I really like the first season with narration and explanations and I really felt like these stories came alive. The acting was pretty good, the camera work the script. The problem is when you make a show about tall tales and lore and tell it like its 100% true or accurate,people are going to get triggered. It's based mostly on fact and real events. Look them up yourself. Like the person in the reviews saying that the "saved by the bell" phrase was from boxing. Actually that's just a general belief by scholars not legitimately founded historical fact. It could in fact of come from life-saving coffins and not from another source. The truth is, we don't really know for sure! Now who's promoting lore not truth? XD
9 Reviews
They Made a Tonic
bobcobb30125 August 2018
Warning: Spoilers
If you mention you have an anthology show I will watch it. I am drawn to the genre.
I never knew about the origins of the term "saved by the bell" nor much about Mary E. Hart, so from that perspective this was informative.
The narration was a bit much. That was the more "important" part for these producers instead of the live action story. To me that is a mistake.
I want to like this show, but I think they need to dial that back moving forward.
I never knew about the origins of the term "saved by the bell" nor much about Mary E. Hart, so from that perspective this was informative.
The narration was a bit much. That was the more "important" part for these producers instead of the live action story. To me that is a mistake.
I want to like this show, but I think they need to dial that back moving forward.
Better research please
hollisaperstein18 July 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Interesting program but the research is bad. The Mary Hart story is storytelling and not proven fact. And "saved by the bell" is boxing slang that became common in the late 19th century. A boxer who was about to be defeated would be saved if the bell that marked the end of a round rang out. Eventually, the phrase hit the mainstream. Additionally, the patents shown to guard someone from being buried alive were never put into practice.
Another Tuberculosis Case in Early 2017...
setgetsiin16 March 2022
Warning: Spoilers
My sister, who JUST lost her husband to rare liver and bile duct cancer, developed TB and died about a year and a half after he did. She worked part time in a bakery and in a hotel: Working with the food industry AND the concierge tourist industry (in Lake George).
She was a smoker, so we all thought it was "smoker's hack." No, it was her lungs liquifying, all the while going to the hospital for her husband, seeing a therapist because he was dying...and NOBODY thought to look into it...?
So yes. My 55yo sister died of TB in 2017. Unreal. Surreal. I'm waiting for my brother to call me about cholera or some such insane thing.
Anyway, that out of the way...I have a feeling this is going to be an epic series, even tho I'm kind of late to the party.
She was a smoker, so we all thought it was "smoker's hack." No, it was her lungs liquifying, all the while going to the hospital for her husband, seeing a therapist because he was dying...and NOBODY thought to look into it...?
So yes. My 55yo sister died of TB in 2017. Unreal. Surreal. I'm waiting for my brother to call me about cholera or some such insane thing.
Anyway, that out of the way...I have a feeling this is going to be an epic series, even tho I'm kind of late to the party.
Perfect
gianmarcoronconi12 March 2022
Not bad, but....
maedhros-147-60891322 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
The first episode of 'Lore' was entertaining enough, it kind of reminds me of the 90s TV show 'Beyond Belief: Fact or Fiction', with the difference that 'Lore' aims to present true events, that later became fiction.
With that in mind, the creators could have done a better work researching the origins of the vampire myth. The episode came to the conclusion, that the story of the Brown family inspired Bram Stoker's well known Gothic novel 'Dracula' (1897). While this might be the case, it was surely not the only source of Stoker's inspiration as presented in the show. Also it is highly doubtful, that it was a newspaper in the USA that coined the term 'Vampire'. Bram Stoker was not even the first writer to publish a vampire story. The first vampire story in English was published in 1819, written by John Polidori, the title was 'The Vampyre' (there is also an interesting story behind the novela).
With that in mind I recommend to take the 'educational facts' of this otherwise entertaining, well acted and nicely animated show with a grain of salt.
Interesting but poorly narrated
IrishCreem91415 April 2019
The acting and story is interesting, but the narrator sounds like a terrible William Shatner impersonater - robotic and strange emphasis and pauses mid-sentence. I found this distracting, but the history behind the story was intriguing enough to keep watching.
The narrator ruined this outright.
iguesstheyranoutofusernames25 January 2023
I could forgive a lot. I could forgive the ugly flat globohomo animation style. I could forgive the hideous jarring colour schemes that make it look like a 2000AD comic got dropped in water. I could forgive the lackluster writing style. But I could not forgive the narrator.
Woody Allen and Christopher Walkens lovechild is not suitable to narrate things. His nasal voice is just too shrill and grinds on your nerves. Perhaps it is because as a non American I am unfamiliar with this style of accent and know not from whence it came. But it is so jarring I cannot focus on the hideous cartoonery and instead am wondering how on Earth he god this job.
Was it favoritism? Nepotism? Is he the boyfriend of the producers daughter? What does he have in common with the producers of this series that they would hear his voice and think "You know what, you have a voice for narration! The way you can't read in a fluid manner, and jarringly pause in strange places, the way you almost sound like the Foot Lettuce guy from YouTube, that - that right there is gold!"
Because it surely wasn't his qualifications of being the best narrator for the job. I think Disney has fired better voice actors than this guy could ever be.
Woody Allen and Christopher Walkens lovechild is not suitable to narrate things. His nasal voice is just too shrill and grinds on your nerves. Perhaps it is because as a non American I am unfamiliar with this style of accent and know not from whence it came. But it is so jarring I cannot focus on the hideous cartoonery and instead am wondering how on Earth he god this job.
Was it favoritism? Nepotism? Is he the boyfriend of the producers daughter? What does he have in common with the producers of this series that they would hear his voice and think "You know what, you have a voice for narration! The way you can't read in a fluid manner, and jarringly pause in strange places, the way you almost sound like the Foot Lettuce guy from YouTube, that - that right there is gold!"
Because it surely wasn't his qualifications of being the best narrator for the job. I think Disney has fired better voice actors than this guy could ever be.
A story told poorly
yowilwasup23 June 2021
A probably interesting story poorly told and horribly narrated. Also fast and loose at the end when making a almost baseless claim that Bram Stoker got his idea for Dracula because a contemporary news clipping of the story was found amongst his paper after his death.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
