Search
curio.io - Guardian, FT, Aeon
Magazines & Newspapers and News
App
Listen to the finest journalism in the world from top publications The Guardian, Financial Times...
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Pirates! An Adventure With Scientists (2012) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Ardman Animation returned to the big screen in 2012 with this adaptation of the Children novel series, The Pirates!.
After building model sets in order to plan out a CGI animation similar to their 2011 Arthur Christmas, they quickly decided to return to their roots and this 3-D adventure was filmed as a stop-motion movie and is much the better for it.
The story itself, whilst following real life characters such as Queen Victoria and Charles Darwin, is pure, adulterated fiction, not quite from the school of Ridley Scott in which he claims to be making historical epics whilst taking liberties, I grant you, but still, I’m still having to explain to my 5 year old daughter that Queen Victoria was a super villain as portrayed here! We follow a crew of Pirates, lead by The Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant) as he attempts to win the converted pirate of the year but to no avail.
After an encounter with Charles Darwin (David Tennent), he learns that the ships “parrot”, Polly, is in fact a thought to be extinct Dodo and the pair along with his crew, return to England in order to win Scientist Of The Year as well. But Queen Victoria wants the bird, in order to eat it with other world leaders who gather to taste rarest cuisine.
My main issue with this film is that Victoria is presented a villain and this is now how my 5 year old daughter, who loves this film by the way, now looks upon as a baddie! But other than that this is a witty film built on wit. Every frame contains a joke of some kind, whether it be in the background, audible or part of the action.
Ardman’s style is unmistakable and quintessentially British and I suspect that whilst some international audiences will find this quaint, it will probably be lost on many.
But this is an underrated adventure, with lovable characters, villains and all told at a good pace.
Not something to be used for your history homework but still and enjoyable romp none the less.
After building model sets in order to plan out a CGI animation similar to their 2011 Arthur Christmas, they quickly decided to return to their roots and this 3-D adventure was filmed as a stop-motion movie and is much the better for it.
The story itself, whilst following real life characters such as Queen Victoria and Charles Darwin, is pure, adulterated fiction, not quite from the school of Ridley Scott in which he claims to be making historical epics whilst taking liberties, I grant you, but still, I’m still having to explain to my 5 year old daughter that Queen Victoria was a super villain as portrayed here! We follow a crew of Pirates, lead by The Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant) as he attempts to win the converted pirate of the year but to no avail.
After an encounter with Charles Darwin (David Tennent), he learns that the ships “parrot”, Polly, is in fact a thought to be extinct Dodo and the pair along with his crew, return to England in order to win Scientist Of The Year as well. But Queen Victoria wants the bird, in order to eat it with other world leaders who gather to taste rarest cuisine.
My main issue with this film is that Victoria is presented a villain and this is now how my 5 year old daughter, who loves this film by the way, now looks upon as a baddie! But other than that this is a witty film built on wit. Every frame contains a joke of some kind, whether it be in the background, audible or part of the action.
Ardman’s style is unmistakable and quintessentially British and I suspect that whilst some international audiences will find this quaint, it will probably be lost on many.
But this is an underrated adventure, with lovable characters, villains and all told at a good pace.
Not something to be used for your history homework but still and enjoyable romp none the less.
BizCanvas The Better Business Model Canvas App
Business and Productivity
App
Wetter you want to evaluate business models (like the Osterwalder canvas), marketing projects,...
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated A House at the Bottom of a Lake in Books
Jan 31, 2019
I’m a big Josh Malerman fan, with the exception of Unbury Carol which, if you read my DNF on it, was absolutely horrid. That said, when I came across A House at the Bottom of a Lake on Amazon’s Kindle Unlimited, I was a bit leery. Despite being a Malerman fan, I hadn’t heard of this title and… well, it was on KU. That alone struck me as a red flag. Nonetheless, I grabbed it and spent the night reading it. It wasn’t awful, but it’s definitely not Bird Box level great.
A House at the Bottom of a Lake is a coming of age story, one of those ones where the reader experiences the final moments of the main characters’ innocence. The house itself symbolizes the imaginative youthfulness and innocence of the more childlike mind, while the canoe represents the path to adulthood and the obstacles that must be overcome. Just like life experiences change us, the events leading up to the conclusion of the story change the canoe in ways that cannot be undone: paint chipping, dents, scratches, etc. I’d provide another example to support this theory, but that would, unfortunately, mean giving away a major spoiler to the story–so I won’t.
