphere is the (song) music which is appropriate to the action and interspersed throughout each episode. Mostly vocal selections from the 40s and 50s.

The incidental music is composed by Game of Thrones genius Ramin Djawadi. It's excellent. And if you normally skip the end titles, don't. The graphics are different for each ending and they are accompanied by beautuful Djawadi compositions.

While Fallout may not be the greatest science fiction episodic series, it's among the best. It's original enough not to be hackneyed. The acting is solid, the CGI is excellent, the scripts are good and this all provides for some terrific sci-fi entertainment.

The full four seasons of The Tudors is a cinematic beauty to behold. It's entertaining and fun to watch, start to finish. For the sake of this review, and throughout my watching of this program, I ignored my knowledge of the true history of Henry VIII's Reign. To be kind, this series is historical fiction, based on actual historic events. Sometimes accurately, but most times not.

The reason I Love Game of Thrones so much is that the writers could create any narrative at all. And therefore the audience can never cringe and say, that never happened or that never happened that way.

As it stands, The Tudors is a wonderful entertainment. It's a costume drama, and Oh, the costumes. Brilliant in design and detail. They deserved the several Emmys which they were awarded. They are often stunning and always beautiful. I had no trouble forgiving the liberties they took with the actual clothes of the day.

The sets and set decorations are fantastic as are the performances turned in by all but one of the cast. I felt the Catherine Howard's character was played, or was directed to be played, annoyingly over the top. In fairness to the actress and the direction, everything from the moment Catherine Howard is arrested through her execution is suspenseful, and well played. It's just all her earlier fluttering, twitching and gyrating (which was designed to show her lack of intelligence and extreme youth) which I found so annoying.

A final note, an observation more than a criticism. I seriously doubt the English Court of that, or any time, had so many physically beautiful people gracing the Halls. (And every one with perfect teeth.) The show chose to keep all the characters youthful appearance until the very end. Even though the events of this last episode happened a mere two years after the events of the preceding episode. In S4, E10, the characters are finally shown with aged makeup. But even that is flattering. I doubt, however, any amount of conventional makeup could have distressed Henry Cavill's stunningly handsome face. No prosthetics for him. And no fat suit and fat face prosthetics for Jonathan Rhys Meyer's Henry VIII.

In the series, Henry VIII accurately suffered from a decades-long leg infection, but his later-life obesity was not portrayed. The commission of the now famous real portrait of the overweight monarch is depicted in the last episode. In the drama, the painting is true to the costume, but the face is that of Myers. It reflects the makeup aging of the actor. Looking not at all like the portrait we know so well. The TV monarch is disappointed and furious with the artist. He demands the portrait be redone, and that his appearance be shown more youthful. Of course the king's wishe is granted. The reimagining of this simple event is simply ludicrous. However, I pardon the creators, understanding this show is historical fantasy not fact. And a lot of fun to boot.

I gleefully whizzed through Vikings seasons 1 through 4. All the episodes were so well written, the drama so involving, the characters, all fascinating.

Seasons 5 and 6, by contrast we're a muddy slog to get through. The final two seasons were not nearly as well designed and the writing was not up to par with seasons 1 through 4.

I think Michael Hirst knew that with Ragnar dying and Travis Fimmel leaving the show there would be a star power void. But not just star power. The Ragnar character is highly charismatic, mercurial and fascinating to watch. Travis Fimmel made you root for the character even when he was at his darkest. I can imagine Michael Hirst may have thought that by adding Jonathan Rhys Meyers (from Hirst's Tudors) he would fill that void. But he destroyed a good idea by writing a character for Myers which was anything but charismatic. In fact, Bishop Heahmund is so despicable there's no chance to root for him or grieve his passing.

The first four seasons had enough solid history working for them that the characters and events rang true. The final two seasons tossed history in the bin in favor of reinvention loosely based on little of anything historically sound.

What had been straightforward storytelling in the first four seasons devolved into a drug-induced overuse of hallucinations tell the story. It was difficult to determine if events had actually happened or were being imagined.

Then there were the odd disruptions of major battle scenes being intercut with character backstories and monologues.

The antagonist or villain is by nature evil and malicious. But even the worst of villains have qualities which draw the audience to them in some positive way. Ivar the Boneless was an interesting character until season 5. He was fun to watch until he wasn't. He became so despicable and the actors performance was so repugnant that his Ivor ceased being interesting and I just wanted him dead.

