Search
Search results
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated The Company of Wolves (1984) in Movies
Apr 19, 2017
Very Different from most films (3 more)
Transformation Sequences
Great Cast
Brilliant lore
May seem confusing (1 more)
Rosaleen younger than originally planned
Of Wolves and Men
Where do I begin when reviewing a film as obscure and brilliant as, The Company of Wolves. Well for starters I should probably introduce it as it's not a film a lot of people are aware of.
The Company of Wolves is a British Gothic Horror movie adapted from an Anthology of short stories called The Curious Room, written by Angela Carter, and the short story that the film was adapted from was in fact of the same name, The Company of Wolves.
Angela Carter worked with Neil Jordan to write the screenplay and whilst it has some differences (I've not yet read the original story so I couldn't tell you the differences....just google it) the movie is still pretty close to the source material from what I have heard.
One thing I can tell you about this film is that it is brilliant and unlike anything you will ever watch (at least its unlike anything I have seen as of writing this). When I first watched this film, my initial thought was "What on earth did I just watch?" and after viewing it several more times I understood more and more and each viewing was like a new experience.
It's cast add to the creepy dark tone of the film whilst still feeling like a light fantasy film, but with gore and death. The soundtrack is certainly the creepiest element of the film, and it creates an eerily uncomfortable atmosphere. To add to this atmosphere we have a cast that includes the likes of famous names such as Angela Lansbury (Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Beauty and the Beast, Murder She Wrote etc.), Stephen Rea (V for Vendetta, The Crying Game, Underworld: Awakening etc.), David Warner (Titanic, Tron, The Omen etc.) and Brian Glover (An American Werewolf in London, Alien 3, KES etc.) just to name a few, but we also have brilliant talent from lesser known actors\actresses such as Micha Bergese (Interview With A Vampire) and the lead role of young Rosaleen, portrayed by Sarah Patterson who only ever starred in 3 more films after The Company of Wolves.
So why do I love this movie? I have a love for werewolf lore and the subtle messages about reality the legends may be formed from and this film explores some of that. With Angela Lansbury as Granny telling young Rosaleen stories about how she shouldn't trust men who's eyebrows meet, and how she shouldn't stray from the path when walking through the forest. Tradition superstition that were actual beliefs many years ago. The Company of Wolves is a combination of stories, but with an overall plot similar in many ways to that of Little Red Riding Hood, including Granny knitting Rosaleen a red shoal, and being challenged by a huntsman to a race to Granny's house, which concludes with SPOILERS!!!!
Granny is murdered, and the huntsman is discovered by Rosaleen who them puts the pieces of the puzzle together and comes to the truthful conclusion that the huntsman is in fact a werewolf.
However, my only issue with the film is not being able to explore the story properly, as the casting of Rosaleen was actually too young for the original script. The film is a somewhat coming of age movie for Rosaleen and a young boy who is infatuated with her (known only in the credits as Amerous Boy, portrayed by Shane Johnstone. Never heard of him? That's because this was his only movie). The original script was essentially going to explore more of the sexuality between a young girl and the handsome stranger known as The Huntsman. However, during casting, Sarah Patterson shined above the other young performers and was chosen for the role, but due to her being so young (only 12/13 years old) they had to change the script and so their interaction was reduced to nothing more than a bet which would lead to a kiss, but the kiss is then a simple peck on the lips as the Rosaleen jumps back with the line "My what big teeth you have!".
Here's a tip when you watch this movie. Look around Rosaleens room at the beginning and pay attention to her dolls etc. Some of the props will help the film make more sense because one thing I should have mentioned at the start is that this story takes place in a young girls dream (Also portrayed by Sarah Patterson) and the finale is spectacular.
The wolves for the majority of their appearances are easily noticeable as being nothing more than domestic German Shepherds, but that makes sense when you think about this being a girl's dream, and this girl in fact owns a pet German Shepherd.
The best part and the most horrific part of this movie, is the transformations of two of the characters. Stephen Rea's character is a young groom in one of Granny's stories that she tells to Rosaleen, and his transformation into wolf form is one of the most graphic transformations I have ever seen in a film, and despite the use of an animatronic dog, which in part takes away some of the magic, you have to remember this was 1984 and these kinds of films were not going to have the amazing technology we have today and you have to give so much credit and respect to Neil Jordan for using practical effects.
The Huntsmans transformation is less gory but definitely not any less creepier, as we see an extended tongue, and a lot of physical body transformation before a wolf snout comes bursting out of his mouth and fur rips through his skin. Both of these portrayals of the transformation were a representation of the running theme that men have beasts inside of them, that only appear when they are angry or upset.
I highly recommend this film, but I have warned you beforehand. If you do watch this film, feel free to discuss it with me because as I said it is one of my favourites and is lesser known to many audiences.
The Company of Wolves is a British Gothic Horror movie adapted from an Anthology of short stories called The Curious Room, written by Angela Carter, and the short story that the film was adapted from was in fact of the same name, The Company of Wolves.
Angela Carter worked with Neil Jordan to write the screenplay and whilst it has some differences (I've not yet read the original story so I couldn't tell you the differences....just google it) the movie is still pretty close to the source material from what I have heard.
