51 thoughts on “TV Show Thread (2018-)

  1. Stranger Things (season 2)

    This wasn’t as good as the first season, in my view, although I wasn’t always giving the episodes my fullest attention.

    Dirty Money, episode 6, “The Confidence Man” (2018)

    This is about Donald Trump, focusing on his business acumen, business, including very sketchy associations. What the episode reveals is that Trump really isn’t a good business man at all, but someone who is and has been great at creating the impression that he’s a successful businessman. One newer revelation for me is the degree to which The Apprentice was a big boost to this image.

    Also, based on the film (which draws on other reporting that I’ve encountered elsewhere), here’s an outline of Trump’s business career:

    1. With the help of his father, Trump starts off as a developer and has one or two successful building projects. Trump uses media skillfully to promote himself.

    2. Banks are willing to lend him money, and he expands–trying to start a casino in Atlantic City, buying an airlines, a USFL football team, among other things. He doesn’t know what he’s really doing and these businesses fall a part. He can’t pay back loans, and has to declare bankruptcy. This roughly occurs in the 1990s.

    3. He starts getting back on his feet by licensing his name to buildings, and he starts getting involved with shadier characters–corrupt oligarchs or people with ties to organized crime. Reporting has revealed these things, but I almost get the sense that there’s more disturbing things we don’t know about.

    4. The TV show, The Apprentice creates the image that he’s a successful business executive. The episode shows that this is dubious claim–or at least provides information that should cause one to question the claim. The underlying premise in the episode is that Trump is a con man, and I personally think that’s accurate.

    5. He runs for POTUS, but never thinks he has a serious chance of winning. He’s doing it to boost his brand, make business deals–basically, it’s a publicity stunt and attempt to enirch himself. That’s what it seems like, anyway.

  2. Dark (season 1, on Netflix)

    I think I read someone describe this as a German version of Stranger Things, and as a broad description, I’d say that’s fairly accurate. One difference is that this series doesn’t push nostalgia and attempts at paying hommage to directors. The one film that it made me think of was Donnie Darko, for a variety of reasons. If you liked that film and Stranger Things, I think there’s a good chance you’d like this. For me, personally, I would say both are a similar quality 66-70/100).

    One warning, though: This is the first of at least two seasons.

  3. Mind Hunter (2018, season 1)
    Created by Joe Penhall

    I’m burnt out on serial killers, which is one the main reasons I didn’t watch this, even though it got good buzz. But I finally decided to give it a chance. The first episode begins with an FBI hostage negotiator arriving to deal with a hostage situation, and I was pretty hooked. I got even more interested by the premise–specifically, the young hostage agent’s realization that the FBI needs to understand criminal psychology a lot better and part of this should involve interviewing violent criminals, especially those who don’t commit violent acts for conventional reasons. The series is partly chronicles the development of an innovative approach to dealing with crime.

    The series also functions somewhat like a traditional TV show, in that, some episodes deal with specific crimes in different areas, as well as different criminals that the agents interview.

    The filmmaking is also noteworthy. David Fincher directs the first episode, and the subsequent episodes fit his style, which I really liked in this.

  4. Manhunt: the Unabomber (2017)

    I only have two more episodes to go, but I’m writing some comments now because I may never finish. The weird thing is that the details of how the FBI caught the Kaczynski is interesting and the show runners present this in an entertaining fashion. Still, for whatever reason, I’ve been losing desire to complete this.

    I suspect one of the main reasons for this is the casting of Sam Worthington in the lead role. Besides Ryan O’Neal, I don’t think there’s another lead actor that I like less than Sam Worthington. You know how great movie stars have a kind of charisma that draws audiences to them, makes them care about the actor? Worthington almost as a the negative version of this–a kind of anti-charisma. It’s not that you hate him, but you just don’t care about him at all. He’s bland and cardboard–but in a way that isn’t passive; it’s like a negative force. I don’t know, maybe that’s not the reason, but there’s a good chance I’m not finishing the series.

  5. Hap and Leonard (Netflix)

    White guy black guy, pulp buddy series. Two middle-aged Texas dudes, formidable with their fists and guns, getting into different scrapes and adventures. A perfect vehicle for Tarantino, although maybe it’s too obvious. I’ve only seen two episodes, and while I liked the two lead initially, I’m not sure how long I’ll stick with this.

  6. Homecoming (Season 1)

    This is an Amazon TV series, where each episode is about 30 minutes. It started off well, but lost a little steam for me. Two things stand out:

    1. The filmmaking. This might be one of best cinematic TV shows I’ve seen–or at least I can’t think of many off the top of my head.

