Reviews

What a bunch of crap! I've only seen one episode of this series, but it's also all I could stand. This episode is not only ridiculously unscientific in its approach, it's dangerously so because it presents a bunch of illogical supposition as fact and deductive logic. This is dangerous because those unfamiliar with actual critical thinking will be fooled by the scientific-sounding false logic into thinking this makes sense and the conclusion is correct. The truth is they start out with a conclusion and cherry-pick just the vague facts that they can shoehorn to fit their chosen narrative. They twist the interpretation of selected bits of folklore, innuendo, and mystique to try to make connections that don't exist. The "symbols" used as "evidence" are so vague as to be meaningless and the assumptions the host makes are nothing more than mental leaps to overcome his biased desire to prove his premise. Starting with a conclusion and work backward by selectively choosing just the so-called "facts" to support their hypothesis is the FURTHEST THING from the scientific method. In fact it's what con-men and fake psychics do to trick people into believing them. This is at best dishonest and at worst harmful because it takes advantage of the human brain's desire for order. The host does nothing but string together isolated bits of dubious information from so-called experts to weave a preconceived narrative. At one point he reconnects with a supposed "Ripper expert" names Dr. Dan (a doctor of what and from where should be asked), a nutter who looks like they may have had to physically wrestle to run a comb through his hair. The host relates that the description the police were working from at that time described the suspect as having "dark hair, a mustache, a dark suit, and about 30 years old". The host then asks this self-appointed "expert" to compare that to an equally vague description of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. "Doctor" Dan obliges citing "evidence" reminiscent of the Salem Witch Trials including things like 'Doyle was 29, had a mustache and always wore a suit". (Well then, he must be guilty). From this the host concludes that Jack the Ripper must be Arthur Conan Doyle because of the eerily similar, but exceptionally vague and useless description. The number of people in London matching that description at the time was probably in the millions. The Vaughn description about a man in 1888 London is about as useful as trying to find a specific hipster in 2019 Brooklyn by describing him as "mid-20's, Caucasian, with a beard, and jeans". Literally 1/4 of the population in London at the time was about 30, dark haired, with a mustache and a suit-(is this a spoof and I just didn't realize it?) The worst is a modern "composite sketch" of this uselessly vague description that he compares to a photo of Conan Doyle. First, this is based on witness accounts which are proven to be the absolutely least reliable form of evidence (look it up), then the description is so vague as to be useless, and despite all this, they are going to develop a sketch? C'Mon! Apparently the absurdity of a sketch done 100 years after a crime, without ever talking to a witness, based on a loose description of just '30 years old, dark hair, and a mustache' is lost on this show. I'd call it a joke, but this is far too damaging to rational thought to be funny. With the only physical descriptors being '30, dark hair and mustache', the artist is able to make the suspect look like anyone (including a generic white guy). And what does Doyle look like?, you guessed it, a very generic white guy. Bingo, call off the search, we've got our man!

At one point he tries to prove that the Ripper had to have medical training (because Doyle did). This theory is based on the Ripper mutilating a woman in about 9 minutes and taking out her kidney. When the host replicates the situation without any medical training, he does it very calmly and painfully slowly. We get the sense that he's taking his time to prove that it would take a layman more than 9 minutes. Despite dragging his feet, he completes the dissection in well under 5 minutes however, he inexplicably concludes "I'm convinced it would have taken me double that if I'd had the same conditions he did". He goes on to make the assumption that it was "pitch black" when the Ripper killed, but somehow completely ignores the excited state of the killer and the sense of urgency he would have felt. He falsely states that medical training would be needed to find the kidney, but the medical professional rightly points out that this would be true only if the goal was to find the kidney specifically. The truth is that the kidney had no particular significance to the Ripper. It just happens to be what he took. He could have just as easily taken the spleen, the heart, or gall bladder, but again this is a fact ignored by the host. In fact, in his typical false-logic that is easily missed by the fact that the host sneaks in such statements, he assumes the kidney was the goal rather than just a random organ taken by the killer. This baseless assumption that the killer targeted the kidney leads to view to the conclusion the host wants-The Ripper must have had medical training which means Doyle is a likely suspect. This example is typical of how the host manipulated the viewer and leads them around by the nose...and it's slimy as hell.

