Every season of 'Stranger Things' seems like an elaborate suspense-thriller franchise film. It has its start-middle-end and a definite season closure, though leaving a subtle seed for the next season. The show very interestingly creates a sci fi world (particularly in Season 1) and then explores different elements of suspense, thriller, fantasy, action, drama, comedy, romance, bromance and also horror (in some portions) very smartly and keeps you riveted all through. Thankfully it never muddles or messes up with its multiple genres.

Each season follows a format where multiple tracks run in parallel from the very start until they merge together in the pre-climax and thereafter the group divides into smaller units to get set on one common mission in the finale. The format works perfectly for the show as it keeps its ensemble characters employed in different subplots and keeps you engaged with the variety. However, the editing pattern is so brisk that just when you expect to delve more into one particular track, the narrative erratically cuts into another plot and then another and then another. This happens largely in Season 2 and 3 and, at times, the pattern irritates. Another pattern is a match-cut transition from one scene to another which happens so often that it seems overdone. The pacing of the show is fast, not giving you any breathers to sit back and relax or analyse. Thankfully the makers have kept the flavour in true-blue suspense-thriller zone without making it a slow burn or dark drama.

Beyond the premise and promise of an imaginative world, Stranger Things largely works because of its varied colourful characters. Whether it is El, Hopper, Joyce, Nancy or the four friends - each one is unique and has an interesting part to play. Also each character is written so robustly that you cannot pick any one of them as the central protagonist or rate anyone as the supporting cast. This is one of the few shows (or perhaps the only show) where almost every character has equal weightage, not just in screentime but also in their contribution to the story and also how you keep rooting for each of them. Even characters who seem to be just the supporting cast in the start come to fore more prominently over seasons. The best example is of Steve Carrington who comes across as the typical evil campus guy in season 1 but turns more likeable eventually. So is Erica, Max or Billy!

The intrigue that was created in Season 1 dilutes down in Season 2 and 3 as you get more and more accustomed to the world. Season 3, in particular, stretches at times with an action track of a Russian mercenary chasing Hopper, resulting in some long-drawn-out action sequences in a fun-fair setup - something that seems forced and not in sync with the primary genre of the show. Then there is one break episode (Season 2, episode 7) that is just unconnected with the overall plot of the series and you aren't surprised when you see it is the lowest rated episode on IMDb. You could give this one a complete miss and still nothing would change in your viewing experience or story flow of the show.

The show is subtly set in the early 80s era and the period reference is never in your face. The narrative is so gripping that you never consciously notice the absence of cellphones or other modern gadgets. Every episode ends on a definitive hook point which wants you to keep going ahead. Despite having adult overtones of creature horror and verbal abuse, the show still palpably captures the innocence of childhood friendship in a very organic way.