One thing I can tell you about this film is that it is brilliant and unlike anything you will ever watch (at least its unlike anything I have seen as of writing this). When I first watched this film, my initial thought was "What on earth did I just watch?" and after viewing it several more times I understood more and more and each viewing was like a new experience.
It's cast add to the creepy dark tone of the film whilst still feeling like a light fantasy film, but with gore and death. The soundtrack is certainly the creepiest element of the film, and it creates an eerily uncomfortable atmosphere. To add to this atmosphere we have a cast that includes the likes of famous names such as Angela Lansbury (Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Beauty and the Beast, Murder She Wrote etc.), Stephen Rea (V for Vendetta, The Crying Game, Underworld: Awakening etc.), David Warner (Titanic, Tron, The Omen etc.) and Brian Glover (An American Werewolf in London, Alien 3, KES etc.) just to name a few, but we also have brilliant talent from lesser known actors\actresses such as Micha Bergese (Interview With A Vampire) and the lead role of young Rosaleen, portrayed by Sarah Patterson who only ever starred in 3 more films after The Company of Wolves.
So why do I love this movie? I have a love for werewolf lore and the subtle messages about reality the legends may be formed from and this film explores some of that. With Angela Lansbury as Granny telling young Rosaleen stories about how she shouldn't trust men who's eyebrows meet, and how she shouldn't stray from the path when walking through the forest. Tradition superstition that were actual beliefs many years ago. The Company of Wolves is a combination of stories, but with an overall plot similar in many ways to that of Little Red Riding Hood, including Granny knitting Rosaleen a red shoal, and being challenged by a huntsman to a race to Granny's house, which concludes with SPOILERS!!!!
Granny is murdered, and the huntsman is discovered by Rosaleen who them puts the pieces of the puzzle together and comes to the truthful conclusion that the huntsman is in fact a werewolf.
However, my only issue with the film is not being able to explore the story properly, as the casting of Rosaleen was actually too young for the original script. The film is a somewhat coming of age movie for Rosaleen and a young boy who is infatuated with her (known only in the credits as Amerous Boy, portrayed by Shane Johnstone. Never heard of him? That's because this was his only movie). The original script was essentially going to explore more of the sexuality between a young girl and the handsome stranger known as The Huntsman. However, during casting, Sarah Patterson shined above the other young performers and was chosen for the role, but due to her being so young (only 12/13 years old) they had to change the script and so their interaction was reduced to nothing more than a bet which would lead to a kiss, but the kiss is then a simple peck on the lips as the Rosaleen jumps back with the line "My what big teeth you have!".
Here's a tip when you watch this movie. Look around Rosaleens room at the beginning and pay attention to her dolls etc. Some of the props will help the film make more sense because one thing I should have mentioned at the start is that this story takes place in a young girls dream (Also portrayed by Sarah Patterson) and the finale is spectacular.
The wolves for the majority of their appearances are easily noticeable as being nothing more than domestic German Shepherds, but that makes sense when you think about this being a girl's dream, and this girl in fact owns a pet German Shepherd.
The best part and the most horrific part of this movie, is the transformations of two of the characters. Stephen Rea's character is a young groom in one of Granny's stories that she tells to Rosaleen, and his transformation into wolf form is one of the most graphic transformations I have ever seen in a film, and despite the use of an animatronic dog, which in part takes away some of the magic, you have to remember this was 1984 and these kinds of films were not going to have the amazing technology we have today and you have to give so much credit and respect to Neil Jordan for using practical effects.
The Huntsmans transformation is less gory but definitely not any less creepier, as we see an extended tongue, and a lot of physical body transformation before a wolf snout comes bursting out of his mouth and fur rips through his skin. Both of these portrayals of the transformation were a representation of the running theme that men have beasts inside of them, that only appear when they are angry or upset.
I highly recommend this film, but I have warned you beforehand. If you do watch this film, feel free to discuss it with me because as I said it is one of my favourites and is lesser known to many audiences.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Les Misérables (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Words cannot express how amazing this movie is. For those of you who have shouldered through the modern-day musical revival; suffering through the questionable singing talents of many stars as “Phantom of the Opera,” “Chicago,” “Moulin Rouge,” “Sweeny Todd,” and that abysmal rendition of “Nine” – I can assure you, that “Les Mis” will change that perception. For once, the casting crew took the time to select a cast capable of the repertoire’s vocal demands (and Les Mis is very vocally demanding – as most operatic pieces are). It’s apparent that each singer was heavily vocally coached and trained, some faring more so than others. While this is no replacement for raw talent, I can assure you that the cast was downright fantastic.
For years I studied and sang opera. I know music and I’ve sung my fair share of Les Mis pieces in my past. I adore Victor Hugo and “Les Misérables” is by far one of my favorite literary works. When I began to watch this movie, I was keyed up to be critical on the vocal spectrum, the literary aspect, and the representation of one of my favorite Broadway/London pieces. To be frank, I wasn’t disappointed at all.
