jmg999

When I first watched Community, it was already off the air, and I binged the entire thing. As I made my way through, it quickly became one of my favorite shows. However, upon rewatching it a few times over the years, it definitely lost some of its luster. While I rated the entirety of the program an eight, I still think that's being generous. In reality, this show was a handful of really great episodes, mainly those w/ a thematic nature, surrounded by a lot of bad television. Over the years, a number of fans leaned on the idea that this was dependent upon Dan Harmon leaving the program as show runner after three seasons, as the fourth season was considered weak in comparison to the first three, and the fifth was a return to greatness. I don't subscribe to this hypothesis, though. I felt that the fourth season, while not in the same tone as the first three, was just as good. The fifth season made changes that didn't fit w/ the current of the program, and as for the sixth, much of that was truly awful television. The ending of the show felt pushed together, b/c for all the Annie-Jeff will they, won't they talk, the reality was that the writers really didn't explore this much beyond the first couple seasons. Yes, there were the furtive glances and off-handed remarks, but in totality, there wasn't much exploration of this storyline. Thus, in the finale, Jeff's outpouring of emotion toward Annie was really out of the blue. And, more than anything, the homophobic jokes and toilet humor by Chang really killed any semblance of a mood. I saw no purpose to those, but it gave me some insight into Dan Harmon's abilities as a writer, and it told me that he really was overhyped. For every great idea he had, he had seven or eight that were unremarkable or outright terrible.

Through all of this, the show was solid throughout the first two seasons and midway through the third, but the writing seemed to take a nosedive at that point. While some of the program's best episodes were aired during the third season, the writers also began leaning heavily into certain characteristics of the characters: Shirley's cloying behavior, Annie's neuroticism, Pierce's political incorrectness, Troy's ridiculousness, Britta's , Abed's tenuous grip on reality, Jeff's superficiality, and worst of all, Chang's full-blown psychopathy and the dean's creepiness.

Recently, it was announced that a Community movie would be produced. I'm not sure how I felt about this, b/c many aspects of this show didn't age well. Dan Harmon also announced that the movie wouldn't rely on aspects of the show that made it really great, such as Dungeons & Dragons or pillow/blanket forts. This might be of concern, if Harmon tried to go w/ old tropes, rather than the fresh takes that made this show great, when it really hit its groove.

I just finished the final season, and given the show was what it was, a cultural phenomenon that was essentially about nothing of great importance, the final season was a mixed bag. For large stretches of the first five of six episodes, they moved away from their witty, back-and-forth banter that won them so many fans and dove into actual content that indicated potential future directions for the characters. However, they seemingly gave up on this idea, blew off the apparent changes that might take place in the lives of the characters, and had the show end on a disappointing note, where everyone was still in the same place, doing the same things, they had been in the first episode of the show. There was seemingly very little growth from any of them.

Having noted that I like the actual real storyline they started the final season w/, there were a number of things I questioned about the final season, as well. First, they introduced a number of new characters, something that's never a good idea during the final season of a show, especially an ensemble show such as Letterkenny. Second, they introduced these characters at the expense of other established characters who received little-to-no screen time during the final season. The characters essentially missing from the final season included Joint Boy, Coach, Glen, Bonnie and Mrs. McMurray, Rosie, Tanis, Dax and Ron, Aly and Bianca, Barts, Yorkie, Scholtzy, Fisky, and Boomtown, Mary-Anne and Betty-Anne, the Dyck family, and Anik. Of all these people, some were seen in the final season and had small roles, but most of them either weren't seen at all or had no lines. This was incredibly disappointing, and I don't know why they chose to go this route w/ the final season. Third, in the final episode, Jonesy and Reilly stopped by the produce stand to offer their thanks and respect to Wayne and Dary for all the times they'd stood by one another in times of trouble, and instead of showing any growth from Wayne and Dary, the writers chose to have them chirp the boys the same as they'd done in early seasons of the show. I felt that this was another missed opportunity to give validity to previous seasons. In other words, by not acknowledging Jonesy and Reilly, they essentially said that all the times they'd been there for one another didn't matter, and that was really a shame. I think that writing like that devalued their own show. Fourth, the whole idea of having each of the main characters move on to something bigger in their lives was a good idea, but they scrapped it all over nothing. I will never understand the decision to build this storyline, then forget all about it by disregarding it in its entirety. Finally, they spent a significant portion of the final episode, and the only segment of the season Glen was a part of, rehashing the episode Fartbook. This was really a head-scratcher, as it was one of the most lowest-rated episodes of the entire series as shown by its rating on multiple platforms. It was really a poor choice to include this, and it also said that the writers were really out of touch w/ what their audience wanted and expected from them. You don't see that very often in hit TV shows. The writers and producers usually pay great attention to what the audience responds and doesn't write more of something that failed spectacularly in previous episodes. I really don't know what they were thinking, but it wasn't a good look for the writers.

