The Sandman Review: Ambitious Netflix Adaptation Overcomes Its Growing Pains

screenrant.com:

Conversations around adaptations as big as Netflix's The Sandman series tend to be dominated by the idea of «faithfulness,» which is usually one of the least interesting ways to talk about them. It condemns the new work to living in the shadow of the old one, which has the unbeatable advantage of being 100% faithful to itself, instead of allowing both to benefit from being so deeply in conversation with one another. But, in The Sandman's case, faithfulness offers a useful lens through which to view the successes and failures of this enterprise. While some structural and character changes were deemed necessary, there are lengthy stretches that seem to recreate scenes from Neil Gaiman's comics word-for-word, or bring certain panels to life with sometimes startling exactitude. Many of these moments feel as alive as they do on the page — news that is likely to delight many an anxious Sandman fan. Those that don't, however, might be better understood in relation to the source material than when considered solely on their own terms.

The Sandman begins with a mistake: In 1916, occultist Sir Roderick Burgess (Charles Dance) and his followers enact a ritual intended to capture Death, and find themselves having trapped Dream (Tom Sturridge) instead. Also known as Morpheus, this primordial being is one of the Endless, and the personification of all dreams and stories. Still, he is held captive by mortals, first the blowhard charlatan and then his meeker son, for 106 years, gaining his freedom in the year 2022. The narrative from there has primary strands, built around certain tasks Dream must accomplish as he retakes control of his kingdom, the Dreaming. It is also somewhat episodic. Characters are picked up, explored, and put back