For those unfamiliar with Hugo’s work or what to expect with Les Mis, let me give you a brief synopsis on its plot and the history of the French revolution in which this takes place. France has just endured her infamous Revolution (the one with the guillotine, Marie-Antoinette, and the Sans Culottes movement) and her people are still suffering. There is no money for food, the country is in the midst of a depression, and the Napoleonic regime is yet to come to fruition. Thus, you find Fantine (Hathaway), a poor but determined (and beautiful) woman trying desperately to make enough money to support her daughter, Cosette, who resides with friends in another city. The book reveals that Madame Thénardier (Bonham-Carter) and her husband, Thénardier (Baron-Cohen) were supposed to be taking the money that Fantine had given to them to provide for her daughter, Cosette. Instead, however, Cosette is forced to live in absolute poverty while Thénardier’s daughter, Eponine, lives the life of opulence. Meanwhile, Jean Valjean (Jackman), an ex-convict, is trying desperately to find legitimate work after his stint in prison for stealing a loaf of bread to provide for his starving family. The infamous policeman, Javert (Crowe), feels Valjean will re-offend and makes it his mission to pursue Valjean until the end.
Finding the world a terrible place as an ex-convict, Valjean seeks to steal from a church her silver, believing he has no other way to survive. It is the love of a good priest, however, who gives Valjean the silver he seeks under the pledge he will become a servant of God and provide for others the same good he has provided for him. Thus, years later, we find Valjean a reformed man (who has skipped on his parole and assumed a new name), running a factory in which Fantine works. And so, when Fantine is fired from her job and takes to a life of prostitution in order to provide for her daughter, it is Valjean who feels the burden of her demise and takes it upon himself to save Cosette and raise her as his own.
Of course, this entire time, Javert is pursuing Valjean and a new revolution is starting to take place amongst Paris’ people. Years later we find Cosette grown to womanhood (now played by Seyfried), and falling in love with one of the revolution’s key players, a youth by the name of Marius (Redmayne). The Thénardiers are back again and we find their once-grand lifestyle has resorted to a life of gutter-crime and Éponine (now played by Barks), is desperately in love with Marius as well (although her love is unrequited). For those unfamiliar with how the story plays out, I will leave it at that.
I will caution those who have never seen this play to prepare for a long show. It is very dramatic and very intense, but visually breath-taking and emotionally moving in so many ways. Vocally, there are times when the legato is lacking and some transitions seemed forced (Crowe struggled many times with allowing his natural vibrato to come through instead of pushing a sustained note; Seyfried’s vibrato is very trill-like and sometimes distracts from the pure quality of her spinto-soprano range). However, I must say that I was blown away by Hathway’s performance (she brought me to tears with “I Dreamed a Dream” due to her emotional rendition) and her ability to truly escape into her character. Similarly, Tviet (he played Enjolras) was stunning with his vocal command and Redmayne was equally as impressive. Jackman will amaze you with his rich tenor and, surprisingly, I found Crowe to have a fantastic baritone when he didn’t force his work. Baron-Cohen and Bonham-Carter provided a much needed comical respite throughout the film (and both sing beautifully as well, although this movie didn’t focus on their vocal command as much). Barks did a lovely job for most of her work; although I found her rendition of “On My Own” a bit forced (she is a true mezzo but seemed to push her high notes, although this may have been where her voice shifted into her head voice which is no fault of her own).
Overall, if you are an avid musical lover and have been waiting for a proper rendition of this production, this movie will astound you. Visually, the movie is breath-taking and the acting is absolutely fantastic. I’m still haunted by the revolutionary song, to be honest. If you’ve been waiting for a musical worthy of the big screen, this one is it. Look for it to sweep the Oscars this year.
This movie deserves an A all around.
For years I studied and sang opera. I know music and I’ve sung my fair share of Les Mis pieces in my past. I adore Victor Hugo and “Les Misérables” is by far one of my favorite literary works. When I began to watch this movie, I was keyed up to be critical on the vocal spectrum, the literary aspect, and the representation of one of my favorite Broadway/London pieces. To be frank, I wasn’t disappointed at all.
For those unfamiliar with Hugo’s work or what to expect with Les Mis, let me give you a brief synopsis on its plot and the history of the French revolution in which this takes place. France has just endured her infamous Revolution (the one with the guillotine, Marie-Antoinette, and the Sans Culottes movement) and her people are still suffering. There is no money for food, the country is in the midst of a depression, and the Napoleonic regime is yet to come to fruition. Thus, you find Fantine (Hathaway), a poor but determined (and beautiful) woman trying desperately to make enough money to support her daughter, Cosette, who resides with friends in another city. The book reveals that Madame Thénardier (Bonham-Carter) and her husband, Thénardier (Baron-Cohen) were supposed to be taking the money that Fantine had given to them to provide for her daughter, Cosette. Instead, however, Cosette is forced to live in absolute poverty while Thénardier’s daughter, Eponine, lives the life of opulence. Meanwhile, Jean Valjean (Jackman), an ex-convict, is trying desperately to find legitimate work after his stint in prison for stealing a loaf of bread to provide for his starving family. The infamous policeman, Javert (Crowe), feels Valjean will re-offend and makes it his mission to pursue Valjean until the end.