    2. Julia Roberts’s bangs. I had a friend who claimed that a change in hairstyle took away his emotional connection with a character, a claim that I found hilarious (partly because I could see what he was saying). I don’t know if that was the case here, but Roberts’s hairstyle was distracting. I’m guessing they did this to de-glamorize the character, but I kept thinking about this intention every time I saw her.

    1. Homecoming season 2

      Roberts is not in this one, but some of the same characters appear.

      I realize I never gave a description of the series. Here’s a quick sketch. A chemical company has developed a drug that could possibly help soldiers deal with traumatic combat experiences. In season 1, a psychologist (played by Julia Roberts) runs the program, and she begins learn some disturbing things about the program.

      Season 2 begins with a new character (played by Janelle Monae) waking in a row boat in the middle of the lake. She doesn’t know how she got there. The series does a good job of unraveling the mystery of this.

      I would add the filmmaking (the visuals) are good in this, as they were in season 1. Really, both seasons are actually movies that have been chopped in 30 minute pieces.

      I’m ambivalent about the conclusion to this. On some level, I can understand it, but it’s also dissatisfying as well.

  7. This series was based on a fiction podcast by Gimlet media (the company that produces Reply All and Startup, two podcasts we’ve discussed here), and it’s getting really good reviews.

    Did you watch the whole thing? What did you think besides its losing steam?

    Reid, you might like Forever on Prime. It’s better not to know anything about it, but I’d say look at the first 10 minutes of episode 1 to see if it intrigues you. Fred Armisen and Maya Rudolph.

    1. Did you watch the whole thing? What did you think besides its losing steam?

      I watched the whole thing. Besides the comments I already made, I thought it was just an OK thriller. But take that with a grain of salt. I feel like I’m going through some phase where I’ve become really jaded and apathetic towards certain films and conventions. In other words, if I’m less than enthused or critical of a film, the problem may be more with me than the film.

      Reid, you might like Forever on Prime. It’s better not to know anything about it, but I’d say look at the first 10 minutes of episode 1 to see if it intrigues you. Fred Armisen and Maya Rudolph.

      You recommended this to me before, right? I watched an episode because of this recommendation.

      1. Oh, I did? If you didn’t hate it, look at the next episode, then decide if you want to watch it or not. I’m serious.

        1. I think it was you. Or maybe it was someone else.

          “Hate” is too strong, but both characters turned me off. In any event, since you feel so strongly, I’ll give the second episode another try.

        2. Wow, really. I thought the characters would appeal to you, especially the dialogues they have about (for example) the best kind of pie, or whatever.

          I’m beginning to think you and I have completely different ideas about creativity, because I was sucked in from those first ten minutes. I knew I was seeing something I’d never seen before on television. Or maybe you’re right, and you’re really just through with television. I can see that. I mean, you might stage the most creative Black Swan ever and I wouldn’t really care because I don’t like ballet.

          1. Wow, really. I thought the characters would appeal to you, especially the dialogues they have about (for example) the best kind of pie, or whatever.

            The characters weren’t very likable to me, and the dialogue didn’t really stand out–not as something really original and creative.

            I knew I was seeing something I’d never seen before on television.

            Can you recall specifics about what was so unique?

          2. I can’t say exactly what was the most creative because it would detract from the experience, if you should ever get to episode 3. Even telling you why I can’t tell you would be deleterious to a person’s viewing experience. And you know I’m not hypervigilant about spoilers.

            But in the first episode, which you’ve already seen, I’d point first to the opening montage, a continuous side-scrolling, no-dialogue summary of how these two characters got to where we they are when we first get to know them. It’s the kind of thing you might see in a movie (as in Up), but certainly never in a program broadcast on television. I guess it’s the kind of thing you might see in Seinfeld or MASH, but this specific way of expositing is not something I’ve seen.

            How would these two characters get together? Neither is particularly attractive (some might disagree, of course) or particularly interesting on the surface. The conversations they have establish them as smart, charming, playful, and something else I can’t really put a finger on. Of course, none of this is new. Revealing characters through their conversations is just writing.

            But there’s something else. I like the way Fred Armisen’s character seems like he’d be the same person, with the same interactions, whoever he’d be with, even if he were living alone. He seems like he’d be pretty close to fine living by himself. But Rudolph’s character is different. I don’t doubt she loves her husband. But she gave something up in favor of love. It’s some of Rudolph’s best acting.