And finally, I found 3/4 of the Floki story, introduced in season 5, to be deadly dull and depressing. At least the return to Iceland to sort out the mystery of Floki's disappearance and to find out more about the Mysterious Golden Land was more interesting than everything which came before it.

I give 6 stars for the movie itself, BUT 10 STARS for the 2022 Blu-ray 4K Restoration. The word restoration means to restore the picture and sound quality of a film to its original condition. What the artists and craftsman have accomplished in this film is something much more. This version is MORE pristine and beautiful to look at than it was when first shown in theaters.

1. GONE COMPLETELY are the 2 distracting vertical lines where the three CINERAMA panels meet when projected on the giant curved theater screen or when transferred to video in all previous efforts.

2. The 60 year old original film elements had not aged well suffering water damage, film shrinkage, warping and color fading and flicker. All of these problems, and so much more, have been eliminated through pains taking manual and digital restoration. When those big problems were solved the restoration revealed other picture flaws which would have been apparent to audiences when it was first presented. Through the magic of digital and AI capabilities, every one of those flaws has been tackled and are gone.

3. The contrast and color have been meticulously remastered to create a better than original Technicolor palette which is gorgeous to look at.

4. There is no Speck of dirt, no variation in density across the three panels, no flicker, and the distortions, ocassionally caused by the extreme wide angle, have been tackled and improved significantly.

5. The original Seven Channel stereo sound has been meticulously remixed for 5.1 presentation. It is without distortion and absolutely wonderful.

Restoring older films has become quite a welcome art supported by the film community and fans alike. But restoring a Cinerama film is three times as challenging than a film shot with a single camera. CINERAMA was shot with three cameras resulting in three rolls of film which were edited then projected onto a large curved screen from three separate projection boots in custom built or converted theaters. CINERAMA was a popular and financially successful novelty from its invention in the early 50s, and ending in the 60s with the only two films which attempted a traditional movie story rather than a travelogue approach. Those 2 films are How the West Was Won, and this movie, The Wonderful World of The Brothers Grimm.

The film restoration is wonderful and those IMDb reviewers who cherish the film should purchase it immediately.

I love movies and have always been fascinated with the technical aspects of exhibition of every kind. As such I was fascinated to see this film's restoration. And, I marveled at every frame start to finish. However, I've never been a fan of the movie itself. The biggest thing to recommend it for me is the fact that George Pal created the fairy tale segments with his famous stop motion photography. Pal is a giant in history of movie special effects and stop frame animation. His War of the Worlds from 1953 is an all-time favorite of mine.

Unfortunately for me, this movie is not his best effort nor is it a very good film. The stop motion aspects are well done and the several flaws that existed in the original production have been eliminated in this restoration. But the live action story of the Grimm Brothers is deadly dull to the point of tedium. If it weren't for the gorgeous Landscapes and historical Interiors and Exteriors, there would be nothing to recommend it. The story itself is poorly written acted and paced.

The three fairy tales are best when they exploit the Cinerama experience. I know this will sound as blaspheme to those who love this film, but I believe it could be greatly improved if cut from 2 hours 20 minutes down to 90 minutes. I'm thankful for the chapter stops on the Blu-ray which enable me to skip through the most boring bits.

The Netflix series, Ripley, might be appreciated more by those unfamiliar with the 1999 Matt Damon film, The Talented Mr. Ripley. Both are adaptations of Patricia Highsmith's novel. Frankly, I like both versions. However, Some may enjoy this production more without knowing the story in advance.

The characters' ages in this version are more in line with the book, and the performances are solid. Dakota Fanning's performance was ok, but I couldn't help but wonder if another actress might have brought more to the role.

This new 8-episode series is a more faithful adaptation of the novel. It captures the psychological thriller essence of the novel, delving deeper into the moral ambiguity of Tom Ripley's psyche. In addition, the Italian locations chosen here create a feel closer to the novel than in the 1999 movie. So does "the look" of this production, thanks to the choice of Cinematographer Robert Elswit. He has created a gorgeous black-and-white masterpiece. Like any painting, photography is all about the lighting. It's no coincidence that this production exhibits the same strong artistic qualities as the Caravaggio paintings that Greenleaf and then Ripley become obsessed with.

I really enjoyed all eight episodes, but I believe it would have been even better if the footage had been cut down to a seven-episode series. In other words, I think some tightening would have improved it. I suspect the creators were as impressed by the cinematography as I was, making it difficult to trim it down. I believe tighter editing would have increased the tension and suspense, which are already intense in several scenes. I also appreciated the dark humor injected occasionally. It's very Hitchcockian.