Finding the world a terrible place as an ex-convict, Valjean seeks to steal from a church her silver, believing he has no other way to survive. It is the love of a good priest, however, who gives Valjean the silver he seeks under the pledge he will become a servant of God and provide for others the same good he has provided for him. Thus, years later, we find Valjean a reformed man (who has skipped on his parole and assumed a new name), running a factory in which Fantine works. And so, when Fantine is fired from her job and takes to a life of prostitution in order to provide for her daughter, it is Valjean who feels the burden of her demise and takes it upon himself to save Cosette and raise her as his own.
Of course, this entire time, Javert is pursuing Valjean and a new revolution is starting to take place amongst Paris’ people. Years later we find Cosette grown to womanhood (now played by Seyfried), and falling in love with one of the revolution’s key players, a youth by the name of Marius (Redmayne). The Thénardiers are back again and we find their once-grand lifestyle has resorted to a life of gutter-crime and Éponine (now played by Barks), is desperately in love with Marius as well (although her love is unrequited). For those unfamiliar with how the story plays out, I will leave it at that.
I will caution those who have never seen this play to prepare for a long show. It is very dramatic and very intense, but visually breath-taking and emotionally moving in so many ways. Vocally, there are times when the legato is lacking and some transitions seemed forced (Crowe struggled many times with allowing his natural vibrato to come through instead of pushing a sustained note; Seyfried’s vibrato is very trill-like and sometimes distracts from the pure quality of her spinto-soprano range). However, I must say that I was blown away by Hathway’s performance (she brought me to tears with “I Dreamed a Dream” due to her emotional rendition) and her ability to truly escape into her character. Similarly, Tviet (he played Enjolras) was stunning with his vocal command and Redmayne was equally as impressive. Jackman will amaze you with his rich tenor and, surprisingly, I found Crowe to have a fantastic baritone when he didn’t force his work. Baron-Cohen and Bonham-Carter provided a much needed comical respite throughout the film (and both sing beautifully as well, although this movie didn’t focus on their vocal command as much). Barks did a lovely job for most of her work; although I found her rendition of “On My Own” a bit forced (she is a true mezzo but seemed to push her high notes, although this may have been where her voice shifted into her head voice which is no fault of her own).
Overall, if you are an avid musical lover and have been waiting for a proper rendition of this production, this movie will astound you. Visually, the movie is breath-taking and the acting is absolutely fantastic. I’m still haunted by the revolutionary song, to be honest. If you’ve been waiting for a musical worthy of the big screen, this one is it. Look for it to sweep the Oscars this year.
This movie deserves an A all around.
If you are looking for a refreshing Young-Adult read, with college unlike any other - this is the perfect book for you. I'd Tell You I Love You, But Then I'd Have to Kill You is the first book from the Gallagher Girl series, where we meet girls that go to a school for spies, and nobody except them, knows it.
The Gallagher Academy is a typical all-girls-school, except, instead of normal subjects, they learn advanced martial arts and chemical warfare studies, they have exams where they need to spy, or go unnoticed, or steal.
We meet Cammie Morgan, who happens to be the headmistress's daughter, and when she goes on a mission and gets noticed by a boy - everything changes and her life is suddenly everything but normal. She knows how to kill a man in seven different ways, and she can speak fourteen languages, but when a cute boy comes and says hi - she is definitely not trained for that. What's worst - he thinks she's just an ordinary girl, and she is falling in love with him.
Sure, she can tap his phone, hack into his computer, and track him through town without his ever being the wiser - but can she have a relationship with a regular boy who can never know the truth about her? Cammie may be an elite spy-in-training, but in her sophomore year, she's beginning her most dangerous mission - falling in love.
I loved the writing style, and I loved something new and refreshing - it is a plot that I haven't read before, and I really enjoyed it. Sometimes when it felt a bit childish, I would remember I am not thirteen anymore, but even now at twenty-one, I got lost into this silly world of spy girls and the drama and love life of Cammie.
I liked Cammie - she is the type of girl that you would love to have as a friend, because she always makes you giggle with her silly comments. I also liked how brave and honest she was - not always honest though… Sometimes, she was too whiney for her own good, and making little things out of nothing, but then again, all teens kind of do that all the time, so it's acceptable.
I loved her friends - they were such a team, and always covering their backs. I loved how, even despite all their differences, they manages to fit right in and have their own impact to the group friendship.
Overall, quite an enjoyable read and I would definitely recommend it to you guys, if you love anything YA, or fantasy, or spy girls, or college related. I enjoyed this book, and I wish I read it way sooner. I can't wait to read the rest of the series as well.
Thank you to my friend and author, Michael Kott, that send me this book after recommending it to me, as Ally Carter is one of his favourite authors, and he enjoyed this book as well. Check out his book Piasa - it is amazing!
The Gallagher Academy is a typical all-girls-school, except, instead of normal subjects, they learn advanced martial arts and chemical warfare studies, they have exams where they need to spy, or go unnoticed, or steal.
We meet Cammie Morgan, who happens to be the headmistress's daughter, and when she goes on a mission and gets noticed by a boy - everything changes and her life is suddenly everything but normal. She knows how to kill a man in seven different ways, and she can speak fourteen languages, but when a cute boy comes and says hi - she is definitely not trained for that. What's worst - he thinks she's just an ordinary girl, and she is falling in love with him.
