Joe vs Carole

“Joe vs. Carole” is competently made and entertaining enough but having already sat through the first season of Netflix’s bloated “Tiger King,” “Joe vs. Carole” can’t help but feel like a rerun of something I already saw.

It isn't shocking or sensational any more, and it isn't that funny either. Why is it worth your while going over this well-trodden ground once again, and is it even fair to the show's real-life subjects to give them this black comedy treatment?

Joe vs. Carole simply doesn't contain enough fresh insight to justify its existence today — despite game performances by the stars.

Mitchell is commanding enough to make his half of the series worth the while. Even if “Joe vs. Carole” doesn’t have much new to say about Joe, Carole, or why the two of them tangled to such catastrophic ends, Mitchell does so much to flesh out his role that you can almost — almost — forget the incredible overexposure that’s otherwise made its origin story so rancid.

Despite some clever writing and decent performances, Joe Vs. Carole can’t really add to the craziness that the real-life Joe Exotic and Carole Baskin showed in Tiger King and all of its offshoots.

The filmmaking is not shallow—it can have some inspired, immersive usage of angles and framing—and the performances themselves are not lifeless, even if they’re playing something straight that was originally sold to us like a reality-altering joke. ... But why would you patronize something that now feels like a knock-off, when you can enjoy more from the real thing?

It's never ideal to arrive way too late to the party, and "Joe vs Carole" feels guilty of that, adapting the story of Netflix's "Tiger King," a.k.a. Joe Exotic, into a limited series that dutifully replicates those events without much bite. The attention might still be welcome for streaming service Peacock, but after a poorly received docu-sequel, this cat appears to have exhausted most of its lives.