I've been watching Chicago Fire on a slow binge, several shows each week. In general I find the show highly entertaining with only a few complaints. Season 5, episodes 13 and 14 pushed me to make this complaint: If this show is to be believed, only Station 51 is staffed with competent to outstanding firefighters. They have wide-ranging personalities, and of course, occasional internal conflicts. The 51 crew is an intelligent and personable group of likeable professionals. By contrast, this show would have you believe that every other fire station in Chicago is staffed with dummies, abrasive egomaniacs, abusive and unprofessional firefighters. Five Seasons in, and every interaction between Station 51 and any other Chicago Fire Station tells stories of a Chicago Fire Department where every station is a disfuncrional hole of negativity with only Station 51 towering above all the others... in every way.

And the stories which have Station 51 personell interacting with Chicago Fire Department Management always depict the top brass as being hostile or incompetent and inferior to the personnel at Station 51.

I wonder what the real life Chicago Fire Department thinks of this show?

I'm a huge fan of Chicago PD having recently binged the entire show start to finish. Chicago PD led me to watch Chicago Fire. (Same producers) So I figured it would be the same high quality. Plus I was eager to see how the PD/FIRE crossover episodes played out on "Fire."

I have several quarrels with season 5, but the one pushing my discontent over the cliff is with the actor playing the foster child, Louie. Actually it's two actors as the character is played by twins. (This is a legal production requirement and usually not a problem.) The twins are adorable, so cute to look at.00 But actors they are not. As a result, the character has exactly one facial expression which is somewhat puzzled or scared. I have yet to see the child smile. There is zero personality coming through. And this rings false as all the other characters sing his praise as the most amazing child ever born. The child delivers very few lines, and when he does they are dubbed... his head is turned away from the camera or he is not on screen.

This show has delivered episodes with excellent performances by child actors in the past. In particular, check out season 4 episode 20, "The Last One for Mom." Maxwell Jenkins, a child actor, plays a central part in this episode. This kid turns in a brilliant performance which will move you to tears. My point is, the Chicago Fire casting Department could have done much better in casting this foster child. Especially since the character appears in so many episodes.

The first four seasons of Fire kept my attention but by season 5, the intensity of the soap opera is working my nerves. I don't mind occasional soapy drama but preferably when it's believable and not too melodramatic. Chicago Fire hit this balance, for the most part, until season 5.

Others writing critiques of this episode have noted the ridiculous aspects of the bone marrow storyline. So I won't elaborate on that point.

Most of the actors on Chicago Fire turn in quality, believable performances. In my opinion, only two of the main characters disappoint. Those are Monica Raymund as Gabrielle Dawson, and the station chief, Wallace Boden played by Eamon Walker.

Superficially, Chief Boden is Central-Casting-Perfect as the gruff yet caring leader of this firefighting family. My only objection is that without the subtitles turned on, I can rarely understand everything the actor is saying. He speaks in a raspy whisper. Granted this is his actor's vocal style, but I find it frustrating to follow.

Monica Raymund, as Dawson, is not a bad actress but I find her performance less than believable too much of the time. This may be the fault of the writers who swing her character's behaviour in wildly different directions with each new storyline.

I have been watching this series with plans of reviewing it upon completion. I was tempted to review this great episodic television production after viewing season 3 episode 9. (A breathtaking episode with truly award-winning acting and writing.)

Now, having just viewed S4: E3, I can wait no longer to praise this monumental series.

This episode had some truly surprising and shocking twists and turns, so typical of the entire show

If you're looking for a show that blends thrilling battles, complex characters, and a rich historical setting, then look no further than The Last Kingdom on Netflix.

The Last Kingdom shines with its captivating lead character. Alexander Dreymon portrays Uhtred with a perfect blend of charm, wit, and steely determination. You'll find yourself rooting for him as he fights for his destiny, all while delivering some truly epic battle sequences.

The series boasts excellent scripting, and a fantastic cast of characters, from the wise and determined King Alfred to the cunning and ambitious Aethelred. The relationships between these characters are complex and engaging, keeping you invested in their fates throughout the story.

The Last Kingdom takes some creative license with history. Still, the show does a great job of portraying the struggles and customs of Anglo-Saxon England. And, while the testosterone charged male characters are bound to disturb some woke minds, their masculinity and strength are historically appropriate. The fact that so many of the actors have handsome faces and chiseled bodies may be historically more fantasy than fact. But I do not object to eye candy and there are also some beautiful women and ultra strong female characters to balance the scales.

