spuzer55 Reviews

Aquaman (2018)

Not enough action

[1/10 · 6 January 2019]

I want 2.5 hrs of my life back. It was so boring I kept trying to fall sleep but all couldn't because of all the loud noises- it's what I imagine being stuck in purgatory feels like. Needed more action and less plot, didn't have time to process all the critical information.

Childhood's End (2015)

Don't waste your time

[1/10 · 19 January 2018]

If you're looking for a purely spiritual and sentimental experience that doesn't answer any questions, then by all means this is for you. Otherwise, don't waste your time. The first installment seems promising and the series is apt at engaging the audience, but after almost five hours of investment the conclusion is extremely disappointing if you're looking for any glimmer of rational explanation. Disappointing.

An Idiot Abroad (2010–2012)

Needed a companion throughout

[7/10 · 14 March 2015]

The first season is entertaining enough to merit a viewing. You sympathise with Karl when you see the way Merchant and Gervais belittle him and parade him for their own amusement, and overlook some of the more annoying aspects of his personality. While Karl has a lot to say and is sometimes amusing and funny, he's definitely no adventurer.

However, the more you watch the show and the more you get to spend time with him, the less and less sympathetic Karl becomes. In Season 2, his antics and comments become more annoying than anything else, and you realise why Gervais and Merchant act the way they do. Not only does the man whine about almost every single event in the entirety of human history, he's also pushy and completely certain of his own opinion all the time, attempting to rationalise his transparent insecurities and excuses. Most repulsive of all is the way he often treats the locals, outwardly channeling his personal frustrations and worldly ignorance at them, often mocking, confronting or offending his hosts. At this point, somewhere in the second season, you realise that Karl's opinionated perspective usually just detracts from his present surroundings and the possible entertainment value of the show.

This is why Season 3 (three episodes, really) functions so well. Warwick Davis joins Karl on his adventures, providing his own critique and a much needed balance to Karl's ego. As always, Karl becomes hostile when things don't proceed the way he likes, but Warwick's presence and their ensuing confrontations and disagreements become the most entertaining part of the show. Warwick is the balancing Yang that Karl's Ying so desperately needed, substantially raising the show's entertainment and travel elements. Wish there was more of this.

Recommended: Seasons 1 and 3. There are many interesting and unique places on show in Season 2, but none of them are enhanced by Karl's presence or perspective.

Black Mirror (2011– )

Pure Paranoia

[4/10 · 30 November 2014]

Sorry Charlie Brooker, but this series seems as though written by an aging populace preaching resistance to change. The ideas portrayed are clear, but they only paint a one-sided perspective that's biased towards the negative, with scientific or moral dilemmas purposefully ignored or emitted to promote it, and doesn't hold up to further scrutiny. It is well executed visually, perfectly acted, shot and written, and episodes start from the right vantage point to yield maximum effect. It's with the message that I have the biggest contention; There have and always will be negative obstacles to any progress: Technology has revolutionised fraud and theft, provided new forms of bullying, sensationalism and public humiliation. But it has transformed the world enormously for the better, improving access to information, communication, commerce, increased globalisation and productivity. Such challenges breed discussion, promote awareness to decrease prevalence, and offer possible improvements to laws and regulations. As problems evolve with and because of technology, our ability to combat and prevent them evolves as well. Here are the issued I encountered for each episode (SPOLERS AHEAD):

1.1: This premise hinges on a man who recognises the actor brought in and posts his picture online, thus alerting the kidnapper to the deception. If such a critical and decisive operation were to take place, one would expect it would be handled with more professionalism and secrecy. The actor is walked to the entrance in the open, and the man takes the picture with no protest or rebuke before or after the incident (although the actor is 'rushed in' as if the phone was a gun. An outrageous scenario orchestrated for plot development? I think so. The Prime Minister's wife also appears to be exceedingly insecure about people's perceptions of her. One would think someone in her position would be better accustomed to sensationalism, scrutiny and disgruntled public opinion. You also wouldn't need to be in the public eye to know that comments on some websites should not be taken seriously.

1.2: I don't believe spending your life peddling for credits while living in confined cages under an advertising regime resembles a realistic premise, but perhaps it's not meant to be - the episode's sole purpose is to make an abstract comment about the nature of media, advertising and commercialism. As the world becomes more connected, the representation of an individual as a virtual caricature becomes more common, but only because of the nature and prevalence of such interaction. Technology is not responsible for this, human nature is. We have always objectified those furthest away from our grasp, and technology brings us closer to the same extent that it leaves us behind a barrier.

