I Killed Better Call Saul's Perfect Season 6 Rotten Tomatoes Score
Well, not really. I just pointed out that 'Nippy' was a bad episode.
Better Call Saul very nearly got a perfect 100% on Rotten Tomatoes in its excellent sixth season. Out of all the reviews for the show’s 13-episode final season, only one was negative, and it was just for that one episode, not the season as a whole.
This review was a lone Rotten Tomato in a sea of red. One bad review out of 100 (or so) that had the sheer audacity to question the brilliance of Better Call Saul and its writers. Just one, and that 100% perfect score dipped way, way down to 99%.
And the sonofabitch who wrote it, dear readers, was me.
I didn’t review every episode of Better Call Saul’s final season, unfortunately. I was going through some stuff, wallowing and so forth, stuck in a depressive writer’s block largely of my own making. So I didn’t write about Nacho’s final episode and the brilliant performance that Michael Mando gave us in his character’s final, defiant moments.
But I did start writing about the show again after the midseason break, and each of my reviews was glowing. When I reviewed the Series Finale, I called it one of the best episodes of television I’d ever watched in my entire life. And I wrote an entire piece devoted to giving props to Rhea Seehorn whose performance as Kim Wexler across six seasons was one of the best parts of Better Call Saul.
I just didn’t like Nippy, the episode where we skip ahead to Gene’s life in Nebraska, and his scheme to outwit the taxi driver who identified him at very beginning of Season 5. For one thing, that aired years ago and it was confusing to suddenly hop back into that story—and more confusing still because the cab driver was recast.
But the episode’s problems stacked up beyond these unfortunate circumstances that were, at least to some degree, outside of the show’s creators’ control.
The scheme Saul put together to double-cross the taxi driver, Jeff, was convoluted and implausible. The execution of it was tedious, and we spent altogether too much time watching Jerry from Parks & Rec eat cinnamon rolls from Cinnabon. It was a jarring bottle episode that dropped at the very end of the show’s run, and I just didn’t like it.
And sometimes them’s the breaks. I’m not going to pretend to like it just because everybody else does. I received quite a lot of hate for this one, and now that Rotten Tomatoes has tweeted about the score, I see a lot of people in staring and stammering in gawkish disbelief that this “1%” hates the show or something.
I don’t hate the show. I just thought this one specific episode was bad, because it was, and I’m honestly surprised that I was the only critic who felt that way (or who publicly felt that way?)
Oh well. What’s the difference between 99% and 100%? Is it even realistic to think that a TV show could be 100% across an entire season? Or that imperfections are such a big deal in the first place? Isn’t this show all about imperfections and the ways they shape people?
Are critics just here to help market shows to audiences or is our job to also critique what we’re watching and point out the flaws and missteps?
Hell, over at Metacritic Better Call Saul has a 94/100. This is a really good score, especially for Metacritic where scores are aggregated a bit differently.
Even very good shows miss the mark from time to time, and critics should call a spade a spade. That’s the job.
If you don’t like it, go work for marketing.
You've inspired me to go watch the entire series now. = )
I agree completely. I don't know where some people's brains go when they watch their favorite shows. News flash: A show can be excellent, but it can miss the mark occasionally. In fact it would be fucking strange if it didn't. Never mind the crybabies Erik. That Nippy episode was boring and a waste of an hour of my time.