As far as the characters go, I found Amelia and James to be your stereotypical awkward teenagers. There is a bit of a disconnect between their age and their assumed behavior, leaning to the idea that these two kids are well-behaved and normally aren’t risk takers. Because of this, there are several moments where the story is dull.
There’s no doubt that this is a piece of work by Josh Malerman; it has his style all over it. That is, it’s meant to be suspenseful. However, the manner in which Malerman writes A House on the Bottom of a Lake struck me as a bit more jarring than edge-of-your-seat, ohmigawd what is happening!? This is probably because Malerman is a little too friendly with the parentheses in this book.
A House on the Bottom of a Lake is a great one-time read. It’s enjoyable and it has its moments, and the bond shared between Amelia and James feels realistic. It’s definitely something I’d recommend to a Malerman fan, though it isn’t worthy of a pedestal of its own.
A House at the Bottom of a Lake is a coming of age story, one of those ones where the reader experiences the final moments of the main characters’ innocence. The house itself symbolizes the imaginative youthfulness and innocence of the more childlike mind, while the canoe represents the path to adulthood and the obstacles that must be overcome. Just like life experiences change us, the events leading up to the conclusion of the story change the canoe in ways that cannot be undone: paint chipping, dents, scratches, etc. I’d provide another example to support this theory, but that would, unfortunately, mean giving away a major spoiler to the story–so I won’t.
As far as the characters go, I found Amelia and James to be your stereotypical awkward teenagers. There is a bit of a disconnect between their age and their assumed behavior, leaning to the idea that these two kids are well-behaved and normally aren’t risk takers. Because of this, there are several moments where the story is dull.
There’s no doubt that this is a piece of work by Josh Malerman; it has his style all over it. That is, it’s meant to be suspenseful. However, the manner in which Malerman writes A House on the Bottom of a Lake struck me as a bit more jarring than edge-of-your-seat, ohmigawd what is happening!? This is probably because Malerman is a little too friendly with the parentheses in this book.
A House on the Bottom of a Lake is a great one-time read. It’s enjoyable and it has its moments, and the bond shared between Amelia and James feels realistic. It’s definitely something I’d recommend to a Malerman fan, though it isn’t worthy of a pedestal of its own.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The Arthurian legend: but with Cockneys.
So, bit difficult to describe this one… so I asked my bloke Alfie from Londinium to explain what’s it all about…
“‘Ere, OK bruv. So this is dun by that geezer Guy Ritchie – yer know, the one that dun that Sherlock Holmes with the Iron Man geezer Robert Junior Downey, that one. His new film is a rip-roarin’ acshun movie what retells da Arfurian legend in a novel new way.
That Hulk bloke Eric Bana is Arfur’s farfer an’ ‘e’s ‘avin’ a few problems wiv ‘is bruvver Vortigern (Jude Law, who’s a bi’ ov a cockney ‘imself, but ‘ere speaks like a posh bloke. Know what I mean?) So ‘e (Vortigern dat is) gets some magical ‘elp from some slippery watery bints in a puddle and so ‘is dad puts ‘is God Forbid in a boat an’ sends ‘im down da river ter The Smoke ter live wiv some prozzies.
But ‘e grows up big an’ strong an’ ‘andy wiv a sword. His friends tell ‘im ter get aaaht ov town as da King’s blokes are lookin’ fer da young geezer who would be king. An’ e says like “Scapa Flow sowf ov da river at dis time ov night. Are yew mad?”. So e gets caught like an’ gets tested by some famous football bloke ter pull a big sword aaaht ov just a random bi’ ov stone (nod, nod, wink wink, nice twist – ssshhh!).
The Vortigern bloke is very cross an’ tries to kill ‘im but ‘e gets rescued by some bird who can make birds, lol, an’ other fings do what she wants. So can Arfur beat ‘is uncle? Gawdon Bennet, I’m not gon’a tell yew da whole darn fing! Yer’ll ‘ave ter go an’ watch i’ ter find out.”
