Search
Search results
Logan Eccles (135 KP) rated The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance in TV
Oct 1, 2020 (Updated Oct 2, 2020)
Henson Lives on
First off this is one I will not be able to be unbias because I've been I huge Henson fan my whole 24 years of life. Puppetry helped me find my young voice when I was too ashamed to speak with my speech impediment. That being said here's my Review. Thank you, Netflix for producing this modern-day masterpiece of pure brilliance. The mixture of classic Henson puppetry and CGI was blended well and even though most times you could tell the difference of the change and looked good. As the animation and puppetry were superb so was the story development. The progression of the story was fun, smart, and beautiful. The use of characters from the movie and newly introduced characters for the show were also smart and developed well for the overall story. The cast was a good assembly of voices, though some were easily confused for others with similarity in voices, they were still fantastic. Simon Peg was especially great as The Chamberlin was my favorite character from the movie, Simon did a great job of mimicking the voice and keeping it as special as it was, Helena Bonham also did a good job of this with Ogla. Finally, the way the show ended at a moment that tied it to the movie but also left enough space to make a possible second season was smart. When I first heard this was going to be a show and not a movie I wasn't sure it would work but it was great I highly recommend.
Fire HD 8 Kids Edition Tablet
7.0
Rate It
Tech Watch
Up to $144 in savings on Fire HD 8 tablet, 1 year of Amazon FreeTime Unlimited, and a Kid-Proof...
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Russian Doll in TV
Jun 20, 2019
After the success of both Parks and Recreation and Orange is the New Black, I was intrigued by a new Netflix series created by Amy Poehler and Natasha Lyonne. Many fans know them as Leslie Knope and Nicky Nichols, and I’m sure we can all agree they’d make a very interesting duo.
Immediately after seeing the promos for Russian Doll, it was clear that this was going to be a very different tone to their previous work, and felt incredibly offbeat and quirky in nature. The series follows a woman named Nadia Vulvokov (Natasha Lyonne) as she finds herself in a time-loop after she is hit by a taxi and dies. Unfortunately for Nadia, she has to relive her 36th birthday party over and over again. It’s Groundhog Day on speed, which is an utterly delightful concept.
Whilst it may sound similar to Groundhog Day, it’s actually a very unique story. At first it’s easy to worry about the repetitive nature of the series, considering Nadia spends most of her time dying and reliving the same moment. Somehow it manages to stay funny, fresh and watchable throughout all eight episodes. The pacing is spot-on and keeps you guessing, as you follow Nadia’s journey into discovering why she’s found herself in this loop. On this journey, she’s joined by a number of characters including her ex-boyfriend John (Yul Vazquez), close family friend Ruth (Elizabeth Ashley) and a stranger named Alan (Charlie Barnett) who is closer to this situation than he originally realizes.
As the series progresses, we begin to delve into some pretty heavy stuff. Without giving away spoilers, the episodes start to question morality, ethics, the past, and the future. Each character is so well fleshed out and we want to know more about them. It’s easy to become sucked into the world of Russian Doll, and trust me when I say it’s a binge worthy series. You won’t want to stop until you have answers. It’s a show that knows how to balance comedy and drama effectively, delivering laugh out loud then heart-wrenching moments in quick succession. You feel sorry for various characters and loathe others, and it’s an incredibly well fleshed out series.
In terms of its visuals, Russian Doll is a gritty, psychedelic glimpse into the lives of various New York City residents. We see rich and poor, confident and timid, good and bad characters as they go about their daily lives. It’s fascinating to watch and each location has been crafted to give you more insight into the characters in this world. From quirky high-rise apartments to homeless shelters, this series shows it all. It’s the Big Apple in all its glory, whether that’s good or bad.
My advice would be to walk into Russian Doll knowing as little as possible, allowing yourself to approach the situation in a similar way to Nadia. It’s a comedy, thriller and mystery all rolled into one, with each genre complementing the other superbly. As far as Netflix Originals go, this is one of the strongest ones I’ve seen so far. Eight episodes is just enough to keep you entertained, whilst still giving enough backstory to make it a compelling tale. Just when you think you know a character, the tables are turned and your jaw is on the floor.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/07/tv-review-my-thoughts-on-russian-doll/
Immediately after seeing the promos for Russian Doll, it was clear that this was going to be a very different tone to their previous work, and felt incredibly offbeat and quirky in nature. The series follows a woman named Nadia Vulvokov (Natasha Lyonne) as she finds herself in a time-loop after she is hit by a taxi and dies. Unfortunately for Nadia, she has to relive her 36th birthday party over and over again. It’s Groundhog Day on speed, which is an utterly delightful concept.
