so what do u think about these two or four episodes ?
I’ve only had time to watch the first two episodes and I find it really intriguing so far. The idea of being asked to reason through why a man killed and mutilated 17 people is very uncomfortable and I think that discomfort is intentional. The acting is intense. 8 episode dramas in this genre can be hit or miss for me, but this feels promising. What stands out to me is that the lens we’re given right now is the killer’s and not the victims’. We’re almost pushed to search for reasons, even drift toward justification, even though there is no justification for murder. I’m really curious to see how they handle that tension moving forward.
I didn’t have any issues with her after the first two episodes, because on reflection, she’s in a male dominated…
I actually really appreciate that perspective. You’re right, when you look at her within the context of a male dominated field, her behavior isn’t extreme at all. If anything, it’s controlled and strategic. A woman in that position cannot afford to be overly emotional or uncertain because she’d immediately be dismissed. What some people read as “annoying” is probably just her maintaining authority in a space that wouldn’t forgive her for slipping.
I rarely write reviews, but when I do, it is because of strong reactions and when biases are so visible. It’s a habit of mine to write it like a thesis because of my profession. I heavily agree that stories have historically given male characters emotional leeway and moral complexity, while women are still judged heavily on tone and likability. My review is less about attacking male characters and more about questioning why women still have to soften themselves to be palatable even when they’re simply doing their jobs.
same. she is made to be like this annoying af and she is doing it really well that i lose my mind of anger
I think a lot of people (including past me) find her annoying not because of what she’s doing, but because of how she’s being framed. We’re introduced to her right after our empathy has already been directed toward Hajoon’s dying child and the victims Woogyeom supposedly “saved.” Emotionally, we’re aligned with him. So when she enters the story, it feels like she’s blocking or reframing our attempt to justify why he killed 17 people with criminal records. On top of that, she doesn’t outwardly display emotion, which makes viewers assume she lacks empathy, even though there’s no evidence of that. She’s simply doing her job without emotional cushioning. The actress is performing the role really well. Its the direction and narrative framing that guide casual viewers to root for a serial killer while resenting the woman trying to hold him accountable.
same here, I really am coming to rant here whenever she appears and ruin the screen. too much overreacting
With all due respect, I have to disagree with you on this. I initially felt the same way, but after sitting with it, I’ve changed my perspective. From her point of view, Woogyeom is a man who has killed and mutilated 17 people. She is a prosecutor. She is doing her job just like countless cold, driven male prosecutors we’ve seen in other Kdramas. The difference is that when a man behaves this way, we call him principled or intense. When she does it, it’s suddenly “overreacting.” She doesn’t have to cater to our emotional comfort. She can be unapologetically strong. Expecting her to soften her stance or emotionally compensate simply because she’s a woman says more about our expectations than her character. In a case this extreme, should she be emotional or professional? Yes, she is very in our faces. But that isn’t her fault, it’s narrative framing. The story invites us to understand and even empathise with Woogyeom. We get the “hear me out” treatment for a literal serial killer. Meanwhile, she’s framed as arrogant, privileged, or harsh for enforcing the law. So people might feel some annoyance. I understand your point of view, truly. But I also think it’s worth asking why we’re more annoyed at a prosecutor doing her job than at a serial killer being humanised. If you’re open to changing your perspective, I’d love for you to read my review (its a bit too long) and maybe reconsider her character from a different lens.
“A man is allowed to react. A woman can only overreact.” Watching first two episodes, I was visibly annoyed at a prosecutor for doing her job. I came to this comment section to rant a week ago and then that made me question why was I annoyed to begin with. So I ended up writing a review, give it a read if you felt the same way.
Edit: Just to be clear, I have changed my thoughts about her.
Toh and his actions do reflect something that many viewers do not like to see in these series. His desperation…
I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying, especially about Toh reflecting something viewers are uncomfortable confronting. His desperation for reassurance and affection isn’t pretty or romanticised, and I think that’s exactly why it stands out so much in this genre.