1.3: Is this technology wrong because of the scenario offered? Would objectifying memory cause more conflict than resolve, and signal the end of indiscretion and privacy? The answer is no, or rather no more than presently. We often recall and deliberate over our past experiences, and this technology wouldn't change that. Regarding the main story, we are presented with an impossible scenario (possibly the worst) and asked to choose between truth or privacy. If you are in a relationship where the question "Show me where you were last night?" consistently surfaces, trust issues or relationship flaws very likely exist. This is in contrast to what one would envision to be the typical application for this type of technology; Domestic disputes and crimes would be recorded just like everything else. They could be erased through force or intimidation, but it's very likely that such a system would have a backup capacity (much like Facebook does when you delete an account), so that deleting wouldn't stop the perpetrator from getting caught. This hypothetical scenario could in fact dramatically reduce the rate of crime committed, not increase it.

2.1: Be Right Back has a similar conundrum. This is a world where an artificial body can be grown and moulded from powder in hours (and stored with an infinite battery pack), but an artificial computer isn't able to properly mimic human reactions to emotions if it doesn't have 'sufficient data'. Contrary to what is stated, people have all types of online interactions these days that go far beyond pleasantries and encompass most of the emotional spectrum. For missing data, it wouldn't be hard for a system to calculate the best response specific to any individual for any given situation or emotion. By that time we would also have cars that drive themselves, avoiding accidents altogether. In fact, the Google driver-less car already exists. A better premise could focus on how surrogates would be treated and the legal implications of their existence.

2.2: If we possessed the technology to wipe away sinful memories, then this would be the most impractical use of it imaginable. Repeatedly wiping the memory of a criminal for continuous emotional torture and entertainment would be deemed highly immoral by any present or future civilisation. What would be the point of torturing someone who doesn't know what they've done wrong? The implications of memory wiping have been addressed in numerous films, notably Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. For criminals, it could offer a blank slate or a second chance at life. For others it could wipe away traumatic and debilitating experiences to improve quality of life. These are all moral and legal grey areas, but still offer more realistic scenarios than shown here.

2.3: Not much to be said here. Could the team behind a satirical blue bear ever be approved to run for public office? The answer is no.

Constructing incomplete, cynical and misleading scenarios that only work to spread fear is simply pointless and counter-productive. A superior show would examine both sides and predict the future more accurately. A more pressing threat (possibly worth being a little paranoid about) is artificial intelligence, but this far exceeds the scope of this series- clearly this isn't the programme to watch if you're looking to educate yourself about science and technology.

The Giver (2014)

Doesn't work well as a film

[5/10 · 26 November 2014]

I've read the book and after watching the movie I have to say that it doesn't really work well on screen. The attempted execution is admirable, but the cinematic experience is lacking. Pacing either seems to progress the story too rapidly or get bogged down in long drawn out narration or speeches that don't complement the rhythm of the story well. Characters seems underdeveloped resulting in a lack of concern for them in general and an absence of penetration and depth. You could tell they were trying to appeal to the teen market on the same level as The Hunger Games, but it's not the same when the world you're trying to paint is devoid of normal emotions. I can see this working better if they gave it a more quirky feel from the start or even went over the top stylistically or atmospherically, but as it stands it just didn't turn out to be exciting or thrilling enough to make you want to pay attention. The film offered nothing new both thematically or visually, with better examples of what was on offer being done in more successful and creative ways before; Equilibrium and Pleasantville come to mind. I don't think it really has much for both book fans and casual viewers alike.

Dollhouse (2009–2010)

It tries to be its best

[9/10 · 16 November 2014]

I began watching this show not knowing what to expect after hearing about and reading mixed reviews stating its lack of popularity and untimely demise. I was surprised to find that every episode I watched made me want more at an exponential rate. The premise is well thought out and big on ideas. Each episode is exciting, being its own cohesive whole impressively put together with cleverly presented themes, while at the same time continuing and adding to the overarching plot development of the series. At no point in its fifty minute per episode run time does the story or dialog seem like filler or unnecessary to the plot development, and the story telling format is also often modified for extra effect and variety. The show doesn't regress into boredom or run out of ideas the longer the series continues, as some concept shows with high potential have been known to do in the past. In fact, the more you watch, the better it gets.