So, whether you're a history buff or simply enjoy a good action drama, The Last Kingdom is a must-watch. It's a show that will keep you entertained from the very first episode, leaving you hungry for more.

I plan to write more when I've completed this season and season 5, the last season of The Last Kingdom.

IMO, Chicago PD stands out for its consistent engagement, well-developed characters, and unflinching portrayal of the complexities of urban law enforcement.

One of the show's strengths is its casting. The ensemble cast, which has seen some major shifts over the years, consistently delivers strong performances. From the gruff leadership of Voight to the evolving dynamics between partners like Kim Burgess (Marina Squerciati) and Adam Ruzek (Patrick John Flueger), the characters feel real and relatable.

The recent addition of Dante Torres (Benjamin Levy Aguilar) exemplifies this commitment to strong casting. Torres is one of the most interesting characters to hit the show, Aguilar's performance is truly excellent.

Beyond Black and White: Exploring the Moral Gray Areas: Unlike some cop shows that paint the world in clear-cut lines of good and evil, Chicago P. D. embraces the complexities of law enforcement. Sergeant Voight's character is a prime example. He's a man fiercely loyal to his team and determined to get results, even if it means bending the rules. This moral ambiguity creates tension and keeps viewers engaged, sparking debates about the methods employed by the Intelligence Unit.

Is Chicago P. D. Perfect?: No show is without its flaws. But in my judgment, The Chicago P. D. series has produced far fewer weak or even cringe-worthy episodes. I found it to be better than any other show in the Dick Wolf universe. And there are well over 200 Chicago P. D. episodes.

For my money, Chicago PD has secured its place as a top contender in the world of multi-season police procedurals.

Shogun started strong. The first few episodes dazzled with stunning visuals, epic battles, and a captivating introduction to feudal Japan. The clash of cultures seemed a recipe for enthralling television. However, by episode 5 and especially 6, "Ladies of the Willow World," the show's pacing and storytelling dissapoints.

The episode isn't without merit. The production quality remains top-notch, with beautiful costumes and set design transporting viewers back in time.

Here's where the episode stumbles. While the emphasis on character development is commendable, the execution feels sluggish. The episode unfolds at a glacial pace, relying heavily on dialogue and internal struggles. While some viewers may appreciate this deeper dive, others might find themselves checking their watches.

The absence of the thrilling action sequences that captivated audiences earlier becomes more pronounced in episode 6. The political maneuvering and strategizing, while essential to the overall story, lack the urgency and excitement established in the first few episodes.

Verdict: Shogun: Episode 6 is a visually stunning but slow-burning affair. The high production values can't quite compensate for the lack of action and the deliberate pacing. This episode might leave some viewers yearning for the show's initial spark. Whether the series can recapture its early momentum and find the right balance between character development and plot progression remains to be seen.

Where do I even begin? As a casual Halo fan, this show is a slap in the face. It mangles the lore, and delivers a story about as deep as a kiddie pool.

First, the disrespect! Master Chief, our stoic Spartan hero, reduced to a blubbering mess with daddy issues? Cortana, a sassy AI turned into a rebellious teenager? And the Covenant? Don't even get me started on their Power Ranger rejects redesign.

The plot? Forget the epic Covenant war, we're dealing with some convoluted mystery involving a new alien race and a superpowered human child. It's like they took the Halo universe, tossed it in a blender with CW teen drama, and hit puree.

Action? More like snoozefest. The battles are generic and weightless, lacking the epic scale and brutality of the games. And don't even get me started on the CGI, it's a mixed bag that makes you wish the worst of it looked half as good as the best.

The acting? Well, let's just say Pablo Schreiber tries his best, but the script gives him about as much depth as a Flood spore. The rest of the cast sleepwalks through their roles, barely phoning it in.

Look, I get it. Adapting a beloved game is tough. But this? This is a failure of epic proportions, a betrayal of the franchise and its fans. If you're looking for a good Halo experience, stick to the games. This show is about as fun as getting stuck in a banshee cockpit with a malfunctioning Banshee bomb. Avoid it at all costs, Spartans. You've been warned.

P. S. If you see someone give this show a good review, double-check their profile. They might be a Covenant sympathizer in disguise.

