Alfred: #125, 0.162%
Smith: #1 (duh), 1.006%
Al Smith: 0.001%, about a tenth as good as Anderson. The "Alfred" is a killer.

Maybe you were drawn to the sheer ordinariness of a candidate named "John Anderson"?

No worries, I've just decided to deal with every last passive-aggressive commenter "correction" I've ever received by turning the tables wherever I can. It's nothing personal. (It may be psychotic.)

1980, I think you mean?

That's not what I meant by the completely pointless line, but that probably could have been clearer. I meant that the whole thing could prove to be pointless in a narrative if Duane Reade is a dead end and Naz actually did it. Obvious worthwhile things are being accomplished regardless, so I don't think it's pointless…

Nah, I think you'll be fine. You go live your life!

At this point, I just sort of price it into my analysis of The Night Of, because it's clearly an intrinsic part of the show. (I.E. I didn't knock this down a letter grade for having all that stuff, because it's not worth getting worked up about something that's definitely going to be there at this point.) All I can…

I think any reasonable reading of the evidence provided indicates that he didn't do it. But I kind of feel the show would be stronger if there were more plausible ambiguity on that point, just to make the issue of his guilt/innocence less relevant to our read of Naz.

Yeah, sorry, I wrote this on moving day, so my attention was a bit divided. Not an excuse, admittedly, but that'd be the reason. Will be more careful in future!

Weird, he's credited as Jack Stone on IMDB, so I'm not completely imagining that bit.

I'll freely admit I'm not putting a whole hell of a lot of thought into the grades. I'd primarily justify it based on how Naz felt like a much clearer character to me in this episode than he had previously. But yeah, I'll grant that it's kinda hard to believe we're at the halfway point.

Ya know, that does sound like something I'd write…

It is hilarious! And dumb, oh so dumb. I changed it for sake of correctness, but make no mistake: I'm a hilarious dumbass.

Short for "To Come," because journalists don't pay much heed to the finer points of the English language, apparently.

Right you are! Only excuse I can offer is that I wrote this on moving day, so I'm pleasantly surprised the thing is even in English. But yes, that's a bad one.

If I were thinkpiecing this, I'd say we're very close to a handwringing "The Night Of has a Jack Stone problem." He works really well when he's interacting with anyone else involved in the criminal justice system, but — outside of maybe the scene last week with his son and ex-wife — I've found everything else he's…

Eh, the pacing felt more or less right for the first episode in prison. But sure, if it's three more episodes like this, I could see that issue.

I can try, but I don't have a great ear for music. More to the point, I don't have great critical vocabulary to talk about music. But I'll try to be thinking about that stuff going forward!

Technically speaking, he's not an accused rapist, and beyond a few brief intimations in that direction from Box it doesn't sound like that's something the justice system is even looking at. But yeah, not surprising the Rikers inmates would jump to that particular conclusion.

I've never seen the movie or the TV show, but the casting did seem spot-on. The trailer alone inspired me to refer to Bradley Cooper as "a sentient smirk" for years.