            It didn’t work for you, so I get why you didn’t respond the way I did. When it was all over, I looked back and had a personal crisis. I mean, I was already kind of in the midst of a crisis anyway, but this really brought it to a boil. How the heck do you write like this? It makes me wonder (and don’t ask me about this because I don’t want to talk about it beyond what I’m about to say) if I’m that ball player who looks great hitting fastballs but simply cannot put a curveball into play. It doesn’t matter if you can smack a fastball like Barry Bonds; if you can’t hit a curve, you can’t play in the majors.

            But yeah. I guess you’re right that something’s being difficult to produce doesn’t make it good. I think it’s very good, though!

  8. The Ballad of Buster Skruggs

    This is Western/Cowboy series of vignettes by the Coen Brothers. To describe the series, I think of Thomas Hobbes’s description of life outside of organization society–namely, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” I’m not sure if the Coen’s wanted to comment specifically about human existence outside of civilized society, but the vignettes may be able to support this reading. In any event, I think “brutish” is the word that sticks out the most to me. Most of the stories made me think of the contrast between life in the Wild West compared to my life now–specifically, the discomfort and even sense of solitude one would experience without modern conveniences. But above all of this, death looms largest in this series–something more brutal and harsh. Indeed, most of the vignettes are not stories so much as meditations on death–the different circumstances and ways in which we deal with death.

    Are they well done? Like other omnibus movies, I think the vignettes are hit and miss. (Has there ever been an omnibus movie where every story is good?) Having said that, I feel like the stories should be taken collectively, as one big meditation on death.

    1. I’ve been trying to get my hands on this by legally questionable means. I wish I understood Netflix’s practices for getting its original content on DVD. It gets Orange is the New Black on disc usually within a year after it debuts, but Mudbound doesn’t seem to be on schedule yet at all.

      The closest I can think of to a vignette movie being all good is Paris, je t’aime. Oh no wait. There’s In Another Country (the Korean movie with Isabelle Huppert), which only has four pieces. Some are better than the others but none is bad. I think four longer pieces is much easier to make well than, say, ten shorter pieces. And Paris, je t’aime is the better film, even if In Another Country is more consistently good.

      Paris je t’aime: 87% on Rotten Tomatoes, 66 on Metacritic.
      In Another Country: 83% on Rotten Tomatoes, 69 on Metacritic.

      Kind of a push.

  9. I’m about five episodes into Maniac on Netflix. I’d recommend it to Mitchell, and I would recommend knowing as little as possible.

    1. I finally finished this. The resolution wasn’t so good. I must say that that the humor didn’t really work for me. For what it’s worth, it wouldn’t surprise me if Mitchell would really like this.

  10. I started Russian Doll. Like Maniac and Happy!, i would recommend knowing little or nothing before watching these three series. (I haven’t finished Happy, by the way; I haven’t been in the mood.)

    With Russian Doll, I’ll say a few things. First, I almost gave up after the first episode. Similar to Forever, I didn’t like the main character. But each episode got more interesting. I’m about half way (4 out of 8 episodes), and I want to see how this ends. One more thing: This is one of those series were the idea and initial fleshing out of the idea show great promise, but one feels like the chances of a satisfying ending isn’t that high.

  11. Love Hate + Robots

    Remember Heavy Metal the magazine and movie? This Netflix series is basically that. Many of the episodes, about 10-20 minutes long, are animated, with different animators doing each episode. After the first episode I thought to describe it as Heavy Metal+Twilight Zone, but now I’m wondering if Heavy Metals stories often did have a Twilight Zone vibe. Not really having read the magazine all that much, I’m not sure. Anyway, the episodes I’ve seen so far are pretty good. I’m pretty sure fans of Heavy Metal will like this.

  12. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (BBC mini-series)

    I think the relatively recent movie adaptation is superior, although I preferred the casting of Sir. Alec Guiness as George Smiley, as well as Michael Jayson as Peter Guilliam in the TV mini-series. This casting is the thing I liked the most. The overall series seemed a little drab and flat, which isn’t too surprising. In a way, the book isn’t well-suited for TV or film, which makes the recent film version a little more impressive in my opinion. (I’m inspired to watch it again to see if it was as good as I remember.)

  13. Mandalorian

    I think this could have been significantly better if one tweak were made–namely, less dialogue from the titular character. While he wasn’t talkative, he should have been more laconic. In my view, his character was in a similar mode as the Snake Eyes character from G.I. Joe or Peace character from the old movie, Wizards.

