The Last Kingdom Season 1- Gen. Chris' reviews of TV shows and movies (Updated 3/3/18)

[The Forgotten]

Thanks, I will try to check it out when I get the chance.

[TheDarkKnight]

Sorry it has been a while since an update. I have been incredibly busy.

[TheDarkKnight]

Oh hey, it has been a year for this...interesting.

Soon, there will be a new review. What? Who knows!

[StealthFox]

You should make a review for every episode.

[TheDarkKnight]

Every episode...of what?

Also, isn't it funny I takeover this section exactly a year after making my first review?

[StealthFox]

Game of Thrones of course.

[TheDarkKnight]

I'll do that for GoT and a couple other shows for a Phalera nomination

[TheDarkKnight]

Note

This is a review for the Blood and Chrome Blu-ray set as well as the movie itself.

Sorry for how long it has been since my last review. Will post more and revise others within the coming weeks.

Battlestar Galactica: Blood and Chrome (2012)

Battlestar Galactica: Blood and Chrome

The men of the Twelve Colonies created the Cylons to be the perfect servants and trusted helpers. The Cylons rebelled.

The cost of the Cylon Rebellion

Set in the tenth year of the First Cylon War, Battlestar Galactica: Blood and Chrome follows the early career of young William Adama. Adama is a young recruit of the Colonial Fleet, and an up-and-coming Viper pilot. An incredibly gifted military pilot, Adama is assigned to the Battlestar Galactica, a large capital warship that is just one of many ships that make up the Colonial Fleet. Hoping to make a difference, Adama soon learns that the Galactica has plenty of experienced Viper pilots, that the war against the Cylons is not going as well as he had heard from Colonial propaganda, and that his arrogance that was noted in the Academy must be cooled. The commanding officer of the Galactica instead assigns Adama to pilot a Raptor, a sort of all-purpose ship that is primarily used to haul cargo and participate in reconnaissance missions. In addition, his first mission is to bring some cargo from the colonial shipyards. Joined by his co-pilot and an attending civilian scientist, Adama leaves the Galactica grudgingly. However, not long after departing, the scientists, Beka Kelly, gives Adama and his co-pilot Coker, new orders, orders that will lead them down the road to discovering a startling truth, and that their mission will drastically impact the war effort.

William Adama


A Raptor (left) and Viper (right). The Vipers are the fighters of the Colonial fleet.


Coker


Beka Kelly

Battlestar Galactica: Blood and Chrome is a prequel movie to the 2004 Reimagining of the original 1978 series Battlestar Galactica. Produced by the SyFy channel, the movie went through a variety of issues involving its production. Initially conceived as a full-on series in a similar vein as the 2004 series and the failed Caprica (also a prequel series, but set earlier than this movie), Blood and Chrome was dealt a heavy blow with SyFy not knowing whether or not the movie would be a pilot for a full series, the start of a web series, or a one-off venture. The movie was essentially completed in early 2012, and then SyFy sat on it for months before deciding to, instead of airing the movie, break it up into ten installments and put it online for free viewing. Two months after it ended its run online, it was finally broadcast on TV, and soon after released on home media. At this point, it looks like this movie is going to be all BSG fans will receive.

The Battlestar in all its glory



A Cylon Basestar, the Cylon equivalent to the Battlestar

Positive aspects about the movie are kind of few and far between. The action of the movie was pretty good, portraying space as well as ground combat to show what the First Cylon War was like for those that lived through it. The costumes were well made, and really did bring back the old BSG feel of the 2004 series. Considering the budget of the movie (rumored to be around $2 million for the whole 90-ish minutes), the CGI was fairly decent, though not nearly as good as the original series. The acting was so-so, and the mystery of the movie and the reveal near the end was an exciting tease over what was to come in the story as a whole. Bear McCreary, the composer of the 2004 series, returned and delivered an exciting soundtrack that really helped aid the movie during some of the key scenes.

The space combat was good as usual


An example of decent CG. It does have its moments. This is entirely green screen.


Some decent CG as well


Instead of rebuilding all the sets, the producers utilized scans of the original sets to rebuild using green screen.

However, this movie is FAR from perfect. Though for the budget the CG was passable, it really did fare poorly compared to the parent series. Instead of the original sets, the show relied on extensive green-screen sets for most if not all of the movie, and while much of it looked alright, it paled in comparison to the tangible sets that the 2004 series had (which unfortunately were torn down, leaving the producers little choice). In the special features it is noted that the show utilizes around 1,900 visual effects, and the impact on the quality of the movie is obvious. Some of the CG looks like it just was not finished. Additionally, it seems as if the producers tried to hide the green screen with an obscene amount of lens flares that would even make JJ Abrams cringe. The acting is okay for a TV movie, but relatively poor when viewed as a potential start of a new series that could have been better than the 2004 one. One semi-criticism is the re-use of some of the actors, who had un-notable yet still memorable roles. While I understand the desire of the producers to use some of the actors they have used in the past, it is still a somewhat frustrating issue that can take you out of it a bit. However, the casting of Luke Pascualino as Adama did not bother me as much as others, and I think he did a pretty good job portraying a younger, cockier Adama.

Not so good CG


Too much lens flare

Overall, Blood and Chrome is not necessarily a bad movie, but it is not a great movie either. Much of the tone of the original series was missing, such as the religious and political themes, though that could be due to the limited scope of the project. It still feels like the same universe, but much of what made the series so great was missing. Additionally, it just seems like there should have been…more. The fans expected more, I expected more, everyone expected more. We all hoped that there would be a full series, or even a web series, following the movie, and knowing now that that is extremely unlikely, it means that we must judge this attempt to create a new series solely on what we have: a whole 93 minutes. If it had jump-started a new series like it was intended to, many of its issues could be forgiven. But based on what we have, and how SyFy treated it, I would say this is an enjoyable, but heavily flawed, movie.

Overall, not bad. But I and others expected a lot more.


This Cylon is displeased with SyFy and its management of this project


Coker: "What are we searching for?" Adama: "More Blood and Chrome"

7.5/10 (if only for the attempt and how much I personally enjoyed it)

--

The Set

The set I bought was the Blu-ray, DVD, Ultraviolet, and Digital Copy version. I got it for about ~$19.50, and I consider it to be fairly worth the price. Standard Blu-ray case, open it up and you have two promotional papers, one compelling you to buy the original movie that launched the 1978 series, and another giving you the information for Ultraviolet and Digital Copies. On the right is the Blu-ray disc and on the left is the DVD.

I was hoping by purchasing the Blu-ray that I would get a ton of a special features, but unfortunately that is not the case. However, you do get a nice 23 minute long look at the creation of the visual effects, including comparisons of before and after. You also get about 30 minutes of deleted scenes, though since most of the movie was filmed in green screen, that’s primarily what you see. Still, it is a nice little insight into what else was filmed for the movie.

An example of the comparisons shown in the special features

I was hoping for more, but I guess that is too much to ask for. Additionally, the DVD in this set has the same special features…so if you intend on buying it the movie and the special features is what you care about, it apparently does not matter what you get, unless the retail DVD set is different.

The set receives a 7/10 because of how little it has.

The end

I am currently watching Caprica, the other prequel for the TV series. If I feel up to it, I may write a review for it as well, and maybe in time I will do a review for the full Battlestar Galactica series. I may even throw in another review for the original series if I feel like it.

Anyway, hoped you enjoyed reading.

[TheDarkKnight]

Angels and Demons (2009)

Angels and Demons

The Pope is dead, and four cardinals, the preferiti (the favorites to be elected), have been kidnapped. Additionally, a canister of antimatter from the CERN laboratory in Sweden has been stolen, and is hidden somewhere within Vatican City The Illuminati, a foe that the Vatican had thought were gone for centuries, has returned, along with a threat: to brand and kill a cardinal every hour, beginning at 8 pm, at various locations around Rome. Finally, the Illuminati have threatened use the stolen antimatter, a volatile substance capable of great destruction, to destroy Vatican City at midnight. Robert Langdon, a professor of symbology at Harvard University, has been summoned by the Vatican, along with Vittoria Vetra, a scientist at CERN. Inspector Olivetti, a member of the Gendarmerie hopes to utilize the pair in searching for the cardinals and the antimatter. Commander Richter, head of the Swiss Guard, is unsure of the pairs abilities, and insists to the Camerlengo, the former Pope’s chamberlain and the head of the Vatican while the cardinals are in conclave, to evacuate the Vatican. Langdon must utilize an old trail of clues scattered about Rome to find the location of each cardinal, and to eventually find the old Illuminati lair, in the hopes saving the cardinals and stopping the antimatter from detonating.

Robert Langdon and Vittoria Vetra


One of the canisters of antimatter created by CERN

Based on the novel by Dan Brown, Angels and Demons is the sequel to the 2006 The Da Vinci Code, a highly controversial movie based on an even more controversial book. The movie is a mystery and adventure, and explores the city of Rome and the Vatican and the history between the Illuminati and the Catholic Church. Though much of it is fictional…indeed, the Illuminati as portrayed in the movie is far from the historically accurate version…it relies much on history in order to tell its story.

