- Carrie • Season 1
A straight-up adaptation of Carrie was never going to be interesting since it's been adapted so many times before, so I didn't mind that Mike Flanagan's version was different, radically different at times. However, I'm not so sure how much those changes improved upon the story, and I unfortunately feel like this is one of Flanagan's weaker TV shows. The first two episodes are fantastic and weave in some of Flanagan's signature qualities, including some surprising horror imagery as well. However, as the show progresses, a lot of the additions to the story start to feel weightless. Rahul Kohli and Amber Midthunder in particular feel wasted, both of them having arcs that feel unsatisfying and that don't really add much to Carrie's story. There are other side characters as well that have these mini-plots going on, but none of them feel compelling and instead feel like they are mostly filling the space needed for an 8-episode TV show. The one exception is Chris Hargensen who I think actually gets some layered backstory that works well to build up the authentic motivations of a teenage bully. The story also modernizes Carrie. Some of these changes work really well, and I think the inclusion of school shooting drills in the first episode is fantastic. Flanagan asked how Margaret White would behave in the modern era, and I think his answer of a parental rights advocate is spot on. However, in doing so, I think the story loses some of the religious undertones that are very important to Carrie's arc. Specifically, I think the dynamic between her and her mother is fairly different in this adaptation, and I think it doesn't have as many sharp edges as the original. That's important because when the story gets to its conclusion, it feels slightly unearned because the arc Carrie has undergone feels fairly different, and her journey has ebbs and flows to it instead of feeling like one giant pressure cooker. This leads to my biggest criticism. I think this story is more focused on setting up a larger universe and sequels, and in doing so, it makes some very large changes. First off, none of that setup feels remotely satisfying as all the answers are deferred to a future season, I guess. Second, it strips Carrie of a lot of her agency, which I think severely neuters the impact of this story. In some ways, it feels like it is compromising on this season in hopes of future storylines. I read a lot of these ideas came directly from Stephen King which doesn't shock me as he is terrible when it comes to adapting his own work (his TV episode epilogue to The Stand is one of the worst things I've seen). Flanagan is definitely no stranger to Stephen King, and he's no stranger to a self-contained miniseries. That's why it is frustrating that this show wasn't stronger. The biggest loss is a truly phenomenal performance by Summer H. Howell. Her version of Carrie feels self-sufficient but innocent, and her ability to wear such complex emotions on her face is worth watching. I think her and her dynamic with Alison Thornton's Chris is genuinely fantastic coupled with Flanagan's strong cinematography and editing, makes the show very watchable. I also think I can overlook most of the issues outside of the last episode which I really disliked. It's just a far cry from the quality you would expect from Flanagan.Carrie • Season 1 - Bad Apples
Bad Apples has a solid premise that ends up feeling by the numbers instead of having a lot of bite to it. I was hoping for something that would feel almost like Parasite for the education system, but it ends up not really having a lot of insight. More importantly, the humor isn't really that strong for most of the movie. There are some absurd moments near the end that made me laugh, but most of it feels listless. Jacob Anderson is completely wasted. Saoirse Ronan is fantastic as usual, but there isn't much for her to do here. At the end of the day, I think this movie doesn't have many ambitions and never really becomes a proper satire. There are many other movies that follow this trope, and I can't really see a way in which Bad Apples differentiates itself. It's a time pass movie that feels perfunctory. I would have been able to overlook it had the humor been better, but I think it isn't good enough to carry the movie. There is no tension either. It's just very meh.Bad Apples - You Can See Everything
You Can See Everything... or can you? Truth remains elusive in this 3-hour documentary, and you will probably leave with more questions than answers and maybe with even less of an understanding of Elizabeth Holmes than when you walked in. Yet, somehow, Elizabeth Holmes is hardly the only subject of this documentary which dissects not only her but the very nature of media portrayal, whether it is through an article, a biopic, or a documentary. Word choices and editing are very intentional throughout this movie, and it will be analyzed for years to come with people examining how specific language, omissions, edits, or shots are playing a role in the narrative. I cannot understate just how clever this movie is. When you think you understand what is happening, Nathan pulls the rug out from you, leaving you feeling unsure about what you're experiencing. Every little detail is so intentional, and the movie