Enjoying it, but don't read detailed and critical reviews because.....(SPOILERS, blacked out)..

It also suffers from poor casting. Raylan's daughter just looks too old and then you realize why an actress that is too old for the role got it... she is Olyphant's real life daughter. So nepo casting is to blame for that mistake.

Does the villian know Raylan or not? I was confused if this Clement? guy was the same white guy sitting in the lawyers office when Raylan went in. He mentioned nothing about the times at Glenco like he did at the hotel restaurant.

I'm happy Justified is back and seeing Raylan get out of life threatening situations right at the start of the show. I kept wondering if the black guy was the one Raylan once gave back his hamburgers he threw out his car window in an episode towards the later years.

Nothing ruins a show more than bad writing. First and last time watching it.

Despite casting some great actors the show is a dud.

that whole courtroom scene seemed way over the top with every character using profanity and mugging at each other after almost every dialogue exchange,

through both episodes i kept asking myself why the hell his daughter has to be in the show (because she's annoying as hell and squeaks instead of talks), and then i get the answer when she gets a phone call back at the hotel and it turns into every other cheap cop show where the hero has to rescue a loved one in peril (or similar),

it's also obnoxious how this small circle of characters are so conveniently kept in direct interaction with each other - the judge requests Raylan for his own investigation, the lawyer for Raylan's case is also the lawyer for Boyd H, & also the lawyer of Paul Calderon, Raylan sees her randomly at a bar, the judge's white girl is an informant for the cops that Raylan was on a raid with earlier in the day, etc.

so far it just seems like a dumber version of the original show set in the city

I'm wondering what point of bringing this back was. There isn't any chemistry cast wide and there doesn't seem to be any purpose for the show.

I see many people are making the same mistake I did - instead of just sitting back and enjoying this character being portrayed again, too many are taking a deep dive into the critical arena.

My point is - viewing the program from differing perspectives changes how the show is perceived. If one watches it as if it is a True Crime documentary reenactment full of facts, then the show will be disliked. But, if one sits back and watches it for pure entertainment, then the show is more likely to be enjoyed.

For example, take the dog and man up the tree scene. Now, recall, Givens had just been spanked big time in a courtroom for constitutional issues and then stands by while a police officer uses a police dog to torture a suspect into revealing information that would be most likely thrown out in court for constitutional reasons ("fruits of the poisonous tree" doctrine). Now, in the real world, one would think he would have stopped that right from the start. But, it made good entertaining drama if seen through the eyes of mere entertainment.

What I'm getting at is, try enjoying the program for just entertainment because whether one does or does not, what is being aired is still in the top tier of what is being offered nowadays.

I was confused about the beginning when Raylan asked the two guys he arrested to "scratch is back and he would scratch theirs." The only thing I can think of was that he needed an official reason to drive up to Detroit. But why? That is where he was working.