Disclaimer | Series Review -

www.youtube.co...
Disclaimer: A Novel can be purchased here (NOTE: affiliate links)
Kindle: amzn.to/488X6Ro
Audiobook: amzn.to/3NlXamW
Hardcover: amzn.to/3BATLOz
Paperback: amzn.to/3Y5HJnR
Disclaimer | Series Review
Disclaimer is a new AppleTV+ series starring Cate Blanchett, Kevin Kline, and Sacha Baron Cohen.
Disclaimer IMDB synopsis:
Follows Catherine Ravenscroft, a television documentary journalist whose work has been built on revealing the transgressions of long-respected institutions.
Cyn's Corner has a Discord server now! If you would like to join, here is the link: / discord
Sorrow in Raindrops by Keys of Moon | / keysofmoon
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
creativecommon...
Music promoted by www.chosic.com...
CONTACT INFO
Email:
[e-mail]
Mailing address:
Cyn's Corner
101 S. Main Street
Suite 8 Box 1040
Hiawassee, GA 30546
SOCIAL MEDIA
All links: allmylinks.com...
SUPPORT
If you would like to support my channel:
Donate: www.paypal.com...
Buy a coffee for Cyn's Corner: ko-fi.com/cyns...
Patreon: / cynscorner
Subscribestar: www.subscribes...
MUSIC
Channel music created by my cousin, Dane Bryant Frazier, a super talented composer:
/ dfraz96
********************
#disclaimer #review #appletvplus #cateblanchett #kevinkline #sachabaroncohen

[@TheRainshine79]

I totally agree that this show is awesome. I am still missing the 6th episode which airs tomorrow in Germany. I stumbled over your review since I felt there are certain plotholes that I have problems to forgive and wanted to know if there might be good explanations for them: ### SPOILER WARNING#### Like why are the parents of Jonathan so hateful against this woman (and also her son who as absolutely nothing to do with all of this). She did not cause her lover and their son to die - she did not manipulate him to do things he would not have wanted to do and never asked him to rescue her son which was the reason for his death. The only thing that makes me despise her, is how she cheated on her husband (and never took responsibility for this by telling him the truth) and that she actually wished this boy to die when she realized that he might become a threat to her life and marriage. But even if she was so selfish, how should Jonathans mother have known all those things to write them in the book? I can not see how they could have found any prove that this woman could have been responsible for their sons death and feeling entitled to ruin her life like this. I mean, her husband definetly deserved the truth and Mrs Ravencroft deserves his reactions to it. But not like this. Given how real all people seem to be with their feelings and thoughts, I have difficulties to accept this huge logical gap since it is so essential to the whole story arch. Now that I have seen your review, I have high hopes that the big twist will give us a new angle to look at everything which makes this gap go away. Thank you for your review. And I have to say, you are so right about Apple TV - it really stands out in terms of how much high quality content is being released compared to any other streaming service. I really hope they will survive to give us more great stories like this one.

[@CynsCorner]

I can't say anything without getting into spoilers you don't know yet. But suffice it to say that the mother believes if it weren't for the "illicit" affair they had, her son would be alive and that the "cheating wife" got away with everything and yet their son died - he paid the ultimate price and she didn't. So her resentment is HUGE. Curious to hear your thoughts after you see the final episode. And thank you so much for watching and commenting!

[@TheRainshine79]

@@CynsCorner Thanks for not spoilering me :) I stil havent watched this. I feel tho very strongly that based on the information I have, that the father of Jonathan has no right to behave like this. This time with this woman could have been an extraordinary positive experience for Jonathan - something which he could have carried with him his whole life. It was his own naiveness to not respect this womans wish to separate and leave her alone. He behaved as a foolish young naive guy that he was the entire series. And this caused his death in the end - he went for this womans child because he thought it might have changed Catherines mind. Because he wanted something he could not have. Regardless of how I feel about Catherine (I really do not like her at all), I think that she is not guilty of this young man's death. But maybe this is just some takeaway from this show, that people do not act rational or fair or whatever causing pain for others. All of this drama played out as it did because the people involved just acted directly on their desires and feelings. Catherine just blindly went for the lust she wanted to feel ignoring her son and husband, Jonathan did the same ignoring his girlfiend who went home to help her mother and the wish of Catherine to end their affair, Jonathans mother seemed to not even try to get beyond her grief about her sons death and buried herself in it and separated from her husband and treated him badly and he as a consquence suffered so much that he does not even care to destroy other people's lifes (even if they were not involved at all) like the one of Catherine's son (the way that Jonathan's father within his inner dialogue calls him a useless person who deserves to suffer after the vacuum cleaner shopping scene).

