skepticskeptical

I wanted to like this series, although I knew that since it only lasted one season there must have been something awry. I stuck it out nonetheless through the first twelve episodes, thinking that I was rapidly approaching the end, only to learn that there were in fact twenty-two episodes, at which point I threw in the towel.

The primary problem with this series, I find, is that the protagonist, Brian, is not a genius on NZT, but a faster taskmaster on something like modafinil/Provigil. Most of his breakthroughs involve him reading through reports and files much faster than a person normally could. So he processes more information faster, but this could be done by a team of people instead. He does not have any truly creative insights.

One example of this is when the team is looking for a serial killer who accessed the homes of his victims without breaking and entering. Everyone naturally thinks that the perp must have posed as a utility worker or something along those lines. Brian's "genius" insight is that the person could also have been a locksmith. That pretty much illustrates the problem with the entire series. The viewer is never confronted with awe-inspiring, brilliant connecting of dots or anything at all creative. Brian on NZT just seems like an above-average bloke. Even his colleague, Rebecca, often seems smarter than he is.

Ultimately, this series based on an original movie wanted to be something different but wound up as a mediocre crime detective series. The writers were clearly not on NZT, or even caffeine, it seems.

Fake covers a fascinating topic: art fraud and forgery. There are quite a few good films on this never more interesting phenomenon in the age of corporatized art, when many artists have been driven to become con artists in order to survive. My issue with this particular film is that it feels like the director just learned about the topic and so is excited to share information about it and spends a lot of the dialogue on info-dumping.

To make matters worse, the ending of the film is completely implausible and feels like yet another attempt to surprise viewers with an unexpected twist which is surprising only because it is absurd. No, this would not have happened. Ever.

I like Shooter because, although it involves a very complicated conspiracy theory, in the reality of the film, the theory is in fact true. Think JFK, the Jason Bourne film series, and other too-scary-to-believe stories, and you can throw this one in that category as well. It involves government corruption of an almost unfathomable nature, and yet we know that, as in the case of House of Cards, at least some of what is being depicted is based upon the very frightening real world in which we now live.

There is a lot of action here, and I am not a fan of action kill fests, but, as in the Bourne films, there is also a lot to ponder. Overall, a worthwhile effort. There are some implausibilities, but it's still worth watching.