    The plots for some of the episodes had potential, but the overall execution and results weren’t very satisfying.

    Still, the series was mildly entertaining.

    1. I’m using the free trial. I’m going to cancel at the end of it.

      I don’t know of any ways to watch the series. Is this for your son, or you?

  14. Tales from the Loop (2020)

    This is based on a book and apparently a video game. I would describe this as a combination of Winesburg, Ohio and Twilight Zone, leaning more toward the former. I’ve watched several episodes so far. They’re OK, not great. They’re good enough that I’ll continue watching more.

    1. Maybe I’m missing something, but the series overall underwhelmed me–to the point where I’d give this a “meh.” Ultimately, the stories just didn’t have enough umph–and by “umph” I mean gravitas and profundity that each story seemed to want to have.

      Let me back up. I heard one reviewer say something like, the series is very deliberate (read: slow), which is not bad, but is there a point to it all? I can see what they mean. The stories really do take their time–in a way where I’m thinking actors would really like this. To wit, when the plotting is slower, then the actors have more space…Well, that’s one possibility, anyway. But this approach–and the acting–didn’t have that oomph I mentioned earlier. By the way end of the episodes I had the feeling of, “is that it?”

      The stories are kinda a simple and obvious–maybe if the acting or the cinematic elements were outstanding the former would have been totally fine. But that wasn’t the case for me.

      Now, having said that, I didn’t really spend any time contemplating and analyzing the episodes, so it’s possible I’m missing a lot. I will say that I’m not sensing there is more underneath the surface, and I have no motivation to confirm this or not.

  15. Giri/Haji

    A Japanese detective is sent to London to get his yakuza brother, who assassinated a relative of a rival gang member. The detective, sent to prevent an all-out war in Japan, is helped by a female London police officer and a hapa, gay prostitute.

    About half way through it was mildy entertaining, but I’m close to giving up on it because of a ridiculous plot development. Kelly MacDonald plays the role of the London police officer. I usually like her, especially the way she expresses this innocent, worried and uncertain look. But here it started to annoy me. I don’t really care for the casting as well, except for the male prostitute.

    1. I actually finished this–and I’m not sure why. Below are some of things that broke my suspension of disbelief (spoilers):

      1. The thing that was a close to a knockout blow was the detective’s wife and mother attempting to go in rescue a yakuza’s daughter and her baby (the baby being the nephew/grandson of the detective’s wife and mother). Seriously? (And they succeed! Of course.)

      I actually don’t think naming the other problems is worth it, so I’ll end here….Well, I will say one other thing. There’s a kinda weird, modern dance sequence near the end, that seemed silly at first, but as it went on, I liked it. Indeed, that might have been the best part of the entire series, and I’m not sure it completely fit in with the series, as it’s so different tonally.

  16. I recently watched some episodes of David Chang’s Netflix show, Ugly Delicious. I watched some episodes before, but I was kinda turned off by the swearing. It’s weird because I don’t know have a problem with swearing in fictionalized films. The best explanation I have is that when I watch the show it’s like I’m hanging out with the hosts, and I don’t think I’d feel comfortable hanging around him. I must say also that Chang can be kind of a jerk or say inappropriate things. In terms of personality. I prefer Roy Choi and Jon Favreau, on their The Chef Show, on Netflix. (Choi swears, too, but not as much as Chang.)

  17. The Outsider (2020)
    based on a Stephen King novel, adapted for HBO by Richard Price
    Starring: Cynthia Erivo, Ben Mendelsohn, Bill Camp, Mare Winningham, etc.

    The series really entertained me–a very satisfying diversion (which is actually meant as high praise). I thought of Grace and Penny a lot while watching this, as I could see both liking this quite a bit. Overall, I found this more satisfying than HBO’s first season of True Detective. That series started off so strong for me–if we just went by that, I would say it’s superior to this series. But it took a really bad turn at one point, and just went downhill from there. There weren’t any moments like that, not any major problems anyway. There’s one or two other really good things that I loved about this, but I’ll talk about that more in the next sections.

    If I had to a vague description I would say it’s a detective movie, a mystery and a police procedural.

    Richard Price’s Holly Gibney, brought to life by Cynthis Erivo, is one of the all-time great characters, especially within this genre. She’s up there with Frances McDormand’s/Coens’ Marge Gundersund in my book. If the series was up for an Oscar, Erivo would be deserving of the award. Man, I really loved her character, and I hope I get to see her in some other films.