I believe if a show written this well doesn't get the credit it deserves, the problem is likely to lie elsewhere in the execution process. Usually this is the result of subtle aspects in the way the show is presented; there is often a disconnect with the audience- either it's unsuccessful at adequately engaging them emotionally or appealing to them on some level. I personally believe that this show's shortcomings stem from the fact that it wasn't framed as a modern show. Despite coming out in 2009, the look and feel of the show makes it seem like it was shot in the early '90s; From the camera work to the sets, soundtrack and special effects, flashback hues and lack of closeup or reaction shots, even down to its cheesy intro and music. It all doesn't appear to be congruent with or complement the writing, making the acting seem transparent and the story seem at arms length to the audience. Often the character development in regard to the science fiction goes beyond what is plausible, but if you are willing to look past that the plot generated because of and despite this is engaging. At no point will you be asking yourself "Did I fall asleep?".

Just for God's sake- don't watch the unaired pilot!! They chose to take a different plot direction, and some scenes are re-used in the later episodes for different story lines, making it confusing for those who do watch it. I also don't understand the criticism that the series is in some way misogynistic. The show is led by a strong and complex woman (in fact, the show has several strong female characters) striving to make the best of her situations, and ultimately trying to overcome and conquer the obstacles placed in front of her in ways that resonate to her very core. The premise of the Dollhouse may be morally aversive, but that's the point. It's not condoning or glorifying anything; and while the protagonist is female, the dolls are of both sexes. A sexual encounter may be part of someone's larger fantasy, but for most clients the experience is about recreating something meaningful, nostalgic or emotionally fulfilling.

Despite what the show is lacking, it's still very, very worthy of being looked into. So go seek out Dollhouse, because it's time for your treatment now.

PS- Don't listen to the person(s) below who apparently wanted to write a scathing review so badly after watching a total of three episodes, that he didn't bother paying attention to the exact parts of the show he was mocking. For those interested in clarity, ***Spoilers** for S1 Episode 2 follow: Client hires doll for outdoor adventure- rafting, rock climbing, hunting- and therein lies the greater risk to the doll's safety and the reason for the price increase. He also didn't complain about the price. The house had no knowledge of his other intentions. It is later explained that everything about this man was a fabrication, made up in order to pass the security evaluation and hire the doll. The question isn't "Why did he spend so much money just to kill someone for sport knowing he would only be exposed later?" but "Who was willing and capable of fabricating this man's personality and setting up these shenanigans (ie the fourth party who killed the remaining evidence), and what was so special about said doll that made her the target?" -although given the intricately fabricated personality, the first question would also be plausible if he was looking to create a worthy adversary for himself and had the money to spend. Together with a very relevant intro at the beginning of the episode, this is all further explained, in detail, near the end in case there were some who didn't understand it completely as it was happening. These events tie in to the bigger picture and overarching story which, surprisingly, keeps developing beyond the first three episodes of the series.

There's nothing wrong with disliking a show, but if the only reason behind this and calling the creator an idiot in a heated rage of emphasis caps is that you can't adequately follow the plot, then you risk making yourself look like a fool on the internet.

The Booth at the End (2011–2012)

Engaging

[9/10 · 13 November 2014]

I usually find concept works executed in this way- set in a single location with a single character (the likes of Phone Booth, 127 Hours, Locke, and others) tedious and usually end up avoiding them, but this is the best example of this kind that I've come across. With five 20 minute episodes, each season has the run time of an average movie but works better when broken up into a series. The writing is the principal driving force behind it from an idea built on intrigue; Shot in a diner around a man who can make things happen for you if you are willing to complete a random yet specific task.

Xander Berkeley is decent as "the man", but sometimes it feels like the show would benefit if he played the character with a little more force and mystery. Put simply, it addresses the struggles of everyday life and what it means to be human. The wants, the inadequacies, the randomness, morality and the moments that define who we are- explored through this seemingly random group of people. Effortless to watch and worth checking out. Cannot wait for season three. Oh, and while you're there, try the pastrami sandwich.

The Venture Bros. (2003–2018)

Best thing since spliced Dean-A

[10/10 · 9 November 2014]

This is one of my favorite shows. While the reviews below speak for themselves, I want to sum up the many reasons to watch this show.