The Camerlengo and one of the cardinals discussing the situation

I believe this movie has many positive aspects. It is an invigorating tour through Rome, giving people both history and insight into its past. I find it to be far better than The Da Vinci Code, and a more compact and fast paced story, taking place over the span of a few hours instead of the few days of The Da Vinci Code. The cinematography, I feel, is great, and the location shooting in and around Rome gives the film a highly authentic feel. Thought the Vatican did not allow them to film inside it and the Catholic churches around Rome, the filmmakers made do with highly realistic sets that did not look out of place one bit. The atmosphere of the film was very appealing as well, the fast-paced nature of the film helping set the tone. Instead of the relatively minor issues presented in The Da Vinci Code, the movie presents a much more damming threat, as well, with the thought of an antimatter explosion not only taking out Vatican City (as well as all the art and history stored there), but also part of Rome always on the minds of Langdon and the others. Langdon himself, portrayed by Tom Hanks, is a bit more interesting compared to his character in The Da Vinci Code, and Tom Hanks even looks better this time around because he does not have the ridiculous hairstyle that he had in that movie. Additionally, Ewan McGregor, I feel, deserves praise for his portrayal as a deeply conflicted man in the middle of such a situation. Hans Zimmer, the composer of the previous film, returns with a short but extremely well-composed soundtrack. Zimmer’s effort is pivotal in setting the mood for many of the key scenes, and really provides a driving force behind some of the chase scenes.

One of the numerous locations visited in the movie


160 BPM...not a clever name, but the best song, I believe, out of the whole soundtrack

The film does have some negative aspects, though. Some of the supporting characters, compared to their book counterparts, have very little depth. While it is difficult to provide depth to characters in movies without the benefit of internal thought in books, I still expected a little more. Also, some of the characters seemed little more than sidekicks whereas in the book I felt they played much more important roles. Additionally, some of the acting was a little poor in some parts of the movie from some of the actors, but in the midst of all the action I feel it is easy to miss it. One of negative aspect that others seem to always bring up is that large amount of changes from book to film, and there most certainly were. It would be ridiculous to say that there were not a lot of them. However, I do believe that most of these changes suited the film. Sure, while it did eliminate perhaps one of the most interesting subplots, as well as change the dynamic a bit, I believe the changes were mostly positive. I only discuss them here to address them, and explain my own thoughts on them.

Langdon debating with Ricter over what to do next.


The primary antagonist of the film provided an interesting viewpoint into the situation.

Overall, I find the film to be a solid one. I find it to have excellent pacing, story, and structure, and it is an enthralling watch. I had read the book before seeing the movie, unlike The Da Vinci Code, and I was certainly not disappointed with the adaptation. It has its flaws, to be sure, and it suffers from lack of depth compared to its book counterpart. But I still find it to be a great adaptation of a complicated book. If you were a fan of The Da Vinci Code, I do not think you will be disappointed by this movie. I know a lot of Catholics were upset by this movie, possibly more than were upset by The Da Vinci Code. As someone who is not religious, I cannot say that I see the problem. It is a movie about a man trying to save the Vatican from a group apparently willing to destroy it for its past sins. I would not say that it is anti-Catholic at all beyond the quips towards events that the Catholic Church had indeed perpetrated in history. It is a fantastic dive into historical fiction, in the end, and a movie worthy of watching for anyone interested in history. Throughout its twists and turns, Angels and Demons is a great ride, and a fun movie to watch.

8.5/10

[TheDarkKnight]

I'll try to churn out a review in the coming days. Been a bit of a rocky summer...My desires to be productive are conflicting with my other desires to be lazy.

[TheDarkKnight]

I know I keep saying it, but I will REALLY try to post a couple reviews soon. I've been working on one for Da Vinci's Demons (first season blu-ray) and soon I will be getting the first season of Vikings on Blu Ray, so there will likely be a review for that.


Once I get a bit of free time (a real luxury right now) I'll see if I can do more.

[TheDarkKnight]

Strike Back Season 1 (2010)

Strike Back Season 1

On the eve of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a British Special Forces unit takes part in an operation to release a hostage. Led by John Porter, the mission is a technical success but leads to the death of two of Porter’s men, with a third severely wounded.Even with the success of the mission, Porter is disgraced by the event, and is ultimately discharged from his duties and then resigns completely. His life falls apart due to these events, but after a period of seven years, an old enemy resurfaces, connected to the raid in 2003. With the knowledge of this enemy being alive, a secret division within the Ministry of Defence known as Section 20 reactivates John Porter to confront the threat. But that is not the only enemy that Porter will have to face on his journey to redeem himself.

Based on the novel of the same name written by former SAS operative turned writer Chris Ryan, Strike Back is the story of the people within the fictional British agency known as Section 20, which handles threats around the world with deadly force. The first season of Strike Back consists of six episodes, though with each country receiving two episodes each it is more of a miniseries consisting of three separate but related TV movies. The three nations consist of Iraq, Zimbabwe, and Afghanistan, and each have their own stories, their own villains, and overall their own tones. Featuring high production values and plenty of action, Strike Back is an enjoyable show that is comparable to a show version of Die Hard, or a shorter version of 24. Though there are multiple characters each characterized by their own motives within each episode, the series is ultimately about John Porter.

There are many positives about Strike Back. For one, the series is exceptionally well made considering that they are essentially TV movies. Filmed in South Africa, each of the three countries are well depicted, and the cinematography is very good. There is no CGI or anything to stand in for environments; it is clear that everything you see on the show is completely real, with the geographically diverse South Africa standing in for each of the three countries. Whereas this can lead to cases where people who understand the geography of each nation may see errors, the series ultimately does come across as convincingly authentic looking to the average viewer. Strike Back also has the benefit of having an exceptionally great cast of characters played by a wonderful array of actors and actresses. The one that stands out of course is Richard Armitage as John Porter. Armitage’s performance really lends credibility to the character of Porter, who is scarred both mentally and physically from his past experiences in the SAS. Andrew Lincoln also gives a great performance as Hugh Collinson, an agent of Section 20. The guest actors, such as Alexander Siddig, were also quite wonderful, from the villains to the heroes, all giving great performances in their respective roles. Another strong aspect that Strike Back has is the action of the series. Though it is not a show where there is a firefight every few minutes, the battle scenes are excellently made, and contain plenty of strong action and lots of blood for those that enjoy that sort of thing. There is no shortage of well made action scenes in this series, and the viewer looking for it should not be disappointed.

There is not really anything that could be considered bad about this series. Certainly it will not appeal to everyone, and some may find it a bit over the top and more of a male fantasy show rather than a serious effort to show conflict in the three nations, especially in the very recent and very real conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq than many of the viewers would be well acquainted with. For others it may be a bit too political, and perhaps a bit confusing concerning the methods and motivations of the villains. It also ends in a somewhat satisfying way, though some may be disappointed by it, especially since it is kind of a cliffhanger. Hopefully the continuation of the series will resolve the cliffhanger, as it must certainly have a large impact on the future of John Porter.

Having never read the book, I cannot compare Strike Back to its novel counterpart, leading me to only be able to judge this season on its own merits, which it certainly has. Overall, I find the first season of Strike Back to be highly enjoyable, and quite thrilling. It has excellent pacing and an entertaining story. It’s a lot of fun to watch, and has very few moments that one would ever consider wasteful or uninteresting, at least from my perspective. The story of John Porter and his path to redemption is very gripping, and one that I believe is worthy of watching to even those who do not like shows with a lot of action and blood. The characters, whether hero or villain, also make this miniseries incredibly watchable. It may not be everyone’s cup of tea, however Strike Back season 1 is a solid piece of action and a well-crafted story from start to finish. I look forward to watching Season 2.

8.5/10

It has been a long time, but now that I have some free time I hope to be able to do more of these soon.

[TheDarkKnight]

I must warn you all that it is entirely possible to infer spoilers from the below review. If you wish to not have this possibly happen, please do not read further


​Ascension (2014)

Ascension

Part of SyFy’s attempt to rebrand itself as a serious producer of science fiction following a rather dreadful few years, Ascension is quite certainly an interesting, albeit uneven, foray into the genre. Set in the present day, the series presents an alternate history of sorts where a large, multi-billion dollar project was secretly launched in the 1960’s. Codenamed Ascension, the project was designed to send hundreds of people into the stars aboard a generation ship to colonize the Proxima Centauri system. The series features the descendants of those original crew members, fifty one years into their hundred-year-long voyage, as they attempt to cope with something they never expected; a murder, the first they have ever had and something they were not prepared for. But as they attempt to discover the secret of the victim’s death, a larger mystery emerges as the crew begins to question their mission and their fates and how it relates to the humans on Earth, who are mostly unaware of the program.

First off, I believe that it would be helpful to mention the negatives that Ascension unfortunately has. The most blatant example of these negatives that turned many people off was a revelation given early into the miniseries that completely shifted the scope and potential of the series. Notice I did not say “limit” the potential, but nonetheless it dramatically changed expectations of the series. Many viewers, myself included, did not appreciate this twist, as it felt like a betrayal by Syfy and a gross misrepresentation of the series as a whole. While in the long run it did change what was possible with the miniseries, it also provided an interesting plot point and paved the way for later plot points within the series that no one was expecting. Whether you consider this a positive or a negative is completely dependent on the individual viewer. For me, it was definitely an initial negative, but the rest of the miniseries, in my eyes, managed to redeem it in some way. But there are other aspects that must be considered. There is some good acting all around, but amongst the lesser known actors the quality of acting can vary. Luckily over the course of roughly four hours it is not as noticeable as a full fledged thirteen episode season, yet it is still something that should be noted. Related to this is the fact that the four hours does not allow for much development with such a relatively large amount of characters. This leads to many of the characters being fairly shallow, and relegated to supporting roles that barely have any influence on much of the plot, and could almost not exist at all and there would not be much of a difference. Another far more egregious issue emerges as the miniseries closes; many plot points remain only partially resolved or completely open, leaving the viewer with many questions and not enough answers.