has many layers to it that can't really be discussed without spoilers. At one point in the movie, Fielder talks about magic, the idea of someone being known for playing tricks so much that people stop thinking the magician might be actually literal and sincere when they stab their hand with an ice pick: it must be a trick. In this movie, there are sleights of hands everywhere. Subtle choices that not only question Elizabeth Holmes but interrogate Nathan Fielder's role and that of us, the viewers, as well. This isn't a documentary, this isn't a comedy routine, this isn't Nathan Fielder being committed to a bit to insane levels. This is a scathing indictment of how we perceive and understand people. It may be dry and can feel a bit long at almost 3 hours. It is probably not for everyone either. Regardless, it is a tour de force, it cements Nathan Fielder as one of the most brilliant minds working in Hollywood right now, and it will be analyzed as essential viewing within the documentary space for decades to come.You Can See Everything - East of Eden (2026)
East of Eden takes Steinback's epic and adapts it by centering the story around Cathy Ames. She's no longer this embodiment of evil but rather a layered character that feels a lot more tragic than in the novel. A large part of that is Florence Pugh's phenomenal acting in bringing her to life. She is truly fantastic here. The problem is that by centering the story around Cathy, the show has to cut out some of the other character dynamics between different sets of brothers. Most notably, I think Cal and Aron are not given enough screentime to fully develop because there are 2 full episodes dedicated just to Cathy. The result is twofold. First, some of the non-Cathy episodes can feel a bit dry as viewers are left to try and figure out what the central themes and point of the story are. Second, while I think the second half of the show is significantly stronger than the first half, it also feels a bit rushed and leaves the conclusion without the same impact as that of the book's. The central message is still there, but it doesn't feel like the show did enough to really dig into it. I don't mind such a heavy reframing of the story to center it around Cathy, but I think the themes needed to be modified to fit her story as well and then to use that to mirror those of other characters. I don't think Zoe Kazan exactly fully achieved that and might have just wanted to give a vehicle for Florence Pugh to shine in. It's still a very well-made show, but I don't think it'll have a lasting impact because its themes feel a bit less powerful.East of Eden (2026) - Buddy
The first 30 minutes of Buddy are fantastic. Referencing the visuals and styles of Barney, the movie slowly builds dread through more and more unsettling moments, preying on nostalgic fears that we might have had as children watching the show. The tension feels palpable as things become more and more sinister across snippets of TV show episodes. Buddy's design here is also fantastic, especially how it evolves by the end of this section. However, after the 30-minute mark, the pace comes to a screeching halt. The movie instead starts to jump into multiple different places, and it gets weird when following the children. The visuals also change from that of a children's show to some overly saturated hyper-realistic aesthetic. I don't really know what the movie accomplishes in this section other than introducing unnecessary edgy humor, and I honestly feel the entire middle 30 minutes should have been cut as it adds little to the movie and really messes with the atmosphere and pacing. The last 30 minutes of the movie brings it back to the beginning and goes back to what was working. It again feels tense with some strong horror moments. I will say that Buddy's design becomes a bit silly in this section though, and I feel like they shouldn't have tried to go down that route. The movie has a good concept and doesn't try to overexplain it, instead just executing on it. Unfortunately, that middle third really messes with the movie in my opinion. It's still entertaining, especially for the bookended first and last thirds. It's just not nearly as strong as it could be.Buddy - Haunted Hotel • Season 2
Haunted Hotel season 1 was decent, but season 2 is a significant improvement across the board. A lot of modern comedy shows, animated or not, often struggle to balance humor with character drama, often working under an assumption that character development requires multi-episode and even multi-season arcs. Haunted Hotel realizes what made so many older shows click and why modern comedy TV often struggles: the episodic format where each episode is its own fully self-encapsulated adventure allows for limitless possibilities. Haunted Hotel also fully leverages its excellent premise to create truly distinctive episodes that never feel like they are repeating past storylines. Each one has its own wacky storyline, and none of them overstay their welcome. This allows the show to be packed with humor and jokes, and in the moments in between, there is a show that is just fun to watch. The characters themselves still get depth and development during these adventures, so it's not like the show has to sacrifice characters for the comedy either. In this season, they feel fully formed whereas the first season felt like it was still feeling them out. They are quirky but also don't feel like adult animated archetypes. Honestly, I don't have many criticism. The only one being that I do wish it also learned from older shows to have a longer season. Outside of that, it's a shockingly excellent season of TV and one of the best adult animated shows I've seen in a long time. I hope it takes off in popularity and we get many more seasons of this show because the premise and characters are so strong.Haunted Hotel • Season 2 - Slow Horses • Slow Horses