Sure, she can tap his phone, hack into his computer, and track him through town without his ever being the wiser - but can she have a relationship with a regular boy who can never know the truth about her? Cammie may be an elite spy-in-training, but in her sophomore year, she's beginning her most dangerous mission - falling in love.
I loved the writing style, and I loved something new and refreshing - it is a plot that I haven't read before, and I really enjoyed it. Sometimes when it felt a bit childish, I would remember I am not thirteen anymore, but even now at twenty-one, I got lost into this silly world of spy girls and the drama and love life of Cammie.
I liked Cammie - she is the type of girl that you would love to have as a friend, because she always makes you giggle with her silly comments. I also liked how brave and honest she was - not always honest though… Sometimes, she was too whiney for her own good, and making little things out of nothing, but then again, all teens kind of do that all the time, so it's acceptable.
I loved her friends - they were such a team, and always covering their backs. I loved how, even despite all their differences, they manages to fit right in and have their own impact to the group friendship.
Overall, quite an enjoyable read and I would definitely recommend it to you guys, if you love anything YA, or fantasy, or spy girls, or college related. I enjoyed this book, and I wish I read it way sooner. I can't wait to read the rest of the series as well.
Thank you to my friend and author, Michael Kott, that send me this book after recommending it to me, as Ally Carter is one of his favourite authors, and he enjoyed this book as well. Check out his book Piasa - it is amazing!
MaryAnn (14 KP) rated The Printed Letter Bookshop in Books
Nov 4, 2019
Amid literature and lattes, three women come together and find that sharing ones journey with best friends makes life richer.
When attorney Madeline Carter inherits her aunts bookstore in a small town north of Chicago, she plans to sell it and add the proceeds to her nonexistent investment portfolio. But plans change when Madeline discovers the store isnt making money and she gets passed over for promotion at her firm. She quits in protest, takes the train north, and decides to work at the store to prep it for sale. Madeline soon finds herself at odds with employees Jessica and Courtney; when she also finds herself attracted to an affianced man, it only confuses the entire situation. After blowing up her marriage two years earlier, Janet has found solace working at the bookstore and a kindred spirit within its owner, Maddie Cullen. But when Maddie dies and her niece, Madeline, barges in like a bulldozer, Janet pushes at the new owner in every way-until she trips over common ground. Soon the women are delving into online dating and fashion makeovers, and Janet feels the pull to rediscover her art, a love she thought long behind her. After a night of bad decisions leaves the store in peril, Claire arrives and tries to save the day. While she, too, found sanctuary in the little bookstore, she knows its under-insured, in the red, and will never survive. When she discovers her teenage daughter has played a part in vandalizing the store, Courtney taps into strength she didnt know existed or had long forgotten. The quietest of the three, she steps up and finds a way to save her family, the store, and the precious friendships that have grown within it. The Printed Letter Bookshop is the story of friends who find each other-and themselves-in a place none of them ever expected.
This is a wonderful read. It's hard to put down once the reader begins the story. One shop, three women and their lives are connected through one woman, Aunt Maddie. In this story, we learn through three women how one magnificent woman helps each woman, Madeline, Janet, and Claire take a look into their lives through books that she has left them to read after her death.
I love bookstores, and this one is more than a bookstore; it's a place where friends come together for love, help, and healing. It's about friendships that can last through trials and tribulations. It's about one woman's legacy and how she looked at life. It's a story that one should not miss.
This is a story of finding one's calling in life, of love, forgiveness and true friendships that last through trials and tribulations, not just in the good times but in the worst of days. This was a wonderful book that teaches us that reading is beneficial, soothing and can always be a learning experience.
I loved the shop; I wish it were real if it were I would visit everyday!
When attorney Madeline Carter inherits her aunts bookstore in a small town north of Chicago, she plans to sell it and add the proceeds to her nonexistent investment portfolio. But plans change when Madeline discovers the store isnt making money and she gets passed over for promotion at her firm. She quits in protest, takes the train north, and decides to work at the store to prep it for sale. Madeline soon finds herself at odds with employees Jessica and Courtney; when she also finds herself attracted to an affianced man, it only confuses the entire situation. After blowing up her marriage two years earlier, Janet has found solace working at the bookstore and a kindred spirit within its owner, Maddie Cullen. But when Maddie dies and her niece, Madeline, barges in like a bulldozer, Janet pushes at the new owner in every way-until she trips over common ground. Soon the women are delving into online dating and fashion makeovers, and Janet feels the pull to rediscover her art, a love she thought long behind her. After a night of bad decisions leaves the store in peril, Claire arrives and tries to save the day. While she, too, found sanctuary in the little bookstore, she knows its under-insured, in the red, and will never survive. When she discovers her teenage daughter has played a part in vandalizing the store, Courtney taps into strength she didnt know existed or had long forgotten. The quietest of the three, she steps up and finds a way to save her family, the store, and the precious friendships that have grown within it. The Printed Letter Bookshop is the story of friends who find each other-and themselves-in a place none of them ever expected.
This is a wonderful read. It's hard to put down once the reader begins the story. One shop, three women and their lives are connected through one woman, Aunt Maddie. In this story, we learn through three women how one magnificent woman helps each woman, Madeline, Janet, and Claire take a look into their lives through books that she has left them to read after her death.