Watch this series if you enjoy: strong plot and story structure, adult humor, dark humor about failure, absurdist humor, the spy and superhero genres, sci fi genre, serialization that at the same time doesn't require past knowledge for enjoyment, references and twisted takes on old school cartoons and well-known superheroes, inventive retcon, top notch execution and attention to detail, entertaining and unique characters, clever and quotable dialog that doesn't rely on catchphrases for laughs (also applies if you are sick of nonsensical and windbag cartoons), high-caliber writing that doesn't sink after a few seasons and constantly seeks to expand and try something different.

I can see why this show isn't that popular or well-known; The most difficult thing for me to watch was the first episode because of all the absurd and cheesy characters introduced, making it seem like a childish animation for a very young audience- but once I realized that the show is making fun of itself (and its characters and genre at the same time), there was no looking back. In fact, this is a very adult animation and I imagine a young audience would lose interest quite quickly because they wouldn't recognize the humor, references and appeal of the show.

The only problem is that each season takes a year and a half to come out, most recently this amounts to only 10 twenty minute episodes a season (techincally 8 as two were combined). This is because the animation is produced on the cheap the old fashioned way, making this the slowest Galapagos tortoise on television. This is very frustrating and for many creates an ambivalence towards the show further adding to its lack of popularity. What comes out is pure quality over quantity, but at this rate I would be willing to sacrifice some quality for more episodes. Damn you, Team Venture!

Misfits (2009–2013)

Bold and original

[8/10 · 7 November 2014]

Firstly I want to point out that this is a teen drama first, and a superhero show second or third (labeling this as a 'superhero' show, or any one specific category for that matter is misleading, as it also fits into many others like the supernatural and anti-hero genres) and the show itself makes this clear, frequently playfully breaking the fourth wall through its dialogue. Anyone expecting a show that jumps straight into superhero mythology (such as Heroes) may be disappointed, as this doesn't begin reasonably until at least the middle of the second season. That's not to say that the show isn't really well done, it's just different to your average American CW superhero series. Rather, the supernatural events revolve around the story of the week, with themes like fitting in, the nature of relationships, rebellion, and the future repercussions of one's actions; The themes are cleverly presented and become obvious through the adventure of the week, and not mindlessly pounded over your head with dull conversation.

The show is mostly confined to the micro level of the community centre and the individuals in it (rather than the effect the events have on the outside world), powers are used sparingly and only when essential to the plot or character development/past insight. The framing of the show around a bunch of teens in a community centre experiencing their own problems adds a level of realism to every supernatural event or plot development. Sometimes stories take a weird turn, but that's all part of the appeal of the it- this show is nothing if not bold. The only minor annoyance, for me, was that the streets and buildings are completely deserted when the main cast decides to venture out anywhere, except for the obvious character/s they are going to interact with. For god's sakes, hire one or two extras to roam the streets to give the world a little more believability.

The first three seasons are a must watch, the last two are optional. The cast at the end of the third season is almost completely replaced, and the sudden drop in acting and writing is noticeable. The original/main cast not only had a solid lead who was irreplaceable (which only becomes evidently clear after his departure), but they also had great chemistry together. To all those not big on British shows, I too find it hard to embrace many of them, but after watching a few episodes of this series I became addicted, so I recommend giving it a chance.

Better Off Ted (2009–2010)

Scrubs meets 30 Rock

[8/10 · 6 November 2014]

This show is enjoyable and fun. The premise and the writing is great- the weekly scientific escapades or company mismanagement are laugh out loud funny. The acting is mostly great as well. It feels quite underrated, and it seems to me like this could've been viewed and appreciated as a more clever show if one or two things had been done differently: The voice-over and the starring into the camera. Having one type of narration would have been enough, but having Ted voice-over in some scenes AND narrate into the camera in others is a little over the top, and frankly very '90s. Even with a charismatic lead, this slows down the flow of the show and sometimes inserts Ted into events that don't really require his involvement. It just seems unnecessary having a show with so many compelling characters being told from one perspective. I understand that some scenes need explaining, but I'm sure the writers could have come up with a better way to do this, like sharing the dialogue between characters (which 30 Rock excels at). Secondly, the fake Veridian commercials are not very clever or useful. Replace these with a catchy Intro and you've got yourself a memorable show. 'Better Off Ted' while a clever pun, is also a little misleading as the name for the show and just doesn't seem to fit. Having said that, the show is great. It excels at what a show should be first and foremost - entertaining.