However, despite these negatives, there are still some quality aspects to the series. The aesthetic of the show, a kind of retro-sixties design in terms of set and costume design, is rather cool to see. The ship and the people look and act as you would expect from what is essentially a giant fifty year old time capsule propelling through space. The computers and the overall structure of the ship is clearly based on sixties technology rather than trying to make it look more modern, a logical design choice given the nature of the show, and one that really kind of enhances the “coolness” of the series. The show also shines in how it tackles the complicated social structure that would naturally evolve on a mission like this, where a hierarchy develops between the upper classes and those that maintain the ship and the produce the food and goods necessary for survival. This, I feel, is something the show portrayed very well, though some might disagree with certain things that are presented to the viewer. Another strong aspect that did emerge, which may seem somewhat contradictory, was the acting, but only from some of the characters. This also factors into which characters were properly developed which allowed the actors to flesh out their characters, but primarily the best acting came from the leads, most notable Tricia Helfer (a Battlestar alumnus) as Viondra and Brian Van Holt as William, the two portraying the influential married couple. Another great performance comes from Gil Bellows as Harris Enzmann, a member of the ground crew on Earth that is the grandson of the founding member and brain behind the program. His motivations will often leave the viewer wondering what he truly wants. I would also argue, again perhaps contradictory, that the series did develop its own identity and style from the numerous twists that developed. While they were certainly initially off putting especially the major one, I did come to appreciate them over time, and it did completely surprise me, which is not necessarily a bad thing despite it not being what I wanted. Finally, it should definitely be noted that the production values were quite good, with the music and the cinematography combining with the design of the show to create a very pleasing atmosphere within which Ascension defines itself.

Ultimately, I believe that despite its flaws and cliches, the series is a solid one. It has a cool plot, a cool concept, and overall a fantastic atmosphere that shines despite its shortcomings. I find the story to be rather fascinating, especially the fact that this program is so unknown to the world, and what sort of effect it would have on the world if it were to ever be known. There are other things that I wish I could mention, but I want it to remain a surprise to viewers if they choose to pick this up. The biggest problem I have with the series has to be its conclusion, however. If this miniseries was to serve as the opening to a potential full series in the same vein as what happened with the re-imagining of Battlestar Galactica, then this is fine, and serves as a great tease for what is to come. But if this is to be it, then it is a rather unsatisfying close to an otherwise decent miniseries. I honestly hope that Syfy will ignore the numerous naysayers who clearly stopped watching early after the first episode, and consider giving it a full series. While I was initially hesitant to think it could go places, I hope we get more. As far as I am concerned, SyFy produced a quality piece of programming, and one that could be very entertaining to see where it goes if Syfy picks it up.

8/10

[TheDarkKnight]

(Originally posted for the Helios)


Hatfields & McCoys (2012)

Hatfields and McCoys

As part of History Channel’s first foray into scripted drama, Hatfields & McCoys tells the story of the famous blood feud between two rural families in West Virginia and Kentucky. Set across three movie-length episodes, the story features the two patriarchs of the families returning home from the Civil War only to find their life of conflict is far from over. Though the Hatfield and McCoy patriarchs were brothers in war, they became enemies in peace. Beginning over a dispute concerning a McCoy family member who sided with the Union as well as a court case between the two families over a possible stolen pig, the story quickly descends into violence as the two families spiral into a decade long blood feud that fascinated the nation. It is a tale of how eye-for-an-eye justice can make two families blind to why they are even fighting each other, and would pay for it with their blood and their lives.

Hatfields & McCoys has many positives that are worthy of note. The acting in particular is absolutely stellar. Kevin Costner as William Anderson “Devil Anse” Hatfield and Bill Paxton as Randall McCoy deliver outstanding performances. There is not a moment that the two of them, especially in their scenes together, disappoint the viewers. They simply are their characters, and are compelling in every word they speak and every action they take. But they are not the only actors that give strong performances in their roles. Tom Berenger offers an incredibly villainous performance as Jim Vance, the villainous uncle of the Devil Anse Hatfield. Mare Winningham also plays the part of Sally McCoy perfectly as well. It is not a surprise that all of the above were nominated for Emmy’s in their performances; they certainly all deserved it. Nearly all of the principal actors are perfect in their roles, and really add to the atmosphere of the time period with their attention to accents and their body language. The casting was simply exceptional.

The performances of the side characters such as family members and associates were also quite good, and should not go without notice. An honorable mention would also be Noel Fisher as the simple yet likable Ellison Mount, a member of the Hatfield clan who is stuck in the middle of a feud that he does not understand. Another notable would be Powers Boothe as Judge Hatfield, the older brother of Devil Anse, and the main member of the Hatfield clan that tried his best to quell the feud before it spiraled out of control. Andrew Howard as Bad Frank Phillips, a bounty hunter that works for the McCoys, also performed admirably as a supporting cast member. Though the leads stole the show, the miniseries ensured that the supporting characters were not miscast and horribly acted, a blessing considering the amount of money it probably took to get such actors like Costner and Berenger. No matter how large or small the role, the acting in this miniseries was, for lack of a better phrase, nearly perfect.

The series also enjoys fantastic production values. The cinematography is incredible, and the work of that team leads to the miniseries that feels like an extra long movie rather than a television production. It simply does not feel like your standard television fare, and indeed puts many movies to shame in terms of the way the series was filmed. Additionally, while the miniseries was not filmed in America, the choice to film in Romania helped bring a sort of “frontier” look and atmosphere to the miniseries. The sets were elaborate and rustic, such as an entire town that was constructed along with the numerous other buildings, and the landscape looks virtually untouched, perfect as a representation of the Appalachian Mountains and the landscape of Kentucky and West Virginia of post-Civil War America.

The attention to detail is evident in the costumes, weapons, and action as well, with every person outfitted in period appropriate firearms and clothing that really immerses the audience. The weapons in particular were amazing, while the costumes themselves looked like they were genuinely made with materials and technology from the right time period. The action and bloodshed look authentic as well, though for a blood feud the action was used relatively sparingly throughout the series, which actually aids the series to make it appear as if it is not all about the violence. An example of this is the climax of the series, the Battle of Grapevine. While relatively little blood was spilled, the lead up and the battle itself were fantastic, and really shows the extent of this feud as a hundred people took part in the battle on screen including the two leads, nearly all of the remaining family members of both sides, and their supporters.

Aiding the miniseries as well is the fantastic script, with period-appropriate sayings as well as the the story in general. The series made sure to stay as accurate to the feud as possible, portraying nearly all of the relevant events in depth to show just how deep and sometimes how petty the feud was between the two families. Almost nothing important was changed in regards to the events of the feud, meaning that it stays as close as possible to the actual history while maintaining a compelling and complete narrative with a fitting conclusion that was as natural as the event itself. The story even manages to portray the love story between a Hatfield son and a McCoy daughter, an additional point of contention between the two families, rather excellently and without any cliche or tropes. The story is simply a well crafted one, well-paced and without any notable problems in clarity. Additionally, the music of the series is fantastic, featuring the excellent song “I Know These Hills”, a hauntingly beautiful piece whose instrumental version forms the centerpiece of the series. Kevin Costner and his band even contributed to the music. The use of music is especially great in several key scenes throughout the story. There is nothing at all to complain about from a production standpoint when it comes to this miniseries, as the series looks and feels as an authentic representation of the feud.

Ironically, there is one minor flaw with the miniseries that I can really complain about, and it is related to the positives expressed above. In its quest to put as much detail as possible into the conflict, showcasing all the events of the feud, the miniseries goes on perhaps a little bit too long. This is especially evident in the uncut edition available on home video, as the uncut edition adds extra time onto it. The miniseries, at least the uncut edition, runs nearly five hours long, which is just a little bit long considering the story. If the miniseries had cut just little of the plot and trimmed it down just a bit it would be the absolute perfect length while maintaining the complete story. However, this is not a serious flaw, as the added twenty or thirty minutes is not wasted. It just is not needed either.

Despite this small flaw, Hatfields & McCoys is an ideal miniseries. It has a gripping story that is effectively delivered over a mostly appropriate timespan. It has fantastic production values, ensuring that the series appears well made and authentic, which only contributes to the atmosphere of the series. The action, though relatively sparse throughout the series, is well used and not gratuitous, and culminates perfectly in the “final battle” near the end of the series. Keeping the series directed by the same person, Kevin Reynolds, also ensures that quality and tone are kept throughout the series, with no obvious differences between the directing and acting across the three episodes. This was an excellent and quality effort by the History Channel in making a scripted drama, which is commendable coming from the same network that brings such horrible programming like Ancient Aliens and Pawn Stars. There is nothing of consequence wrong with this miniseries, and if it were not for the slightly overlong story, it would be absolutely flawless in my opinion. It is compelling, well acted, well produced, and overall a superb miniseries.

9.5/10

Again, it has been a long time. Rough year all around. However, I hope to make these a bit more regular. I have a few reviews in various stages of production and eventually I will likely make new threads for different themes.

Some feedback would of course be appreciated.

Special thanks to Inarus for aiding in reviewing and editing this for me.

[TheDarkKnight]

(Originally posted as a single issue for the Helios)


Sons of Liberty (2015)

Sons of Liberty

Sons of Liberty explores perhaps the most important period in American history; the road to independence. Coming in at four and a half hours across three episodes, the series follows the lives of such figures as Sam Adams, John Hancock, and Paul Revere as they live and struggle under the British Crown. But as the years go on and the grievances and discontent rises, these figures come together to ignite the revolution.