Where I struggle with the discourse is how quickly that discomfort turns into condemnation. Toh’s behaviour gets dissected as if it exists in a vacuum, while Jimmy’s emotional avoidance and inconsistent treatment of him often gets framed as understandable or even inevitable. Both characters are flawed, but the scale of scrutiny placed on Toh feels disproportionate.
I also think Toh’s lack of self assertion isn’t just blind loyalty, it reads more like someone navigating affection in a space where every attempt to demand reciprocity risks pushing the other person away. That doesn’t make his choices healthy, but it makes them very human.
To me, the story feels less like “Toh refuses to stand up for himself” and more like “what happens when one person overextends emotionally while the other isn’t ready to acknowledge what they feel.” That imbalance is uncomfortable to watch, but it’s also what makes their dynamic interesting to analyse rather than just dismiss.
Watching first ep, whenever Minato started a sentence with “Do you want to”, I thought he was gonna ask Wataru to take his wedding photos. Im so traumatised by some bl plots, my mind instantly jumps into worst possible conclusion.
“Why did you even watch it if you didn’t like it?” It feels like a train wreck, I cannot look away. I cannot meaningfully critique something i haven’t watched, and I cannot evaluate execution without seeing how the story unfolds. Dropping a show halfway and forming a verdict would be intellectually dishonest, especially when the premise shows promise. Let’s not assume that enjoyment is the only valid reason to consume media, which is simply false. People watch media to analyse it, to learn from it, to compare it with similar works, and yes sometimes to interrogate why something that should have worked didn’t.
“Why write such a long review?” Writing a detailed review is not a personal attack on anyone who enjoyed the show. This is just an evaluation of narrative choices, character construction, and production quality. Silence does not improve media but discussion does.
“Do you just hate the show, or are you just being negative?” Disliking something and critiquing it are not interchangeable. Hate is emotional but criticism is analytical. I don’t hate Love Alert. If I did, I wouldn’t bother dissecting its themes, comparing it to better executed messy narratives, or acknowledging its potential.
“It’s just a show. Why are you taking it so seriously?” Because media is never “just” media. Stories shape norms, reinforce values, and influence how behavior is interpreted especially in genres like BL, where representation carries cultural and emotional weight. When cheating is repeatedly romanticised, when accountability is unevenly distributed, and when victims are framed as foolish rather than wronged, that matters. Engaging seriously with media does not mean confusing fiction with reality, it means respecting storytelling enough to hold it to a standard. No one is being forced to agree with this review. No one is being asked to stop enjoying the show. But dismissing critique with deflection instead of engagement doesn’t protect the media you like, it just weakens the conversation around it. If you loved Love Alert, that’s fine. If this review frustrates you, that’s also fine.
Ep 6 was such a mess that for a moment I even forgot how bad the production, the script, and the BGM are. I genuinely needed divine intervention to stop myself from crawling through the screen and causing physical chaos. Girl, wdym you should’ve tolerated cheating and stayed with this morally bankrupt man because “at least he’s not physically harming you”??? The bar is not just low, it’s buried in satan’s ahh. So let me get this straight: the real problem is Toh’s jealousy, the ex for not condoning cheating, but not Jimmy, who’s out here doing butterfly dives into everyone’s bed? Oh, but it’s fine because he’s “always been a playboy.” Yeah, that totally makes it better. Being a playboy is just his personality, cheating is “predictable” so therefore acceptable, and wanting a healthy relationship is the real crime here. Insane. It’s Jimmy’s audacity for me. The shamelessness. The sheer confidence to act like this and still expect sympathy, how highly do you think of yourself, lmao? “Is having a boyfriend embarrassing?” sounds like an article written specifically for Toh. And if they try to give me a shallow, half assed redemption arc after dragging this BS for this long, I will be angrier than I already am. A simple “I’m sorry” will absolutely not cut it. I need Jimmy to backflip off a cliff, swim three oceans, build Toh a house brick by brick with his bare hands, construct a bridge, donate a kidney, then ask for a second chance. At this point, Jimmy deserves nothing but unhappiness and a symbolic three ton brick to the face. Honestly, any random new character they introduce for plot reasons would be a better option than a serial cheater.