Thanks Alfie. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
The quirky style of Guy Ritchie isn’t one that you would think would translate well to the Arthurian setting, and as the film starts you tend to think you were right! But if you give it a chance it wears you down into acceptance and then – ultimately – a lot of enjoyment.
Jude Law is deliciously evil mixed with a heavy dose of mad, and delivers the goods.
Charlie Hunnam who plays Arthur (no, I hadn’t heard of him either but he was in the “Lost City of Z”) does a decent job as the medieval hunk, although he seems at time to have taken voice coaching in ‘Olde-English’ from Russell Crowe, since the lad’s Geordie accent seems to wander from Cockney through central southern England to Liverpudlian at one point (definitely channelling a young John Lennon)! Relative newcomer, the Spanish actress Astrid Bergès-Frisbey is effectively weird as the mage.
Particularly noteworthy (no pun intended) is the superb action soundtrack by Daniel Pemberton (“Steve Jobs“, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.“) which propels the action really well and contains some standout moments.
Also a standout in the technical categories is the editing by James Herbert, who did both of Downey Junior’s “Sherlock Holmes” films (in a similar style) and also “Edge of Tomorrow“. The style is typified with Arthur’s growth to manhood in the streets of London which is stylishly done.
I saw the film in 3D – not a particularly favourite format – but quite well done, although falls into the “trying too hard” category at times with lots of drifting embers… you know the sort.
It’s not bloody Shakespeare. It’s not even the bloody Arthurian legend as you know it. But it is bloody good fun if you let it in.
“‘Ere, OK bruv. So this is dun by that geezer Guy Ritchie – yer know, the one that dun that Sherlock Holmes with the Iron Man geezer Robert Junior Downey, that one. His new film is a rip-roarin’ acshun movie what retells da Arfurian legend in a novel new way.
That Hulk bloke Eric Bana is Arfur’s farfer an’ ‘e’s ‘avin’ a few problems wiv ‘is bruvver Vortigern (Jude Law, who’s a bi’ ov a cockney ‘imself, but ‘ere speaks like a posh bloke. Know what I mean?) So ‘e (Vortigern dat is) gets some magical ‘elp from some slippery watery bints in a puddle and so ‘is dad puts ‘is God Forbid in a boat an’ sends ‘im down da river ter The Smoke ter live wiv some prozzies.
But ‘e grows up big an’ strong an’ ‘andy wiv a sword. His friends tell ‘im ter get aaaht ov town as da King’s blokes are lookin’ fer da young geezer who would be king. An’ e says like “Scapa Flow sowf ov da river at dis time ov night. Are yew mad?”. So e gets caught like an’ gets tested by some famous football bloke ter pull a big sword aaaht ov just a random bi’ ov stone (nod, nod, wink wink, nice twist – ssshhh!).
The Vortigern bloke is very cross an’ tries to kill ‘im but ‘e gets rescued by some bird who can make birds, lol, an’ other fings do what she wants. So can Arfur beat ‘is uncle? Gawdon Bennet, I’m not gon’a tell yew da whole darn fing! Yer’ll ‘ave ter go an’ watch i’ ter find out.”
Thanks Alfie. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
The quirky style of Guy Ritchie isn’t one that you would think would translate well to the Arthurian setting, and as the film starts you tend to think you were right! But if you give it a chance it wears you down into acceptance and then – ultimately – a lot of enjoyment.
Jude Law is deliciously evil mixed with a heavy dose of mad, and delivers the goods.
Charlie Hunnam who plays Arthur (no, I hadn’t heard of him either but he was in the “Lost City of Z”) does a decent job as the medieval hunk, although he seems at time to have taken voice coaching in ‘Olde-English’ from Russell Crowe, since the lad’s Geordie accent seems to wander from Cockney through central southern England to Liverpudlian at one point (definitely channelling a young John Lennon)! Relative newcomer, the Spanish actress Astrid Bergès-Frisbey is effectively weird as the mage.
Particularly noteworthy (no pun intended) is the superb action soundtrack by Daniel Pemberton (“Steve Jobs“, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.“) which propels the action really well and contains some standout moments.