Finally, the host uses the logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" by invoking hiss status as a Freemason. If true, he should be expelled from the Freemasons for dishonesty. Masonry is an organization that teaches morality and the deception the host engages in is immoral. He interprets every scratch, scrawl, and scribble as Masonic in nature. From the makers marks on stones to a bit of graffito scrawled on the wall in the neighborhood where a murder was committed and where The Ripper May have walked past. I've been a Mason for over a decade and none of the symbols he attributes to Masonry are correct. The "V" is not Masonic (although in a rare moment of honesty he passingly admits that a "V" or "^" has been used as a symbol to represent an endless list of ideas by countless cultures and individuals. In this case though, it can only mean The Ripper was a Freemason. Finding stones etched with "+" and an "X" with dots between each of the lines are also supposed to be Masonic in nature. And even though as a Past Master, I've never heard of any such thing, the host has no trouble connecting them to Masonry. Then comes the farce of following the stones to the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE). They never tell you that the marked stones also lead in the opposite direction from their start point and continue well past the UGLE. In this presentation the stones are supposed to be a hidden message to lead you from their chosen start point to their chosen end point. -please!

Rather than interpreting the word "Juwes" found in the graffito blocks from a murder scene as a misspelling by a under-educated individual or recognizing that word spellings were often varied and spelled phonetically especially by the uneducated in the 19th century, he contorts the meaning of allegorical tale of 3 brothers, Jubela, Jubelo, and Jubelum. He claims he's heard them referred to as the "Ju's". This is yet another contortion by the host to shoehorn Masonry into his theory because Doyle was a Mason. In Masonic ritual these characters are NEVER referred to as the Ju's for several reasons. 1) associating violent criminals like these ruffians with the Jewish identity would be anti-Semitic and highly offensive to Jewish Masons. And Masonry is based on accepting all men in harmony so decisiveness is eliminated from Lodges 2) these characters already have a collective name, "the 3 ruffians" so there's never been a need to invent another term 3) if we gave the host the benefit of the doubt and assume he isn't again purposely misleading us to advance his theory and hypothetically assume that he actually did hear these characters referred to as Ju's, it would have been a local thing because this use is not common-it would not be a Masonic thing, but an individual thing 4) again, in a hypothetical case that such a word existed and was written it would not contain a "W" and be spelled "Juwes" but rather "Ju's"- the ruffians' names are Ju-bela Ju-belo, and Ju-belum not Jew-bela, etc. 5) as a doctor and renowned author, Doyle was an exceptionally well-educated and literate man and would not have misspelled "Jews " if that's what he intended.

If you have a brain in your head avoid this show.

If you have read the other reviews, they pretty much sum it up. The single 10/10 review can be discredited as it is from someone so confused about the show that he missed a major plot point. The baby is not Morgan's baby. The father is the man that Grace admitted hooking up with from work. Morgan and Grace never slept together. Hell, they just now admitted their feelings to one another. Also, the walkers were also much further away from Morgan than 10 feet. Ginny's vehicle was 25 feet away and the walkers were three times that distance. Oh and no one mentioned how ridiculous it was for Ginny to retrieve an unknown gun from the far side of a dead body who she didn't even know was armed, rather than picking up her own gun that she had just seconds before-so contrived. Despite being hit hard in the face, her gun would have been just a few feet away. Guns are heavy so they don't fly off into the distance. There is still gravity in this universe so her gun would have been even closer than the dead guy's gun. Writers need to get a grip.

Maybe Ginny was right. Maybe someone who is too stupid to get off a collapsing bridge is too stupid to be of any use to anyone. This writing is just so absurd. Why did they have to make Tom so stupid? Why couldn't the bridge collapse suddenly before Tom could get across? Why did they have to make us hate Tom for being the helpless girl who tries to run in high heels from the slow-walking monster -just asinine. I can't figure out who's dumber, Tom or the writers.

Walkers are behind in tact fences and there are what, 30 adults? Why not stand on the safe side of the fence and just kill the walkers through the fence. It might take several hours, but it's simple, safe, effective and above all, gets you EXACTLY what you wanted. Why are they so willing to give up so easily? Did they never consider that the gates might be open? C'mon, that's a season one mentality. This doesn't make sense especially for people like Daniel, Victor, and Alicia who have cleared places before. I've said it before and I'll say it again, this writing sucks.

Ginny gets upset that no one wants to go with her so she calls the walkers to attack the group. This is attempted murder of 40 people. Why in that moment doesn't sharpshooter John kill her 2 body guards while Dwight shoots the driver and then they both kill Ginny? It will likely provoke a war with the Pioneers but screw it, they are attacking the group anyway and they aren't giving you the fuel you need. I say go for broke instead of letting thempick you off one by one.

Daniel, the seasoned combat vet, almost gets killed by a walker because he stops in the middle of a walker attack to pick up records? Morgan has all the time in the world to deal with a walker behind a door and ineptly handles the situation as if he's new to the apocalypse and has been taken by surprise and as a result compromises their covert mission by knocking a walker out a balcony door into a court yard? Al and Morgan talk on a radio when anyone can hear them despite being within eyeshot and using hand signals? Al can't hear a walker despite the acoustics of a dead silent apartment complex made of concrete? A moving truck can't handle the weight of a poorly packed load without the transmission going out? They leave tapes for dozens of miles in every direction but they're surprised when people know their names?! Oh and the instant Morgan has an epiphany about caring for Grace, she's suddenly sick? C'mon, too convenient and way too obvious. It's just trite. Who do they have writing this show, former soap opera writers? This is what passes for writing? I've read better fan fiction. Who approves these storylines? Is there a show runner anymore?