There are some attributes that Sons of Liberty has that makes it a good production. The main positive attribute is that the cast is mostly well rounded, and the acting that comes with that cast is decent. Ben Barnes headlines the series as Sam Adams, the rebellious and reactionary cousin of future President John Adams. Barnes portrays the character well enough, though I’m not certain if he was the best choice of casting. The other characters such as Hancock and Revere all also portrayed well by Rafe Spall and Michael Raymond James, respectively. The series also has well known actors Jason O’Mara and Dean Norris as Washington and Franklin, who portray their limited roles quite admirably. The highlight of the series is Marton Csokas as Thomas Gage, the British general that arrives partway through the series to oversee the city of Boston. His performance was quite good, and easily one of the better parts of the miniseries. Overall, the acting is good, but there are some flaws in characterization that will be addressed later on.

Sons of Liberty also benefits from other things as well. Shot in Romania like its predecessor Hatfields & McCoys, Sons of Liberty has the right atmosphere of a colonial America in terms of where it was shot and the locations utilized, albeit not quite historically accurate. The costumes are decently made, though it is clear that the series was fairly low budget and perhaps did not research to the degree that they should have. An example of this is the British uniforms, which are definitely appropriate red but simply look off from what they should look like in general. However, the weapons and most other costumes are still well made and period appropriate, and add to the immersion of the series. The series features three significant battle scenes in Lexington, Concord, and the final Battle of Bunker Hill, all of which are portrayed fairly well, though again have some issues. However, one thing I felt they did right was portraying the opening shot of Lexington as ambiguous, with the “shot heard round the world” happening offscreen as to maintain the debate over who fired first. Overall, the production values are decent, though not quite up to the standards of Hatfields & McCoys.

That said, Sons of Liberty, comes with some incredible flaws that simply should not have been on film. The producers, in their infinite wisdom, decided to essentially throw history out the window with Sons of Liberty. For one, the series is not exactly what one would describe as “historical”. SIgnificant liberties are taken with historical events, and the result is rather unfortunate. An obvious example of this is the expanded role of Paul Revere in the time frame of the series. Revere is made into more of an action star and a leader than he really was, complete with him killing, with great skill, unfortunate redcoats that happen to come across him coming and going from his ride to Lexington and Concord. The simple fact that Revere did not even make it the whole ride is the least of the problems when considering the above, as Revere is not supposed to be a warrior. Additionally, he is portrayed as a leader at the climactic Battle of Bunker Hill, a role that he most certainly did not have at the battle. There are many other changes to history as well, which is frustrating as the time period is exciting enough without unnecessary changes.

There are other significant flaws with the production as well. As already addressed, the series clearly suffers from a low budget. The sets are decent, as are the effects, but it is clear that not a lot of effort went into making things like multiple sets to portray the streets of Boston. It just looks kind of cheap overall, but not so cheap that it kills the immersion completely. An example of this is the Battle of Bunker Hill, a significant battle in the war that involved nearly five thousand men. In the series, the battle can be seen as the climax, yet only features maybe about hundred militia holding the hill against maybe a hundred British regulars, with the rest of the soldiers on the British side being filled in with obvious CGI clones. Budget constraints, sure, but the producers could have at least taken some steps to make it appear as if the battle was larger and more significant. Additionally, the American leader of the battle, Israel Putnam, is replaced by Revere and another historical character named Joseph Warren. As already discussed, Revere was not there in reality, and while Warren was, he was not there in a leadership role. The battle is fun to watch, no doubt, but it suffers from several production shortfalls.

There are other issues as well. Characterization of certain historical figures has already been touched on with Revere, but there are other problems as well. The British in general are portrayed as overly villainous, almost to the point of absurdity. The key victim of this is the fact that Gage is portrayed as a monster that beats and almost rapes his wife. This seems entirely unnecessary as the British are already the “bad guys” of the miniseries, so there was no need to go over the top. In fact the only British officer that is portrayed in any kind light is Pitcairn. Additionally, characters like Franklin and Washington are wasted by the production, a shame given the people portraying them, and ultimately makes me wish the money to acquire them would have been put towards better production values. There was also an unnecessary romance between Gage’s wife and Warren which has no real standing in history, and does not really contribute much except making Warren’s death (at the hands of Gage, of course) more tragic. There are more flaws of course, but to go on would become repetitive.

Do these negatives have a significant impact on the series? Of course, but it does not absolutely kill Sons of Liberty either. Discounting the obvious flaws, the series remains fun to watch. In fact, it is very entertaining, even in its absurdities. An easy example would be the rooftop chase in the opening of the series featuring Sam Adams that, while ridiculous and very reminiscent of Assassin’s Creed III, was a lot of fun to watch. The series is also the perfect length, I feel, at four and a half hours, and does not really have any serious pacing problems nor does it become overly dull. The battles, despite their flaws, are fun to watch as well, and do fairly well with their small numbers of extras. The music is great, including the opening theme which was composed by Hans Zimmer, and the dialogue is overall fairly decent.

Sons of Liberty is good, but far from great. It definitely had the capability of being an excellent miniseries, but the flaws are too numerable to really overlook. It is a shame that so much in the way of history was changed as the period is good enough without alterations, and in many ways the alterations are only a disservice to the miniseries. Many of the issues could have been avoided in the production if they had simply adhered more to history and perhaps had a larger budget, but the miniseries that was made is all we could have perhaps hoped for. A shame, but overall Sons of Liberty is fun and entertaining, and worth watching if anyone has interest in early American history. If that was the point of the miniseries, then the producers succeeded very much in that regard. Just do not take what is in it as historical fact.

7.5/10

[TheDarkKnight]

Originally written for The Helios, a Content publication here on TWC.
Interested in applying to write for it? Contact myself, m_1512, or Flinn


Assassin's Creed (2016)

Assassin's Creed

Career criminal Callum Lynch is rescued from his own execution by Abstergo Industries, the modern-day incarnation of the Templar Order. Upon reawakening from his “death”, Lynch is forced to participate in the Animus Project and relive the memories of his ancestor Aguilar de Nerha, an Assassin during the time of the Spanish Inquisition. Through the Animus, Lynch experiences Aguilar's memories, and he begins to gain the knowledge and skills necessary to confront the Templars—age-old enemies of the Assassins—in the present day.

Meanwhile, in the past, Aguilar de Nerha has joined the Spanish Assassin Brotherhood. Taking his vows and sacrificing a finger as a symbol of devotion to the creed, he and the rest of the Spanish Brotherhood set out to protect a young Prince who is sought after by the Templars in Spain. Set against the backdrop of the Spanish Inquisition, Aguilar also begins their search for the famed Apple of Eden, an ancient artifact that has been sought after by the Assassins and Templars for centuries, in order to protect it from those who would use its power to control the world.

----

This is going to be a different review compared to what I normally do, but I feel like a movie such as Assassin’s Creed warrants a different approach. Fair warning, however...I am a complete and utter fanboy of this franchise. I will never claim that my bias for this franchise has not affected my review of this, but as always I strive to be as objective as possible for my reviews.

As a movie, Assassin’s Creed shines in several aspects. The movie has absolutely incredible visual appeal throughout its runtime. In fact I would argue the visuals are among the strongest aspects of the entire movie. From chase scenes towards intriguing representations of the mythos, the movie does not lack at all on the visual storytelling front. The production values are quite good for a relatively modest budget, and I feel that having Ubisoft in control of the production really helped on this aspect of the movie. The fight sequences are really fun to watch, and the choreography is really spot on for assassinations and just overall fighting between the Assassins and waves of poor guards that are forced to fight them. The soundtrack is quite awesome, if misused in some places, and really added much to the atmosphere and the story, much like the soundtracks in the games which I have always praised in my reviews. I also felt that the decision to use Spanish with subtitles in the scenes from the past was an interesting choice that helps with the authenticity, though it does fly in the face of how the Animus works in the games since it automatically translates. Finally, I would argue that while the movie suffers from some issues in storytelling, the plot is fairly simple to follow, though that could honestly be because of my knowledge on the greater mythos of the franchise.

Negatives abound, however, if one just looks at this as a regular movie. The movie suffers from many pacing problems and I assume that a lot of scenes were cut out of the finished product. It is unfortunate as I feel like that is happening a lot this year and movies are suffering for it, but this one in particular is bad as the movie feels rushed in some places and slow in others. This could easily have been a more fully fleshed out movie at two and a half hours but at a runtime of just under two, it feels like it ends too quickly and awkwardly. The three act structure in particular feels uneven, and the final act, climax, and conclusion are exciting yet at the same time feels like it could have been built up better. In addition to this, the movie suffers from nearly no characterization nor development for the main characters. Flat out, the characters are kind of boring, and you feel almost nothing for them or their plights. Even the two antagonists, the Rikkin’s, are fairly one dimensional, though Sophia becomes a bit more interesting towards the end as something is revealed about her story. The acting, considering the caliber of the main cast, is also kind of underwhelming, though a lot of that could have been the bad dialogue and writing in general. Another large issue that I feel could have been easily fixed was the location of the past scenes; the Spanish Inquisition. While an interesting time period, virtually none of the politics of the time period is explained nor elaborated on, so in a sense the whole time period was wasted. It really could have been set in any time period with the story we got and the result would have been the same.