Also a standout in the technical categories is the editing by James Herbert, who did both of Downey Junior’s “Sherlock Holmes” films (in a similar style) and also “Edge of Tomorrow“. The style is typified with Arthur’s growth to manhood in the streets of London which is stylishly done.
I saw the film in 3D – not a particularly favourite format – but quite well done, although falls into the “trying too hard” category at times with lots of drifting embers… you know the sort.
It’s not bloody Shakespeare. It’s not even the bloody Arthurian legend as you know it. But it is bloody good fun if you let it in.
Elmo Loves You!
Book and Education
6.0
Rate It
App
This is a storybook and early-learning reading app, which will help teach your child about love and...
Darren (1599 KP) rated Paddington 2 (2017) in Movies
Nov 26, 2019
Verdict: Charming and Entertaining
Story: Paddington 2 starts as Paddington is a welcome member of the Brown family, the neighbours are always willing to accept his help and now Paddington sees a gift for his Aunt Lucy in Mr Gruber (Broadbent) antique shop and decides to get a job to pay for it.
Just about to buy the present, Paddington catches a thief breaking into the store and goes in chase, only to find himself captured and thrown in prison. Paddington soon makes friends with the prisoners including the feared Knuckles (Gleeson), while the Brown family Henry (Bonneville) and Mary (Hawkins) try to free Paddington, learning that the once famous actor Phoenix Buchanan (Grant) is behind the crime.
Thoughts on Paddington 2
Characters – Paddington is the kind-hearted marmalade loving bear living in London, he has made countless friends both human and animal, he wants to get a present for his Aunt which sees him trying to get a job. He does try to do the right thing by helping with a robbery only to be found guilty. Paddington always the people bear makes friends, while believing that everybody has good about them. Henry, Mary Brown and Mrs Bird treat Paddington like their third child and will do everything to help get him out of prison. Phoenix Buchanan is the once famous actor that has moved in next door to the Browns, he is very eccentric and trying to rebuild his fortune which sees him stealing the book and learning about the clues in the book, always trying to stay ahead of the people trying to capture him, using his different costumes from his career. Knuckles McGinty is the prison chef, he is feared by the other inmates, but Paddington breaks down those barriers showing him to be a good man inside, one that could bring the prisoners together.
Performances – When we go into the performances, the original cast are all wonderfully, but it is the addition members of the cast that truly shine, Hugh Grant practically steals every scene, while Brendan Gleeson proves that he can be the funniest man on camera, these two are outstanding in every single scene they are in.
Story – The story here follows Paddington’s next adventure as he tries to give his Aunt a present of seeing London only for him to get framed and thrown in prison, while the Brown family try to figure out who really committed the crime. This is a coming together story, it shows how somebody’s good nature can change everything in life and without them around you will notice the change in life. The idea that Paddington is facing off against an evil washed up actor is entertaining too, though it would have been nice to see more of the treasure hunt side of the story. While most of the story is largely predictable it does have a huge heart behind it and shows that good people will rub off on others to show kindness can be a change to life for the better.
Adventure/Comedy – The adventure side of the film seems to be focused more on the villains adventure, more than seeing what Paddington must get up to, the comedy comes from seeing just what Paddington gets himself into and the trouble he causes with his innocent nature.
Settings – We keep London as the main backdrop for the film, while we do have Paddington in a prison and the major landmarks being used as clues to a treasure, most places are locations we are expecting to see in any London based movie.
Special Effects – The effects are brilliant putting Paddington in every scene like he is really there, it never looks out of place which shows just how far this technology has come.
Scene of the Movie – Lets make marmalade.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Surely, Mr Gruber would be the one who decides whether to press charges against Paddington?
Final Thoughts – This is a entertaining, big hearted movie that could be enjoyed by the whole family and would leave a smile on everybody’s face.
Overall: Big Heart Movie.
Story: Paddington 2 starts as Paddington is a welcome member of the Brown family, the neighbours are always willing to accept his help and now Paddington sees a gift for his Aunt Lucy in Mr Gruber (Broadbent) antique shop and decides to get a job to pay for it.
