Wow. I don't really know where to begin. This is intended for the editor more than the columnist, as it appears he/she is paying attention.
I come to Tom's Guide for informed commentary. I appreciate we are in the "opinions" section here, but wow. Has a "review" ever been written before that used the words "I" and "me" more frequently, and as a substitute for actual analysis?
Respectfully, the question for Tom's Guide is: who is Rory Mellon that the world should care what this person, specifically, thinks about anything, and Tom's Guide should desire to amplify it? I'm not seeing evidence of a trained writer, an informed philosophical frame, a comprehension of the elements of storytelling, or even a famous guest columnist. This seemed more like just some person who watches tv and ventilates their personal observations as a (paid!?) hobby, with the rudimentary style and insight of a grade school student.
My opinions on this show aren't relevant here... my concern is how this review was written, and the fact that it passed the quality test for publication.
Still, a few comments:
It's a bit cringey to hear objectively brilliant performances by Oscar Isaac and Ethan Hawke dismissed as boring and uninteresting. If a person isn't feeling the dread of Hawke's patient malevolence every time he is on screen, or enjoying the deftness with which Isaac slips between two completely different characters, then perhaps you need to start watching something else. World Wrestling Entertainment might provide a more suitable level of subtlety.
The author also appears blissfully ignorant of the cognitive dissonance in complaining about how bad the Marvel Universe is becoming, while also lamenting that this show isn't more connected to it. Pick a lane, any lane.
This author strikes me as someone who all their life has been ordering chicken fingers at the restaurant, insisting it is the only good thing on the menu and refusing to hear about other options.
I've never heard anyone so confident in their ignorance. Good luck.