I am only rooting for downbaddism co-founders: Albert & Lee Yong Gi. The way Albert asked to go on a date had ME blushing. I need me an Albert. Also that tiny spiteful handshake had me rolling.
Can someone who has read the webtoon spoil this for me. If they are following the plot as it is from the webtoon, will there be any romance? I don’t see romance tag here and I honestly like how they are navigating the plot rn, like more focused on revenge and cases. Romance would ruin it for me, so i would like to know…
Freedom of speech is a human right. It also doesn’t mean freedom from critique. You’re allowed to express…
Just to be clear…. did you read my comment, or did you skim it, panic, and invent a completely different argument to fight? I write several paragraphs explicitly saying belief ≠ coercion, and you somehow read “thought police.” Truly Olympic level mental gymnastics. No one is being arrested for believing in God, Catholicism, vibes, or astrology. The issue is using a hospital’s institutional power to deny legally required medical care. You know….actions. Real world ones. With consequences. But sure, let’s pretend “don’t coerce a teen into giving birth” is the same as “lock people up for wrong thoughts.” Totally reasonable leap. Very serious argument. If holding people accountable for what they do, not what they think, sounds like persecution to you, maybe the problem isn’t my point, it’s your reading comprehension. Please try responding to what I actually said next time instead of the imaginary version that’s easier to argue with.
After reading the rest of the reviews:“The rainbow people are everywhere” 🤣🤣🤣🤣Yes. They are.
To people who think that I just want to say: As a straight individual, I want to emphasise that straight people have always been everywhere, across history, culture, and especially media, which has long been overwhelmingly “straight centric”. I cannot wrap my head around why some people collapse at even minimal representation of diversity. Acknowledging different identities doesn’t erase or diminish straight experiences; it simply reflects the reality that society has always been more varied than what was traditionally shown.
Miss Nat now that you have a son in law and a beautiful daughter, yk what you’re missing?? A sister wife and I volunteer as a tribute because that man is too fine. I had to hold myself back from jumping through the screen. Khun Thee almost had a step mother…..
1
1
I rarely write reviews, but when I do, it is because of strong reactions and when biases are so visible. It’s a habit of mine to write it like a thesis because of my profession. I heavily agree that stories have historically given male characters emotional leeway and moral complexity, while women are still judged heavily on tone and likability. My review is less about attacking male characters and more about questioning why women still have to soften themselves to be palatable even when they’re simply doing their jobs.
She doesn’t have to cater to our emotional comfort. She can be unapologetically strong. Expecting her to soften her stance or emotionally compensate simply because she’s a woman says more about our expectations than her character. In a case this extreme, should she be emotional or professional?
Yes, she is very in our faces. But that isn’t her fault, it’s narrative framing. The story invites us to understand and even empathise with Woogyeom. We get the “hear me out” treatment for a literal serial killer. Meanwhile, she’s framed as arrogant, privileged, or harsh for enforcing the law. So people might feel some annoyance.
I understand your point of view, truly. But I also think it’s worth asking why we’re more annoyed at a prosecutor doing her job than at a serial killer being humanised. If you’re open to changing your perspective, I’d love for you to read my review (its a bit too long) and maybe reconsider her character from a different lens.
Edit: Just to be clear, I have changed my thoughts about her.
Where I struggle with the discourse is how quickly that discomfort turns into condemnation. Toh’s behaviour gets dissected as if it exists in a vacuum, while Jimmy’s emotional avoidance and inconsistent treatment of him often gets framed as understandable or even inevitable. Both characters are flawed, but the scale of scrutiny placed on Toh feels disproportionate.
