Manhunt

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.

Despite the poor ratings from some I watched show with an open mind and was suitably rewarded

Very good acting in main . Perhaps upping pace at times could have reduced show to fewer episodes? Stopped me giving it perhaps another star

It took awhile to get accustomed to time switches but generally found them illuminating

Decent sets, costumes and settings - not sure why some reviewers are upset about beards though - surely a minor irritation at best

Also I can't understand preoccupation of some reviewers with moaning about casting as I found all characters relatable with good acting from all

Tobias Menzies and Anthony Boyle in particular are always watchable and the scenes they are involved in are usually the best of show

I also found the involvement of Reconstruction issues interesting and worthwhile as an English viewer as it wasn't something I was as aware of from across the pond.

As a historical drama with probably some minor inaccuracies ( as all are bound to have) I found the show to be far better than the negative off-putting reviews would have you believe.

I consequently found myself wondering was there not another agenda at play here?

If you enjoy period pieces and/or procedural dramas and you don't mind a bit of a slow burn, you'll probably enjoy this series. Tobias Menzies is excellent (and does a really good American accent), even if he doesn't have the truly glorious beard the real Edwin Stanton had. Anthony Boyle is absolutely despicable as Booth, as he should be. Every scene with Lovie Simone is so tense and beautifully acted that I can't really take my eyes off the screen when she's on it.

As other reviewers have mentioned, there are of course historical inaccuracies. Duh. Every movie or series based on historical events has inaccuracies. If that bothers you to the point of distraction, then perhaps you should stick to documentaries. As for Lincoln's voice, which a lot of reviewers seem to find downright offensive, historian and Lincoln-enthusiast Harold Holzer has said that Lincoln was almost certainly a tenor based on contemporary accounts. Some who heard Abe speak even described his voice as high and shrill. It may be a bit jarring the first time you hear it, but Linklater's voice at least is consistent with contemporary descriptions of Lincoln's.

I also just genuinely don't know what the complaint about casting is. So what if some of these actors are better known for comic roles? They're definitely not playing their roles comically here. I don't find anyone particularly miscast.

This show is fine. It's not going to go down in the books as the greatest series ever, or even one of my favorites. But holy canoli, it's so much better than the majority of reviews are giving it credit for.

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.

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.