[@TheRainshine79]

@@CynsCorner Hey again, I finally watched the final episode with my wife. Although I really did not expect this turn of events, I am at least happy to somewhat have been right with Jonathans parents who buried themselves in misery and hatred. It is sad to see that the Ravencrofts marriage is shattered - although I really do think that Cathrines conclusion that her husband is happier with her being raped than her cheating on him is false. Of course after all that self-questioning and self-doubt, he must have felt some relieve that in all those years his wife truely loved him and did not cheat on him because she was not really attracted to him. I really do not think that he took what happened to her very easy. But then again, I can also understand how Catherine can not forgive him not listening to her and treating her like this. It just all feels kinda orchestrated and a little forced so the drama is as big as possible. Also seeing their son in this drug hell was emotionally destroying. I have just a couple of things that I find surprising in the turn of events and maybe even questionable when it comes to the story itself: 1) How can a man of that young age already be that aggressive towards women? 2) How can the photos look so playful when being shot in a situation like this? 3) Why does Jonathan try to rescue her son after what happened? Somehow this behaviour does not add up for me. 4) Why did Catherine consider herself to be a bad person, when she got the book? She did nothing wrong to this boy in neither the "version of reality" that the book described nor in her own. Imho, that moment would be the one to finally tell her husband what has happened. But well, lets not be to picky. It was intruiging to watch. :) Overall, I liked the show for demonstrating that being truthful, open minded and at least try to make the best out of your life and not letting yourself go can be a positive influence for yourself and others. How being interested in the perspective of other people can help things clear up. Still, this is nothing I would recommend for a feel good night. What did you think?

[@CynsCorner]

It's definitely not a "feel good" story for sure! I felt the same way you did about Catherine's conclusion regarding her husband - her assertion that he was "happier" with her being raped than her cheating on him was exactly the thing I was mentioning in the end. Her logic made zero sense. Especially because it completely ignored the fact that her son had had a similar reaction, but she didn't cut ties with him. It's completely normal or natural that thinking that someone has cheated is going to generate negative feelings because cheating is such an immense betrayal. Regarding the other things you mentioned: 1 - This sort of thing isn't all that unusual. I've listened to so many true crime stories where aggressiveness towards women has started very early with some men. 2 - Because she was faking her presentation in those photos to protect her son, and because the audience was being misled by an untrustworthy narrator (the mother), so that is how we perceived those photos. 3 - Because even bad people have done "good" things. I mentioned this to another commenter, giving examples such as Ted Bundy working on a suicide hotline, Hitler passing laws to protect animals (and liking his Jewish doctor), Al Capone opening a soup kitchen for the homeless/poor, and a violent prison inmate who saved an animal shelter worker from a pit bull attack. Most people are nuanced human beings, not just black or white when it comes to goodness or badness. 4 - Because she still felt guilt that she intentionally allowed him to die ... that she actively WANTED him to die. Things like that still leave a heavy burden on a lot of people.

[@jonio214]

I have to mention a comparison thriller: The Talented Mr. Ripley' - another story that plays with viewer sympathies, but does it masterfully. In Ripley, we're drawn into Tom's perspective even as we watch him commit horrible acts, and the narrative stays psychologically consistent. We understand his motives and desperation, even when we're horrified by his choices. That's skilled manipulation of audience emotions. 'Disclaimer,' on the other hand, feels like it's playing a game of 'gotcha' with viewers, throwing in twists that undermine rather than deepen its character study. Both works try to complicate our moral judgments, but Ripley earns its complexity while 'Disclaimer' just seems to stumble into confusion.

[@billybobby5247]

This is how I felt as well. The ending cheapened the whole experience for me. I didn't feel the moral lesson was taught but instead tricked into manifestation. This story tried to be 'The 6th Sense' and instead made 0 sense in the end. We're led to believe this woman is letting her job and marriage fall apart because she just can't seem to get a word in, even with her husband. All these men who were oh so cunning for 90% of the story, are required to suspend their identities just to make sure the final twist gets driven home. Maybe the strangest thing in all this was the divorce at the end. The writer wants us to believe that the divorce was justified because the husband would rather she be raped than commit an affair. Yet builds a successful world around a woman who's been raped and ultimately destroys it through threat of an affair. Making the case for the husband's logic while simultaneously demonizing him for it was ultimately confusing.

[@CynsCorner]

@billybobby5247 The divorce part and her reasoning behind it is the thing I was referring to at the end. That is the main issue I had.

[@billybobby5247]

​@CynsCorner lol I didn't finish watching the video and went back. Funny how we arrived at the same conclusion 😂

[@CynsCorner]

ha!!!!!!

[@N_Loco_Parenthesis]

I often wonder, with these adaptations, which would be quicker, to watch the series or read the book? With this one, I think I get the gist from the trailer.