Whilst it may sound similar to Groundhog Day, it’s actually a very unique story. At first it’s easy to worry about the repetitive nature of the series, considering Nadia spends most of her time dying and reliving the same moment. Somehow it manages to stay funny, fresh and watchable throughout all eight episodes. The pacing is spot-on and keeps you guessing, as you follow Nadia’s journey into discovering why she’s found herself in this loop. On this journey, she’s joined by a number of characters including her ex-boyfriend John (Yul Vazquez), close family friend Ruth (Elizabeth Ashley) and a stranger named Alan (Charlie Barnett) who is closer to this situation than he originally realizes.
As the series progresses, we begin to delve into some pretty heavy stuff. Without giving away spoilers, the episodes start to question morality, ethics, the past, and the future. Each character is so well fleshed out and we want to know more about them. It’s easy to become sucked into the world of Russian Doll, and trust me when I say it’s a binge worthy series. You won’t want to stop until you have answers. It’s a show that knows how to balance comedy and drama effectively, delivering laugh out loud then heart-wrenching moments in quick succession. You feel sorry for various characters and loathe others, and it’s an incredibly well fleshed out series.
In terms of its visuals, Russian Doll is a gritty, psychedelic glimpse into the lives of various New York City residents. We see rich and poor, confident and timid, good and bad characters as they go about their daily lives. It’s fascinating to watch and each location has been crafted to give you more insight into the characters in this world. From quirky high-rise apartments to homeless shelters, this series shows it all. It’s the Big Apple in all its glory, whether that’s good or bad.
My advice would be to walk into Russian Doll knowing as little as possible, allowing yourself to approach the situation in a similar way to Nadia. It’s a comedy, thriller and mystery all rolled into one, with each genre complementing the other superbly. As far as Netflix Originals go, this is one of the strongest ones I’ve seen so far. Eight episodes is just enough to keep you entertained, whilst still giving enough backstory to make it a compelling tale. Just when you think you know a character, the tables are turned and your jaw is on the floor.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/07/tv-review-my-thoughts-on-russian-doll/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Making A Murderer - Season 1 in TV
Mar 3, 2020
The phenomenon of “true crime” as entertainment is disturbing. What we are saying when we subscribe to watch these compellingly morbid shows is that, of course, we don’t “enjoy” or condone the crimes themselves. But, we do increasingly expect that without the grotesque detail of primary crime scene evidence, documented visually, we can switch over to another show that will give us our macabre kick. So, it is a dangerous precedent to say that without that factor we won’t engage.
What does make us want to know, and solve, and understand the worst criminal minds of the last century? Do we place ourselves as amateur sleuths and psychologists, so we can have our own opinions on a difficult subject, or do we just want to see the very worst of humanity to satisfy a need to be shocked? One thing for sure is that there is no end to this kind of docu-drama available, especially on Netflix, if we choose to stomach it.
I watched three recently in quick succession, and do feel like I have something to say about it…
First, was the extension of the Making A Murderer case of Steven Avery, which can be credited for re-imagining the scope of this kind of “reality” show on Netflix in late 2015. Without a doubt, the draw of the first series was in showing how corrupt, ambiguous and vague the American criminal system can be. We know this from circus shows such as the OJ Simpson case, that capture a curiosity in the public that must be explored and documented. There is no point in saying, no don’t do it, because eventually we have to know, and current forensic science and film techniques allow us to approach it. Carefully. Oh, so carefully!
In this case, the much criticised production extracts further detail from an undeniably fascinating case of criminal negligence and injustice, without ever providing a new revelation enough to definitively say we now know enough to put it to bed. It focuses largely on the power of Kathleen Zellner as a lawyer of impeccable motives and results to prove the innocence of convicted men.
What we then get is 10 episodes of contrivance that increasingly try to convince us further that this is a miscarriage of justice that must be addressed. The continual message is that there is a conspiracy here, which makes for good TV. Someone doesn’t want this show to have an influence. Who is covering up what? And why is the justice system adamant in disallowing the revelations this show throws up so regularly? In the end it becomes less about the victim and the crime, as an indictment of a process that does not want to be examined. The power of this show has always been that something is rotten in Denmark. But what exactly?