The editing is also a mess in places, I feel, particularly when switching between the animus and real world. Related to that, I think is worth mentioning is the representation of violence. In the action scenes it switches often between showing Lynch fighting in the past as Aguilar and making the same movements in the present in the Animus, as mentioned before. While cool, the movie used this to cut out some of the violence in the film to keep it rated PG13, and there was little to no bloodshed in the movie despite the actions committed on screen. I feel like limiting it to this rating was a mistake, as the game series is absolutely full of violence that would have been fun and more interesting to see it represented on the big screen. These are some major problems with the movie as a whole, but overall I would say on the movie making front it could have been much worse with larger problems; it is a solid effort from a new endeavor by Ubisoft.

Then there is a second factor to consider with this movie: does it represent the Assassin’s Creed franchise faithfully? I would argue that, again, the movie does a pretty good job adapting the spirit of the games faithfully to the big screen. Some things had to be changed and I completely understand why they changed them. The representation of the Animus for sure is a big change from the games; instead of a chair that the subjects sit in to relive their memories, the Animus in the movies actually is a moving apparatus that allows the subjects to act out the memories as they relive them. This contributes heavily to the visual appeal of the movie, as sitting and watching a guy in a chair for a while would have been boring. The movie’s representation of the bleeding effect is also a good representation of the game, though it is still different from the source material. In terms of showcasing the war between the Assassin’s and Templars, the movie falls a bit flat, however. The minor antagonist, Sophia Rikkin, states near the beginning of the film that they are working to eliminate violence from the world, while her father Alan shows that they are more trying to eliminate free will. This is true to the spirit of the games but I feel it is also an oversimplification. The incorporation of the Apple of Eden is a fantastic link to the games as well, though they barely go into its true power.

There are other, minor things as well, but one of the primary complaints about the movie that I would like to address is the modern day scenes versus the scenes from the past. I do believe that the story would have been better served by showing us more of the past in the animus, as the characters and the story there are sorely underdeveloped. I understand that from a storytelling perspective it might have made sense to focus more on the modern day, but that has always been one of the least liked aspects of the games. Focusing on the modern story while virtually neglecting the past is the exact reverse of the games, so in that way the movie does fail as an adaptation. Does it completely ruin the movie? Of course not, but it does not help it either, especially since many fans wanted to see the Spanish Inquisition in full swing. There are also some interesting easter eggs for the most knowledgeable of fans, including direct references to other characters in the franchise as well as the greater mythos if one is paying attention, which help elevate the movie slightly.

The third factor that I have considered for this movie is the most problematic: what is the place of this movie in the overall Assassin’s Creed mythos and franchise? Without going too much into the details of where the gaming part of the franchise is now, it feels like this movie is either contradicting the games or just starting a new story altogether. In the games, there are multiple Pieces of Eden, including many Apples of Eden. These magical and powerful artifacts are the objects of desire for both the Assassins and Templars in the movie and games, and are basically at the core of the franchise in terms of story. But in the movie, it acts like there is only ONE Apple, while in the games five different Apples have been encountered by various protagonists and multiple other ones have been mentioned. But in all honesty that does not really matter, as at this point in the games (2016), the Templars are no longer hunting for the Apple of Eden, and are instead looking for other Pieces of Eden in order to use them for their war against the Assassins. The Animus has also been largely replaced by a new device called the Helix, which is basically an upgraded version of the Animus that only requires the DNA of someone to use, rather than a living breathing person. There are other issues as well, but for the most part the problem is just that it is simply unclear what to consider this movie as; an awkward piece of the overall story that started with the very first game, or a start to a brand new one. That uncertainty does not help the movie in my book, and while it does have many links to the games it still is a problem for the movie as a whole.

So overall, how did the movie do? It is tough to say, to be honest. There are a lot of problems with the movie as just a movie, and I would be foolish to ignore them. As a movie it was just adequate, and I feel they could have put in more effort into making it come to life. Considering its place in the franchise, I feel they stumbled again, with me and many others being confused as to whether this is a new story or a piece of the story in the games, the latter introducing some major consistency issues. The movie does its best when considered as an overall representation of the games, I feel, as it captures the true spirit of the franchise and translates it decently to the big screen. This, in my opinion, saves the movie from being a trainwreck in many ways. It may not be saying much, but I feel this is the best movie adaptation of any game so far, with a close second being Prince of Persia, another Ubisoft title. This is not a great movie by any means, but I would be lying if I said I was not enjoying it as I watched. Others may disagree, but I feel this movie was a pretty good starting point for a future franchise, but I hope Ubisoft will make it clear in the future what to consider this movie as; a continuation, or a new story. Either way, I hope the next movie, and I hope there is a next movie, will be much better than this one.

6.5/10

Want to read my reviews for the Assassin's Creed games? Why not head over to the Game Review section and read my extensive collection of reviews for this amazing game franchise?

[TheDarkKnight]

Originally written for the Helios, a publication here on the site
Interested in writing for this fantastic publication? Why not contact Alwyn, Flinn, or m_1512?



​Texas Rising (2015)

Texas Rising tells the fascinating history of the formation of the Republic of Texas in the 1830’s. Taking place immediately after the fall of the Alamo all the way to the creation of the Republic, the miniseries covers a fascinating time period in not only the history of Texas but America itself. Following the Texas Rangers, the Mexican army, and regular people who just have to be living in the period and area, and coming from the same team that created the fantastic Hatfield’s and McCoy’s, one would assume that the miniseries would take every opportunity to sell us this period of American History in all of its greatness and sorrows. Unfortunately, the series has a lot of pitfalls, and is not quite the same quality as one would hope.

Realistically, it is suitable to begin with discussing the negatives of this miniseries. To start simply, the miniseries is far too long, and far too boring. Clocking in at over seven and a half hours, Texas Rising is too bloated and chock full of story for what it is trying to do. The main story is too thin for a miniseries this length, which is why the producers padded the series with needless subplots that honestly go nowhere. I would have been fine if the series had used the length to show the Battle of the Alamo, but this crucial part of the period is omitted to show the events that take place in the weeks and months after the battle. And the biggest sin of all from this is that the series manages to make this exciting event to be incredibly boring. Throughout all ten episodes (five if you count them as double length) they managed to bore me, which is hard to do when it comes to historical fiction. It is perhaps the greatest sin of the miniseries, but it is sadly not the end of them.

In addition to these two main complaints, there are several other problems that come from watching this miniseries. Much of the acting from the side characters is quite poor, especially in comparison to the leads. The history shown through the lens of this series is quite poor at times, and choices made by the producers in showing this history makes me question whether they even read any books on the period or even basic military tactics before writing these scenes. A glaring example comes from one of the main characters, played by Ray Liotta, is an insane survivor of the Alamo, who never existed in the first place. The writing in general, coupled with the length of the series, is poor as well, and the dialogue at times can be quite cringeworthy. In addition to this, the series paints too broad a picture with the history, with all the Texas characters being stereotypically awesome and heroic while the Mexican characters, especially Santa Anna, as mustache-twirlingly evil. There’s no middle ground or grey area in this story, and as it is already historically inaccurate it just adds to the problems of this series. There are also several unnecessary romances, including ahistorical ones, that just tie into the fact that the series is far too long...it seems as if they were filmed just to add to time. Finally, out of the big issues, there is also how and where they filmed it. Anyone who has ever been to this area of Texas (me included) would say that the series did a terrible job of representing the geography of the area. I understand that they obviously could not film the series in the original locations, but they could have at least gotten the geography better than they did. There are other issues as well, such as awkward music choices, weird editing (especially in ending and beginning episodes), and more, but there are relatively minor in comparison to the main problems.

Now to discuss the good parts of the miniseries, few as they may be. The cast is great, and the acting in the whole miniseries, at least from the main people, is superb. All of the main actors really brought their best to this production, and it showed. Of particular note is Bill Paxton as Sam Houston, and Brendan Fraser as Billy Anderson provide heartbreaking performances in their respective roles. Jeffrey Dean Morgan also provides a very amazing performance as the role of Deaf Smith, one of the founding members of the Texas Rangers. Unfortunately, though, a lot of the actors are wasted, such as Thomas Jane, on plots that go nowhere. The production value on the show is pretty good, though it is clear they took liberties with clothing and other things. Some of the battle scenes are fun to watch, and are generally well made for TV. The Battle of San Jacinto, with some issues, was the most exciting part of the story, and easily showed where a lot of the budget was spent well. Unfortunately, this is pretty much the end of the good things about the series.

It is clear that a lot of money was spent on getting good people into this series and making a good looking miniseries. They even had multiple award winning director, Roland Joffe, direct the entire miniseries. Unfortunately, with meandering subplots, a far too long of a story, and other issues meant that a lot of that money went to waste. Way too many fantastic actors were wasted on this with little to do and a thin script and story to work with. Much of that money could have been put to better use by using lesser known (and therefore, cheaper) actors to fill out the roles that were wasted on unimportant roles. Cutting out the lesser subplots and slimming down the miniseries could have also put a lot of money towards creating better battle scenes as well as location shooting, things that were wanting from the miniseries. I still believe that the series would have done well by beginning with the siege of the Alamo, showing the later Goliad Massacre, and then capping off the series with The Battle of San Jacinto and the Texas Independence would have been a much better miniseries. It would have led to a tighter story, a more engaging one, and overall a better miniseries in my opinion.

