Lucky Hank

This is well acted. Dialog and interactions are well written. But overall it is merely mundane.

There's no excitement, no intriguing story, no point of interest. No compelling factor to engage a viewer.

The characters are interesting, the problem is the story is nothing more than "a day in the life of an English professor." Seriously, that's all it is.

I assumed by the third episode some factor or plot point would come about making the series more interesting and intriguing. But honestly, at 3 episodes I don't feel compelled to watch more. It's missing the "what will happen" factor a great deal. The only "open" plot points are, well, rather mundane... the reconnecting with an absent father.. the writer's block... the wife wanting to spread her wings a bit.. it's just all so dreadfully ordinary.

So, perhaps by episode 6? Nope.. Still the same dreadfully ordinary storyline. There are brief moments where it appears more may be coming.. but it never does.

Perhaps a season cliffhanger?? Nope. Season one ends as horribly mundane as it started. Viewers take away NOTHING from this series. It's entirely forgettable.

It's as if they wrote a tv series based upon your neighbor John.. with a wife, and an adult daughter, and a job.. nothing out of the norm... nothing overly exciting.. nothing really that interesting except to John himself.

There's no purpose in this show and no payoff for anyone who watches it.

This could become another iconic character for Odenkirk. Give it a try. I found the the first episode far too close to the reality of university life. The intensity of the battles for which the stakes are so low (to paraphrase an old Pat Moynihan quote). The self-absorbed faculty whose fragile egos are satisfied only when belittling their colleagues' efforts. Administrators powerless - or afraid - to make real change.

You must read the A CINE TV REVIEW listed under "Critic's Reviews." It's hilarious; clearly the writer never saw the pilot and doesn't know that it's a series - not a film. Click bait publishing.

I went into episode one with an open mind and not expecting Saul. I do think that Bob Odinkirk has an acting type. He has a very similar personality. He does have unresolved issues and messes up. Much like Saul but with far less enthusiasm. A character who is just bored out of his mind. I enjoyed seeing some of the lesser known that were casted. I apologize as I've only watched one episode I don't know names. The girl in the wheel chair was a great actor. She was believable in her role. This episode was intentionally dry and wanted to convey how dull and boring his life is. It introduced the issues that Hank has. His father, daughter and one of his students are the biggest ones. People felt the dryness of episode one and translated that to a low rating when it was intentional. I look forward to the great acting about exaggerated problems because of the boredom in town and school. I was a school nurse and it was enough to understand the frustration of mundane as a professor. We watched the conveyance of mundane. It's ok to think it was dry and lifeless. That was the goal.technically , Wardrobe was great. Lighting was perfect, sound was level and without interference. Set design good so far. Limited sets at this point. IOW, they've got great cast and supporting crew. It will be a great show.

To be honest, I'm surprised this show was even made.

In a couple of months when the full season is out I may come across as a fool and this may be an outstanding piece of comedy television, but based off the first 2 episodes, I am not optimistic. I am confused as to what the hook is to this show, it appears to simply be exaggerated and yet uninteresting events occurring around a beleaguered Odenkirk and his shockingly unmemorable cast of side "characters". Odenkirk does chew through the large majority of lines with a believable animosity towards the world and tempered rage as a man suffering a mid life crisis, but even his good, if not outstanding, performance is not enough to save an essentially premise-less series.

I have not read the source material. I don't know if it has the depth to sustain a series or if this series (so far) is just a weak adaptation. Either way, it needs to improve rapidly and find some grounding in some form of a plot, as so far I have been felt unsatisfied by the episodes that have been released.

Lucky Hank is a new comedy drama series on AMC that follows the life of Hank Devereaux, Jr., the unlikely English department chairman at the badly underfunded Railton College in the Pennsylvania rust belt. Hank is a middle-aged man who is struggling with a midlife crisis. He is unhappy with his job, his marriage, and his life in general. However, Hank is also a very funny and charming man, and he has a way of making the people around him laugh.

The show is based on the novel Straight Man by Richard Russo, and it is adapted by Paul Lieberstein and Aaron Zelman. Lieberstein is the creator of The Office, and Zelman is the co-creator of The Killing. The two men have created a show that is both funny and heartwarming.

The show stars Bob Odenkirk as Hank. Odenkirk is an excellent actor, and he brings Hank to life in a way that is both funny and relatable. The rest of the cast is also excellent, and they all have great chemistry with each other.

The show's writing is sharp and witty, and the show is full of laugh-out-loud moments. The show also has a lot of heart, and it deals with some serious issues in a way that is both funny and thought-provoking.

Overall, Lucky Hank is a great new comedy drama series. It is funny, charming, and well-written. If you are looking for a new show to watch, I highly recommend Lucky Hank.