Manhunt

Man, this show about tracking down Lincoln's assassin John Wilkes Booth was kind of a snoozefest. You'd think with such a dramatic historical event as the backdrop, they could've cooked up a more exciting cat-and-mouse chase. But instead, Manhunt feels super drawn out and sluggish.

If you're a hardcore history buff who geeks out on the Lincoln assassination, maybe you'll like all the period minutiae. For the rest of us, Manhunt is just a plodding, tedious missed opportunity to really dramatize and modernize this famous pursuit for the TV audience. Not the worst show ever, but definitely a bit of a snoozer.

I do not get the bad reviews? It's a good show! Might there be some racism rife amongst the reviewers? It's the only reason I can come up with as to why people are trashing this series.

The whole series has a play-like feel to it, with beautiful sets, costumes and lighting. Its exploration into emancipation and the difficulties faced by Lincoln's government are unsettling. I couldn't help but feel sickened and frustrated by the people of the era - more so as the echoes of the time can still be seen in present day America. It's not as horrendous and gut-wrenching to watch as 12 Years a Slave, but it's enough to make your blood boil. The show strikes a balance between exploring the political and ideological upheaval of the era, and the human trauma and cost of such change.

The acting is great, but I agree that the plot is a bit slow. I think it depends on what you are expecting. If you are interested in seeing the politics and changes of the era, around the story of the capture of Booth, then you'll enjoy it. If you are looking to watch a literal 'manhunt' then you'll be disappointed.

Perhaps the shows name is really the problem?!

The main complaint from other reviewers seems to be that the actors don't look/sound like the real life people. 'Stanton had a beard!' 'Lincoln didn't sound like that.' Which, in my opinion, are ridiculous condemnations. The show is broadly historically accurate, but it is also a TV show adaptation. If you want to get a 100% factual version - read a history book.

I read the book the show is based on, and though there are some questionable casting decisions made, particularly Lincoln, I'll continue watching.

Tobias Menzies is always excellent, and though he's portrayed as the Melvin Purvis of the hunt, I'm fine with that choice for artistic reasoning. Lili Taylor is good, though of course most of us continue to see Sally Field and DDL as Mary Todd and Lincoln. Anthony Boyle is doing well with the loathsome Booth, and I like the actress portraying Mary. I'm a little baffled by Patton Oswalt here, though I like him in other things. Lincoln, though, was the truly odd choice. It looked like his chest was waxed in one of the death scenes, lol. The voice was so grating that i looked forward to his coming end, which is really not the way I want to feel about an Abe portrayal.

Costumes, set design are very well done and I look forward to the rest of the series, despite some odd choices.

Menzies, as always, is excellent, as are most of the cast. But as much as I love Patton Oswalt, he isn't well suited to a historical drama. A couple of other minor character actors similarly detracted.

Many of the expressions used in the writing ("consider me Switzerland," "don't get me wrong," as just two examples) and open discussion of a homosexual relationship in court were wholly out of place for a dramatization of historical events from the 1860s. I found it distracting, and fairly surprising that a production of this caliber hadn't had a better copy editor.

Side note: great costuming.

The title might refer to the manhunt for Booth after Lincoln's assassination but the miniseries covers a lot more than just that narrow scope.

It encompasses the aftermath of the Civil War from many angles: Jefferson Davis was still on the run, Confederates were planning their revenge, foreign countries were giving aid and comfort to fleeing rebels, former slaves were adjusting to their new status and the government was planning radical steps for reconstructing the south into a more equitable society, a goal pushed by Secretary of War Edwin Stanton but undermined by the new President, Andrew Johnson.

From that perspective, there are many parallels to modern times, which the writers sometimes call out a bit too clumsily. Sometimes the plotline, dialogue and acting is also clumsy. The big scope means the story is at risk of going off the rails. But in the end they tie it all together.

Standout performances from Tobias Menzies as Edwin Stanton; Anthony Boyle, believably creepy and hateful as John Wilkes Booth; and Hamish Linklater as Abraham Lincoln.

I would have liked the writers to pay more attention to scrubbing anachronisms from the dialogue. It happened over and over. It may be amusing to think that John Wilkes Booth knew about the theatrical superstition, "break a leg," when he really did break his leg on stage, but there's no evidence of that superstition existing till the 1920s and most likely it developed no earlier than the early 20th Century. There are many more examples like that, far too many.

Still, it's a competent and often well-acted production of historical events with modern relevance. Recommended.

Apple really should consider continuing the saga with a new story, covering Johnson's fraught one-term Presidency and the very different administration of his successor, Ulysses S. Grant, who was serious about Reconstruction and went to war with the KKK.