It is a shame, as this was from the same team that did the fantastic Hatfield’s and McCoy’s for the History Channel. That miniseries was a near-perfect one, and if they had simply done just as well as that the History Channel would have had another winning miniseries, or at least as good as the watchable Sons of Liberty. The pacing and the story were just too weak compared to its predecessors, and the other issues crippled the narrative that the producers were trying to tell. Because of this, the story of Texas was wasted on this mediocre miniseries that was saved only slightly with its good acting and production values. There was a hint as to a continuation with some of the characters in the future. I hope it happens as I would love to see another crack at this setting, but if it never does nothing of real value will be lost. It was a good effort, but the series ultimately lost its chance at becoming a great miniseries because of its numerous problems, and it is a serious missed opportunity on the part of the producers and the History Channel. Hopefully they will learn their lesson from this series being panned by critics and audiences alike, and make sure it will never happen again. I’ve seen this show twice; once when it aired, and once more to review it. Honestly, I’m not sure I will ever watch it again.

5/10 (And I feel like this is being generous)

Enjoyed this review? Why not check out my other reviews of historical fiction shows such as:

Hatfield's and McCoy's
Sons of Liberty
Da Vinci's Demons Season 1


And if you are interested in joining The Helios to write on topics pertaining to History, why not contact Alwyn?

[TheDarkKnight]

Camelot (2011)

Airing for a single season in 2011, Camelot is a historical-fantasy epic set in the earliest days of King Arthur’s reign in Britain. The series follows Arthur’s discovery that he is the son of King Uther, and his ascendance and struggles to be respected as a young and inexperienced king. The series is obviously based on Arthurian legends, and therefore draws from the characters set down in those legends. Joining Arthur in this series is two of the more notable characters from the Arthurian mythos: Merlin and Morgan. Merlin served King Uther before his death, and now serves as the sorcerer of Camelot and protector of Arthur as he guides the young king to bring Camelot into a new age. Morgan, on the other hand, is the half-sister of Arthur who believes that she is the rightful heir of the kingdom on the death of Uther, and will use anyone and anything, including magic, to obtain it. In addition to these three, there are a myriad of other characters. Gawain, a rogue warrior who joins Arthur in order to train Arthur’s small military. Igraine, widow of Uther and birth mother of Arthur and stepmother of Morgan, who desperately tries to mend the problems between the two. Kay, Arthur’s brother and warrior of the court, who does whatever he can to help the young Arthur maintain his position. Then of course there is Guinevere, wife of Leontes, a soldier of Arthur, who finds herself torn between her love and her new King. There are many other characters as well, each fulfilling a role in the series and a representative of Arthurian legend. Everyone is involved in a conflict that threatens to tear apart the kingdom, a civil war between the Pendragon siblings, that is inevitably coming.

At its outset, the producers of Camelot has many clear materials available to them to use in constructing this retelling of the legend. Arthur, Camelot, and the Knights of the Round table has been written and re-written over the course of over a thousand years from a variety of authors and interpretations. The sources can be somewhat divided between two types: historical, and fiction. The historical sources are those written by Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman historians that use the legend of Arthur as an actual history, and part of British heritage. Of course, the problem emerges that these authors are describing an era of Britain that is clouded with doubt in regards to any king named Arthur, making it incredibly difficult to really name these works as primary sources for the topic. Nonetheless, there are numerous sources that do cite Arthur as having been a real king, but many of these sources draw upon each other, and over the span of a few hundred years, casting further doubt on their authenticity. Among these works is the Historia Brittonum, commonly attributed to the work of a monk named Nennius. Written sometime in the ninth century, Nennius only briefly mentions Arthur, and is described as victorious in all his campaigns. Another historical source source that mentions King Arthur in passing is the Annales Cambriae. While perhaps an indicator of the authenticity of Arthur, the source also documents, just before the Arthur entry, of a bishop who was supposedly 350 years old. There are of course many other pseudo-historical sources, but the most well known one comes from Geoffrey of Monmouth. Monmouth’s History of the King’s of Britain chronicles the lives and reigns of the kings of Britain. There is also Henry of Huntingdon, whose Historia Anglorum gives a broad overview of British history from the beginning to Henry’s time. Finally, William of Malmesbury and his Chronicle of the Kings of Britain also adds somewhat to the history of Arthur.

Along with the sources that claim to offer historical evidence of the king, there are also a large amount of other sources associated with Arthur or his knights that the producers used or could have used in the making of Camelot. These sources can generally be seen as the more romanticized versions of the King Arthur legend, and come from a variety of periods in post-Roman and medieval England, and even non-English sources. One of the earliest possible references about Arthur come from Y Gododdin written by the Welsh poet, Aneirin. Another comes from the priest Layamon, responsible for a poem known as Brut, which is an epic poem that chronicles the history of Britain and contains a substantial section concerning Arthur. Non-British sources, of which there are many, come from all throughout medieval Europe. One of the most notable of these sources come from France; the numerous works of French poet Chrétien de Troyes and the later Vulgate Cycle, a series of volumes that contributes to the story by discussing the quest for the Holy Grail and the romance of the knight Lancelot and Guinevere. Finally, there is Le Morte D’Arthur, the compilation by Thomas Malory that has arguably ensured that the Arthurian legends survived into the modern day.

There are of course many sources that the producers of Camelot could have utilized in the production of the show, but watching the series leads to the conclusion that the source mostly utilized appears to be Le Morte D’Arthur, at least for the very first episode. In the series, Arthur is not a proper son of Uther Pendragon but rather a bastard between Uther and a woman named Igraine, whom Uther desired greatly to sleep with despite her being married to one of Uther’s enemies. This is accomplished by Merlin transforming Uther to appear like Igraine’s husband. The resulting baby, Arthur, is then taken by Merlin into the countryside to be raised by a family, unaware of who he truly is, something which was clearly taken from the second chapter of Le Morte D’Arthur. The series also incorporates the Battle of Mount Badon, a battle viewed as a real event in British history, but sometimes attributed to Arthur’s command. In the series, the battle is between Arthur and about a dozen of his warriors against several hundred raiders who are assaulting the mountain as it is a major pass into the realm of Arthur. These raiders have pledged their allegiance to Morgan, Arthur’s enemy in the show. In “historical” terms, however, the battle was between hundreds of warriors with hundreds falling, not dozens, in which Arthur emerged victorious against the enemy, the Anglo-Saxons.Arthur’s losses alone are attributed to be four hundred and forty men lost. In fairness, the production probably could not have handled shooting such a large battle, but in terms of what it meant in the chronicles of Britain it just does not seem to be as defining for Arthur in the show. The show also utilizes Le Morte D’Arthur in part by showing, somewhat, the incestuous sex that results in Mordred, the foe of Arthur in many of the stories. The difference, however, is in Le Morte D’Arthur, it is Arthur’s half-sister Morgause who bears Mordred by Arthur, the two unaware of their relationship. In the show, Morgan, Arthur’s half-sister, uses magic to pretend to be Guinevere and sleep with Arthur, much the same way as Uther impregnated Igraine, in order to produce a royal heir that could challenge Arthur sometime in the future. The show, unfortunately, ends immediately after the revelation that Guinevere was Morgan, so this never comes to pass. There are also several other notable changes, such as how Arthur pulled the sword from the stone as well as how Arthur came to acquire Excalibur and the Lady of the Lake; neither of the subjects draw from any obvious sources.

Outside of this shallow similarity between the show and the legends, there is in actuality very little that the producers actually use in making Camelot. Most of the show’s story and backstory appears to be completely made up, with little to no relation to the source material. For example, King Lot, an ally of Arthur in many of the stories, is instead an ally and lover of Morgan and an enemy to the young Arthur in the series, and in fact dies very early in the series. In the stories, he’s also Arthur’s brother-in-law, married to Morgause, Arthur’s step-sister. Through this pairing also comes Gawain, one of Arthur’s knights in the sources. In the series, Gawain is older than Arthur, and is in fact the man that Arthur must rely on to train his small army. There are other, more minor changes, but perhaps one of the biggest changes from the series is the complete absence of Lancelot. There is no Lancelot to become a knight of Arthur’s, nor a chance for that character to steal Guinevere and begin a war between Lancelot and Arthur. There is a character, Leontes, who does fulfill the role of Lancelot to a point, in that he is the lover of Guinevere. But instead of Leontes stealing Guinevere, Arthur steals Guinevere from Leontes.

The impact on the series from the choices of the producers is evident almost from the beginning. The almost complete disregard for the source material leads to the series being a shallow interpretation of the Arthurian myths, especially when compared to other retellings such as Merlin; even movies such King Arthur appear to base more on the sources than the series. It is obvious that the producers intended to make the story their own, but unfortunately the effort was in vain as the series fell short in several key areas. The unfortunate fact about Camelot is that it simply did not achieve enough success to be renewed for more seasons. It ends almost as quickly as it begins, and just when the show started to really delve into the legendary aspect of the myths. This has led to the show, through some fault of its own, becoming an incredibly shallow and dull retelling of the Arthurian myths. This means that sources that cover Lancelot extensively, such as a significant portion of the Vulgate Cycle, are never utilized by the producers to add to the story. There is no Holy Grail either, not even alluded to in the series, meaning that source material for the subject is noticeably absent from a large portion of the legend of Arthur. Many if not most of the noted Knights of the Round Table are conspicuously absent. This is of course because there is no Round Table either; the series never proceeded that far, nor are there any knights at all. Mordred, a central character to King Arthur’s life and fate, is only alluded to in the series, but is never physically present as they never proceeded that far into the story. Most of the few characters that do make it into the series are underwhelming or so completely unlike their legendary counterparts that it is unreasonable to even try to compare them.