[@CynsCorner]

Appearances can be deceiving. As far as the length of the novel, it *might* be quicker to read the book. The audiobook itself is almost 8.5 hours long though.

[@NassPeace]

Cate Blanchett ❤

[@DidYouZThat]

I have never heard of this show but even you’re positive review makes me want to check it out :-)

[@CynsCorner]

I hadn't either until I was surfing Apple TV+'s screener site and saw it. Was instantly intrigued!

[@littlefruitster2667]

It’s Brilliant!!!

[@CynsCorner]

Right?! So good!!

[@littlefruitster2667]

@@CynsCorner I have watched it several times..Thursday can’t come soon enough.

[@joecoppola3974]

Hey cyn ❤❤❤

[@jonio214]

omg, give me a break.. this was the worst. I cannot understand all these raving reviews. Major potholes (why did he try to save the boy if he was so awful) I thought would resolve by the end were never played out. Total waste of time.

[@CynsCorner]

Except what you perceive as a "major plothole" isn't one. Why did Ted Bundy work on a suicide hotline? Why did Hitler pass laws to protect animals? Why did he like his Jewish doctor? Why did Al Capone open a soup kitchen for the homeless/poor? Why did a violent prison inmate save an animal shelter worker from a pit bull attack? There are countless examples of notoriously awful people doing "good" things. Very few (if any) people are ONLY good or bad - there is nuance to pretty much everyone. So him jumping into the water to save the child in danger is hardly a plothole.

[@sunsetguy37]

It is possible that some people will not fall into the traps of judgments that the viewers are tempted to, but the confusing affect was not an accident. Some audiences will also not admit their internal critique on the actions suggested, or that they lost that we are led, primarily by the dead mother or the dead boy, with pushes from the Kline-father. The series is a emotional experiment on the viewer. Some will reject that any of us are so predictable. Look at how USA was predictable in last election- Dem's lost the plot, while being sucked into their own narratives. The GOP used state initiatives to appease the abortion advocates, which took away the Dem's ace. Oops, I digress.🙏

[@jonio214]

@@CynsCorner Your examples about moral complexity are interesting, but they miss my point. My issue isn't that bad people can't do good things - it's how the show handled its narrative structure. It built one story about grooming and manipulation, then completely shifted gears at the end. The drowning scene felt less like thoughtful complexity and more like confused storytelling. The problem isn't about good/bad binaries - it's about coherent storytelling.

[@jonio214]

@@sunsetguy37 While I understand the show might have been attempting to challenge viewer assumptions and judgments, I don't think deliberately confusing storytelling equals sophisticated storytelling. Yes, we're led by different narrative perspectives, but a good psychological thriller should subvert expectations while maintaining internal logic. The issue isn't about being 'predictable' or resisting manipulation - it's about whether the story's twists and revelations feel earned rather than arbitrary. The show seemed more interested in playing mind games than delivering a coherent narrative that respected its serious themes and its viewers' intelligence.

[@CynsCorner]

It doesn't really miss your point' because your point seems based on a flawed perception. The false "grooming" story was presented intentionally, to trick the viewer into thinking they knew the actual situation (because that was the viewpoint the mother had - which was not accurate), but the "grooming" narrative wasn't the truth to being with. The audience was intentionally misled, so when the truth came out, it felt like a shock. The twist was the whole point. To reveal that the grieving mother was not a reliable narrator. And that our feelings about Blanchett's character had been based on an untrue narrative. There wasn't anything confused or incoherent about the storytelling.

[@sunsetguy37]

You didn't like it? It is possible that some people will not fall into the traps of judgments that the viewers are tempted to, but the confusing affect was not an accident. Some audiences will also not admit their internal critique on the actions suggested, or that they lost that we are led, primarily by the dead mother of the dead boy (stranger), with pushes from the Kline-father's obsession for revenge. The series is a emotional experiment on the viewer. (Disclaimer) Some will reject that any of us are so predictable. Look at how USA was predictable in last election- Dem's lost the plot, while being sucked into their own narratives. The GOP used state initiatives to appease the abortion advocates, which took away the Dem's ace in the hole. Oops, I digress.🙏🇨🇦

[@jonio214]

Calling something 'an emotional experiment on the viewer' doesn't automatically make it good art. Yes, the show deliberately plays with our judgments and perspectives, but to what end? The shifting narrative between the dead mother, the boy, and Kline's revenge obsession felt more like manipulation for manipulation's sake rather than serving a deeper purpose. Good psychological thrillers don't just confuse viewers - they make their twists meaningful. Being unpredictable isn't enough if the story itself doesn't hold together in a satisfying way.