This show will likely continue to be one of my favorite comedies, but I really felt that the final season could've and should've gone in an alternate direction. They started off really well, and the whole thing imploded in the last two episodes for no reason. I think that they would've been better off simply sticking to their formula and doing the same bits they'd previously done w/out the teaser of having ending arcs for the characters. There really was no character arc for any of the characters on this show. Instead, it was more of a flat line.

I felt that this show never really found its footing, which was disappointing, b/c it had an interesting premise and relatable characters w/ one notable exception. I felt that Craig Roberts, as David in the lead role, was written in an odd fashion. This wasn't a knock on his acting ability but more in how the character was created. He, more or less, was simply there in each scene. There wasn't much affect from him, so his character came off as more of a bystander in his own life. Aside from him, the other characters, as written, were quite enjoyable to follow.

One thing I found questionable about the direction of the show was that, after the first season, they largely moved away from the country club setting. I thought that this was a poor choice, since the setting of the show was what made it unique in many regards. This show, as originally planned, had the feel of an adult summer camp-type vehicle. However, when they repositioned this show to follow the characters from the club to other areas of their lives, it lost much of the distinctive feel it originally held. I felt that this was a mistake in the direction of the show, and it ultimately led to its downfall, which was unfortunate, b/c it held so much promise and could've easily run for five or six full seasons.

The first season was quite impressive. The casting on this was just incredible, and the dialogue was snappy, funny, and kept the story moving in the right direction. While this was billed as a mystery w/ comedic elements, it's much more than that. Each of the leads has a backstory that affects their interactions w/ one another and causes them to come together to seek something that's missing in each of their lives. The first season was as much about this as it was solving the mystery behind the murder.

I also wanted to note the seventh episode in particular. It was an episode that took place from the point-of-view of James Caverly's character, Theo, who is deaf. There's no dialogue in the episode, and there is practically no audio at all, save for limited sound effects and some light background music in a few scenes. The entire episode relied on American Sign Language as a means of communication between Theo and some of the other characters, and he also was able to read lips. As Mr. Caverly is actually deaf in real life, the episode showed a good example of how someone who is deaf might live in a hearing environment; sort of on the periphery, attuned to others, their body language, and what they're saying by use of lip-reading, but not necessarily included in the social structure of the environment. I felt that the cinematography and script of this episode was a really good use of the medium to convey a bit about this world.

I felt that this show really should be evaluated in three parts, as it’s almost as if there were three shows in one. The first season was based on the novel of the same name, so the writers had clearly marked signposts to follow. As the novel was quite compelling, so too was the first season of the show. However, this is where the book ended, and the writers had to take up the slack. The natural progression of events led them to follow the court case surrounding the death of Hannah Baker, as well as the criminal trial of Bryce Walker..

I felt that these two seasons should be evaluated in terms of being different shows. The first season was clearly the best season of the four b/c, that’s the material the book covered, and the writers didn’t have to come up w/ any of their own material. The second season, although panned by some fans and critics, still followed the same themes of the first season, yet it was not up to par in terms of storyline or writing.

The third and fourth seasons should be considered a third show all on their own. While they did stick to similar themes from the first and second seasons, the writers clearly had no plan in place to go beyond the end of the novel. These last two seasons, especially, felt completely disjointed from the first two. The third season was long and drawn out, and the payoff in the end was neither surprising nor all that interesting. If they had maintained more of a mysterious atmosphere over what they were doing, it might have been better.

The fourth season was just a mess. Watching a main character who’s moody, bitter, angry, intense, depressed, and slipping into schizophrenia is not a compelling watch. They began this in season three and continued on in season four. It really added no particular value to the show or the character of Clay.

As for the storyline in the final season, it was absolutely ludicrous. I won’t go into the details, but suffice it to say, the writers really didn’t put much thought into what they were doing. The last two episodes of the show were especially pointless. The prom episode was completely unnecessary, as was the finale, at least the way it was filmed. And, it certainly didn’t require 90 minutes to portray the events of what happened in the finale. Not to mention, the last scene of the show was absolutely awful.

I think that the worst part of this show, however, was the treatment of two characters, Bryce Walker and Montgomery de la Cruz. In the third season, the writers actually spend quite a few resources rehabilitating the image of Bryce, as if there was some redemption to be had for him. He was a serial predator, and his actions would have stemmed from a deep-seated psychological disorder that wouldn’t have simply gone away, b/c he acknowledged his wrongdoing and felt bad about it. They did something similar w/ Monte in the fourth season, and I felt that it was incredibly disingenuous, dangerous, and irresponsible to take this path, b/c it showed that they really hadn’t researched the topics they were writing about. It was really surprising to watch this, and even both of Jessica’s relationships w/ Justin and Diego were quite questionable, especially given her role as head of the women’s rights movement on campus.

What can be stated about this program that hasn't previously been stated? In all aspects, it's terrific. The writing, direction, acting, flow of the storylines, and feel of an oft-forgotten culture is tremendous. I felt that that the particular efforts of Devery Jacobs and Paulina Alexis were amazing. They both played quite difficult, delicate roles, and they absolutely nailed them!