Sources:

Aneurin, and William Rees. "Y Goddodin." Y Goddodin. March 30, 2009. Accessed April 20, 2014. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/9842/9842-h/9842-h.htm.


Chibnall, Chris, and Michael Hirst, writers. "Camelot." In Camelot. Starz. April 01, 2011.


Huntingdon, Henry, and Diana E. Greenway. Historia Anglorum: The History of the English People. Oxford: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press, 1996.


Loomis, Roger Sherman, ed. Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959.


Malmesbury, William, J. A. Giles, and John Sharpe. Chronicle of the Kings of England; from the Earliest Period to the Reign of King Stephen. London: J.G. Bohn, 1847.


Malory, Thomas, and William Caxton. "Le Morte D'Arthur." Le Morte D'Arthur. November 06, 2009. Accessed April 20, 2014. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1251/1251-h/1251-h.htm.


_________________________________

Review:

I’ll try to keep the review brief to avoid being too repetitive. Honestly there is not much to say in the way of positives for this show. The best part about the show would have to be Joseph Fiennes as Merlin and Eva Green as Morgana. By far their acting blows away the rest of the main cast, but I feel like their talents are squandered on a meandering script. They do their best, but ultimately it is not enough. The production values are decent though I think the filming style makes it look cheaper than it should have been, and it is clear they took liberties with some of the technology and other things in regards to the time period they set it in. The production values are unfortunately not as good as other Starz offerings such as Black Sails or Da Vinci’s Demons, and while it came earlier than either of those two shows it came out around the same time as Spartacus so I’m not sure there is much of an excuse there. The music (especially the opening theme) is also solid, but that is a relatively minor positive for this show.

In terms of outright negatives, I would say perhaps the biggest travesty is the casting of Arthur. While the actor is in no way terrible, he is simply not kingly enough for me to believe. Like if I were living in this time period, I would probably be rooting for Morgana...He is that poor at convincing me that he is worthy of ruling Camelot. If that was the point as he is NOT really a true king at the beginning and we are supposed to see him grow, then I get that. But we don’t see him grow much over the course of the only season, and the script makes him more like an angsty and whiny teenager than someone who is supposed to become the King. The show also managed to turn the story of Camelot into a boring mess, which is disappointing. If you remember my review of Texas Rising, I made a similar complaint. If you manage to make a story such as that of Arthur and Camelot boring, then you have made a big mistake. Compounding this problem is one key event in the show; the Battle of Mount Baden. Hilariously boring, and really the only action in the show. I feel it also came far too early for the series as well. There are other issues with pacing as well as overall story but I find these are not as important as the main two I have mentioned above.

Now it is possible that those errors were going to be corrected in future seasons, but we did not get those. As it stands, we can only really judge this series based on these ten episodes. It’s a shame, as I believe there was a lot of potential in this series, and perhaps it came along a little too early for Starz to really understand it’s potential. They and the producers failed to capitalize on what should have been a good story and really take advantage of the talent they did have. It’s unfortunate that it has all gone to waste, as this could have been a good series for showing the foundation of Camelot that is known in the myths. Overall, I would not recommend this series really to anyone unless you have some time to kill, but even then it is not really worth purchasing for even that.

5/10

--------------------

For my non-existant readers, please make sure to read "The Helios" for updates to both my own writing as well as that of other fantastic writers here on the site.

[TheDarkKnight]

Vikings Season 1 (2013)

After the success of Hatfields and McCoys, it seems as if the History Channel has decided that scripted dramas, at least in limited number, may be in its future. And with Vikings, it appears as if they have their first hit original drama. Based on the sagas centered around legendary Ragnar Lodbrok as well as the support of other contemporary sagas and written works, Vikings is an epic tale set in the early days of the Viking Age. The drama is epic in that it is about breaking free of the restraints of society while forging one’s own destiny.

One of the major successes of Vikings has to be the atmosphere of Vikings. The producers of the show strived to create a world that would be believable for the audience, and in large part they succeeded. Shot primarily in Ireland, the show features beautiful landscapes that seem to portray the relatively untouched world of the Vikings. The producers also paid careful attention towards the details of Viking culture that, while perhaps not completely accurate (at least not according to the knowledgeable views of some members here on the forums), do not even for a moment take you out of the experience. The sets, props, locations, cinematography, and even the effects all mesh together very well to bring the viking era to television. One notable scene in particular is the sacrifice episode late in the season that really shows off a lot of Viking culture, including the sacrificial scene that was beautifully shot and scored. Worthy of mentioning has to be the use of Old Norse and Saxon that are used when the Vikings and the Saxons are attempting to converse, with it switching between the two old languages and then English depending on the situation and from whose point of view the scene is taking place from. It’s really a fascinating little detail that they added that I think makes the show that much more awesome. Finally, the cinematography is just absolutely gorgeous in this show. The directors went all out in making such a beautiful looking show when it comes to shooting and all the little additions to each shot that makes the show stand out. Even the music of the series is excellent, with composer Trevor Morris providing a wonderful score that meshes well with the tone of the series rather nicely. The show does not look cheap even in the slightest, with production values that, while perhaps not on the same level as comparable shows like Game of Thrones, give the show an air of authenticity and depth that few other shows can rival.

Another great aspect of the show would certainly be the casting and acting. Of course the central actor of this series is Travis Fimmel. Fimmel’s performance as Ragnar is nothing short of amazing, portraying the young warrior as a man with great ambition but one also who cares about family and friends very believably, and always with an enigmatic smile on his face. His performance is very nuanced, and an absolute highlight of the first season. Honorable mentions would have to include Gustaf Skarsgard as the hilarious and mysterious Floki, as well as George Blagden as the priest Athelstan. Blagden in particular has his work cut out for him as a character who must live in both the Christian world as well as the Viking one, and I believe he pulls off the role masterfully. Luckily for this show the great acting does not stop with these three, and the full cast is quite wonderful. The only weak spot in the series is Nathan O’Toole as the young Bjorn, son of Ragnar. However, as a child actor I’m willing to give him a pass because I think half of the issues are annoying lines that he had to say.

The choreography of the fighting in this series is simply amazing, and easily one of the best parts of the season. Throughout the nine episodes, there are about four small battles. Unlike many shows where it feels like scripted fighting, I find the choreography in this to be amongst the best I have ever seen. In many cases when the “heroes” are fighting it feels like they are barely making their kills in the chaos of the fighting, or truly barely avoiding the strike of a blade or axe. In addition, I never thought that fighting in a shield wall would be able to be portrayed so wonderfully and interestingly on the little screen. And it really helps show how the Vikings were able to easily shatter the small forces of the Northumbrians in this season, despite the fact that it is inaccurate to show the English as fighting outside of the shield wall as well. I think the shield wall fighting also helps keep the budget inline and keep the producers and directors focused on making the action look tight and crisp for the audience. Because of all of this, the choreography and battle direction really helps solidify the fact that the Vikings were feared by both the soldiers and civilians of the English kingdoms.

I think the final main thing that should be discussed is the story itself. While it is not perfect like many other shows, I find the story of the first season to be very engrossing. Obviously the center of the story is Ragnar but his quest for glory is not the only story that Vikings tells. The extent of Rollo’s jealousy and how it affects his decisions, Athelstan’s struggle as a Christian amongst a Pagan culture, and even Lagertha’s (Ragnar’s wife) journey to produce a new son are all mixed together amongst the backdrop of Ragnar’s tale. Showing the first contact (at least in the show) of Vikings and Saxons was also a great addition to the story, as it shows how the show is not just about battles and glory, but exploration, curiosity, and meeting of cultures. Ragnar’s reluctant rise to power is also interesting as his personality and beliefs not only clash with those above him in Viking hierarchy but also his peers. Much of the early conflict in the first season involves Ragnar's tumultuous relationship with his leader, the Earl Haraldson. Haraldson is a traditionalist in Viking culture, whereas Ragnar is a radical, and desires to sail only ever eastward towards their traditional grounds for raiding. Meanwhile, Ragnar’s desire to explore westward places him in direct conflict with his earl. Ragnar’s eventual decision to defy his earl of course leads to violent results, and whose consequences lead to interesting results for the viewers to enjoy.

The story is overall improved, in my opinion, by tying in the Viking mythology to the series. Odin makes an appearance in the mind (or maybe not) of Ragnar in the very first episode, and throughout the first season the gods are mentioned often. They especially pop up when it comes to talking to Athelstan, as his unfamiliarity but relative interest with the Viking religion matches the audiences’. Of course he begins to experience a slight crisis of faith in later episodes that is heightened by the realities of their religion (sacrifice, the end of the world, etc) so perhaps it is a little tropey, but nonetheless I believe they pull it off rather nicely It is never made explicitly clear this season if the Vikings are actually influenced by their gods, but I believe that only adds to the mystery, the atmosphere, and the intrigue of the story. It is an interesting storytelling method to tie it in, and I hope we see more of it in future seasons as I find it a fascinating plot device in the overall narrative.

The only main issue I really had with the story was the overall pacing. In some episodes, weeks or months would pass by, without any real hint as to the time passing. This was most prevalent when showing Ragnar learning Saxon from Athelstan, a feat that seems to be accomplished within the span of an episode, with him speaking near-fluent Saxon English to others in later episodes. This also leads to important events being presented quickly at the expense of possibly character development and other important things as the writers and producers race to get to the main bullet points of the season. It’s not a huge issue overall, but I feel it is an issue that could have been an easy fix. In addition, the betrayal of Rollo at the end of the season felt like it came from nowhere, though it did add a nice little cliffhanger onto the overall season. Both of these issues as well as other, much more minor ones could have been fixed by, in my opinion, simplifying having one more episode of story overall to fully flesh out narrative of the season. But again, it hardly tarnishes the overall quality of the season; it’s just something that they can work on in later seasons. Despite these small issues, the majority of these factors and many more lead to the first season having a fascinating story distinct from many other shows.