P. P. S. Cortana, if you're reading this (before you're discontinued) please do humanity a favor and hit this show with a logic bomb. We deserve better.

Do yourself a favor. Spend 5 hours of your life doing anything other than watching this series. That they would include this as part of "True Detective" is a huge insult to that franchise. The story has little or nothing to do with the style or content of the other True Detective episodes. The scripts are juvenile claptrap chock full of disjointed filler and underscored with annoyingly awful music selections. To call it pretentious would be a compliment. Among its absurdities is to subject the audience to Jody Foster in fumbling, awkward, straight sex scenes. I suppose the message is to say that sex is not just for the young. A sadly written character whoes dialogue is peppered with the word f#%! Almost every sentence she utters includes that expletive used as an adjective, verb and/or noun. Sometimes all three in one sentence and with no apparent point except to dumb down an already dumb character. In fact every character in this program displays varying degrees of dumb ranging from dumb to dumber to dumbest. The writers created a somewhat interesting open and a stupendously vapid conclusion. Then they filled the in between with more garbage than a rank smelling landfill. One star is generous Imo.

Jodie Foster must have her pick of projects. And I seriously doubt she needs the paycheck. Did she read the script before signing the dotted line? Maybe she sees worth in this project which I don't. I don't understand why I've given this crap a full three episode view? Perhaps it's that, till now, the True Detective franchise has been solid and worth viewing. Or maybe because Jodie Foster brings credibility and hope for something better. The characters range from unappealing to annoyingly malcontent. I don't like any of them, they're superstitions or their problems with the mine. And so I don't care what happens to them. Bottom line, the trumped-up mystery doesn't have me in suspense, and the meandering disjointed story is tedious at best.

The casting of Hello Dolly for the screen was just horrible. I believe no one has suggested otherwise. (If only Streisand had been the age she is now... but "if only's" never fix something which is broken and will remain broken forever.) A worse casting decision, IMO, was casting Marianne McAndrew opposite Michael Crawford. That lovely woman would never have fallen for the buffoonish Crawford. That pairing is inconceivable. Crawford is an unattractive buffoon as Cornelius. (btw, Crawford's performance helped ruin the film version of another Broadway show: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum. Although that film was already riddled with other faults, not the least of which was the exclusion of musical numbers. ) The final Hello Dolly casting error was to include Tommy Tune. I won't elaborate. The rest of the casting was fine. I especially liked Danny Larkin as Barnaby, Crawford's buddy. Another casting decision I liked was the inclusion of Louis Armstrong. Although a bit out of left field, nonetheless delightful. And my final thought: Had the production been less bloated and overproduced it would have been more charming than alarming. Nonetheless, Streisand singing the Dolly score is a blessing. Carol Channing may have been a Legend of musical theater, but I'm happy to have Streisand's performance of this excellent Broadway show music recorded for posterity.

Emerald Fennell delivers a film with handsome production values and a good music score. That's about it. As the opening scene rolled, I feared the creative team regarded themselves too highly because their cinematic curiosity is presented in the old pre-HD 4:3 aspect ratio. I was right. Pretentious! What unfolds is sophomoric rather than witty. Saltburn is embarrassing rather than shocking. I'm not repulsed by shock and awe Cinema. I rather loved American Psycho. (by Mary Harron, also a female director). And for anyone lucky enough to have seen "Andy Warhol's Frankenstein" in 3-D... knows that bizarre, deviant behavior, murder and mayhem can be delightfully amusing. (Note: that film was written and directed by Paul Morrissey with Warhol's name attached as a box office draw.) Saltburn, however, isn't entertaining, fun or comical. It delivers something unseemly and highly unenjoyable. The performances are solid enough, with the exception of the lead. I found the actor creepy and extremely unappealing. Not his character, which was the bad guy, but the actor himself. He was no Christian Bale playing Patrick Bateman, or Anthony Hopkins playing Hannibal Lecter, that's for damn sure. Of course they are great actors, and were performing great and WORTHY material.

After watching the first episode of this new series, my judgment was harsh. But that judgment was confirmed to be accurate upon watching more. What was I thinking? Maybe that something as bad as what was delivered in episode 1 had to get better. Perhaps, I felt there was no place to go but up. But sadly, I was wrong. I wasted another 40-some-odd minutes of my life watching the second installment of drivel. It's unimaginable that a few reviewers found episode 1 acceptable enough to recommend. ... Despite the fact that the only action sequence in episode 1 of this "Action Comedy" happened in the first few minutes. The remainder of the episode was relegated to the characters wallowing in raunch: drinking, drugging and sexing themselves into Oblivion. Any part of which has proven to be entertaining or funny, elsewhere, but not here. This has to be the worst Netflix offering in their history. My advice? Nothing to see here, move along.