I love bookstores, and this one is more than a bookstore; it's a place where friends come together for love, help, and healing. It's about friendships that can last through trials and tribulations. It's about one woman's legacy and how she looked at life. It's a story that one should not miss.
This is a story of finding one's calling in life, of love, forgiveness and true friendships that last through trials and tribulations, not just in the good times but in the worst of days. This was a wonderful book that teaches us that reading is beneficial, soothing and can always be a learning experience.
I loved the shop; I wish it were real if it were I would visit everyday!
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Dark Shadows (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Tim Burton has always been one of my all time favorite directors because of his strange-yet-humorous nature and the frequent use of my favorite actor, Johnny Depp. For the last decade or so we have been plagued with remakes of stories that we are all familiar with and the only thing that makes them different is the addition of the iconic Tim Burton style. Once again Tim Burton brings us yet another remake, only this time of the 70’s cult classic soap opera Dark Shadows.
Frequent collaborator, Johnny Depp, stars as Barnabas Collins in a role previously made famous by Jonathan Frid. Barnabas Collins and his parents leave Liverpool in 1760 for New Hampshire, in an attempt to expand their family business. They succeed and become the wealthiest family in the area, resulting in the town getting named after the family. Barnabas was a ladies’ man and scorned the heart of Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green) by falling in love with Josette DuPres (Bella Heathcote). Unbeknownst to him, Angelique is a witch and out of pure jealousy, she kills his one true love and has cursed Barnabas to be a vampire so that his suffering would be endless. Angelique rallies the townspeople to bury Barnabas alive.
After nearly 200 years, Barnabas is accidently unearthed in the year 1972. He heads to the one place that he can call home and encounters the remaining four dysfunctional members of his family and discovers that his family estate is in jeopardy. Barnabas soon learns that the evil person behind all his families turmoil is none other than Angelique herself.
Though this film does have the quirky Burton-esque feel that we are all familiar with, it lacks his signature energy. The plot itself is long and drawn out and makes the first half of the movie extremely slow and boring. Now don’t get me wrong, Depp did manage to slip in more than a few funny lines but even his best work was a strained attempt at humor. I do, on the other hand, appreciate that Burton brought back the original vampire myths, with all the burning in the sunlight and not being able to see a reflection. Though the script and story itself leaves much to be desired, Johnny Depp is as funny as the story and/or script allows him to be and as Barnabas, he carries the movie. Even Michelle Pfeiffer and Helena Bonham Carter couldn’t help save this movie from the pedantic pace of a very uneven but predictable story. Equally disappointing was the waste of the perfect casting of Chloe Moretz as Michelle’s daughter. Even though she looked and sounded a lot like her movie mom, she wasn’t given much to do but sulk and glare.
Even though you will experience an entertaining blast from the past with the characters, soundtrack and fashions, it is best to say that this film should be left as a rental. Being such a huge fan of Burton’s kooky and imaginative world, it sure pains me to say that this movie is a bit of a train wreck and lacks the enchanting storytelling that we’ve come to expect from him.
Frequent collaborator, Johnny Depp, stars as Barnabas Collins in a role previously made famous by Jonathan Frid. Barnabas Collins and his parents leave Liverpool in 1760 for New Hampshire, in an attempt to expand their family business. They succeed and become the wealthiest family in the area, resulting in the town getting named after the family. Barnabas was a ladies’ man and scorned the heart of Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green) by falling in love with Josette DuPres (Bella Heathcote). Unbeknownst to him, Angelique is a witch and out of pure jealousy, she kills his one true love and has cursed Barnabas to be a vampire so that his suffering would be endless. Angelique rallies the townspeople to bury Barnabas alive.
After nearly 200 years, Barnabas is accidently unearthed in the year 1972. He heads to the one place that he can call home and encounters the remaining four dysfunctional members of his family and discovers that his family estate is in jeopardy. Barnabas soon learns that the evil person behind all his families turmoil is none other than Angelique herself.
Though this film does have the quirky Burton-esque feel that we are all familiar with, it lacks his signature energy. The plot itself is long and drawn out and makes the first half of the movie extremely slow and boring. Now don’t get me wrong, Depp did manage to slip in more than a few funny lines but even his best work was a strained attempt at humor. I do, on the other hand, appreciate that Burton brought back the original vampire myths, with all the burning in the sunlight and not being able to see a reflection. Though the script and story itself leaves much to be desired, Johnny Depp is as funny as the story and/or script allows him to be and as Barnabas, he carries the movie. Even Michelle Pfeiffer and Helena Bonham Carter couldn’t help save this movie from the pedantic pace of a very uneven but predictable story. Equally disappointing was the waste of the perfect casting of Chloe Moretz as Michelle’s daughter. Even though she looked and sounded a lot like her movie mom, she wasn’t given much to do but sulk and glare.
Even though you will experience an entertaining blast from the past with the characters, soundtrack and fashions, it is best to say that this film should be left as a rental. Being such a huge fan of Burton’s kooky and imaginative world, it sure pains me to say that this movie is a bit of a train wreck and lacks the enchanting storytelling that we’ve come to expect from him.