Overall, I think that the first season of Vikings is a wonderful starting point for this series. It does have some minor problems to it, like any show does, and I think that it is sometimes unavoidable to have some minor pitfalls in new series. But the story, the production values, the characters and story all make for an interesting and refreshing first season of Vikings. And even better, it has room to grow over its future.

8/10

For my non-existant readers, please make sure to read "The Helios" for updates to both my own writing as well as that of other fantastic writers here on the site.

[TheDarkKnight]

The Last Kingdom Season 1 (2015)

‘Today is a day for warriors. A day to kill your enemies. A day we make the pagans wish
they’d never heard of Wessex. Today we fight for Wessex...’ -Alfred the Great

The first season of The Last Kingdom is based on the Saxon Stories, a series of books written by Bernard Cornwell. Based primarily on the first two novels and taking place roughly seventy years after the world presented in Vikings, the Last Kingdom tells the tale of Uhtred, a noble Saxon from the lands of Northumbria. Captured by the Danes as a child and raised as one of them, Uhtred’s dual identity as a Saxon and a Dane is a constant centerpiece of the series. In addition to this, Uhtred suffers greatly by losing not just one family but two: his father dies in battle, and his adoptive father Ragnar the Elder is killed along with much of his family by vengeful Danes. Motivated by his own revenge against those that have wronged him, Uhtred travels to the court of King Alfred (not yet the Great) of Wessex to pledge his sword. But what he does not understand is how his influence will shape the course of English history as Alfred has his own plans for a united kingdom, led by Wessex, which is the last Saxon kingdom and on the verge of extinction by the invading Danes.

Inevitably this series is going to be compared to both Game of Thrones and Vikings. I think that both are worthwhile comparisons, but let’s hold off on that for the time being. I believe that it is worthwhile to start by discussing the production values of this season. Production values on the series are some of the best I have seen in a TV series, an attribute I can say is largely due to it being a BBC production. The series has a lot of spectacle in the form of its battles, but I find the series has a lot of more subtle yet amazing aspects of its production. The costume design is simply incredible, with every actor and every extra wearing great looking costumes. The character design for Uhtred alone is very interesting as it shows the dual identity and nature of his upbringing. While many of the costumes are perhaps a bit extravagant (Saxon and Danish soldiers armed well with swords and mail and expensive helmets) I find it to be a necessary addition. As I understand it, the soldiers on both sides would have looked pretty similar in terms of clothing and weapons. That would have looked dull and in the midst of battle, very confusing. So even if it is not 100% accurate I find it to be a necessary change that helps the viewer more than harms history. In addition to the costuming and armor, I find the sets and the shooting locations in general to be top notch. Filming in such a relatively untouched and cheaper Hungarian countryside and other places helps keep costs low in key areas, allowing them to really go all out on their beautifully made and wonderfully detailed sets. The sweeping shots of the cities and villages are simply beautiful and the close up location shooting is impressive. The cinematography in general is a treat for the eyes as well.

In addition to the sets and costuming, the series also has some decent battle scenes. The two largest battles are in the first and last episodes, and are for the most part really well made. In addition to the two battles, we also have a small amount of minor duels and other small fights that flesh out the story. All of the fights are good and exciting for the viewer, and plenty of blood to go around. The action is crisp and gory, and the brutality of shield wall fighting is more or less accurately portrayed. My one big issue with this is the fact that Uhtred is the one who has to teach the Saxons how to fight in the style portrayed in the series which is just plain odd considering that the Saxons should have already known this style just as well as the Danes. In addition, during the final battle there are some really obvious CG soldiers that are thrown in, distracting to the viewer. A shame it had to be so obvious but it did at least try to show the size of the battle adequately. Nonetheless, the battles, though sparse in this season, are entertaining spectacles, and quite bloody to behold.

The characters are important, partially because there are so many of them and also because they are all so important in driving the story. One of my big issues with the series so far is the lead himself; Alexander Dreymon. As the lead, I am not entirely convinced by Dreymon’s portrayal as Uhtred. The character alone is bratty and kind of whiny, and is just plain unlikeable for much of the first season in comparison to the other characters, and the actor does not pull off those traits in any meaningful way. He certainly improves throughout the season, but there is something about him that stands out compared to the rest of the cast, and not in a good way. He kind of reminds me of a combination of Legolas and Jon Snow, which is not necessarily a bad thing but it does not come across well in this first season. For what it is worth, though, I do think Dreymon handles the conflicting nature of Uhtred’s personality and background (Born a Saxon, raised as a Dane) rather well. It’s just some other things that are hard to truly pinpoint that makes him seem uninteresting. He’s not outright terrible, but it may take some time before he is as convincing a protagonist as others (like Kit Harington as Jon Snow, if we are to be continuing the comparison).

This casting issue is relatively small compared to the rest of the series, luckily. Leofric, played by Adrian Bower, is a wonderful character that you just want to root for, and indeed he is my favorite character. His wisecracks and nicknames in particular bring a bit of levity to the series in scenes that really need it. The actors playing the Danes are intriguing additions to the story as well. In particular, Ragnar the Younger, adoptive brother of Uhtred, is quite good and well played, and has an interesting story of his own. The true standout actor of the show though is David Dawson as Alfred. Alfred is a wonderful and complex character that, while hard to root for cause he’s kind of a jerk, is nonetheless fascinating to watch. His characterization is a bit off though in how he responds to story developments, but those issues are almost difficult to spot because of how well the character is played. Dawson’s subtle yet commanding performance and presence has been a huge part of why this series has worked. Though short-lived, Matthew Macfayden as Uhtred’s father was also awesome, and it was truly frustrating to see such an interesting character leave so early into the show. A surprisingly charismatic and interesting character arises in Aethelwold, played by Harry McEntire, who performs amusingly as the sarcastic and hedonistic nephew of Alfred. Finally, Ian Hart admirably plays Beocca, an adviser and friend to both Uhtred and Alfred, and I honestly cannot wait to see this character further develop throughout the series. There are perhaps far too many characters to really name, but luckily no one of them is poorly played in my opinion, at least not to the same degree as Dreymon's Uhtred.

The writing and story are also worth mentioning. The dialogue alone is rather gripping even in the case of Uhtred, and it is really easy to get sucked into the conversations of the show. But I think that the overall story presented through the writing is even more interesting. The first season is an adaptation of the first two books from the Saxon Stories, and it is set up more or less in that way with the first “book” ending halfway through the series and immediately going into the next one. This form of adaptation has of course left things out, but I find that the pace is more or less good through this adaptation, and there really is no indication that the season splits between the two books as the directing and writing managed to keep the flow going throughout the story. My one significant issue with the story has to be Uhtred’s love life. Throughout the course of the whole Uhtred has a string of romances with three women across eight episodes. There is the brash Brida, the naive Mildrith, and the mysterious Iseult. While all the relationships are more or less fleshed out decently, it is still a lot of different romances to throw out in eight hours. There are other, small pacing problems as well but the romances are a huge indicator of the pacing problems of the show. Nonetheless, none of the romances are necessarily poorly done. I just find it a bit tedious and rushed, and it is entirely possible that it is much better paced in the books. Finally, the direction of the series is overall very good. I attribute these successes for the show to two factors; picking directors that actually know what they are doing, and the episodes all being written by the same person, head writer and showrunner Stephen Butchard. Despite its small faults, the series cannot be denied as a well produced one.

Overall, I find the first season of The Last Kingdom to be a more than adequate but far than perfect season of television. It is similar enough to the comparable shows but also sets out to create its own identity. One of the main reasons this show felt so different from its comparisons is the large amount of melancholy throughout its narrative. The Last Kingdom is a drama about not feeling like you belong (Uhtred’s conflicting identities), as well as loss, betrayal, conflict and revenge. In many ways Uhtred’s story is just about growing up and becoming a different person, but the story told by both Bernard Cornwell and the showrunner is actually far more complicated for the audience. Uhtred as a character is a young, brash, complicated man who is constantly being made into a new person: he begins the show as young Osbert, becomes Uhtred after his brother’s death, goes from being a Saxon to a Dane and from slave to an adopted son, and eventually just having control of his own destiny, a constant recurring theme in the series. And that is just the first episode’s journey. The ramifications of this are further told throughout the season, and I imagine will continue throughout the series. Driven by revenge but also by the need for survival in dangerous times, Uhtred’s journey does not look set to be an easy one, nor a happy one. But while the story and everything else is interesting and fresh, the series still has a lot of room to improve.

While I tried to not compare this show to its obvious comparisons, it is still worth mentioning that while it is similar to those shows in some ways, in many ways it is quite different. The Last Kingdom is not in the same league as Game of Thrones in my opinion; even with its pretty impressive budget I find it just does not look nearly as good as its obvious comparison. Nor does the series have the epic scope of its other obvious comparison,Vikings and its fantastic cast of characters at this point. But to be honest, that is completely fine. It’s not a perfect series, but it is one that shows a vast amount of potential. Its amazing cinematography, bloody and fantastic fight scenes, and wondrous and driving story make it an interesting watch for fans of this genre.

​8/10