Slow Horses has a pretty fun first season. The cast of characters are great, especially in how they play off of each other. Gary Oldman is definitely the standout, and his character feels so distinctive that he leaves a lasting impression even after a single season. I also like how the humor is woven into the story, feeling acrid and dry without ever overpowering the plot. I think the plot in this season is a bit standard, and I expect future seasons to have stronger storylines. However, I did appreciate how the conflict isn't your typical terrorist threat. I also really appreciate that each season is 6 episodes only and that they come out so quickly, making this show feel much easier to watch than a lot of other shows. Even if the story didn't blow me away, I enjoyed the characters a lot and am looking forward to watching the next one.Slow Horses • Slow Horses - It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia • Season 18
It's Always Sunny is in its 18th season, and the vast majority of other shows would start to feel repetitive and listless at this point. That's not the case with Always Sunny, and this season certainly still feels distinctive and its cast fully energized. However, that's not to say that the season fully works. I think this season struggles for a few reasons. First, there are a handful of episodes like the Gilligan's Island or baseball one that deal with a specific subculture and niche that doesn't work if you aren't as familiar with that topic. I think the Ren Faire episode is a contrast to that where you can enjoy it even if that's not your thing. The second issue is that this season is trying too hard to be edgy. In prior seasons, the edginess worked as satire, illustrating a well-intentioned message through comedy. In this season, I sometimes found that the humor was just aiming for shock value and at times felt almost mean-spirited without much more thought behind it. That said, there are still some really strong moments within this season, and when the show stops trying to be so high concept and just focuses on the dynamics between the group, it works well. I never was bored watching the season, and I still love this cast. I just think this is maybe the weakest season of the show in a while, but those issues are easy to correct. Plus, no show has business being this good 18 seasons in.It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia • Season 18 - Onslaught
Onslaught's premise is hardly unique, featuring an older grizzled adult trying to protect a young child from a bunch of attackers. However, I was curious to see if Adria Arjona and Dan Stevens would bring something new to this formula. The opening title credits are certainly jarring, showcasing a barrage of images from news juxtaposed with various conspiracy theories, starting with the modern day and going back in history. However, the movie isn't really about conspiracies or shadow governments or weird experiments. That's just the launching pad for the threat and is never really explored beyond that. In fact, Dan Stevens and Rebecca Hall are completely wasted and barely have any screentime, and the one fixer in the movie has no real purpose either. Adra Arjona is okay, but this is hardly her best performance. Her character is about as surface level as it comes, with one backstory flashback that is ridiculous. Her daughter, her husband, her community are all just completely emotionless voids without any reason to care for them. Even though the movie is only 90 minutes, the first part really drags. In fact, the movie only has a few action set pieces, and considering how little is actually explored, I realized that a lot of this movie is just wasted time, especially in that dull first half. However, the last 40 minutes or so of this movie are its one redeeming grace. The cinematography, which up until that point had simply been weird soundtrack choices blaring over scenes that don't fit the vibe, suddenly shifts. It almost becomes a horror slasher movie in how it is filmed, with blood splatters and a foggy blue aesthetic. That last set piece is fun, but unfortunately, the rest of the movie is not, and there is nothing else to grab onto in this movie other than the style, so it begs the question of why waste so much time with uninteresting backstories, secret military bases, and bland characterization instead of just adding more horror set pieces?Onslaught - Lanterns • Season 1
