Watch Childhood's End Online Free. Childhood's End Episodes at luckychance6.com

Two things

7 /10

Two things: 1. The weird hallucinatory sequence in the hotel for the dying "prophet/hero" was a shout-out to Kubrick's 2001. Am I the only person tha ...

See Full Comment

Thought provoking mini-series from a book that deserved to see the screen

-/10

This mini-series by the SyFy channel is from the book Childhood's End by Author C. Clarke. I have never read the book and I think that's why I liked ...

See Full Comment

This mini-series by the SyFy channel is from the book Childhood's End by Author C. Clarke. I have never read the book and I think that's why I liked the show so much. I LOVED it. (Most of the negative reviews are from those who read the book.)Once I heard of the changes I realized why they occurred. They had Ricky be a humble farmer instead of a big shot diplomat because it would make him seem more like a Jesus like character. The emotional mining and discovery that Ricky did about himself and his feelings over his ex were incredibly intense and well done and not delved into in the book. Presumably this was because Clarke wasn't very good with the ladies and didn't care much for romance nor feelings and was more of a technical details kind of guy. The reasons why the children evolved in the book are stupid and make no sense. I know I might catch some flak for that but I'm sorry fanboys. What we know about evolution and diet and adaptation just come together to disprove his theory. I'm glad the show writers didn't go with what was in the book because it would have made everything laughable.Right before I watched this I was talking to my friends about the validity of communism. Questions arose as to what would be the purpose of life without a way to feel progress? If you are always in one class and there's no going up or down forever, how would that make people feel? If they didn't have to work, would they? Would people go crazy? How would this affect our creativity in terms of art or science? Pain and suffering are necessary parts of the puzzle when driving creativity and efficiency and growth. If you're happy and content why change anything?These questions are all discussed in the show and more. I freaking loved Charles Dance as Karellen. He was amazing and always is. The effects for him were mostly make-up and not special effects which I found impressive and made his facial expressions much more realistic looking and expressive. This goes in my Top 10 of the Best Science Fiction shows/movies I've ever seen. You need to see this. Caution: It is depressing and the scene at the end with the song made my heart want to break into a million pieces while I silently cried inside, but it is so good.One of my favorite scenes was where the head of the Freedom League scoffs and accuses the aliens of pretending they want to "Buy the World a Coke". I think of that now every time I see a Coke ad. The use of a Twitter campaign and TV ads that comically resemble political smear campaigns were hilarious and awesome. If you like dark humor and have sado-masochistic tenancies in your TV viewing then you need to check this out!

A very pleasant surprise

8 /10

I will try very hard not to spoil anyone's enjoyment of the first episode. (Incidentally, the introduction in the Kindle version of Childhood's end - ...

See Full Comment

I will try very hard not to spoil anyone's enjoyment of the first episode. (Incidentally, the introduction in the Kindle version of Childhood's end -- and probably the latest print edition as well -- includes a major spoiler, which is a criminal act. Should you buy the book, skip the introduction until AFTER you've read the book and/or seen the series.) As other people have said, the premise revolves around some apparently benevolent aliens who invade, declaring an end of war, hunger, climate change, hatred, and the other banes of 21st century society. Most people love the idea, but pockets of opposition rise up from people who feel threatened in one way or another.The twists and turns in the plot are complex, complicated, and often subtle. The surprise is that the series manages them very well.The script was quite remarkable, adapting the 60-year-old novel and weaving its complexities more deftly than I had expected. The romantic aspects were largely invented for the series. Like most of Clarke's science fiction contemporaries, 20-something "boys" in the science fiction world were geeks (we called them nerds) who had little understanding and less experience with "girls". Simple ignorance explains why they had so few strong women characters. The film version brings the story into the present and at least attempts to restore the balance.Many factors worked against this film. The film is visual to some degree, but it is mostly dialog and atmosphere. For some of us, it was an amazing novel that raised some provocative questions and didn't answer them. For me, when I heard that someone was turning the long-loved book into a movie, I reacted with skepticism, uttering my mantra over such things. It would be good or it would be terrible. It was unlikely to fall anywhere in between. I suspect it was a difficult film to sell to advertisers -- the lifeblood of the industry. There was a lot of mystery and adventure, but little or no pyrotechnics. It might not draw a sufficient audience to justify such ambitious projects. I noticed a large number of house ads and station promos in the breaks instead of paying commercials. To the credit of the producers, writers, and director, they didn't compromise the material to draw a bigger audience. As a result, the story takes time to unfold, and some audience members might not be patient enough to stick it out. But if you want to see a genuine attempt to put a seminal and unconventional novel on the home screen, give this a try. It isn't perfect, but it was well worth the effort -- and it's well worth your time.

