Come diventare leader di una setta

This is a great idea for a tv show. It is very interesting and I am learning a lot. I will try to use this stuff when I try to set up my own cult. My favourite thing about the show is that it is literally a step by step guide for how to start a cult which is brilliant. There are some good animated sequences which tell the story of these creepy cult leaders. Peter Dinklage is great as the narrator and he produced it too. As long as you don't take it too seriously this is a fun and entertaining show. The best way to view it would actually be to study how these cult leaders manipulate people so you can start to identify when people are manipulating you. Sadly the world is full of psychopaths and so it is good to know what you are up against.

I had no idea Peter Dinklage was such a beautiful narrator. His voice is silky smooth, and execution is well timed and witty.

The show appeals to a certain audience by presenting as a "how to" manual which degrades the content in my opinion. It could have stood on its own without the sales pitch, and without a lot of the kitschy animated sequences.

Cults are fascinating so I don't regret watching the series, but I believe the format presented as a lost opportunity for a less dumbed down version of the content.

Content is 8/10, delivery 5/10, animations 2/10 and narration 10/10.

Watch and enjoy. Don't become a cult leader.

Over sensationalized, inaccurate, and containing dangerous generalizations. Cults are a fascinating topic but there are countless better documentaries and podcasts out there. The problems start before the opening credits are finished. An "expert" stated that most cults end in bloodshed and death which is a both blatantly false and harmful. The presenters, not the cult survivors, tell there tales with glee. They almost seem to admire what cult leaders have accomplished and have a total lack of sensitivity to the people affected. I can only hope they weren't in the same space as the survivors that were interviewed.

As a fan of cult documentaries, movies and podcasts (e.g. The Vow, Martha Marcy May Marlene), I was excited to dive into this series. To say that I was disappointed with HTBACL would be an understatement. I didn't make it past the first episode, in which viewers are bombarded with various examples of cult leader strategies in a sensationalistic and sarcastic tone. The tone is basically: look at all these silly and quirky cult leaders who manipulated and harmed their followerz, LMAO; and like OMG some peeplz died; isn't that, like, so crazy?

I appreciated the interviews of former cult followers describing their experiences and current perspectives, but we receive these interviews as brief clips in a piecemeal fashion that doesn't allow us meaningfully connect with them and their subjective experiences.

The pace of the first episode was intolerable for me, as were the narrative and editing choices. I understand that HTBACL's focus is on identifying and communicating the tactics used by cult leaders, but I would have appreciated a more slowed-down and focused approach. In one episode, you'll hear examples from 15+ cults, offered to you at a frantic pace alongside random video footage, photos, as well as illustrated reinactments. The result (in my opinion): a superficial, meandering, emotionally bereft docuseries from which I learned absolutely nothing of significance.

Peter Dinklage returns to perform sarcastic narration in another Netflix documentary.

Peter Dinklage is awesome. If you don't think he's awesome, you need to go watch The Station Agent. However, his name is not really the first that would come to my mind if Netflix said to me, "We're making a sarcastic documentary. Who's your dream narrator?" But after his turn at talking to us about the rules of how to become a tyrant, I'm glad he's back.

The topic of cult leaders is just as lurid and interesting as tyrants. It's also a pretty fluid transition talking about tyrants who prey on their citizens to cult leaders who prey on their followers. The problem is that it sometimes feels like we're covering very similar ground. Perhaps they're trying to say cult leaders and tyrants are not so different. If so, that's not exactly a deep thought.

Again, the choices will likely cause a lot of consternation. Would anyone have really complained if they had skimmed over the history of Heaven's Gate? Their history was more interesting than one might expect, but I doubt people are dying to know what Heaven's Gate was up to in the 1970s. It did lead to an intriguing concept, though: how do you deal with failed prophecies?

A failed prophecy seems like it would completely derail your cult. The truth is that sometimes cults bounce back stronger than ever. The reasons are really interesting, and they could go a long way to explaining why people stick with cults despite their ridiculousness. I mean, how do you stick around when someone says, "I'm the messiah, and I need you to have sex with me and mortgage your house"?

There are so many notorious cults that are missing. In many cases, there's no mention at all or just a trivial throwaway buried in the middle of an episode. And what can you say about Jim Jones or Charles Manson in 30 minutes that we haven't already seen several times before? Especially with them, it might have been better to talk more generically. Yes, we all know Manson was a failed rock star.

This is likely the sort of thing that would have sent me looking deeper if I had seen it when I was a teenager, and I think that's a good thing. So, despite its flaws, I have to say that I'm glad it's out there, and I'm glad that Peter Dinklage is back. I was leaning toward a 7, but I'll give it an 8 so encourage more sarcastic docuseries with him.