Just about to buy the present, Paddington catches a thief breaking into the store and goes in chase, only to find himself captured and thrown in prison. Paddington soon makes friends with the prisoners including the feared Knuckles (Gleeson), while the Brown family Henry (Bonneville) and Mary (Hawkins) try to free Paddington, learning that the once famous actor Phoenix Buchanan (Grant) is behind the crime.
Thoughts on Paddington 2
Characters – Paddington is the kind-hearted marmalade loving bear living in London, he has made countless friends both human and animal, he wants to get a present for his Aunt which sees him trying to get a job. He does try to do the right thing by helping with a robbery only to be found guilty. Paddington always the people bear makes friends, while believing that everybody has good about them. Henry, Mary Brown and Mrs Bird treat Paddington like their third child and will do everything to help get him out of prison. Phoenix Buchanan is the once famous actor that has moved in next door to the Browns, he is very eccentric and trying to rebuild his fortune which sees him stealing the book and learning about the clues in the book, always trying to stay ahead of the people trying to capture him, using his different costumes from his career. Knuckles McGinty is the prison chef, he is feared by the other inmates, but Paddington breaks down those barriers showing him to be a good man inside, one that could bring the prisoners together.
Performances – When we go into the performances, the original cast are all wonderfully, but it is the addition members of the cast that truly shine, Hugh Grant practically steals every scene, while Brendan Gleeson proves that he can be the funniest man on camera, these two are outstanding in every single scene they are in.
Story – The story here follows Paddington’s next adventure as he tries to give his Aunt a present of seeing London only for him to get framed and thrown in prison, while the Brown family try to figure out who really committed the crime. This is a coming together story, it shows how somebody’s good nature can change everything in life and without them around you will notice the change in life. The idea that Paddington is facing off against an evil washed up actor is entertaining too, though it would have been nice to see more of the treasure hunt side of the story. While most of the story is largely predictable it does have a huge heart behind it and shows that good people will rub off on others to show kindness can be a change to life for the better.
Adventure/Comedy – The adventure side of the film seems to be focused more on the villains adventure, more than seeing what Paddington must get up to, the comedy comes from seeing just what Paddington gets himself into and the trouble he causes with his innocent nature.
Settings – We keep London as the main backdrop for the film, while we do have Paddington in a prison and the major landmarks being used as clues to a treasure, most places are locations we are expecting to see in any London based movie.
Special Effects – The effects are brilliant putting Paddington in every scene like he is really there, it never looks out of place which shows just how far this technology has come.
Scene of the Movie – Lets make marmalade.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Surely, Mr Gruber would be the one who decides whether to press charges against Paddington?
Final Thoughts – This is a entertaining, big hearted movie that could be enjoyed by the whole family and would leave a smile on everybody’s face.
Overall: Big Heart Movie.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Tomorrowland (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A CGI disaster
Disney has an intriguing track record when it comes to movies. The multi-billion dollar company has produced some incredible films and some absolute stinkers, with its live-action department bearing the brunt of this misfortune.
Here, The Incredibles director Brad Bird is hoping to add another great film to his CV with Tomorrowland: A World Beyond, but does this George Clooney fantasy adventure tick all the right boxes?
Tomorrowland is based on Disney’s adventure ride of the same name and like The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, requires a completely original story to ensure it translates well onto the big screen.
George Clooney, Hugh Laurie and Britt Robertson star in a film that is visually stunning but horrifically uneven with a story that doesn’t make much sense. Its vague environmental message is one of the only things to take away from it.
Clooney stars as Frank Walker, a disgruntled inventor who transports Robertson’s Casey Newton to a place in time and space known only as Tomorrowland. Once there, they must change the past in order to secure their future.
Bird’s direction is as usual, supremely confident with stunning CGI landscapes of the metropolis being beautifully juxtaposed with the Earth we know and love. There are scenes here that look like something from an art installation.
Clooney is as dynamic as ever in between all the special effects and Robertson channels Jennifer Lawrence in her role as the plucky teenager, but Tomorrowland showcases Hugh Laurie the best. His David Nix is an intriguing character who is sorely underused with the CGI being the main focus here.
Unfortunately, as countless blockbusters have proved time and time again, brilliant special effects don’t equal a brilliant film and Tomorrowland falls head first into that trap. Yes, the other dimension is on the whole, breath-taking but there’s such a lack of detail anywhere else that it feels decidedly hollow.
