User:MainlyTwelve/lion

“Lion in the Meadow” received largely positive reviews. Critics

"Secession" received largely positive reviews, with critics praising the episode's performances, fast pace, and seamless reintroduction to the series' narrative. Noel Murray of The New York Times praised how much narrative ground the premiere was able to cover in a short span, writing that episode "barrels forward, generating much of its tension and humor from the people who are on the periphery of Logan and Kendall’s feud and are scrambling to keep up."[7] Anita Singh of The Daily Telegraph awarded the episode 5 out of 5 stars, particularly praising Jeremy Strong's performance for "[embodying] all the contradictions of Kendall’s character: the ego, the vulnerability, the recklessness and the self-doubt." Singh also commended Armstrong's writing, remarking that "every line of dialogue is a gem."[8] Scott Tobias of Vulture gave the episode 4 out of 5 stars, praising its humor throughout, as well as its characterization of Kendall following the season 2 finale, writing, "it is hilariously, tragically clear from the beginning that Kendall has not thought any of this through. He seemed to believe that the man who killed the king would also assume the throne."[9]

Some critics took issue with the manner in which the episode reintroduced audiences to the series. Roxana Hadadi of The A.V. Club gave the premiere a B, calling it a "solid introduction into the next chapter of Roy family backstabbing." Hadadi called Strong "excellent at careening between emotional extremes" as Kendall, and praised Sarah Snook and Kieran Culkin's performances as "a master class in fractional degrees of nuance." However, she criticized the script for making the episode feel "a little too self-aware," writing, "it felt like everyone jumped on the Succession train in the past two years. During this episode, it also feels like Armstrong knows that, and is leaning (slightly extraneously) into it. (...) Everything seems amped up in a slightly performative way."[10] Reviewing the third season as a whole, Lucy Mangan of The Guardian declared that the series' writing remains "immaculate," but called the premiere "particularly plot-heavy," stating that it offered "less room for the delicate characterisation that customarily leaven[s] the script and make[s] you wring your hands with [its] deftness and intelligence."[11] Alan Sepinwall of Rolling Stone wrote, "the episode could come off like a bit of narrative throat-clearing. But it’s been so long since we’ve seen these characters... that a slower re-entry into their world is helpful, especially when it’s as typically funny as this one." Sepinwall deemed that the series overall was "in tip-top shape after its lengthy absence."[12]