There is no doubt at all that once involved you have to keep watching. It is exceptionally presented, and therefore successful as an entertainment because of that. The complexity of the argument comes not in the real recordings of conversations and evidence, but in the form of presentation as a TV show. A question, I am certain, the film-makers themselves constantly ask. It is about finding “truth” for the families of the victims; a crusade that may or may not include individuals wrongly accused of a crime.
What does make us want to know, and solve, and understand the worst criminal minds of the last century? Do we place ourselves as amateur sleuths and psychologists, so we can have our own opinions on a difficult subject, or do we just want to see the very worst of humanity to satisfy a need to be shocked? One thing for sure is that there is no end to this kind of docu-drama available, especially on Netflix, if we choose to stomach it.
I watched three recently in quick succession, and do feel like I have something to say about it…
First, was the extension of the Making A Murderer case of Steven Avery, which can be credited for re-imagining the scope of this kind of “reality” show on Netflix in late 2015. Without a doubt, the draw of the first series was in showing how corrupt, ambiguous and vague the American criminal system can be. We know this from circus shows such as the OJ Simpson case, that capture a curiosity in the public that must be explored and documented. There is no point in saying, no don’t do it, because eventually we have to know, and current forensic science and film techniques allow us to approach it. Carefully. Oh, so carefully!
In this case, the much criticised production extracts further detail from an undeniably fascinating case of criminal negligence and injustice, without ever providing a new revelation enough to definitively say we now know enough to put it to bed. It focuses largely on the power of Kathleen Zellner as a lawyer of impeccable motives and results to prove the innocence of convicted men.
What we then get is 10 episodes of contrivance that increasingly try to convince us further that this is a miscarriage of justice that must be addressed. The continual message is that there is a conspiracy here, which makes for good TV. Someone doesn’t want this show to have an influence. Who is covering up what? And why is the justice system adamant in disallowing the revelations this show throws up so regularly? In the end it becomes less about the victim and the crime, as an indictment of a process that does not want to be examined. The power of this show has always been that something is rotten in Denmark. But what exactly?
There is no doubt at all that once involved you have to keep watching. It is exceptionally presented, and therefore successful as an entertainment because of that. The complexity of the argument comes not in the real recordings of conversations and evidence, but in the form of presentation as a TV show. A question, I am certain, the film-makers themselves constantly ask. It is about finding “truth” for the families of the victims; a crusade that may or may not include individuals wrongly accused of a crime.
Radio Times
Entertainment and Magazines & Newspapers
App
Radio Times magazine – the UK’s favourite guide to TV, film and radio listings is now on...
Characters you care about (1 more)
An interesting, well thought out plot
A creepy thriller, well worth the watch!
23 years ago Carys Howell goes missing from a small Welsh village. The case is never solved. After the sudden and horrific death of her mother, Matilda Gray, celebrity cello player, finds herself drawn to the village and the case. Followed by close friend Hal, who has clear but unreciprocated feelings towards Matilda, she slowly begins to unravel the events around the case. What Matilda finds leads her into the world of the dark supernatural.
I found the story engaging and compelling and I really cared about the main characters- particularly Matilda and Hal. The supernatural scenes were creepy and a little jumpy at times.
There were a few issues that I had with the series, firstly some of the twists were a little predictable , but this is offset by the twists that were unexpected. My primary gripe with the series is that the ending left me wanting- it was missing that fulfilling ending that I was craving. I would have preferred an additional episode that covered the ‘black outs’, instead it was almost as if the writers had put so much into the rest of the series, that they got to the last thirty minutes and rushed it, missing out the meat.
The series does set itself up nicely for a season 2, but neither the BBC or Netflix have confirmed a renewal (both have a stake in the series). Despite the weak ending, I do hope that there is a sequel, as I believe it will be much darker and creepier.
I found the story engaging and compelling and I really cared about the main characters- particularly Matilda and Hal. The supernatural scenes were creepy and a little jumpy at times.
There were a few issues that I had with the series, firstly some of the twists were a little predictable , but this is offset by the twists that were unexpected. My primary gripe with the series is that the ending left me wanting- it was missing that fulfilling ending that I was craving. I would have preferred an additional episode that covered the ‘black outs’, instead it was almost as if the writers had put so much into the rest of the series, that they got to the last thirty minutes and rushed it, missing out the meat.