Erika (17788 KP) rated Shadow and Bone - Season 1 in TV
Jul 16, 2021
Shadow and Bone is based upon the popular Young Adult series, The Grisha Trilogy, which takes place in a steampunk-ish, Russian fantasy world at war. The story’s main character is Alina Starkov (Jessie Mei Li), an orphan who discovers she has some magical powers when she journeys into something called the Fold with her childhood friend Malyen, “Mal” (Archie Renaux), for short. The witches in this fantasy world are called Grisha and are trained to help with military operations for some king. The General of this witch army is Kirigan, played by Ben Barnes. There are also two other storylines, this group of kidnappers, and a Grisha that’s enslaved.
This series wasn’t really made for a general audience, it was made for the fans of the book trilogy. The series starts, and the watcher is immediately thrust into this fantasy world that doesn’t really make much sense with no prior knowledge. If you couldn’t tell from the series description, I wasn’t really into it. It took me two months to watch all eight of the episodes. I almost didn’t keep watching after the first two episodes, but my boss encouraged me to keep going.
The storyline is your standard YA novel, a girl who didn’t know her powers, some lame love triangle, and for some reason, the girl is the only one that can save the world. Nothing new to see here. My interest was only piqued by Barnes’ character Kirigan, and Barnes was the main reason I actually kept watching the show. The seventh episode, which features Kirigan’s backstory, was the most interesting.
The whole kidnapping crew storyline wasn’t really all that interesting. The leader, Kaz (Freddy Carter) is a kingpin-type character with an unexplained limp, or I missed the explanation. The crew also had an assassin-type character, Inej (Amita Suman), who might not really have been an assassin, again, missed that explanation. The best member of this crew was Jesper (Kit Young), who was the charmer, expert trick shooter, and the second most interesting character in the series.
The subplot with the whole kidnapping Alina thing was neither here nor there, I don’t even remember the characters’ names that were involved in this subplot. Maybe it meant something to the readers of the novels, or it’ll make sense in the next season, but it certainly didn’t mean anything to me. I think I fast-forwarded through those portions in the last episode.
I think I started liking it after the seventh episode, but two interesting episodes does not make an interesting series. It’s been about a week since I finished it, and I honestly had to look up all the characters’ names. I probably seem flippant about explaining the different plots, but it’s legitimately all I remember. This series also didn’t leave me with a hankering to read the book series, nor would I care to watch any further seasons. I’m sure if you’re a fan of the book series, you’d probably love this, but it was not for me.
This series wasn’t really made for a general audience, it was made for the fans of the book trilogy. The series starts, and the watcher is immediately thrust into this fantasy world that doesn’t really make much sense with no prior knowledge. If you couldn’t tell from the series description, I wasn’t really into it. It took me two months to watch all eight of the episodes. I almost didn’t keep watching after the first two episodes, but my boss encouraged me to keep going.
The storyline is your standard YA novel, a girl who didn’t know her powers, some lame love triangle, and for some reason, the girl is the only one that can save the world. Nothing new to see here. My interest was only piqued by Barnes’ character Kirigan, and Barnes was the main reason I actually kept watching the show. The seventh episode, which features Kirigan’s backstory, was the most interesting.
The whole kidnapping crew storyline wasn’t really all that interesting. The leader, Kaz (Freddy Carter) is a kingpin-type character with an unexplained limp, or I missed the explanation. The crew also had an assassin-type character, Inej (Amita Suman), who might not really have been an assassin, again, missed that explanation. The best member of this crew was Jesper (Kit Young), who was the charmer, expert trick shooter, and the second most interesting character in the series.
The subplot with the whole kidnapping Alina thing was neither here nor there, I don’t even remember the characters’ names that were involved in this subplot. Maybe it meant something to the readers of the novels, or it’ll make sense in the next season, but it certainly didn’t mean anything to me. I think I fast-forwarded through those portions in the last episode.
I think I started liking it after the seventh episode, but two interesting episodes does not make an interesting series. It’s been about a week since I finished it, and I honestly had to look up all the characters’ names. I probably seem flippant about explaining the different plots, but it’s legitimately all I remember. This series also didn’t leave me with a hankering to read the book series, nor would I care to watch any further seasons. I’m sure if you’re a fan of the book series, you’d probably love this, but it was not for me.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Curiously Terrible
Disney is set for a bumper year of takings. 2016 is dominated by the House of Mouse in all of their guises, whether Marvel, Pixar or Disney itself. We’ve already had the fantastic live-action remake of The Jungle Book and now Alice returns to Wonderland in Through the Looking Glass.
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Cinderella (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Sickly Sweet
Taking a look through Disney’s back catalogue of animation is like a lesson in film history. From Snow White to Bambi and The Lion King to The Princess & the Frog, there’s something in there for everyone to enjoy.
However, the studio has in recent times, taken to reimagining its classics as live-action adaptations with last year’s Maleficent starting a generation that will include Beauty & the Beast and a Tim Burton directed Dumbo. The latest offering is Cinderella, but does it hold a candle to its animated counterpart?
The plot of Cinderella needs no introduction, the classic tale of rags to riches and love conquering all doesn’t need an update and director Kenneth Branagh (Thor, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit) is just the man for the job.