    I also really liked Ben Mendelsohn’s character and acting, but I must say this was eclipsed by my feelings for Gibney (Eviro). I wouldn’t mind seeing him reprise his role as well.

    The cast, overall, was good, if not very good.

    I wanted to mention a few challenges the film had, and how it dealt with these challenges:

    1. The characters initially are not considering the supernatural. They’re behaving the way normal police investigators would be (or what I would consider realistic behavior). But as a viewer, I already knew or suspected that something supernatural was at work. I think that might have taken a tad away from my experience. In contrast, it would have been more satisfying if I went through the investigation like the characters–that is, more based in reality and not so open, or expecting the supernatural. I knew about the supernatural element before starting the series, but even if I didn’t, knowing this was based on a Stephen King novel, would have made me open to the possibility at least.

    2. The way the characters gradually accept the supernatural was a rather important aspect of the story. The film just handled this OK, maybe a little better than that, perhaps. I know the Ralph character struggles with this, but the transition for him, and some of the others, wasn’t fully satisfying for me. Also, Holly’s path, specifically what brings her over, was a little disappointing. I’m thinking of her meeting with the older Cuban lady and the conversation they have. This may be one of the weaker points in the miniseries for me.

    1. Where did you watch it? I had free HBO for like a weekend and I saw like the first four episodes. When you have the pay channels, you can watch on demand for free. The next time HBO was free, when I went on demand, episodes 5-7 was missing. So I didn’t watch it, because I didn’t want to start back on 8.

      I liked what I watched so far, but I wouldn’t have thought you would. The story was starting to move into being ridiculous, I thought, but maybe it would shift back to be good.

    2. I’m watching it on HBO Now–the 7-day free trial.

      The Holly Gibney character, and to a lesser degree the Ralph Anderson character, are the big reasons I’m liking this. Also, going in I new a little about this, including that this was based on a Stephen King novel, so I was prepared to accept a little more.

      What parts or aspects did you think would turn me off?

      By the way, I’m watching Chernobyl right now. I have a feeling you would like that. In any event, I think it’s terrific so far.

    3. Don,

      I asked you what you thought would be ridiculous to me. Was it some of the problems I mentioned below (spoilers for those who haven’t seen any of the series):

      1. What makes Holly suspect the interaction between some of the people–including getting a cut in the process–was really significant? In the real world, I don’t think anyone would suspect that this was significant. Then again, we faced similar circumstances in the real world, maybe we would be more open to this?

      I think the miniseries might have been stronger if they showed the Ralph or Holly exhausting other possible explanations. Then it would make more sense if they became open to something more incredible or even supernatural.

      Additionally, I don’t think the series really show how Holly’s unique abilities enabled her to arrive at the conclusions she did. She follows certain connections, but it’s not clear how her abilities contributed to this.

      2. Meeting the old Cuban woman and hearing about El Cuco was kinda lame. Ridiculous to some degree, but not very original also. Knowing this is a Stephen King story, my mind allowed for the supernatural, but the situation and use of the boogeyman trope was a bit disappointing.

  18. Mitchell,

    Shoot, sorry, I think I accidentally erased your post. What the heck? Anyway, here’s my response:

    I’m pretty sure it’s called HBO Now. I’m guessing it’s like an on-demand streaming site for HBO shows and films airing on the channel. I’m not sure, though.

    I’m liking it so far–but that’s because I’m watching TV shows I’ve been wanting to see. Watchmen and Westworld are probably the next two that interest me. But if I don’t watch anything else (I just finished Chernobyl which was terrific.), I’ll be satisfied.

    1. I deleted it because I remembered that HBO Max doesn’t launch until next weekend. HBO Now will continue for a while but it’s eventually going to fold into HBO Max, is my guess.

      I originally commented because I thought it weird that HBO Now is still offering promo deals when the media blitz for the past two weeks has all been HBO Max.

  19. Chernobyl (2019, HBO miniseries)
    Dir. Johan Renck (written by Craig Mazin)

    If someone said this docudrama about the Chernobyl nuclear disaster was among the greatest disaster movies of all time, I would not have strong objections. This is not only a terrific disaster movie thriller, but it also have a mystery sub-plot, revolving on what caused the disaster, and a political film about the importance of truth and facts.

    For whatever reason, I never really had a lot of interest in seeing this. However, so many of the people I respect on twitter raved about this series; the consensus and praise was really strong. But even with this praise, I was reluctant because I thought it would be too depressing. (Thankfully, it wasn’t, at least not overwhelmingly so.)

