frogcilfruit

The first few episodes are entertaining enough, nicely shot, nice sets, ok acting. The main character is kind of ridiculously styled for the circumtances, made me laugh, but fine. The dialogues are terribly written, but that's still ok to watch while doing something else, doesn't need much attention to catch the drift.

But as the intrigue is disentangling, the plot holes pile up, and towards the final episodes, then it is much more than ridiculous : it is wholely unbelievable.

I'm not sure if the absurdity comes from the orginal material from Coben's book as I haven't read it or from the TV rewrite, but I can assure you it is completely disapointing.

The series are ok, but the music is so annoying and loud, I couldn't stand it anymore at the end of the 1st season, and I couldn't watch the 2nd.

I have to write 600 words when that's all I wanted to say, so here is some filling : There isn't much character development, but the action is ok, and the animation as well eventhough it isn't top notch either.

It is also nice to explore other mythology, I've always been interested in ancient Greece, so that was what drew me to it in the 1st place.

However, as I said above, the series are ok, nothing exciting but I probably would have enjoyed the whole thing if it weren't for the horrible overpowering music.

...when you can use a famous historical figure for publicity and just make up an alternate story that better fits your views, whims, or "vision" ?

Napoleon by Ridley Scott is a good film : good storytelling, great acting, and of course awesome production value. Might feel a bit lengthy at times, the main character is not quite rounded up and can feel confusing, but overall a nice watch.

I am just fed up with this new trend in Hollywood that uses real people as a pretext, as if the details of their lives, of their personnality, the events they created had no value at all, when it is actually all these elements that made them who they are, how they had an impact on history and why we remember their names today ?

The utter contempt that Ridley Scott displays when he says "Get a life" to people who point out inaccuracies, or "When I have issues with historians, I ask: 'Excuse me, mate, were you there? No? Well, shut the (...) up then.'" just goes to show that he doesn't care about being true to the character whose life he's supposedly narrating, he just wants to make a film about a story he's making up : THEN WHY DON'T YOU JUST CREATE A FICTIONNAL CHARACTER AND LEAVE REAL PEOPLE ALONE ???

Surfing on the popularity of historical figures is so intellectually dishonest, there should be consequences.

These directors will argue that their films are not documentaries, and therefore do not need to be historically accurate, and I agree to some extent : it doesn't really change the meaning of the plot if the costumes or the props are not exactly true to the period depicted.

However, changing main events or personnality traits are a complete different thing. You distort the story, and doing so, what is to be learnt from these hstorical events and characters, and here lies my issue.

Everyday a new biopic comes out, and instead of making people pleasantly take in the morals of these events and not remake the same mistakes over and over, they pervert history and make people believe in alternate versions that are just not true and don't have the same meaning. And that's how you grow a society full of gullible idiots.