The Walking Dead (2010–2022)

A zombie of a show

[1/10 · 19 February 2014]

Where's the Frank Darabont show I was promised? This is terrible and has no prospect of improvement. I can forgive the bad acting and the need to create a show around a smaller budget, but what can you say about such terrible writing? I feel like the show is designed for people who have the luxury of forgetting from week to week how dull and directionless it is. The producers latched on to a concept show about zombies ("oh cool a show about zombies") and are riding it for all its worth. When the plot becomes unbearably bland, the writers just kill off another character and pretend they did something meaningful. It is an addictive show, which is why I watched three seasons waiting for it to get better, which I now realize is a pointless endeavor. There was only one instance in the entirety of three seasons when the show rose above mediocrity, and that was when the barn doors opened at the farm. Everything else feels like aimless filler with no relatable characters, no suspense, no excitement and obvious plot setups that the writers thought would be more sincere than cringe-worthy (which they are not). What is more exciting than half an hour of "you are growing up now", "I will do everything to protect you", and "she meant so much to me"? Actions. This a TV show- you can literally SHOW those things and relationships playing out instead of talking about it over and over again. There is no perceivable reason to like this show besides the motor neuron impulses of "it's a habit, I watch it every week" and "it's cool because it has zombies in it". You know who else runs on motor neurons and impulses? Zombies.

Hannibal (2013–2015)

Visually disguising what's really underneath

[5/10 · 16 January 2014]

I'll start with the positive. It's stylish, flashy, and the cinematography is stunning. The acting is competent thanks to a high profile cast. The beginning of each new crime or episode is usually exciting because of the unusual nature of the crime, the flood of visual and audible imagery that accompanies it as well as the suspense that is brought to the screen. These are the most attractive qualities of the series. Underneath this exterior however, is a constant thick layer of psychoanalytical gibberish that is passed off as intellectual jargon, implausible leaps of logic, impossible leaps to conclusions, absurd plot points that were only pulled off because of convincing acting and direction but do not make sense if you stop to acknowledge them for at least a split second, as well as educational dream sequences (the last seems the most plausible characteristic- the brain suddenly putting together the jigsaw puzzles lying in your subconscious, but in reality its nothing more than convenient plot device; Processing facts and suspecting someone's involvement through cognitive processing is one thing, but recalling an event under a drug induced state that rendered you unconscious is rather absurd).

The dialogue is often unintentionally misleading or hindering the narrative progression, convoluting the story while giving it the appearance of being highbrow in retrospect. This makes the series seem grand and highly intelligent when it really isn't. It's like finding a well dressed member of the opposite sex bright because of their looks- they're attractive, confident and extravagant but they're only appealing as long as you don't spend too much time delving below the surface. As this show suggests, appearances can be deceptive. Sorry, I took a peak behind the curtain and saw the great and powerful Hannibal for what he really is, which means I won't be staying for dinner to try the tainted meat or drink the kool aid.

Man of Steel (2013)

This movie has no soul

[4/10 · 20 June 2013]

I was really excited to see this movie considering all the creative and successful names that were attached to it. However I came out of it more frustrated than anything else. I really wanted to like this movie but I couldn't, and here are some reasons why:

Straight from the beginning, I couldn't help but notice that the movie was trying too hard to be similar to recently successful sci fi films rather than trying to find its own style (Avatar, The Avengers, Batman Begins and the Matrix come to mind). Then there were the minor plot holes, inconsistencies and lack of believability or followthrough that would have brought that extra touch of realism. But the real downfall of the film was the matter-of-fact and detached style by which it was presented to the audience. This left the movie emotionally empty and with no one to identify with. As the movie continued it became more of the same going through the motions (ok now this happened, and now this happened, oh and now this is happening) to the point where I didn't really care about the movie or characters any more, I just wanted the monotony to be over. This is the reason it felt rushed and long at the same time, like key elements were underdeveloped and missing. This is a great example of how you can have the most massive, amazing grandiose scale special effects and world altering events on screen but without the proper build up and audience investment I didn't really care about the characters, and continued to grow bored until I just wanted it to end. The trailers were more suspenseful than the actual movie for crying out loud.

