Peter McGinn
I only watched the first season of this anthology show, as the plot of the second didn’t grab me. I have read a lot and watched documentaries about polar exploration. I see how this show came about: the author took the skeleton story of John Franklin’s ill fated expedition of the northwest passage, and repurposed it as an original horror story. Cool, I was on board. And this televised version did a credible job moving the tale to the screen. It is a passable horror story. And then I see near the byline: Based on actual events, or something like that, and I am thinking, why bother with that? Usually a retelling of actual events is at least hanging close to the original tale, not inventing a monster that kills actual historical people in ways other than starvation and scurvy, followed by possible cannibalism. At this point it begs the question, why not just tell this horror story without clinging to the patina of a historical event? (For example, I believe John Franklin died later in the expedition than portrayed here with actor Ciara Hinds. Why?) Still, my doubts and questions do not detract from the tension and drama of the series. It was entertaining, which perhaps is the main point, even though I was shaking my head thinking about it afterwards.
