The Chaos of Comedy: Why 'Big Mistakes' Falls Short of Its Ambitious Mess
There’s something undeniably alluring about a crime comedy that throws logic out the window and embraces pure, unfiltered mayhem. Netflix’s Big Mistakes, co-created by Dan Levy and Rachel Sennott, certainly delivers on the chaos. But here’s the thing: chaos alone doesn’t make a show memorable. It needs heart, logic, or at least a reason to care. Big Mistakes has plenty of the former but falls woefully short on the latter, leaving me wondering if it’s a missed opportunity or just a stylistic choice gone awry.
The Allure of the Absurd: A Genre That’s Hard to Get Right
Let’s start with the genre itself. Dark comedies about ordinary people sucked into criminality are having a moment. Think Killing It, Deli Boys, or Sunny Nights—shows that thrive on the tension between the mundane and the absurd. What makes this genre so compelling is its ability to mirror the economic desperation many of us feel, albeit through a distorted, laughable lens. Weeds, the Showtime series that arguably pioneered this subgenre, did it with a mix of sharp social commentary and increasingly ludicrous plotlines. But even at its most ridiculous, Weeds had a core of emotional truth.
Big Mistakes, on the other hand, feels like it’s trying to skip straight to the absurdity without laying the groundwork. Personally, I think this is where the show stumbles. It’s not that absurdity is a bad thing—far from it. But when characters’ actions are driven by “poorly considered happenstance” rather than genuine motivation, it’s hard to invest in their journey. Take Nicky and Morgan, the siblings at the center of the chaos. Their decision to shoplift a necklace that sparks a criminal saga feels less like a desperate act and more like a plot device. What many people don’t realize is that absurdity works best when it’s rooted in something relatable. Without that, it’s just noise.
Characters Without Depth: A Missed Opportunity
One thing that immediately stands out is how underdeveloped the characters are. Nicky, a gay pastor in a denomination that forbids gay relationships, could have been a fascinating exploration of faith, identity, and hypocrisy. Instead, his religious role feels like a costume rather than a meaningful part of his character. Morgan, the aspiring actor turned reluctant teacher, fares slightly better, but her motivations remain murky. Why does she stay in a loveless relationship? Why does she care about her family’s mayoral campaign? These questions are never satisfactorily answered.
From my perspective, this lack of depth is a symptom of a larger issue: the show prioritizes plot mechanics over character development. It’s as if the writers were so focused on crafting the next twist that they forgot to give us reasons to care about the people caught in it. Compare this to Schitt’s Creek, where Levy’s character, David Rose, evolves from a self-absorbed socialite to a deeply empathetic individual. That show took its time to build relationships and emotional stakes. Big Mistakes feels like it’s in a hurry to get nowhere.
The Problem with Coincidence: When Plot Becomes a Crutch
The climactic reveal in Big Mistakes is a doozy—a twist so reliant on coincidence that it’s hard to take seriously. Personally, I think this is where the show’s flaws are most glaring. A well-executed coincidence can be satisfying, but when it’s the linchpin of your entire plot, it feels lazy. What this really suggests is that the writers didn’t trust the audience to stay engaged without a jaw-dropping moment, no matter how implausible.
This raises a deeper question: Why do we keep forgiving shows for relying on coincidence? Is it because we’re so accustomed to chaotic storytelling that we’ve lowered our standards? Or is it that we’re willing to overlook logical gaps if the ride is entertaining enough? Big Mistakes certainly isn’t boring, but it’s entertainment of the shallowest kind. It’s like eating cotton candy—fun in the moment, but ultimately unsatisfying.
The Surface-Level Charm: A Double-Edged Sword
What makes this particularly fascinating is how Big Mistakes manages to be both frustrating and entertaining. The dialogue is sharp, the cast is talented, and the pacing is relentless. Laurie Metcalf, as always, is a marvel, even when her character is reduced to shouting. Taylor Ortega brings a vulnerability to Morgan that makes her somewhat relatable, and Dan Levy’s exasperated Nicky has its moments.
But here’s the rub: all of this charm exists on the surface. If you take a step back and think about it, there’s nothing beneath the sheen. The show is like a beautifully wrapped gift box that’s empty inside. It’s easy to get caught up in the moment while watching, but once it’s over, you’re left wondering what the point was.
The Future of Big Mistakes: Can It Find Its Heart?
A detail that I find especially interesting is the potential for a second season. The show ends on a note that suggests more chaos to come, and I can’t help but wonder if it could course-correct. If Big Mistakes wants to be more than a forgettable romp, it needs to dig deeper into its characters and their motivations. It needs to find the heart that made Schitt’s Creek so beloved.
In my opinion, the show’s biggest mistake isn’t its absurdity—it’s its reluctance to commit to anything meaningful. It’s a show that wants to be everything and ends up being nothing. And that, more than anything, is a missed opportunity.
Final Thoughts: The Fine Line Between Chaos and Meaning
Big Mistakes is a show that’s easy to watch but hard to love. It’s a reminder that chaos, without purpose, is just noise. Personally, I think it’s a show that could have been great if it had taken the time to build its world and characters instead of rushing to the next twist. But as it stands, it’s a surface-level spectacle—fun, but ultimately forgettable.
If you’re looking for a mindless laugh, Big Mistakes might be worth your time. But if you’re craving something with depth, heart, or even a shred of logic, you’re better off looking elsewhere. And that, in the end, is the biggest mistake of all.