And the other reviewer was dead on about Ginny being Jessie from ToyStory, from the cowgirl hat to the red hair to the face that looks like a doll to the caricature southern accent. It's like watching Pinocchio turn into a real boy! Oh worst line of the episode "spaghetti ain't simple...". Really? Since when? Name something that's simpler than spaghetti Jessie.

The same EXACT situation happens to Alycia and Strand that happened to Logan. Same road stop, another woman, same radio plea, same running out of gas at almost exactly the place in the road, and the heroes arrive just a little too late to help, really? This is the best the writers could come up with? No matter how much crap Logan pulls, how much he endangers people (including children), no matter how much he takes, or how much advantage they have over him they are never willing to kill him!!! WTF?! The when the walkers start streaming over the cliff into the refinery for some trumped up drama, they take us to commercial only to have the show come back after the commercial where it's pitch black out. So what over an hour passed on the commercial break and they did nothing to handle the situation? Then the girl trapped in the truck stop just watches as the screwdriver that's keeping the walkers out slipping from the door and makes no attempt to prevent it from falling out. Then she is saved by someone who apparently comes out of nowhere into the room from another entrance. Why didn't she escape that way? For that matter there were two windows behind her she could have used to escape. Your telling me someone who has survived this long wouldn't think to use the windows when locked in a room with walkers at the door? At the end we see it was only about four walkers anyway. It's not like the building was surrounded. The far into the apocalypse someone in a room full of furniture and shelving should be able to delay/trip four walkers long enough to kill them one at a time. For that matter she could have gotten something long and sharp and killed them through the glass panes of the door while it was still locked and still had the barricade between her and them. Again, there were only four walkers!!! I'm all for suspending disbelief in order to enjoy a show, but there has to be some believability. I just can't do it if it's totally absurd and that's what this show has become. It's actually sad because most all the actors on this show are really great and they deserve much better material. With a few isolated episodes, it's been crap since Madison died, but I keep foolishly hoping it's gonna rebound. There are just too many good shows out there for my to keep wasting time on this ridiculous tripe. I apologize to the actors of FTWD, but I'm out!

I find police procedurals to be boring and tiresome. Between the many versions of CSI and Law and Order it can feel like you're watching the same cookie cutter shows week after week and often the acting is ridiculous. This unconventional imagining of these iconic characters is fresh, creative, well written, well acted, and never disappoints. I'm a huge fan of the Sherlock Holmes mysteries (reading anthologies of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories were actually the first adult books I ever read for pleasure) so I could easily be put off by a poor incarnation of the stories. I was also not a previous fan of Lucy Liu not Jonny Lee Miller, so this show had an uphill battle in trying to win me over. Despite all that, I feel they have done an amazing job developing and portraying these characters. Their performances, the story arcs, character progression, and especially their relationship over time has been compelling. Over the past year or so I've taken to rewatching the series from the beginning and have enjoyed it even more the second time through. I would encourage others to give it a try because watching them in rapid succession adds to the experience of watching them grow and bond together. I'm so happy with the decision to have their relationship remain platonic else it would have played as a cheap ploy to add drama and would not have been true to the characters. The love they develop for each other is a familial love that is stronger and more permanent than romantic love so even when the show ends after 154 episodes, this Watson and Holmes will spend the rest of their lives happily solving cases together in my imagination. I also love that beyond the original choice to make Watson female, the character's gender was never an issue in their partnership. I also respect and appreciate their choice to make Watson smart and strong unlike some versions that portray Watson as a bit of a hapless boob. Not here-in Elementary, Watson is at first a brilliant protégé and later a fully enfranchised and worthy partner who Holmes, despite his quirks and unsentimental style, fully values and appreciates. Also, despite being emotionally constrained and undemonstrative, Holmes does occasionally express his respect and love for Watson, but only when served by the story such as when their partnership or lifestyle is at risk. I'm disappointed that the series will end after season 7 because I've grown to love these characters, they are still compelling, and the cases are still unique and interesting. I feel like I could have happily watched new episodes for years to come. Although I'll regret that there will be no more new episodes after 2019, I know I will watch the series from the beginning again and again in the future. If you've only watched as the episodes originally aired or caught the occasional rerun, I would encourage you to start back at the beginning and watch the episodes the pace of a at least a few episodes per week. This reduced interval between episodes may give you a new appreciation for this wonderful show. Elementary will be missed.