Nach dem Attentat

I read the book the show is based on, and though there are some questionable casting decisions made, particularly Lincoln, I'll continue watching.

Tobias Menzies is always excellent, and though he's portrayed as the Melvin Purvis of the hunt, I'm fine with that choice for artistic reasoning. Lili Taylor is good, though of course most of us continue to see Sally Field and DDL as Mary Todd and Lincoln. Anthony Boyle is doing well with the loathsome Booth, and I like the actress portraying Mary. I'm a little baffled by Patton Oswalt here, though I like him in other things. Lincoln, though, was the truly odd choice. It looked like his chest was waxed in one of the death scenes, lol. The voice was so grating that i looked forward to his coming end, which is really not the way I want to feel about an Abe portrayal.

Costumes, set design are very well done and I look forward to the rest of the series, despite some odd choices.

If you enjoy period pieces and/or procedural dramas and you don't mind a bit of a slow burn, you'll probably enjoy this series. Tobias Menzies is excellent (and does a really good American accent), even if he doesn't have the truly glorious beard the real Edwin Stanton had. Anthony Boyle is absolutely despicable as Booth, as he should be. Every scene with Lovie Simone is so tense and beautifully acted that I can't really take my eyes off the screen when she's on it.

As other reviewers have mentioned, there are of course historical inaccuracies. Duh. Every movie or series based on historical events has inaccuracies. If that bothers you to the point of distraction, then perhaps you should stick to documentaries. As for Lincoln's voice, which a lot of reviewers seem to find downright offensive, historian and Lincoln-enthusiast Harold Holzer has said that Lincoln was almost certainly a tenor based on contemporary accounts. Some who heard Abe speak even described his voice as high and shrill. It may be a bit jarring the first time you hear it, but Linklater's voice at least is consistent with contemporary descriptions of Lincoln's.

I also just genuinely don't know what the complaint about casting is. So what if some of these actors are better known for comic roles? They're definitely not playing their roles comically here. I don't find anyone particularly miscast.

This show is fine. It's not going to go down in the books as the greatest series ever, or even one of my favorites. But holy canoli, it's so much better than the majority of reviews are giving it credit for.

The title might refer to the manhunt for Booth after Lincoln's assassination but the miniseries covers a lot more than just that narrow scope.

It encompasses the aftermath of the Civil War from many angles: Jefferson Davis was still on the run, Confederates were planning their revenge, foreign countries were giving aid and comfort to fleeing rebels, former slaves were adjusting to their new status and the government was planning radical steps for reconstructing the south into a more equitable society, a goal pushed by Secretary of War Edwin Stanton but undermined by the new President, Andrew Johnson.

From that perspective, there are many parallels to modern times, which the writers sometimes call out a bit too clumsily. Sometimes the plotline, dialogue and acting is also clumsy. The big scope means the story is at risk of going off the rails. But in the end they tie it all together.

Standout performances from Tobias Menzies as Edwin Stanton; Anthony Boyle, believably creepy and hateful as John Wilkes Booth; and Hamish Linklater as Abraham Lincoln.

I would have liked the writers to pay more attention to scrubbing anachronisms from the dialogue. It happened over and over. It may be amusing to think that John Wilkes Booth knew about the theatrical superstition, "break a leg," when he really did break his leg on stage, but there's no evidence of that superstition existing till the 1920s and most likely it developed no earlier than the early 20th Century. There are many more examples like that, far too many.

Still, it's a competent and often well-acted production of historical events with modern relevance. Recommended.

Apple really should consider continuing the saga with a new story, covering Johnson's fraught one-term Presidency and the very different administration of his successor, Ulysses S. Grant, who was serious about Reconstruction and went to war with the KKK.

I don't know much about this historical event which is why I'm not picking apart the historical inaccuracies like many reviewers but I do know a lot about horse drawn vehicles and noticed a few mistakes like driving on the wrong sides of the road and using the wrong type vehicle for the weather and occasion but other than that I'm thoroughly enjoying it. I can't understand why so many people are criticizing the casting. I find it interesting because instead of choosing actors who might "suit" the characters better, they seemed to have purposefully avoided those stereotypes allowing the characters to be much more human and easy to empathize with. Great costumes!! As for the dialogue, once again, it is more contemporary but allows us to relate to the story instead of being distracted but the unfamiliar speech patterns and mid 19th century vocabulary.

Menzies, as always, is excellent, as are most of the cast. But as much as I love Patton Oswalt, he isn't well suited to a historical drama. A couple of other minor character actors similarly detracted.

Many of the expressions used in the writing ("consider me Switzerland," "don't get me wrong," as just two examples) and open discussion of a homosexual relationship in court were wholly out of place for a dramatization of historical events from the 1860s. I found it distracting, and fairly surprising that a production of this caliber hadn't had a better copy editor.

Side note: great costuming.