This isn’t to say that we have a film like Transformers: Age of Extinction on our hands but it doesn’t reach the heights of Saving Mr Banks or even the Narnia films.
Being stuck in the middle isn’t the best place to be for a movie with a rumoured production cost of $200m and it’s this lack of identity that may hold Tomorrowland back when it comes to box-office performance.
There’s also some debate over the target audience. With a 12A rating, you’d expect a similar tone to The Hunger Games or even The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but what the audience gets is a PG movie with a couple of scenes of violence, pushing it over into the coveted ‘teen market’.
Overall, Tomorrowland is a fun if entirely forgetful fantasy adventure brimming with CGI and unfortunately not much else. Hugh Laurie is an eccentric and painfully underused presence and that pretty much sums up the entire production.
Everything feels a little underdone, like there was something else under the surface waiting to break free that just didn’t come to fruition.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/24/a-cgi-disaster-tomorrowland-review/
Here, The Incredibles director Brad Bird is hoping to add another great film to his CV with Tomorrowland: A World Beyond, but does this George Clooney fantasy adventure tick all the right boxes?
Tomorrowland is based on Disney’s adventure ride of the same name and like The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, requires a completely original story to ensure it translates well onto the big screen.
George Clooney, Hugh Laurie and Britt Robertson star in a film that is visually stunning but horrifically uneven with a story that doesn’t make much sense. Its vague environmental message is one of the only things to take away from it.
Clooney stars as Frank Walker, a disgruntled inventor who transports Robertson’s Casey Newton to a place in time and space known only as Tomorrowland. Once there, they must change the past in order to secure their future.
Bird’s direction is as usual, supremely confident with stunning CGI landscapes of the metropolis being beautifully juxtaposed with the Earth we know and love. There are scenes here that look like something from an art installation.
Clooney is as dynamic as ever in between all the special effects and Robertson channels Jennifer Lawrence in her role as the plucky teenager, but Tomorrowland showcases Hugh Laurie the best. His David Nix is an intriguing character who is sorely underused with the CGI being the main focus here.
Unfortunately, as countless blockbusters have proved time and time again, brilliant special effects don’t equal a brilliant film and Tomorrowland falls head first into that trap. Yes, the other dimension is on the whole, breath-taking but there’s such a lack of detail anywhere else that it feels decidedly hollow.
This isn’t to say that we have a film like Transformers: Age of Extinction on our hands but it doesn’t reach the heights of Saving Mr Banks or even the Narnia films.
Being stuck in the middle isn’t the best place to be for a movie with a rumoured production cost of $200m and it’s this lack of identity that may hold Tomorrowland back when it comes to box-office performance.
There’s also some debate over the target audience. With a 12A rating, you’d expect a similar tone to The Hunger Games or even The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but what the audience gets is a PG movie with a couple of scenes of violence, pushing it over into the coveted ‘teen market’.
Overall, Tomorrowland is a fun if entirely forgetful fantasy adventure brimming with CGI and unfortunately not much else. Hugh Laurie is an eccentric and painfully underused presence and that pretty much sums up the entire production.
Everything feels a little underdone, like there was something else under the surface waiting to break free that just didn’t come to fruition.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/24/a-cgi-disaster-tomorrowland-review/
LeKiosk - le réflexe presse
News and Entertainment
App
Discover the best App for instant access to your favourite magazines, whenever and wherever you...
Kayleigh (12 KP) rated George's Marvellous Medicine in Books
Jan 2, 2019
This was always my favourite Roald Dahl book, and I’ve re-remembered why now! It’s deliciously naughty, and everybody can imagine gleefully mixing up a concoction to make a disliked person yell “Oweeeee!”
A couple of years ago, I was an au pair in France for three children: a boy aged 9 and two girls, aged 5 years and 9 months old, respectively. I remember I had a little bit of trouble getting the children to settle down and listen to me reading a book, and alas, with the girls, I wasn’t actually successful. They were really intelligent kids, speaking French and German, with English as their third language. With the boy though – I’ll call him L, as I haven’t asked permission to use his name – he ended up loving this book. While there were some words I thought it necessary to replace so that he’d understand, he got really into it, and every day was asking me to read him another chapter.