The series does set itself up nicely for a season 2, but neither the BBC or Netflix have confirmed a renewal (both have a stake in the series). Despite the weak ending, I do hope that there is a sequel, as I believe it will be much darker and creepier.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Cargo (2017) in Movies
Jun 8, 2018 (Updated Oct 26, 2018)
A Different Take On A Tired Genre
Cargo is a recent zombie drama movie by Netflix. It stars Martin Freeman as a father who has been bitten by a zombie and has 48 hours to get his infant daughter to safety before the infection spreads through his body and he turns.
Honestly, the film itself wasn't what I was expecting from the trailer, it was much slower than I expected. I actually came very close to switching off during the movie's first act due to some of the inexplicably stupid decisions that the characters made, which led to them becoming infected. However, I stuck around as I like Martin Freeman and I love zombie movies.
While it was worth sticking around to see Martin Freeman give an incredible performance, (possibly the best of his career so far,) the film just didn't live up to the expectations that I had for it from it's trailer. There wasn't enough of a sense of urgency present in the movie. This is a man who knows that he is dying and must ensure his daughter is safe before he does, yet so much time is spent plodding about nonchalantly and going on pointless sidequests while the clock is ticking. The constantly depressing tone of the movie also becomes a slog after a while and in my opinion, the movie's payoff doesn't really justify the 100 minutes of bleak that we just sat through.
Overall, it's okay and Martin Freeman gives a fantastic performance, but there are better zombie movies out there and it's not something I would watch again.
Honestly, the film itself wasn't what I was expecting from the trailer, it was much slower than I expected. I actually came very close to switching off during the movie's first act due to some of the inexplicably stupid decisions that the characters made, which led to them becoming infected. However, I stuck around as I like Martin Freeman and I love zombie movies.
While it was worth sticking around to see Martin Freeman give an incredible performance, (possibly the best of his career so far,) the film just didn't live up to the expectations that I had for it from it's trailer. There wasn't enough of a sense of urgency present in the movie. This is a man who knows that he is dying and must ensure his daughter is safe before he does, yet so much time is spent plodding about nonchalantly and going on pointless sidequests while the clock is ticking. The constantly depressing tone of the movie also becomes a slog after a while and in my opinion, the movie's payoff doesn't really justify the 100 minutes of bleak that we just sat through.
Overall, it's okay and Martin Freeman gives a fantastic performance, but there are better zombie movies out there and it's not something I would watch again.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Evil Genius in TV
Jun 26, 2018 (Updated Jun 27, 2018)
Evil? Most definitely. Genius? More questionable.
Evil Genius is a 4 part documentary series on Netflix created by Trey Borzillieri and Barbara Schroeder. It covers the 2003 Pizza Bomber Bank Heist that took place in Erie, Pennsylvania, a bizarre case that still has many unanswered questions years later.
The documentary opens very strongly, launching you right into the action and the entire first episode is full of WTF moments. Unfortunately after this, the doc slows right down, from the start of episode 2 right up until the last 15 minutes or so of ep4, which thankfully picks up for a decent revelation that round off the show. Due to the doc only being 4 episodes, it meant that it didn't drag on too much like Making A Murderer did, but it also meant that each episode felt a bit uneven, crammed in places and slow in others.
One major disappointment for me was the fact they never spoke to anyone that was actually working in the bank the day that Brian Wells walked in wearing a collar bomb and robbed it. I felt like this was a huge insight that could have answered lots of questions and was totally missed by the filmmakers.
I sort of felt that they instead spent too much time on Marjory Dhiel-Armstrong and her co-conspirators who were most likely the ones that put the collar on Brian and got him to rob the bank. Sure, their weird back stories are kinda interesting, but the most important part of this story is what happened in and outside of the PNC bank in Erie that day.
The documentary opens very strongly, launching you right into the action and the entire first episode is full of WTF moments. Unfortunately after this, the doc slows right down, from the start of episode 2 right up until the last 15 minutes or so of ep4, which thankfully picks up for a decent revelation that round off the show. Due to the doc only being 4 episodes, it meant that it didn't drag on too much like Making A Murderer did, but it also meant that each episode felt a bit uneven, crammed in places and slow in others.
One major disappointment for me was the fact they never spoke to anyone that was actually working in the bank the day that Brian Wells walked in wearing a collar bomb and robbed it. I felt like this was a huge insight that could have answered lots of questions and was totally missed by the filmmakers.
I sort of felt that they instead spent too much time on Marjory Dhiel-Armstrong and her co-conspirators who were most likely the ones that put the collar on Brian and got him to rob the bank. Sure, their weird back stories are kinda interesting, but the most important part of this story is what happened in and outside of the PNC bank in Erie that day.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Witcher in TV
Dec 29, 2019
Better than expected
I know nothing about The Witcher books or games, so I went into this Netflix series with an open mind and overall I was pleasantly surprised at how this turned out.