I'm not sure whose fault it was- the editor, the director, the script, post production but a little more than half way through it started to feel like it was dragging. You can walk out of a really enjoyable film after 3 hours and not realize how much time has gone by. I would not have minded if the movie was 15 minutes longer but had the slightest bit of suspense, emotion or character development in it. It felt like it was cut down to its bare bones- you cant omit that stuff to make room for more special effects, if that is in fact what they were doing. No amount of action can ever replace good story telling. Instead what we got was clichéd one liners and characters going through the motions interacting with themselves so to speak instead of playing off each other, like in a bad video game. Even great acting from Michael Shannon and Russel Crowe wasn't enough to elevate their characters from appearing as one-dimensional cliff notes. It's not being too picky when you want something essential and basic that every movie should have and when many people didn't like the movie for the exact same reasons. I also found the writing to be lazy, and without giving too much away, certain plot elements could have been used to show that Superman was not just all brawn but brains as well. Plus, Lois knows and thats just boring.

It seems to be a growing trend in blockbuster movies these days, while trying to make the movie more modern, technologically up to date and fit for a younger audience, story telling takes a back seat to cheap thrills and special effects to get more people into the theater. It's a shame then that this movie feels like an attempt to mash together as many unoriginal blockbuster genres with as much mindless action special effects as humanly possible, most likely in an attempt to compete in the 'how big can we make this' superhero franchise. I like special effects and I know its good for business, but does the movie making process have to suffer to such an extent as a consequence? Even the Avengers with its multitude of characters was able to pull of an engaging thrill ride compared to this.

To those trying to undermine the critics I have a few things to say. I like Snyder's previous films and particularly enjoyed Watchmen, so I would have had no problem with a darker of more serious version of Superman, except this movie was none of those things. I feel a lot of people who will defend the movie don't have much to say besides 'superman was a badass compared to other movies' and 'it was visually impressive'. They refuse to see the whole picture and realize that a shiny toy is just a shiny toy. The critics didn't rate this movie poorly because it was serious, dark or they didn't like Snyder's style- it was because the movie didn't have a unique character, or any style Snyder is famous for. While that 'satisfied feeling' you had at the end of the movie instead of the 'wanting more' feeling really shows how mundane it really was. A movie of this magnitude should leave you wanting more, for a sequel or at least for a second viewing. After watching this movie I had no desire for either of those things. Just because a film has amazing special effects does not automatically make it a good movie.

What this movie did was ironically give me a new appreciation for Superman Returns. While Bryan Singer's approach to the character and story was somewhat dated, it was a polished work that (while it didn't appeal to everybody) was executed very well in all aspects, especially story telling. The difference is that people didn't like MOS not because it had a unique style, but because it wasn't a complete film, and the difference shows. An ideal Superman movie in my opinion would combine the best aspects of both films. A modern approach with exciting and relatable character development and story telling that Superman deserves. Just felt like I needed to express my disappointment and frustrations at this squandered potential.

Dexter: Argentina (2012) Season 7, Episode 8

Argentina is just Argentina

[9/10 · 20 November 2012]

After watching this episode I was surprised at how good it actually was. The key to its success lies not just in the heartfelt interactions and motivational insight into certain characters, but more importantly in the way it connects all the main protagonists in a profound and elemental way where murderers, cops, villains and antiheroes are all flawed in a sea of moral and emotional gray.

This is achieved through some excellent performances in an episode that was more dark and laid back in tone than usual (though it's not completely devoid of action), as the emotional detachment characteristic of the show and Dexter himself explodes into an undeniable web of human contemplation and soul searching. It is as if Dexter's plans take a back seat to the struggles of everyone around him and we realize that it's all connected. Themes of love, loss, family, belonging and sacrifice are all present as the characters struggle with each other and themselves. In a show that is ripe with moral ambiguity, this is the first episode I can remember that effectively addresses the human condition in a way that paints not only Dexter but those around him as equals- both justifiable and corrupt, weighing instinct and feelings against a moral code.

The show often tries to conclude episodes by summarizing events in a coherent way (some more successfully than others), but for me this episode came together before this point- when Dexter was talking to Isaac at the bar. This pivotal moment unites the narratives of not only Dexter, Deborah and Isaac, but also LeGuerta and Quinn, who are all ultimately left unfulfilled as we realize that their actions are driven by a yearning for something unattainable, belonging to the past, and contradicting the reality of the situation.

This is probably as much as I can say without giving away major plot points. For a show that has been becoming more mundane and less original with every passing season (in my opinion), it is exciting to see season 7 shaping up to be hopefully one of the best of the series.