Arthur C. Clarke rewritten for the Lifetime channel

1 /10

Old Arthur must be retching in his grave. They've taken his good hard science fiction and turned it into mush and ooey-gooey. But then, I should have ...

See Full Comment

Old Arthur must be retching in his grave. They've taken his good hard science fiction and turned it into mush and ooey-gooey. But then, I should have known better than to expect Syfy would do justice to Childhood's End. Why did they EVEN bother? The original novel was published in 1953. Would younger viewers who haven't read it even be interested in a TV version? Because readers of the book, who would welcome one, may suffer severe intestinal distress watching this massive disappointment.Clarke's original story is really unfilmable without modern CGI. You couldn't do justice to the Overlords and their home planet without it. So great, is this a miniseries using the latest CGI to be true to the story? No siree, bob. We want to make Childhood's End, but we're SYFY. So it'll be just like the book, but completely different.Brilliant as the novel is, it was published in 1953, and so any adaptation for the screen would need a lot of updating. That's fine, but that's not what's happened here. The original plot has been mangled beyond recognition. The novel's characters are people of all ages and several nationalities, including Finnish, French, Scottish, Trinidadian, and South African. No, that won't do; our viewers won't IDENTIFY. So let's change ALL the characters into the demographic we're targeting: Earnest young and youngish Americans with personal problems, angst, and RELATIONSHIPS. We GOTTA give them RELATIONSHIPS. So we introduce a whole slew of touchy-feely subplots inhabited by new characters (all women, see below) and furthermore, they've gotta SUFFER, or it's boring. Never mind that this pushes Clarke's grand story of alien arrival and human transformation into the background while characters are busy emoting in the foreground. This is Arthur C. Clarke as rewritten by Shonda Rimes. Steak has been turned into Jello.Clarke wrote "hard" science fiction. And his readers know that, for better or worse, practically all his stories are about men; women are usually subordinate characters, rarely of major importance. Clarke was great at the "beyond the infinite" stuff, but touchy-feely he most definitely was not. RELATIONSHIPS almost never advance Clarke's plots. If the producers wanted to introduce female characters into the story, they should have made some of the male characters women. That would have worked just fine. A principal character in the book, Rikki Stormgren, the 60-year-old Finnish Secretary General of the UN, is transformed into Ricky Stormgren, a 35-year-old Missouri farmer. Why? 'Cause 60-year-old Finns aren't sexy, that's why. The writers also gift Ricky with a dead first wife who comes back to him in Overlord-created visions, a live second wife who's not happy with the situation, infertility, and a fatal disease caused by exposure to Overlord technology. And when comes at last the death scene and you think that the maudlin is maxed out, they pile on more: Karellen suspends Ricky at the moment of death, and the whole thing drags on for minutes longer, so Ricky can mourn his dead wife all over again and have a last chat with Karellen, while ethereal Vienna Boys' Choir-type music plays. It really is that bad.There is a lot of really annoying agonizing by people of faith that wasn't in the book; that's bad; but one of the female agonizers actually SHOOTS AND KILLS an Overlord; that's worse. And THEN, the Overlord is brought back to life through an act of sacrifice by one of the humans. Another character is brought back to life as well, AND healed of his paraplegia, in another treacly backstory that wasn't in the book. That character was at least in the original story, although again, he's almost unrecognizable, and of course in the film, he has a RELATIONSHIP. Just like Clarke's original novel, only completely different.The Overlords do a lot of "Close Encounters" stuff that they never did in the book, where the manifestations of their power are much subtler and more interesting. Clarke's Overlords are much bigger than humans, at least 9 or 10 feet tall, black not red, and they have small wings because their home planet has much lower gravity than Earth (hence the remark about CGI above). In the book, we meet several Overlords; but in this TV version, there are only two: Karellen on Earth and Vindarten on the Overlord homeworld, because they couldn't get away with just one Overlord (if they could've, they would've). When you see the actors in full Overlord regalia, you know why: Making up and costuming more than two actors like that wasn't in the budget. Clarke brilliantly portrays Karellen as a being whose full mental powers are beyond human comprehension. He is wise, noble and always master of every situation. He never makes mistakes, never visits anyone in a barn, never says anything as stupid as "My bad," and never puts himself in physical jeopardy. On Syfy, Karellen doesn't act like a superbeing whose gifts approach the divine; as played by Charles Dance, he acts and talks like a weary English professor who has seen and heard everything and is just trying to hang on until retirement.The climax and anticlimax are as badly botched as the rest of the piece, with the entire sequence on the Overlord homeworld – which admittedly would have been tough to do under any circumstances, but not impossible – cut out and replaced by a quick tete-a-tete with the Overmind, which is something that could never happen in the original. And the writers have replaced Clarke's words with some of the most banal dialogue you will ever hear on TV, and that's saying something.This miniseries misses being a successful adaptation of Childhood's End by several light-years. Clarke aficionados must face the likelihood that no one will ever have both the will and the means to bring the real thing to any screen, large or small.

Not true to the novel

2 /10

Warning: contains spoilers.This was a terrible adaptation of a classic novel.The directing was so bad that my wife who had never read the novel had a ...

See Full Comment

This was from SyFy Channel?

8 /10

Not a perfect adaptation by any means, but this is head and shoulders above the usual "Sharknado"-type schlock that the SyFy Channel produces.It's be ...

See Full Comment

POORLY done: 99% new, unrelated to the original story

1 /10

I'm 66 and first read "Childhood's End" ~1960. I reread it every few years for its characters (which, yes, are increasingly dated in portrayal) and t ...

See Full Comment

Science fiction meets religion meets the universe in an unlikely tale....

8 /10

Science fiction meets religion meets the universe in an unlikely tale that is Childhoods End.Based on the work of science fiction writer Arthur C Cla ...

See Full Comment

I want my three evenings back!

1 /10

I should have known, after how slow the first evening's episode progressed, that I was wasting my time. The series was heavily padded with gratuitous ...

See Full Comment

Barely similar to the novel....

3 /10

I read the novel in the summer of 1968, right after seeing '2001: A Space Odyssey'; its story was far superior to the '2001' tale. After reading, I f ...

See Full Comment

I read the novel in the summer of 1968, right after seeing '2001: A Space Odyssey'; its story was far superior to the '2001' tale. After reading, I figured this novel could not, or would not, ever be made into a movie. It was just too vast and took place over such a long period of time. Over the years, I have read numerous articles that a movie was being pondered or whatever, and finally, after 47 years, we have this movie. Only problem, it was so disappointing. What was 'wrong' with the movie? Here are some examples: 1. Way too much time focused on the central character and his problems/memories/suffering. No hint of this 'misery' anywhere in the novel. A BIG waste of time. 2. Too much 'poetic license' from the actual novel; the main character was entirely different, with a different background, age, etc. The Overlords, while being definitely satanic in appearance, were not written with the outlandish 'ram horns'; they were supposed to be small 'satan' horns. These horns made the Overlords look ridiculous. But, the other aspects, such as the wings, tail, red skin, etc., were spot on. 3. Way too much emphasis on the 'anti-religion' theme. This was hinted in the novel, but was never splashed across the entire novel as it was in the movie. 4. The fifteen year time period before seeing the Overlords was actually 50 years in the novel: one generation as Sir Clarke wrote it. 5. The A-bomb church scene was not in the novel; this was a really dumb scene, with a very dumb premise. 6. Most importantly, the 'feel', as several other reviewers have noted, was totally different between the novel and the movie. If you read the novel, it is not depressing or fatalistic like the movie. After reading the book, I felt a sense of wonder, awe, contentment, and yes, satisfaction, which is no way what I felt after watching the three movies. If you didn't like the movie, read the book; you will NOT be disappointed! Maybe, someday, someone will make a movie which will do this great novel justice. We can only hope, and I just hope I live long enough!

Another WOW ! Many others WOW's !!!

1 /10

Although a fan of series, and regularly using this web site, I had only one comment posted until today: the need to share my pleasure and my 'WOW' pu ...

See Full Comment

Terrible

1 /10

I read the book about 50 years ago and didn't remember too many details but I do remember being left with a good feeling from reading it. With the ex ...

See Full Comment

Standing On The Shoulders Of A Giant

1 /10

And boy, did writer Matthew Graham (Life On Mars) get this just right. I cannot imagine how difficult it must have been adapting this novel but if it ...

See Full Comment

Just brilliant!

1 /10

I know the mini-series compressed a lot of the original book's themes and sub-plots but it had to, otherwise it may have dragged on and on too much f ...

See Full Comment

started out great but faded

3 /10

I never read the books so I had no idea what this series was about. The first episode was great, it had everything in it I like about sci-fi. It real ...

See Full Comment

It's Childhood's End for Dinosaur SF. (Though... can somebody please make Earthlight?)

4 /10

I worshipped (Sir) Arthur C. Clarke all through my youth, and to some extent still do. But he'd be amused by that - nothing is worthy of worship. Not ...

See Full Comment

I worshipped (Sir) Arthur C. Clarke all through my youth, and to some extent still do. But he'd be amused by that - nothing is worthy of worship. Nothing. Not a single thing.Because this appeared on SyFy we're going to get all sorts of armchair pseudo-intellectuals attacking this production for the WRONG reasons:They'll claim classic SF writers like Clarke never had profound insights into the human condition: they did, especially Clarke.They'll describe all sorts of 'spiritual' arguments that miss out: there's a good reason anything with the word 'spiritual' in it misses out. Things like 'what about the mind-body duality?' In 2015 one must ask: WHAT duality? We're software running on a computing system 3 billion years in the making. Get over yourself.And they'll try to maintain that Clarke would have stayed with the view from 1953: in actuality, he was one of the most adaptable authors in SF history, since he profoundly understood how science and it's truths bring change.But these misses don't gall me as much as the most missed point of all - Religion has to go, and we know this to be true. Here we are in a world where Christianity has been smashed into a corner where it is almost a hobby now. Because it was a threat. And in the next decades we'll be doing the same to Islam: because it has become a threat. The death of religion is an inevitability, not something that Arthur Charles Clarke solely and alone 'believed'.And this is where I'm afraid I have to start taking SyFy to task: All their missed things.Clarke's astounding sense of wonder - where is it? This felt largely like a soap opera.The reason the visitors and their technology look the way they do - where is the punch-line from the book? That reveal differs slightly from Clarke's original short story 'Guardian Angel', which spawned into the book 'Childhood's End', but it has much the same thrust. It is a pivotal component of both works. Where is it?The added and unnecessary love story. This was an exercise in boredom, and were it not for the fact this was an Arthur C. Clarke story, and I was waiting to see every detail of SyFy's effort, there would have been fast-forwarding.Yes, I'm afraid Childhood's End was a bitter disappointment.But the blame can't be entirely laid at SyFy's door.This is Dinosaur SF, and like 'The Man In The High Castle' by Philip K. Dick - another massive disappointment - we've simply moved on. Or, I should say, SHOULD have moved on.Psionics? Psi is dead, like Homeopathy and, soon, religion. It is fantasy, it's had long enough to prove its miracles really exist and... they don't. Time's up.Group minds? What a fascist idea this seems today. In 1953 with the fractured world, holding its breath under the shadow of nuclear weapons, a concept like 'let's all just get together' must have seemed viable. Nowadays we appreciate something - or, again, SHOULD: With higher intelligence comes more *individuality*. Not a 'glomming'. And aliens with this kind of hyper-technology, and they are still traveling around in (admittedly very cool! I did like that, SyFy!) tin cans, and diseases still pose a threat. No. That's just wrong. The stronger SF writers of the modern age realise that with that kind of technology *nothing* looks the same, and anything, almost literally, is possible. Old, body-related problems are gone (including ageing).Today this 1953 image, visionary though it was (remember Clarke 'invented' the concept of the communications-satellite!), really is a dinosaur.It's time for our SF Childhood's End.At least as far as this 'epic' stuff goes.- - -footnote- -But... it would be lovely if somebody tried to make some of Clarke's more close-to-home stuff.'Earthlight', which still contains the best and most believable space-battle depiction I've ever read, and 'The Fountains Of Paradise' - they would make fantastic mini-series or movies. Ridley? Want to have a go.------

Don't waste your time.

2 /10

Unfortunately, I haven't, yet, read the book. The mini-series, in the end, was a waste of six hours of life. Loose ends are not tied up; major questi ...

See Full Comment

Could not finish it

6 /10

I have not read the book, but it must be better than the movie because I could get to the end of every Arthur C. Clarke book I ever started, but I wa ...

See Full Comment

interesting ideas but lacks realism

6 /10

It's a 3-part mini-series on Syfy of Arthur C. Clarke's novel. Aliens have arrived on earth. They compel worldwide peace and a new world order while ...

See Full Comment

Missed opportunity to be a masterpiece.

6 /10

I've read Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's end so many years ago that I've managed to forget about it till this show came out. I was excited to see how ...

See Full Comment

Just read the book before the series came out.

8 /10

First off i want to say that this is my first review EVER on IMDb. Just felt i needed to say what i thought when seeing the 1 star review. Second i j ...

See Full Comment

Cheap and nasty

1 /10

WARNING SPOILER(S)Just a word of warning there are hints of the story line!I think this is based on a novel, if so I have not read the novel or was e ...

See Full Comment

Ruined by constant reminder of horrible Under the Dome

5 /10

I'll give a rating of 5, but would like to give the new Childhood's End 6-8. But I can't because the lead character is played by the same lead charac ...

See Full Comment

Possible spoilers

1 /10

6 minutes of commercials between the show times makes watching this without Tivo or equivalent impossible. Loved the story it was based upon, but the ...

See Full Comment

Stunning

1 /10

It gives an idea that the most evil of things imagined can be the actual wolf and not the sheep we trust. Is this a front for things to come? Sci Fi ...

See Full Comment

Fails to convey novel's sense of wonder or improve on its deficiencies

4 /10

In summary: the novel is a fun read for sf fans because of its concepts, but like much of sf it lacks any serious understanding of human nature or gr ...

See Full Comment

In summary: the novel is a fun read for sf fans because of its concepts, but like much of sf it lacks any serious understanding of human nature or great philosophical issues. Still, if you like decent sf, then read the book and don't waste your time with this dumbed-down TV version. If on the other hand you want great literature and serious adult philosophical discussion about the good questions posed by this story then take a philosophy class. Because it will be a lot less boring than this movie.As other reviewers have pointed out, this TV movie has some serious continuity errors and like most TV sf it's derivative. The real problem is however the story and how it's made worse in this TV re-imagining. Like most who are going to watch this, I've read Childhood's End (CE) several times.Beginning with the bad of the novel, any honest appraisal of Clarke's work needs to recognize that the man was no Dostoevsky: his characterizations tend towards cardboard cutouts, bureaucrats and technocrats running about grand projects, giving us blurbs of Clarke's often pedantic thought dressed up as dialog. There are very few women and they're psychologically no different than the men, which may explain Clarke's own engineering failure with the fairer sex. All his characters read like aspects of one character, which is presumably Clarke. I don't imagine Clarke spent much time sitting about Paris cafes whilst empathetically trying to put himself in the minds and shoes of others. Even Stanley Weinbaum, Clarke's short-lived Golden Age contemporary, wrote better alien characters way back in the pulp era.Turning to the good in the book, Clarke, like his inspiration Olaf Stapledon, had some grand ideas about vast spaces and deep time. The all-important and distinguishing trademark of sf, its sense of wonder, was to be found in spades in Clarke, including in this story. He was an ideas man. Clarke's engineering background made him obsessive about technical details, sometimes to the detriment of story telling, so for those of us who can't tolerate hand waving about warp drives, Clarke is the antidote. He related spending days crunching orbital calculations as part of authoring one of his early stories. Ideas and engineering details mattered more to Clarke than persons or even humanity. As long as one is OK with this limited concept of literature, his stories can be entertaining and engrossing, particularly in one's juvenile years.Entertaining, that is, except in the hands of Syfy channel. The fact that Syfy's clunky Americanized adaptation of Clarke was rated above 8/10 and given embarrassingly gushing accolades without even the broadcasts being complete points to the vote rigging that is often complained about on IMDb. At best this is a 5/10. I'm inclined to give it a 4/10 because not only does it fail to capture what was worthwhile in the book, but it fails to improve things which were deficient in the book. Even more than in the novel, which was intellectually superficial but not an insult to the intelligence, characters in this TV adaptation behave in ways which insult one's intelligence. For example, enemies embrace just because aliens turn out to exist. Who would believe this nonsense given the captagon-fuelled head choppers we see running around in the Middle East? Clarke hated religion and that comes through clearly in his written work but still, a story has to present a religious character in a believable way. This one does not, which makes the already sophomoric religion-science debate even more boring than usual. For example, those in various religions (i.e. 80% of humanity) suddenly lose their faith because aliens show up. This despite the fact that many scientists and famous religious thinkers had and have no problem with the idea of alien life - CS Lewis and his popular science fiction is but one obvious example. This is just bad storytelling and characterization which limits the potential intellectual depth of a tale. It relies on tired stereotypes, and caters to an audience who can't conceptualize beyond the stereotypes of TV land. Syfy's rewrite, even more than the book, lacks good characterization, adds a pointless love story and lacks any serious treatment of the profound philosophical and metaphysical questions raised by the basic plot. For example, is it benevolent - let alone loving - to intrude upon free will in the manner of the Overlords? Clarke treats this issue rather superficially - even Star Trek recognized the serious moral dilemma and premised the series on the Prime Directive. Syfy goes one worse: In the first two cases presented, aliens do just as worldly empires do: extra-judicial killing and Stalin-esque social engineering at gunpoint. Both are presented as great goods on the road to worldly Utopia. Did Syfy not get the memo on why Communism didn't work out and led to the death of millions? Yet we are to believe that murder can be good if it's done with better tech than ours. This is pretty stupid stuff. Apparently nobody in Syfy's script department has taken philosophy 101. I can forgive Clarke for being indifferent to philosophical nuance for he was an engineer, but if you're going to re-imagine his novel then respect it by trying to improve it and don't dumb it down.Clarke best showed his intellectual poverty when considering the great metaphysical issues that have been the grist of mankind's greatest thinkers since ancient times. One gets the impression that neither Clarke nor Syfy's writers have ever seriously considered things like the mind-body problem's non-dualistic permutations, nor have they understood - let alone presented - the distinction between philosophical categories such as spirit and matter. It's sophomoric in the original novel and Syfy's dumbing-down takes it to the level of a high school debate. By nerds who got a C in history but an A in math and multimedia.

wow

1 /10

I have never been a Syfy channel lover, they have rarely come up to anything "good" within the sci-fi genre.... but this show! First episode was bett ...

See Full Comment

Pleasant surprise

8 /10

When a TV movie is made from one of your favorite books, you have to be careful with your expectations. Fortunately, they did a good job and captured ...

See Full Comment

Wow.

9 /10

I just watched the first episode, and, all I can say is 'Wow'.First of all, the story is sixty years old. Many of the 'tropes' came from this story, ...

See Full Comment

Includes Spoiler

CheJery

It was a limited tv-event / mini series starting out extreamly interesting. Through the story it got kinda a bit weird, maybe to weird for some people but it finished better again.

GazaB

What a confusing series this is :(

elisabettasto

Even though from the first episode, this might seem a "religious" story, it's actually not, I would say it's even against religions in general. I wanted to stop watching this myself when the simil possession thing happened with the kid, but I decided I would go on till the end and it was worth it!

dampo

10 /10

Amazing show

sempiternalbride

where's episode 4

zipzip5

Watched it from start to end (ep3) in one night. To me it was amazing the emotion it brings with it as it reaches to the end is just mind numbing. I like the characters the story can be seen a bit christian but it kind of is kind of not sort of thing.

Grimjar

This is a 3 episode movie. Good actors, deep emotional movie. I won't call it action as it genres tell you. More like Sci-fi drama.

baconma19

Most shows have some kind of religion in them John. Sometimes its beliefs or iconography. To stop watching this one means you should just stop watching most Syfi. I think the show was great and would really like to know the name of the song?

johndoe123456789

The description doesn't mention that this show's story is based on Christian beliefs about Satan. Stopped watching the show halfway through episode 2 when one of the boys got possessed and used his demon magic to repel his father across a room. Would not recommend this show.

nogard

And there is indeed "no need to be afraid". That image has been described as evil, and is already considered as such, so why does it have to be considered such, if it proves wrong? Judging the book by it's cover, knowing it's contents. The 1st episode was pretty nice, I'm curious how are they going to explain his physical looks. I'll keep on watching this. very good ^^

agentspy

Pretty good. I'll continue watching.