I also think Toh’s lack of self assertion isn’t just blind loyalty, it reads more like someone navigating affection in a space where every attempt to demand reciprocity risks pushing the other person away. That doesn’t make his choices healthy, but it makes them very human.
To me, the story feels less like “Toh refuses to stand up for himself” and more like “what happens when one person overextends emotionally while the other isn’t ready to acknowledge what they feel.” That imbalance is uncomfortable to watch, but it’s also what makes their dynamic interesting to analyse rather than just dismiss.
It feels like a train wreck, I cannot look away. I cannot meaningfully critique something i haven’t watched, and I cannot evaluate execution without seeing how the story unfolds. Dropping a show halfway and forming a verdict would be intellectually dishonest, especially when the premise shows promise. Let’s not assume that enjoyment is the only valid reason to consume media, which is simply false. People watch media to analyse it, to learn from it, to compare it with similar works, and yes sometimes to interrogate why something that should have worked didn’t.
“Why write such a long review?”
Writing a detailed review is not a personal attack on anyone who enjoyed the show. This is just an evaluation of narrative choices, character construction, and production quality. Silence does not improve media but discussion does.
“Do you just hate the show, or are you just being negative?”
Disliking something and critiquing it are not interchangeable. Hate is emotional but criticism is analytical. I don’t hate Love Alert. If I did, I wouldn’t bother dissecting its themes, comparing it to better executed messy narratives, or acknowledging its potential.
“It’s just a show. Why are you taking it so seriously?”
Because media is never “just” media. Stories shape norms, reinforce values, and influence how behavior is interpreted especially in genres like BL, where representation carries cultural and emotional weight. When cheating is repeatedly romanticised, when accountability is unevenly distributed, and when victims are framed as foolish rather than wronged, that matters. Engaging seriously with media does not mean confusing fiction with reality, it means respecting storytelling enough to hold it to a standard. No one is being forced to agree with this review. No one is being asked to stop enjoying the show. But dismissing critique with deflection instead of engagement doesn’t protect the media you like, it just weakens the conversation around it. If you loved Love Alert, that’s fine. If this review frustrates you, that’s also fine.
It’s Jimmy’s audacity for me. The shamelessness. The sheer confidence to act like this and still expect sympathy, how highly do you think of yourself, lmao? “Is having a boyfriend embarrassing?” sounds like an article written specifically for Toh.
And if they try to give me a shallow, half assed redemption arc after dragging this BS for this long, I will be angrier than I already am. A simple “I’m sorry” will absolutely not cut it. I need Jimmy to backflip off a cliff, swim three oceans, build Toh a house brick by brick with his bare hands, construct a bridge, donate a kidney, then ask for a second chance. At this point, Jimmy deserves nothing but unhappiness and a symbolic three ton brick to the face. Honestly, any random new character they introduce for plot reasons would be a better option than a serial cheater.
I write several paragraphs explicitly saying belief ≠ coercion, and you somehow read “thought police.” Truly Olympic level mental gymnastics.
No one is being arrested for believing in God, Catholicism, vibes, or astrology. The issue is using a hospital’s institutional power to deny legally required medical care. You know….actions. Real world ones. With consequences.
But sure, let’s pretend “don’t coerce a teen into giving birth” is the same as “lock people up for wrong thoughts.” Totally reasonable leap. Very serious argument.
If holding people accountable for what they do, not what they think, sounds like persecution to you, maybe the problem isn’t my point, it’s your reading comprehension.
Please try responding to what I actually said next time instead of the imaginary version that’s easier to argue with.
As a straight individual, I want to emphasise that straight people have always been everywhere, across history, culture, and especially media, which has long been overwhelmingly “straight centric”. I cannot wrap my head around why some people collapse at even minimal representation of diversity. Acknowledging different identities doesn’t erase or diminish straight experiences; it simply reflects the reality that society has always been more varied than what was traditionally shown.