Highly Overrated But Still Good

The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

24 Legacy is a stand alone show. Granted I've never seen an episode of the original series and I'm sure fans of it are cringing at me saying this, but I've never seen it and absolutely love this show. I loved Corey Hawkins as Eric Carter and Ashley Thomas as his brother Isaac, I thought their dynamic was real and loved how the show went on in real time. 24 Legacy was an action packed little show on Fox and I think Fox should of given this show another season, but I guess it goes along with the movie remakes, fans will never go for another show or movie if it isn't the original. But coming from someone who never seen 24 or heard of Jack Bauer, it was a great little show.

It was inevitable that "24" would return. The show ranks as one of FOX's biggest hits of the new millennium and already experienced a mainly successful limited follow-up three years ago. But "24: Legacy" is the first incarnation without iconic star Kiefer Sutherland and faces the challenge of carving out a new direction. In certain respects, it succeeds. But, in most, it's a dismal failure.The most prominent success lies in the choice of a new protagonist - Corey Hawkins. He excels as a troubled former Army Ranger, thrust into action over his role in a covert operation that forced him underground, combining an indomitable strength with traces of vulnerability. Unlike Sutherland, whose cold-blooded competence was rarely in doubt, there's a volatile quality to Hawkins that renders him engaging and relatable. It's possible he won't make the right decisions or find a solution immediately. However, he won't stop until he does.It's a shame that no one else in the cast commands as much attention. Jimmy Smits and Miranda Otto are the co-leads - a Presidential candidate and his wife, a former director of CTU and acquaintance of Hawkins'. Both are miscast and both look as though they'd rather be elsewhere. Smits provides a pale imitation of Dennis Haysbert's stellar performance in the early seasons, along with his own Matt Santos from the latter days of "The West Wing". Meanwhile, Otto does not project the charisma to be expected of a leader of her character's caliber and fails to generate any chemistry with Smits or others. The only supporting roles that rate as above-average are those of Dan Bucatinsky (the twitchy lead tech at CTU, plus the show's only consistent source of humor) and Ashley Thomas (Hawkins' taciturn older brother; a bad-ass gangster with a soft side).To be fair, the actors are done little favors by the plot. It's a herky-jerky ride littered with highly questionable decisions and abrupt changes of heart. It feels as though the story was conceived with a 24-hour season in mind and heavily pared down to fit in the limited 12-hour time frame. Subplots are raised and resolved so quickly that they fail to resonate as they should. The action is competently filmed, but rarely inventive or memorable. Tension builds awkwardly, requiring characters to be whip-smart one moment and dumb as a box of rocks the next (by no means a new trait for "24", but it's definitely more overt here). And, most disappointingly, the story features no satisfying twists or reveals. If you've seen even one season of "24", there's very little that's not predictable.Given all this trouble, FOX was wise to kick this show to the curb and admit defeat on their Super Bowl lead out. Despite its numerous problems, "24: Legacy" has done a great service in giving a star turn to Hawkins, who handles himself admirably from gritty action sequences to tender moments. Between this and his breakout performance as Dr. Dre in "Straight Outta Compton", it's hard to see anything but a very bright future for this actor.

I think if audiences didn't have the original 24 to compare against, this show might get higher ratings. I found it entertaining enough to continue watching despite some of the negatives that others have pointed out.I hear that Fox is still deliberating about whether to go forward with season 2. I think it should be a "no brainer" for Fox if they consider the LONG-TERM consequences of canceling instead of just the short-term. Here are some of the long-term factors they should consider:1) Further damage to their brandThey already suffer from a reputation of canceling shows prematurely, leaving the audience hanging mid-plot.2) The genre of the showThis isn't just a sitcom what provides relative closure after each weekly episode, it has an ongoing, intrigue-building, multi-faceted, conspiratorial plot. Because of this, audiences have invested a lot of their time having their curiosity piqued and intensified week-after-week. The reaction when a show like this is ended without closure (or with obviously-contrived and rushed faux closure after they decide to cancel) is not just disappointment (as in, "shoot, I'm going to miss that show"); it is frustration and anger; it is visceral. The audience feels cheated and manipulated. And they will hold a grudge.3) The new watching habits of audiences--especially for series like this oneBecause audiences have already been burned by networks canceling shows mid-plot, many of them have learned not to commit to one. Rather than joining in with the week-by-week audience, they simply wait until a season completes and ensure the show isn't being abandoned before they commit to it. And often, at that point, they binge watch it.This new audience behavior pattern should not, however, be interpreted as being proof that the genre is no longer valid. In fact, audiences LOVE it. And they love it especially because they now have the liberty to queue up and binge watch rather than being held in suspense every week. The networks just need to create a strategy and business model that takes in to account the audiences' likely viewing behavior for this genre so that they can monetize it profitably. And one indispensable component of profitable strategy is to provide their audience assurances that they when they commit to a series like this, they will see it through to a satisfying closure. If they don't provide that, they'll find public excitement for this "keep-me-in-suspense-each-week" genre will continue to dwindle.

The script has not been run through a IT person at all. The day to day convo on the tech side (these are relevant to the plot) is absolutely horrendously incorrect. It's like the script writers strung together the most buzzwords they can come up with without checking their meaning or relevance with the topic. (ex: organic vegan drone attacks endangered species in Syria) the plot line is just eye roll worthy at most times. I am OK with a few inconsistencies cloaked in a buttered view but, if the main events of your plot line are all coincidences or main characters acting out of character or just acting dumb, you definitely got a problem.