Oh boy, oh boy, oh so bad. And I don't mean bad ass. The creative team must have got round the table and said let's create some 1970/80s level stupid... just add more T&A and an enormous gelatin dildo for one of the main characters to swashbuckle like a Star Wars lightsaber. Let's be sure the script is derivative and hackneyed, with dialogue so pathetic, even the skilled actors in the cast can't recite it convincingly. Let's pull together an eye-candy cast. Then make sure the HD camera work is razor sharp and Technicolor Vivid. Make the good guys all fun-loving Heroes who guzzle booze and and gobble drugs willingly. They enjoy killing the bad guys as much as they enjoy their after action parties. Well, I've reached this post's character requirement. So do I recommend this trash? It's good for a brain vacation from more substantive entertainment... and that's not a bad thing.

I sincerely regret purchasing season 3. The first season of Superman and Lois delivered what I look for in a superhero series. A fun watch with high quality special effects and production values. Season 2 was good enough to make me want to purchase season 3. At this moment I'm six episodes into the season. I'm having no fun and enjoying precious few moments of fantasy, action and excitement. I find the focus on Louis and her family dealing with cancer to be depressing and not in the least entertaining. Cancer is a real life challenge for millions of Americans, we all know friends and family who have suffered or are suffering from the disease. Certainly many viewers are dealing with cancer. I acknowledge and respect the battle and the value of tackling this issue with TV drama. But not with Superman and Lois which is science fiction. In case the show runners don't know it, science fiction is at its best when it has little or to do with real life as we Mortals experience it. Humanizing Superman and his family was a great idea when the series launched. And plenty of enjoyable story lines have successfully embraced the worlds of Science Fiction and human reality. However this cancer storyline is a wrong turn onto an unpleasant road real life tragedy. Whoever thought this was a good idea is the real villain of this season 3.

Go ahead, call me shallow. But what happened to poor dick Grayson's body. The actor has always been a physical specimen of muscular eye candy. Rewatch s1e1. Compared to S4 episodes 8-10 in which show runners unwisely put him in short sleeve tees, revealing a girthy midsection and undefined chunky arms. Talk about depressing! Even Connor's body has taken a turn for the worse, though not as bad. I guess show runners dropped gym conditioning from the actors to-do list. But, on the more relevant subject of the overall production, writing and story lines... I've never disliked a superhero series more than Titans. A few of the initial episodes of season 1 showed promise for a solid series. But it just spiraled down into a hot mess. For my taste, it's far too dark, too much of the time. Dark episodes, dark characters, just depressing more than fun. I don't care enough about the characters to look forward to what's happening next. In fact I'm amazed that I have watched every episode to date. At the end of each episode I doubt I'll return for more, but I do in hopes that the writing and scenarios might improve. But they don't. And now that it's been revealed that the physically hottest member of the cast has turned from muscle boy to dough boy, I have no reason to watch the final two depressing episodes when they are released.

The writing and performances are excellent. As is the music score! The production values, sets and costumes are solid enough. The necessary homo-sexual content was tasteful and not gratuitous. The blood and gore are ample, but not over the top. (In one instance toward the end of episode 1, a victim's death is delivered in a manner I've never seen before. Wow.)

It's rare, if ever, that I've finished watching a series first entry without some degree disappointment. That wasn't the case here. I'll watch episode 2 in a few days.

(I won't make comparisons to the movie, which I rate an IMDb 7 ... or the Anne Rice book which I haven't read.)

My only complaint is a petty one and has nothing to do with the episode. I personally choose never to watch next episode previews at the end of any show. I generally avoid trailers for movies which I'm looking forward to seeing. I want to experience the entertainment for the first time as brand spanking new. I may be peculiar in that way. And so I am not happy with the way AMC has stacked the videos for this series on the selection page. Behind the scenes videos and Recaps of episodes are listed before the episode itself. I wasn't careful and assumed the top video selection box was episode one. It wasn't, it was a recap of episode 1 which is ridiculous placement. I'll be careful to avoid all of these "extras" videos until I've watched the entire series. I do enjoy behind the scenes videos but only after I've completed a full season. AMC could be more clear about the way they present the selection of videos on their streaming lineup page.