Random_plum
Joined Dec 2024
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings18
Random_plum's rating
Reviews4
Random_plum's rating
This is a brilliant little show that has a lot of questions and offers very few actual answers. It's bizarre, trippy and enjoyable.
We're introduced to a guy called Dad. He's married to Mom. They have a child called Daughter. He works at Job for Boss. His favorite thing to eat is Food. And he lives in Town, USA. If you can't tell by now all the names of people and things are generic. They describe an idea or concept. His neighbor's name is "Neighbor" and his wife's friend is named... Diane? Well that's weird. Maybe there's more to this than meets the eye.
Nathan Barnett plays the titular Dad. An Average Regular Guy and totally not part of an ARG. But like a lot of ARGs there's hidden messages, hidden videos, secrets and you slowly start to piece things together like why he's trying to be the greatest Youtuber in the all the universes, why he and his family speak telepathically and what's the deal with Food and why does it seem to have an almost hypnotic effect on Dad.
To say more is to ruin the story and the twists that occur.
So grab a can of Food, Obey the Server and watch Dad.
We're introduced to a guy called Dad. He's married to Mom. They have a child called Daughter. He works at Job for Boss. His favorite thing to eat is Food. And he lives in Town, USA. If you can't tell by now all the names of people and things are generic. They describe an idea or concept. His neighbor's name is "Neighbor" and his wife's friend is named... Diane? Well that's weird. Maybe there's more to this than meets the eye.
Nathan Barnett plays the titular Dad. An Average Regular Guy and totally not part of an ARG. But like a lot of ARGs there's hidden messages, hidden videos, secrets and you slowly start to piece things together like why he's trying to be the greatest Youtuber in the all the universes, why he and his family speak telepathically and what's the deal with Food and why does it seem to have an almost hypnotic effect on Dad.
To say more is to ruin the story and the twists that occur.
So grab a can of Food, Obey the Server and watch Dad.
Winter of '83 is a bit of an oddity. It's analog horror which gives a certain retro charm to it. You have videos taken on VHS, or made to look like VHS, cobbled together to make a coherent whole. Or if it's released over a period of months to slowly fill in the story.
The story itself is interesting. A town in Minnesota disappears after a snowstorm. It just vanishes and we're left to pick up the pieces and figure out what led to this. There are some actual good bits in this during some of the phone calls. Some actual good voice acting and dialogue. But that's where the praise ends. It's the video segments where it starts to fall apart.
Now I'm not going to talk about the special effects or the filters used to make an HD source look like VHS. I'm not expecting this to look professional. It's a small production done on a shoestring budget. No. It's how it all fits together and, like the only other review for this states, the biggest problem is summed up in one of the scenes.
We have a guy who's locking up a store and he's videotaping himself doing it. Why? His boss demands it. He demands the employee video himself locking it up. For what reason? I don't know because it makes little sense but it's there for a reason and that's to have the plot move along.
He hears somebody asking if he can get some help and what does he do? He turns the camera towards it and responds. That's not what you'd do in that situation. You'd put the camera down and look with your eyes or keep it filming what it was originally filming and look away.
The problem is the camera is the character. It's treating this as if the camera and guy speaking are the same thing.
He follows the voice. Still filming I might add, looking through the camera the entire time until we see the eldritch horror that is responsible for this and the screen fills with static before going blue.
This is weak. It's not how you do effective analog horror. If there was somebody else there filming then maybe it would work. Maybe even have the guy locking up the store say something like, "keep filming this" or something. But no. We don't get that. There's simply no reason for that whole scene to exist other than to reveal the things responsible for this.
All in all it's not a good representation of analog horror. There's some good bits but most of it feels boring and like the other review said "paint by numbers".
The story itself is interesting. A town in Minnesota disappears after a snowstorm. It just vanishes and we're left to pick up the pieces and figure out what led to this. There are some actual good bits in this during some of the phone calls. Some actual good voice acting and dialogue. But that's where the praise ends. It's the video segments where it starts to fall apart.
Now I'm not going to talk about the special effects or the filters used to make an HD source look like VHS. I'm not expecting this to look professional. It's a small production done on a shoestring budget. No. It's how it all fits together and, like the only other review for this states, the biggest problem is summed up in one of the scenes.
We have a guy who's locking up a store and he's videotaping himself doing it. Why? His boss demands it. He demands the employee video himself locking it up. For what reason? I don't know because it makes little sense but it's there for a reason and that's to have the plot move along.
He hears somebody asking if he can get some help and what does he do? He turns the camera towards it and responds. That's not what you'd do in that situation. You'd put the camera down and look with your eyes or keep it filming what it was originally filming and look away.
The problem is the camera is the character. It's treating this as if the camera and guy speaking are the same thing.
He follows the voice. Still filming I might add, looking through the camera the entire time until we see the eldritch horror that is responsible for this and the screen fills with static before going blue.
This is weak. It's not how you do effective analog horror. If there was somebody else there filming then maybe it would work. Maybe even have the guy locking up the store say something like, "keep filming this" or something. But no. We don't get that. There's simply no reason for that whole scene to exist other than to reveal the things responsible for this.
All in all it's not a good representation of analog horror. There's some good bits but most of it feels boring and like the other review said "paint by numbers".
I'll come out and say it, I'm not a fan of Lewis, his character of Linkara or the Atop the 4th Wall thing he does on Youtube. This movie really wasn't for me. But I watched it out of morbid curiosity and... I made it through the first two parts and said I'm not watching any more. It was bad. It was really bad.
The problems are too numerous to count. The dialogue is written with all the gravitas of a high school student. It's pretentious dialogue where people don't speak like actual people. Then there's the acting. Some of it is okay. Most of it is bad. I mean none of these people are actors and it shows. The worst one would be Kaylyn or "Marzgurl" as she's known online. She can't deliver a line that sounds natural. Others are hit and miss. I think the most enjoyable one was Brad Jones as the Cinema Snob.
The story is just self-indulgent tripe. I get that maybe as a fan of this you'd want to see it. But for anybody else it's amateurish at best and not in a good way.
The problems are too numerous to count. The dialogue is written with all the gravitas of a high school student. It's pretentious dialogue where people don't speak like actual people. Then there's the acting. Some of it is okay. Most of it is bad. I mean none of these people are actors and it shows. The worst one would be Kaylyn or "Marzgurl" as she's known online. She can't deliver a line that sounds natural. Others are hit and miss. I think the most enjoyable one was Brad Jones as the Cinema Snob.
The story is just self-indulgent tripe. I get that maybe as a fan of this you'd want to see it. But for anybody else it's amateurish at best and not in a good way.