Some of what I greatly appreciated about this show was how deeply-ingrained the culture of Native American peoples were into the storylines. This show existed on so many levels at once, and all done so well, it was truly astounding. It was quite the achievement in television. Most importantly, the writing didn't gloss over life events that affect us the most. This show encapsulated a tremendous sense of loss on the behalf of many characters, b/c that was a fact of life on many Indigenous reservations. The fact that the writers didn't create a singular episode from it, but instead, used it as an overarching storyline was to their credit and should be commended.

This show could be difficult to watch at times, b/c it wa so powerful, but the lives of the characters were important and deeply-rooted in a community that mattered. This was the type of television we should be watching, not just b/c it was so fantastic, but b/c, it was so important to how we relate to one another.

This story had so much heart rooted in its message of family, friendship, and togetherness in community. It's unfortunate that we were only honored with three, short seasons of this masterpiece, but in a way, I believe that its brevity will cause it to linger in our collective conscience for a long, long time. These characters, especially the four at the core of the series, Elora Danan Postoak, Willie Jack, Cheese, and Bear Smallhill, left an indelible mark of how friends and family were there for one another through thick and thin. I'm glad that I got to spend some time w/ all of them, and learn of their culture and community, while gleaning a bit of understanding of what makes them who they were as a people and as individuals. Mvto, Rez Dogs.

My score for this show is a reluctant seven. It really deserved a less, but I based my per-episode ratings on production values and topics touched upon. Based upon story and writing, I would've given this show a three- or four-star rating. The writing and direction, as in direction of the storylines, was incredibly lazy. This show was a constant stream of the relatives of those killed by Barry coming back to seek revenge against him. It wasn't all that interesting of an idea to begin w/, and it certainly didn't get better as seasons progressed.

I was immediately bored w/ this series, and I never really grew an interest in watching any of it. I found the characters to be really "meh." I thought that the best character was NoHo Hank, but his role in this wasn't very consequential. Then again, no one's role in this was consequential b/c of the way the show was designed. There was no one to root for, and practically everyone on this show was some self-serving individual. In nearly every instance, these characters were incredibly one-dimensional.

And, what was w/ the final season? There were what, three consecutive episodes leading into the finale which Bill Hader didn't appear in? What were they thinking? It recalled a line from a great movie, Quiz Show, where one of the main characters, Charles Van Doren, wasn't called to testify during a congressional investigation, where he was a central figured, and the wife of the main protagonist stated, "Quiz show hearings without Van Doren was like doing Hamlet without Hamlet." How do you have a show focused so completely on one man, and three of the four final episodes don't feature this character? It's mind-boggling how this show received such incredible ratings.

The first season of this was really strong. It's not the most well-made television program ever, but it's definitely watchable, and main character actors are quite solid. Alan Ritchson is great as Reacher. For a character who can be monotone, he's quite funny, charming, and compelling in his nature. Willa Fitzgerald was an excellent choice as his partner this first season. Her acting ability covers a wide-range of ground, and she's as tough as nails as she is soft as silk. She really defined her character well. Malcolm Goodwin was also strong addition to the cast. He played a strong character who did an excellent job of looking outside of himself to find answers to a befuddling case. I also really loved Maria Sten in her role. She was tremendous as Reacher's only "friend." Although her part was limited in this first season, I'm hoping to see more of her in the seasons to come.

Overall, the script was interesting, as it intermingled many subtle layers to bring the story to life. It wasn't necessarily an original story, but it was told in a way that kept me engaged. I cared about the characters and what happened to them, and to this point, I liked that the writers introduced some side characters, who were the focus of parts of a few different episodes, that were designed to get me to care about them, which I did. In too many of these types of shows, these side characters are introduced, then quickly forgotten. In this show, however, these characters were introduced, and we were able to follow their progression through the remainder of the story to see the outcome of their character arc. I really appreciated that aspect of the writing, and I felt that it was the sign of a strong writer's room.

Having seen this once before, I was recently having a discussion w/ someone about this documentary, which prompted me to view it again. As many others have complained about, this documentary was way, way too long. This could've been wrapped up in a 90-minute documentary w/out any loose ends or missing components. Instead, the filmmakers decided to tell everyone's sob stories about this fiasco, but the problem was, the sob stories were coming from those who perpetrated the crime. Therefore, my interest immediately waned in their stories.

Also, the filmmakers' choices for interviewees was really suspect. Doug Matthews, the FBI agent that started this investigation, was just a clown. It's actually embarrassing that someone like that was able to become employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He has zero critical thinking skills. As for the other interviewees, there were two who I considered to have any credibility at all. Other than that, it was a lot of self-serving crap that had no place in a documentary that should've been designed to simply tell the story of what had happened, not make victims out of criminals.

If you're intent on watching this, I would suggest skipping the first five episodes of this documentary, and only watch the last episode. The entire summation of what happened w/ this story is covered in a clip from a news segment that encompasses less than 60 seconds. This should give you an idea of the fluff involved over the course of six episodes.