    More information that’s not full-blown spoilers, for those who are interested in knowing more:

    The film works as a disaster movie/thriller in that it shows the disaster unfolding and then the efforts to get the reactor under control. That’s one major story line. The series mainly follows a bureaucrat (Stellan Skarsgard) and a scientist (Jared Harris), as they struggle to find ways to stop the danger–and there are a myriad of tough challenges they have to solve.

    There’s also a mystery we learn about early on–namely, the reactor seems to have exploded, but all the scientists believe this is impossible. So what happened? One scientist, played by Emily Watson, goes in search of the answer, mainly interviewing the scientists who were at the reactor, but are at a hospital.

    The series also goes over the devastation and harm caused by the explosion, and it does a good job of explaining things in an accessible way (although the final explanation of the explosion was a little confusing for me).

    By the way, the show is very timely–specifically, to the pandemic. One takeaway or lesson from this: governments should really care about the truth, especially when it comes to disaster or events that can cause great damage to the people. The government needs good, accurate information in these situations, and there’s a huge price that people will pay if they don’t get this.

  20. Westworld

    I watched the first two episodes of season 1. I don’t think I’m going to have time to watch much more of this. I think I would have been more enthused about this series, if I didn’t hear lukewarm reactions to the second and third seasons.

  21. I’ve watched three Japanese TV shows, two of which are anime so far during the quarantine. The first is called “Silver and Gold” and it’s not an anime, but it’s based on a manga called Gin to Kin. There are 12 half hour episodes, which makes it lacking in character development. There are other problems as well, but it could just be that’s how Japanese TV is. That being said, I really enjoyed it. It basically series of cons, some of which were pretty clever, or at least I thought so.

    The next was an anime called “Last Hero Inuyashiki”. This anime has 11 half hour episodes. It’s pretty violent as some anime may be, but I would say there were definitely some pretty intense parts. I really enjoyed this as well.

    The last anime is called “My Hero Academia”. It’s a pretty generic story of superheroes and their powers. I wouldn’t doubt if it’s loosely based on X-Men and the school which has all these different superheroes. I believe the series is still on and there are almost 90 episodes (maybe more actually) and I’m only on like 25. Some episodes are super fun, and some are really slow, but based on my limited viewing of anime that has a lot of episodes, that seems to be par for the course.

    1. My Hero Academia is super popular with the anime geeks I know. What platform are you watching these on?

      1. I watch it on Crunchroll. It’s free but there are commercials. Just about the same amount of commercials as network TV. So a 22 minute show would take about half hour.

      1. “My Hero Academia” is definitely kid-friendly. There are some breast jokes every fifth episode, though. That is kid-friendly to Japanese I guess, because breast jokes are pretty consistent in anime. “One Piece” is kid-friendly as well, but “One Piece” is like on episode 900 or so, I think. The “One Piece” character is one of my favorite, and I have a lot of his “stuff” on my desk. But I only probably got to like episode 40 or so.

      2. OK, thanks for the feedback. The description of My Hero sounds like something that might appeal to my kids.

        What is One Piece about?

        1. In Japan, “One Piece” is the most popular manga and anime of all time. It centers around a kid, Luffy, who becomes a pirate looking for a treasure. Luffy ate a gum gum fruit, so his body is super stretchy and virtually indestructible. Luffy recruits all these guys to be in his crew, like a cook, a doctor, a super good swordsman, etc. Luffy is a super fun character, but the anime can get slow at times, where it could be 10 to 15 episodes to finish a “story” like recruiting the cook.

    2. Ah OK. I noticed it’s not on Netflix and Amazon Prime (although Netflix is releasing a live-action version soon). Oh well.

      1. I watch “My Hero” on Crunchroll. It’s one of those anime sites in which if you pay you can watch ad free, but if you choose the free version, their are commercials. I’m going to guess since you don’t have network TV, the commercials may become a bear. I know “One Piece” is on there too, I just don’t know if they have all the episodes. When Hulu was free, I used to watch it there, but after like the third season or so, they didn’t have a few seasons. Then maybe from season seven it started up again, which made me think maybe different seasons were owned by different companies.

    3. I watched the 3 episodes of My Hero Inuyasha, but I’m not sure I’m going to continue–not because I think it’s bad–I actually mildly interested in how the series will deal with the contrast between the hero and villain. I’m reluctant to continue because the violence is kinda disturbing, the nature of the violence as well as the graphic depiction. I might work try to keep watching, in spite of this, though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *