Unfortunately, Netflix's New Series, A Man in Full Doesn’t Pay Off

If you’re like me, you may have been excited to watch the Netflix news series “A Man in Full,” based on the 1998 novel of the same name by the late Tom Wolfe.

Diving in A Man in Full, I could not help but wonder if the true title should have been "A Man is a Fool."

Directed by Regina King and adapted by drama addict David E. Kelley, the six-hour series primarily follows the bankruptcy crisis of an Atlanta real estate mogul, the immoral reelection campaign of a mayor, and the jailing of a regular guy who defends himself against a police officer over simply parking six inches in a red zone.  

The six-hour, six-part series has an impressive cast that includes the almost always reliable Jeff Daniels, Diane Lane (Man of Steel), Lucy Liu (Kill Bill), Tom Pelphrey (Ozark), Bill Camp (The Queen's Gambit), Wiliam Jackson Harper (The Good Place), and Sarah Jones (For All Mankind).

Yes, that is an impressive cast, but sometimes, and this is one of those times, a cast can’t save a script that ultimately sets the actors up to fail. Jeff Daniels, who plays the brash Atlanta real estate mogul Charlie Croker, surprisingly struggles to make his character likable enough that you actually care about him, even when he does very bad things. His character is like an extremely watered-down version of Brian Cox’s character from Succession, Logan Roy, if you will. Cox delivered a Classic Coke performance, and Daniels delivered a Coke Zero performance. 

Beyond the lack of true character development, Daniels struggles to deliver an understandable Southern accent. At one point, I even considered turning on the subtitles and I never do that.

Croker experiences a Texas two-step moment when he is confronted by an antagonistic banker (played by Bill Camp) along with his associate (Tom Pelphrey from "Ozark"), who harbors deep-seated resentment toward him. They inform Croker of their intention to demand immediate repayment of his loans, putting him at risk of bankruptcy and financial collapse. 

Croker owes the bank $800M and is surprised that the bank wants to be repaid. For most people watching this, it's hard to imagine that a successful businessman like Croker would be unaware of his debt and the risks his company is taking—this is one of the early problems with the script that the writers, director, and actors could not overcome.

“A Man in Full” is certainly not lacking in an attempt to create drama, but at every turn, the drama generated feels overdone. At one point, I felt like I was watching an episode of General Hospital with Stephen A Smith in it. While the three storylines the show follows are interesting trying to get the audience to care about the characters is lost somewhere in the script or on the editing floor.

David E. Kelley has been great at adapting literary works in the past, but something went wrong with this one.

While “A Man in Full” is not horrible, it is disappointing when compared to other recent shows of this genre. The problem is not the cast; the problem lies somewhere between the script, the directing, and the editing.

Look, this is not the worst thing on Netflix, and if you have 6 hours to burn about characters you probably won't care about, then this is the show for you.