I think the film had some tense moments, some uncomfortable moments, and the acting was good, but the story just felt a bit too one-dimensional. It showed a bunch of terrible people doing terrible things and frankly, many of them did it for completely stupid reasons.
The most obvious is the preacher in the beginning. Roy Laferty killed his wife on the delusion that God will resurrect her immediately. Even his friend (or brother?) mentioned how stupid it looks after he did the deed. Then there's Willard, the main character's dad, who killed his son's dog as a sacrifice in hoping his wife's cancer will be cured. I understand people do dumb things and will use religion as an excuse, but that's about the only message the film went as far as telling you. Unless the message was implying that gotcha! Religion is the reason for these violent acts! But we know you can be a devout religious person and don't use religion to justify moronic behaviour. This isn't really showing the bad side of religion, but more about how idiocy leads to terrible things.
Let's talk about some of the other characters. The villains are rather straight forward. We got a pedophile priest, a corrupt police officer, and a serial killer. It is never explained why the serial killer kill people. Yes, he likes taking photos of soon-to-be dead people, but how did he get this fascination to begin with? And how does the girl just run with it for over a decade before getting tired of it? You can see toward the end she no longer wants to do it, but this was only done to create tension in the final moment between Tom Holland and the serial killer duo. Then there's the pedophile priest. He likes materialistic goods and dresses nicely. He gaslights how bad the food is so he can eat it for himself. And the crème de la crème, he manipulates young girls into having sex with him. Again the movie here doesn't try to offer an explanation for why he does this, and essentially shows, once again, how someone uses religion to act out bad deeds.
Of course, the girls never try to decline his invitations. Not one was shown to retaliate, and Tom's character, Arvin, only suspected the priest after an officer told him her sister was pregnant. Arvin was about the only competent character in this show. His motivations were clear, his background justifies his acts of violence, and he shows intelligence by tailing the priest and taking the bullies down. Unfortunately the intelligence stops there. Being a serial killer, Carl, the story even explains how he is paranoid and showed how he removed the bullets from his wife's gun. Okay, Carl, if you were paranoid and a serial killer, you didn't see how Arvin was very uptight the whole time in the backseat of your car? The script only displayed intelligence when it is convenient. It is trying its best to show that bad people will be punished, so Arvin needed to be smart to kill the priest, he needed to be alert and calm to shoot the serial killer. It is this type of convenient story writing that turns me off. These aren't the only examples either. I haven't talked about the corrupt officer's arc, but there are dumb moments there, too. The people he killed just let him come into his house and take their gun, knowing full well that the bullets are untraceable.
As a whole, I understand that the film depicted a bunch of average people going about their lives in the 60s of rural America. They lived in gullibility, made a lot of dumb decisions, and in turn resulted in a lot of violence. The show has no issue depicting uncomfortable things, such as paedophilic acts and violent acts. It tried to create a tense and gritty atmosphere in exploring the worst of humanity during this time.
However, many of its characters actions lack thought and come off as idiotic. Characters were only thoughtful when it was convenient to do so, and overall lacked complexity. Killing someone was often the only solution the characters know what to do, and there was a lack of intelligence anywhere you looked. I don't think the film and its script wanted the message to be: stupid acts can lead to very violent outcomes. It nonetheless often felt this way based on many decisions and behaviours of its characters.
Was it tense and gritty at least? Yes, but things will naturally be tense and gritty when characters are constantly facing the barrel of a gun. Effective tension can be created without such a direct manner and it was rarely seen. Overall, the acting was good, but the story failed to deliver an impactful punch.
The most obvious is the preacher in the beginning. Roy Laferty killed his wife on the delusion that God will resurrect her immediately. Even his friend (or brother?) mentioned how stupid it looks after he did the deed. Then there's Willard, the main character's dad, who killed his son's dog as a sacrifice in hoping his wife's cancer will be cured. I understand people do dumb things and will use religion as an excuse, but that's about the only message the film went as far as telling you. Unless the message was implying that gotcha! Religion is the reason for these violent acts! But we know you can be a devout religious person and don't use religion to justify moronic behaviour. This isn't really showing the bad side of religion, but more about how idiocy leads to terrible things.
Let's talk about some of the other characters. The villains are rather straight forward. We got a pedophile priest, a corrupt police officer, and a serial killer. It is never explained why the serial killer kill people. Yes, he likes taking photos of soon-to-be dead people, but how did he get this fascination to begin with? And how does the girl just run with it for over a decade before getting tired of it? You can see toward the end she no longer wants to do it, but this was only done to create tension in the final moment between Tom Holland and the serial killer duo. Then there's the pedophile priest. He likes materialistic goods and dresses nicely. He gaslights how bad the food is so he can eat it for himself. And the crème de la crème, he manipulates young girls into having sex with him. Again the movie here doesn't try to offer an explanation for why he does this, and essentially shows, once again, how someone uses religion to act out bad deeds.
Of course, the girls never try to decline his invitations. Not one was shown to retaliate, and Tom's character, Arvin, only suspected the priest after an officer told him her sister was pregnant. Arvin was about the only competent character in this show. His motivations were clear, his background justifies his acts of violence, and he shows intelligence by tailing the priest and taking the bullies down. Unfortunately the intelligence stops there. Being a serial killer, Carl, the story even explains how he is paranoid and showed how he removed the bullets from his wife's gun. Okay, Carl, if you were paranoid and a serial killer, you didn't see how Arvin was very uptight the whole time in the backseat of your car? The script only displayed intelligence when it is convenient. It is trying its best to show that bad people will be punished, so Arvin needed to be smart to kill the priest, he needed to be alert and calm to shoot the serial killer. It is this type of convenient story writing that turns me off. These aren't the only examples either. I haven't talked about the corrupt officer's arc, but there are dumb moments there, too. The people he killed just let him come into his house and take their gun, knowing full well that the bullets are untraceable.
As a whole, I understand that the film depicted a bunch of average people going about their lives in the 60s of rural America. They lived in gullibility, made a lot of dumb decisions, and in turn resulted in a lot of violence. The show has no issue depicting uncomfortable things, such as paedophilic acts and violent acts. It tried to create a tense and gritty atmosphere in exploring the worst of humanity during this time.
However, many of its characters actions lack thought and come off as idiotic. Characters were only thoughtful when it was convenient to do so, and overall lacked complexity. Killing someone was often the only solution the characters know what to do, and there was a lack of intelligence anywhere you looked. I don't think the film and its script wanted the message to be: stupid acts can lead to very violent outcomes. It nonetheless often felt this way based on many decisions and behaviours of its characters.
Was it tense and gritty at least? Yes, but things will naturally be tense and gritty when characters are constantly facing the barrel of a gun. Effective tension can be created without such a direct manner and it was rarely seen. Overall, the acting was good, but the story failed to deliver an impactful punch.