Stephen Bifani

don't get why there are so many 5 star ratings of this show. Possibly my lack of understanding is based on the Agatha Harkness character that I am familiar with is the one from the 1960s-70s Marvel comics that I read back then, and since then there may have been some iteration of her in the comics closer to what is seen in this show. I still think of the character as sort of Franklin Richards' babysitter/guardian, also a 400 year old witch that looked only about as old as Aunt May. Regardless (and for what it's worth), I am not really enjoying this thing very much. SPOILER ALERT: STOP READING IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN E5! Of course the identity of the teen relates to Young Avengers. Cool, but this show is in general kind of ham-handed. I feel like it could have been done as maybe an extended miniseries. Something like that excellent (again, in my opinion) Werewolf by Night one-off, but expanded to 3 or 4 episodes. Not unlike the actual 4 issue miniseries you'd get in the comics in the 80s and early 90s! For example, Frank Miller's Wolverine, Barry Windsor-Smith's Weapon X, etc. (Yeah it was all about Logan back then, but they were both excellent comics series). In closing, I wouldn't want to detract from the folks that seem to be enjoying this show, but for me it is another example of a Marvel Cinematic property that doesn't relate to the original version of the character much and again suffers for it.

Although the acting was fairly strong, the movie itself was not. I understand a sci-fi movie requires some level of suspension of disbelief, but not glaring impossibilities within the context of the movie. For example: It's ok in a Star Trek movie to have a tense, down to the last second resolution to a situation, like a literal countdown where the Enterprise is a second from being destroyed and Geordi's timely interference prevents the disaster. It's Star Trek and it's main thrust is be thrilling adventure. Sure, Star Trek often has relevant and poignant themes, but the focus of the shows and movies is sci fi adventure. In the case of Ad Astra here, it just felt forced and implausible when Roy sort of hijacked the ship to Neptune. 7 minutes to board the ship from when he was in the lake? A 10 second countdown while he is still climbing up from the blast of the lift off engines? Come on. Later he removes a section of panel then uses it as a shield to get through the debris storm of Neptune's rings so he can use the space suit's propulsion to get back to his distant ship? Ok, I can see Star-Lord doing that in Guardians of the Galaxy, but not here. There are a few other times these sort of things happen. Doesn't fit the narrative, which is more about his relationship with his father. I feel that this story would have been better told if they didnt try to cram it into a semi-plausible sci fi setting. Those distractions made this movie frustrating to watch. D plus. maybe C minus, but more probably D plus. Edit: Just for context, my wife and I just watched Knives Out. This is better storytelling. This is not just better, it is fine storytelling. Of course, different genre, but it is still a movie, and it is flat out better.