In order to keep liking Heroes, I think I'm going to have to stop reviewing it. The main reason is that if I think too much about it, I'll stop enjoying it. I can't think about the idea that Bennett would willing work with Sylar, even for a short time, after what he did to Claire. That he wouldn't shoot Sylar (or the screaming guy) through the glass to prevent Sylar from taking his power.
We had no Mohinder so we don't get to continue to see how stupid he is. I think Nathan Petrelli's arc is interesting, especially with the religious twist they're putting on it.
At any rate, I still really like the show, but it doesn't stand up to deep analysis. As one critic said after last week's episode... "people have argued the point with me, but my feeling is that the show wasn't even that good in season 1, outside of a handful of episodes ("Five Years Later," "Company Man"), but the novelty of it, the cliffhangers, and our misguided belief that this was all going somewhere fooled us into thinking "Heroes" was better than it actually was. Once we got the season one finale, and especially once we got season two, the blinders came off and we realized the emperor has no clothes, and probably never did." I think I agree with him, but it doesn't stop me from liking the show.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think I'm with you on this. I became less interested each week during season 2. Nothing in the first 2 weeks have made me any more interested, although I'll likely continue watching it until the end.
So you're telling me that the "villians" that you included in all the previews leading up to the season that were supposed to bring havoc and mayhem for the heroes to stop were put back in Level 5 at the end of the third hour? and Sylar helped catch them? What's to make me watch the rest of the season?
I know I'll watch, but now you know how I felt in the third season of Lost. Hopefully Heroes recovers like Lost did.
Post a Comment