Lanterns has a lot of talent backing it, both in front of the camera as well as behind it as well. In fact, Damon Lindelof's prior superhero TV show Watchmen is one of my favorites. I came into Lanterns with high expectations, and it initially met them with a strong set of 3 episodes. As the season went on though, it started to fizzle. I think it's due to multiple core issues. First is the pacing. The season takes place across two separate time periods in 2016 and 2026, but instead of weaving these together, it goes through the 2016 storyline first and then goes into the 2026 one after that, despite a tease in the premiere. This grinds the momentum to a halt in middle of the season. Second, while Watchmen had some extremely strong thematic ideas that extended beyond the superhero genre, I think this show isn't trying to do anything more ambitious than tell a superhero story. That isn't intrinsically a bad thing, but it definitely feels like a letdown because of Lindelof's pedigree. Third, I think the core mystery and conflict at the heart of this season is just simply not super interesting. It's a bit predictable, and we're told why we should fear the villain but are never really shown any reason to genuinely care. Instead, the beating heart of the show is Hal and Jon's relationship which is genuinely great. Whenever they are on screen together or grappling with their familial legacies that intertwined their fates, I think the show is firing on all cylinders and really leveraging the talent of Kyle Chandler and Aaron Pierre. The problem is that due to those poor structural choices, the show has lots of episodes and airtime where this dynamic isn't at the forefront of the story. It often causes the show to feel a bit aimless and listless, meandering around even if the finale does give it some sort of conclusion via proper character arcs. I just wish the show's narrative was structured to reinforce those arcs. To some degree, I also think this show is connected to the new DC Universe and is doing some worldbuilding that creates some limitations in what it can do as well as forcing it to setup certain future storylines at a disservice to the main one. Overall, I do think there are some strong episodes (namely the two character-driven ones) and moments in this season, but they work in a vacuum. As a season of TV as a whole, it's relatively middling and a far cry from the potential of this talent and premise.Lanterns • Season 1 - The Love Hypothesis
The Love Hypothesis is a pretty standard romcom with the one twist being that both main characters are supposed to be nerdy and socially awkward. The problem is that these depictions sometimes veer into caricatures, kind of like The Big Bang Theory, instead of feeling like authentic lived-in experiences. It also leads to some extremely cheesy science metaphors. Otherwise, I think Lili Reinhart and Tom Bateman do a decent job, and I enjoyed their chemistry. The start of the movie has some really stilted dialogue and awkward exposition that always feels forced, e.g. when they describe scientific concepts to each other despite being so advanced in their fields. Characters often have to explain their motivations verbally as well. I think the movie settles in after that first 30 minutes though, and the middle doesn't have as much of this noticeable dialogue. I did think that the ending had a bit of forced drama (especially considering her roommate), but thankfully it doesn't dwell long on too much of it. At the end of the day, I do think it's a very tropey movie that is fairly predictable and doesn't bring a lot new to the genre. The science nerd aspect feels more like window dressing versus actually being sincere. Still, it's a decent movie in a genre that rarely gets movies these days, and because of that, I think if you are looking for a solid romcom, it's a fine choice.The Love Hypothesis - Tony
Tony is a decent coming of age movie. It ditches the standard biopic format by not trying to follow the subject through their entire life, instead choosing to focus in on a single summer. It does, however, still feel like it follows a lot of typical tropes within the genre. Still, it's a well-made movie with a grainy filter that gives the movie warmth. Dominic Sessa is very talented, and the supporting cast of Emilia Jones and Antonio Banderas round out the movie well. The score was shockingly good. I think my biggest issue with this movie is that it just doesn't feel like I gained much insight into Anthony Bourdain. To be honest, it could have been about anybody, and I would have just as likely believed it was about Sessa's prior character in The Holdovers. For such a complex and dynamic person, I think this movie is just too simplistic. If you divorce it from the name Bourdain, I think you'll enjoy it a lot more as a teenage summer movie than an attempt to learn what made him tick.Tony - Best of the Best