It’s all slightly cheeky, and very funny. There have certainly been people over the years I’d love to make a magical medicine for, and I remember L getting more and more excited as he firstly wondered what was going to happen to Grandma, and then was fascinated by all the effects the medicine had.
There’s a real childish logic to how George goes about concocting his marvellous medicine, which I know appeals to many kids. She’s got rotten teeth, so he’ll put toothpaste in, and if that doesn’t work, he’ll paint them red with nail varnish. Genius! Here’s one of his ideas:
<blockquote>“The first one he took down was a large box of SUPERWHITE FOR AUTOMATIC WASHING-MACHINES. DIRT, it said, WILL DISAPPEAR LIKE MAGIC. George didn’t know whether Grandma was automatic or not, but she was certainly a dirty old woman.”</blockquote>
Quentin Blake’s illustrations really add to the story, particularly in the second half of the book, when the child reading it can see just how big the characters are getting.
The imagination is powerful, but even more so when mixed with these visual aids – see the picture to the right. I think the great thing about the detail of these illustrations – particularly Grandma’s face – is that you can project feelings onto them. In the context of the story it’s really easy to see her as a disgusting “old bird”, but if it was slightly different, judging from the front page you could see her as slightly mischievous too. Or is that just me?! However, I’m digressing. For an adult reading the book, the words dance off the tongue just like George, imagining he’s casting a spell over his cauldron. I found that L’s attention was thoroughly captured and he loved hearing the ‘special effects’ of all the whooshes and woweeees. There’s also the magical and triumphant aspects – he’s somehow created this cool concoction that has meant he’s got his own back on his grouchy old Grandma and helped out his dad by enlarging all the animals. I think kids love those feeling of pride and revenge they get on George’s behalf, while at the same time getting vivid images in their head that they’ll remember for a long time – I know I did!
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
A couple of years ago, I was an au pair in France for three children: a boy aged 9 and two girls, aged 5 years and 9 months old, respectively. I remember I had a little bit of trouble getting the children to settle down and listen to me reading a book, and alas, with the girls, I wasn’t actually successful. They were really intelligent kids, speaking French and German, with English as their third language. With the boy though – I’ll call him L, as I haven’t asked permission to use his name – he ended up loving this book. While there were some words I thought it necessary to replace so that he’d understand, he got really into it, and every day was asking me to read him another chapter.
It’s all slightly cheeky, and very funny. There have certainly been people over the years I’d love to make a magical medicine for, and I remember L getting more and more excited as he firstly wondered what was going to happen to Grandma, and then was fascinated by all the effects the medicine had.
There’s a real childish logic to how George goes about concocting his marvellous medicine, which I know appeals to many kids. She’s got rotten teeth, so he’ll put toothpaste in, and if that doesn’t work, he’ll paint them red with nail varnish. Genius! Here’s one of his ideas:
<blockquote>“The first one he took down was a large box of SUPERWHITE FOR AUTOMATIC WASHING-MACHINES. DIRT, it said, WILL DISAPPEAR LIKE MAGIC. George didn’t know whether Grandma was automatic or not, but she was certainly a dirty old woman.”</blockquote>
Quentin Blake’s illustrations really add to the story, particularly in the second half of the book, when the child reading it can see just how big the characters are getting.
The imagination is powerful, but even more so when mixed with these visual aids – see the picture to the right. I think the great thing about the detail of these illustrations – particularly Grandma’s face – is that you can project feelings onto them. In the context of the story it’s really easy to see her as a disgusting “old bird”, but if it was slightly different, judging from the front page you could see her as slightly mischievous too. Or is that just me?! However, I’m digressing. For an adult reading the book, the words dance off the tongue just like George, imagining he’s casting a spell over his cauldron. I found that L’s attention was thoroughly captured and he loved hearing the ‘special effects’ of all the whooshes and woweeees. There’s also the magical and triumphant aspects – he’s somehow created this cool concoction that has meant he’s got his own back on his grouchy old Grandma and helped out his dad by enlarging all the animals. I think kids love those feeling of pride and revenge they get on George’s behalf, while at the same time getting vivid images in their head that they’ll remember for a long time – I know I did!
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!