Henry Cavill is a great choice as Geralt, charming and witty yet threatening, and let's just say I also wasnt complaining about the amount of time he spends with his top off. The effects in this are very good and the action and fight scenes are well choreographed and wonderfully gory and bloody. The whole show just looks great, from the costumes to the scenery. I did find the diverging timelines of the three main characters a little confusing to begin with and I had to really pay attention to figure out where everything was up to. The lives of Ciri and Yennefer are interesting and Yennefer especially is a wonderfully smart and intriguing character, however I did feel a little frustrated that we spend so much time across the episodes with both of them. Whilst they both tie into the main plot, for me Geralt was the most engaging thing about this show. His monster hunting and interactions with other characters, especially his rather funny relationship with Jaskier, were what really kept me entertained and I may have rated this a little higher had he featured a lot more.
Oh and the ending was just ridiculously frustrating and such an anticlimax. Overall though this is a surprisingly good watch and I'll be interested to watch the second series, I'm just sad this won't be for a few years yet!
Henry Cavill is a great choice as Geralt, charming and witty yet threatening, and let's just say I also wasnt complaining about the amount of time he spends with his top off. The effects in this are very good and the action and fight scenes are well choreographed and wonderfully gory and bloody. The whole show just looks great, from the costumes to the scenery. I did find the diverging timelines of the three main characters a little confusing to begin with and I had to really pay attention to figure out where everything was up to. The lives of Ciri and Yennefer are interesting and Yennefer especially is a wonderfully smart and intriguing character, however I did feel a little frustrated that we spend so much time across the episodes with both of them. Whilst they both tie into the main plot, for me Geralt was the most engaging thing about this show. His monster hunting and interactions with other characters, especially his rather funny relationship with Jaskier, were what really kept me entertained and I may have rated this a little higher had he featured a lot more.
Oh and the ending was just ridiculously frustrating and such an anticlimax. Overall though this is a surprisingly good watch and I'll be interested to watch the second series, I'm just sad this won't be for a few years yet!
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Witcher in TV
Dec 30, 2019
I learned of The Witcher through the video games. When I heard Netflix was making a series about it, I was ecstatic. I will say the series doesn't disappoint!
The plot and other story lines in this are solid. There is plenty of action with a tiny bit of romance thrown in. This series follows the books very closely. The sword fighting scenes are epic and are choreographed brilliantly! One of the things that I found very confusing though was the timelines taking place. It's all over the place, and you don't really know whether you're watching something in the present or something that happened previously in each scene. It would have been nice to have something on the bottom of the screen saying "10 year earlier" or something similar.
The acting is spot on in The Witcher. Henry Cavill plays Geralt perfectly. While the actress who plays Yennefer is a great actress, I don't think she's a great fit for Yennefer. Yennefer is supposed to be very beautiful, but Anya Chalotra is a bit too plain. There are so many actresses they could have had to play Yennefer, yet they go with the one who's not very striking. The man who plays Jaskier was also a good fit, and Freya Allen (Ciri) was also perfect. I also thought Triss was also perfectly casted. (In the books, Triss' hair is a chestnut/auburn color. It's only in the games where she has red hair.)
I hate waiting over a year for the next season, but it is what it is. I will definitely be watching though!
The plot and other story lines in this are solid. There is plenty of action with a tiny bit of romance thrown in. This series follows the books very closely. The sword fighting scenes are epic and are choreographed brilliantly! One of the things that I found very confusing though was the timelines taking place. It's all over the place, and you don't really know whether you're watching something in the present or something that happened previously in each scene. It would have been nice to have something on the bottom of the screen saying "10 year earlier" or something similar.
The acting is spot on in The Witcher. Henry Cavill plays Geralt perfectly. While the actress who plays Yennefer is a great actress, I don't think she's a great fit for Yennefer. Yennefer is supposed to be very beautiful, but Anya Chalotra is a bit too plain. There are so many actresses they could have had to play Yennefer, yet they go with the one who's not very striking. The man who plays Jaskier was also a good fit, and Freya Allen (Ciri) was also perfect. I also thought Triss was also perfectly casted. (In the books, Triss' hair is a chestnut/auburn color. It's only in the games where she has red hair.)
I hate waiting over a year for the next season, but it is what it is. I will definitely be watching though!