Best of the Best starts out fairly promising. The first few dances have strong choreography with good production and flashy cinematography. The movie purposefully places typical tropes to force drama but showcases how the two main leads respond to these situations in healthy ways. It honestly feels like the movie will be refreshing with some decent humor and strong dances. However, as the movie continues past the halfway point, things start to change. The drama becomes more and more forced as the movie's runtime starts to feel plodding and overlong. Characters say or do things that feel completely out of character simply for the purpose of creating extra drama. None of the tension feels organic, and while I do respect that to a degree the movie wants us to think the drama is silly, it also feels like it falls into typical teen movie tropes in a way that the start of the movie seemed to be handling in a more refreshing way. This prevents the movie from really feeling as heartwarming as it should be, especially because it overstays its welcome. Maitreyi Ramakrishnan plays a similar character to that from Never Have I Ever, but she has good line delivery and is a strong actress. I felt Priyanka Kedia was not as good and felt considerably weaker playing against her. Finally and most noticeably, the dances in the second half start to decrease in quality. Not just in terms of choreography and production but also the way they are filmed. Where the first few dances had some cool camera tricks and cinematography, the last few feel fairly straightforward. The finale dance has some cinematography, but it also makes no sense. To me, that's indicative of how much effort was put into the first half of the movie, both in terms of writing and in terms of filmmaking, compared to the second half. I think they should have just made this movie 90 minutes long, and they would have ended up with a much better movie. I did enjoy the concept, and I think the first half is genuinely good. It's just a shame it can't live up to that potential.Best of the Best - Resident Evil
Typically video game adaptations strip out a lot of the gameplay sections and try to focus on the story and lore. Resident Evil takes the opposite approach. It removes any real connectivity to the characters or story of Resident Evil, really just using loose references to Umbrella and Raccoon City to instead focus on capturing the atmosphere of the games instead. It's a radical approach, and if you can divorce yourself from the need of characters like Leon Kennedy, it works shockingly well. Unlike Creggar's prior movies, there aren't a ton of unique twists to the story. It's a straightforward mission. However, Resident Evil retains Creggar's unique blend of comedy and horror. There is a surprising amount of laugh-out-loud comedy here, but it always remains balanced against the rest of the movie. Austin Abrams has fantastic comedic timing and line deliveries, and Creggar pokes fun at plenty of horror and game tropes throughout. At roughly 90 minutes of runtime, the movie feels incredibly efficient, propulsive and never boring, instantly jumping into the action and constantly changing up the set pieces to keep things fresh. The cinematography is sharp and distinctive from the very first set piece, utilizing colors, swiveling cameras, and first person "video game" perspectives to build atmosphere. The score is actually really well-designed. It fades in and out throughout, leaving plenty of quiet moments but knowing when to create a high-intensity rhythmic beat at others. There are effective jump scares and unique character designs throughout. While the movie may not reference characters or stories from Resident Evil, it is clear Creggar is deeply familiar with the franchise as there are plenty of nods to various game mechanics. These are moments that only people who play the games will recognize, but they illustrate how the silliness and campiness of some of the restrictions from the games actually translate into a movie. The movie's reputation will unfortunately be marred by people who wanted a version of the game stories, and as a big fan of the gaming franchise, I get where they are coming from. However, Creggar has done something much more interesting with this movie that still very much honors the games, and it is worth watching with an open mind. I will flag that I am still not sure how I feel about the ending of the movie, but that's a small nitpick. At the end of the day, this is just a very fun horror-comedy movie, easy to watch, adrenaline-generating, and most importantly, just a blast to watch on the large screen.Resident Evil - The Paper (2025) • Season 2
Season 2 of The Paper is a significant step up from the quality of season 1, though it still seems to be chasing The Office. This season feels a lot more comfortable with its setup and characters, and it allows them to react more organically to the situational humor. There are some genuine laughs in this season, especially in the first half. As the season shifts into its second half, I noticed that the show started focusing more on its relationship dramas. I think, in some ways, the show is trying to recreate some of the office romances from its predecessor to drive the show forward outside of its humor. The central relationship is actually not bad and has some good moments. However, the show also throws multiple other relationships at the wall, hoping some of them will stick. Outside of the main one, the rest are very underdeveloped and not super compelling. The problem is that as the show tries to desperately develop these relationships, it also takes its foot off the pedal in regards to the humor, leading to some clunky episodes in the second half. That led me to cool a bit on the season overall, but I think the first half showed real potential and a path forward for this show to become its own thing and a genuinely decent sitcom.The Paper (2025) • Season 2
