Strike Back Origins – Another Good Review

Screen Rants reviewed  Strike Back Origins – and gets it.  This review, as with the others, doesn’t address the acting at all. Richard-Armitage-in-Strke-Back-Origins

 It’s difficult to call one superior to the other, as each series has its own plusses  and minuses that become more readily apparent when compared to what came before (which has a different meaning depending on which side of the Atlantic you live on). Origins is probably the more reflective and earnest of the two series, while Cinemax’s Strike Back takes a lighter, more energetically rambunctious approach to the material. In the words of Eric Stoltz’ Lance from Pulp Fiction, it’s “different, but equally good.”

11 thoughts on “Strike Back Origins – Another Good Review

  1. Clearly the reviewer, Kevin Yeoman, has only seen the first episode. But it is still a good review. I like what Yeoman says here:

    “Porter’s inner conflict is somewhat reminiscent of what Stonebridge was put through in season 2…resulting mostly in an ongoing joke of Stonebridge’s seemingly monk-like existence… the effect on Porter appears to be one of different (and perhaps greater) psychological impact on the character. It becomes an unwelcome facet of the man he is now, a shadow of his former self; rather than being condensed to a thing that happened that one time.”

    To me this indicates recognition that the treatment of Stonebridge’s pain in the current series is that of simply incidental, so that they can “move on” to other things. Whereas, Porter’s is more tangible and densely present. To me, that is a comment on good characterization – a reflection on Richard as an actor – not just in the writing of it.

    Again, I like the reviewer. Hopefully there will be more with each of the other episodes.


    • The current Strike Back seems to be reviewed by a circle of writers each week. So we can hope for more. I agree that without explicitly mentioning Richard Armitage’s performance, the reviewer praises it by acknowledging the result.
      Thanks for the reblog.,


      • I certainly thought your post and the review were worth a reblog. 🙂 And I should have said in comments on how I agree with you that Richard should be mentioned by name. However, it might be Yeoman’s style to only critique that of the intent, execution and flow of a show, and/or the success or failure of the outcome, as he sees it, and not critique the Actors’ actual performances. I would have to read other reviews of his to see if my theory is true, of course.


  2. Pingback: Strike Back Origins – Another Good Review | crystalchandlyre

  3. They’ve seen our tweets and tumblrs and gotten wise. There are a lot of fans who like all three and they’re probably followed by fans of each. TH has been very high up, but BC was one or two beneath RA when I looked.


  4. Good points about praise for the series also being praise for the actors — I also find it really hard when I’m writing to differentiate between the effects of script, acting, editing, and directing …


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s