I don’t watch much television other than the local news, UFC and Baseball (the Rays). Oh, and Game of Thrones. I’ve only made it through one full series recently, and that was “Breaking Bad.” Another series I began watching but soon became bored with was “The Blacklist.” I did really enjoy James Spader’s character, in the depth of contrast between good and evil…and doing evil things for “good” outcomes…which may or may not be revealed later as evil, as the story unfolds. I enjoyed “Breaking Bad” for that same reason…is the “hero” good or bad? And what’s the definition of good or bad? Who decides? That question is left for the audience.
In that regard I was instantly drawn to that same complexity in Mr. Robot. The social commentary seems to be fairly basic and easy enough to follow. The use of technical jargon is somewhat accurate, but also somewhat far-fetched. The script is written to hint at things that are very possible (like taking over webcams in computers and rudimentary password cracking through basic social engineering). One thing that nags at me – why the use of paper? Hackers don’t print things…
I bought the first season so I could watch it in HD, but I’m finding the monologue to be a bit dull and predictable…but maybe it’s written that way because Elliot, the hero, is battling addiction. I’m hoping as his head clears the story becomes deeper.
I enjoy the cinematography. Having just returned from Manhattan a few days ago, the scenery is familiar. I also think the settings with “Evil Corp” were done well…in a very Orwellian tone. It’s interesting to see varied use of point focus. Whenever there’s interaction with Mr. Robot, everything, to include background and peripherals are in clear focus. In most other interactions, focus is limited to localized areas, to draw attention to portions of the whole picture.
On to episode three…I do hope it gets deeper.