Following the story of young Ella as she comes to terms with the loss of her parents and the arrival of her overbearing step-cinderella_poster_a_psisters and step-mother, Cinderella is a wonderfully acted and beautifully realised film that borders on a little syrupy at times.
Downton Abbey’s Lily James takes on the title role with a brilliant Cate Blanchett giving her all as Ella’s wicked step-mother. Helena Bonham Carter also stars as Ella’s fairy godmother and brings her usual brand of crazy to the character.
What sets this adaptation apart from Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent is its stunning visuals. Where Maleficent was beautiful in its own way and suited the film’s dark tone, here Kenneth Branagh throws every colour on the spectrum at the screen in breath-taking fashion.
The outfits are to die for and the locations are an explosion of bright colours and textures that are juxtaposed exceptionally with the dark, damp quarters our princess is confined to.
Elsewhere, the performances are, on the whole, sublime. James is good in the titular role but the plodding script lets her down. She comes across, as awful as this sounds, a little idiotic and lacks the charming spirit of her animated counterpart. The same can be said for her prince, played by Richard Madden – though this could be down to the story rushing their love somewhat.
By far the standout is Cate Blanchett, who is truly mesmerising as stepmother Lady Tremaine. Her brash and ridiculously over-the-top performance suits the pantomime feel of the production down to the ground. Unfortunately, her evil is heavily restrained by the film’s U certification, even more so when compared alongside the 1950 film.
Nevertheless, the visuals are simply stunning. Everything from the palace to Ella’s iconic ball gown and all of it in between is nearly flawless with only a few lapses in cartoonish CGI letting things down – though this can be forgiven with the film’s pantomime-esque nature.
Overall, this live-action reimagining of the 1950s classic musical does not in any way attempt to better its predecessor. Instead it wishes to sit alongside it as the studio tries to pave the way for a whole new generation of children to fall in love with Disney’s princesses once again.
Only a few lapses in CGI, a plodding script and a sickly sweet tone stop it from being enjoyable for everyone in the family, instead of just the kids.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/31/sickly-sweet-cinderella-review/
However, the studio has in recent times, taken to reimagining its classics as live-action adaptations with last year’s Maleficent starting a generation that will include Beauty & the Beast and a Tim Burton directed Dumbo. The latest offering is Cinderella, but does it hold a candle to its animated counterpart?
The plot of Cinderella needs no introduction, the classic tale of rags to riches and love conquering all doesn’t need an update and director Kenneth Branagh (Thor, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit) is just the man for the job.
Following the story of young Ella as she comes to terms with the loss of her parents and the arrival of her overbearing step-cinderella_poster_a_psisters and step-mother, Cinderella is a wonderfully acted and beautifully realised film that borders on a little syrupy at times.
Downton Abbey’s Lily James takes on the title role with a brilliant Cate Blanchett giving her all as Ella’s wicked step-mother. Helena Bonham Carter also stars as Ella’s fairy godmother and brings her usual brand of crazy to the character.
What sets this adaptation apart from Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent is its stunning visuals. Where Maleficent was beautiful in its own way and suited the film’s dark tone, here Kenneth Branagh throws every colour on the spectrum at the screen in breath-taking fashion.
The outfits are to die for and the locations are an explosion of bright colours and textures that are juxtaposed exceptionally with the dark, damp quarters our princess is confined to.
Elsewhere, the performances are, on the whole, sublime. James is good in the titular role but the plodding script lets her down. She comes across, as awful as this sounds, a little idiotic and lacks the charming spirit of her animated counterpart. The same can be said for her prince, played by Richard Madden – though this could be down to the story rushing their love somewhat.
By far the standout is Cate Blanchett, who is truly mesmerising as stepmother Lady Tremaine. Her brash and ridiculously over-the-top performance suits the pantomime feel of the production down to the ground. Unfortunately, her evil is heavily restrained by the film’s U certification, even more so when compared alongside the 1950 film.
Nevertheless, the visuals are simply stunning. Everything from the palace to Ella’s iconic ball gown and all of it in between is nearly flawless with only a few lapses in cartoonish CGI letting things down – though this can be forgiven with the film’s pantomime-esque nature.
Overall, this live-action reimagining of the 1950s classic musical does not in any way attempt to better its predecessor. Instead it wishes to sit alongside it as the studio tries to pave the way for a whole new generation of children to fall in love with Disney’s princesses once again.
Only a few lapses in CGI, a plodding script and a sickly sweet tone stop it from being enjoyable for everyone in the family, instead of just the kids.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/31/sickly-sweet-cinderella-review/
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Knight Assassin in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Am I alone to say that this sort of felt like history + Downton Abbey + a little Arabian mythology? Perhaps it's the royal technicalities that make me think of Downton Abbey with its lords and ladies, despite the fact the book seems to be set around the Crusades and everyone seemed to be fighting over the Holy Land.
I was actually a bit reluctant to accept Knight Assassin for review for a few reasons:
1. It didn't sound very appealing A girl's mother gets murdered and she wants revenge. Then she meets a guy from her past who actually ends up being her enemy. Nope... not really for me, though the last part is semi-intriguing.
2. I don't know that much about the Knights Templar. I don't even remember that one book I read and it was nominated for a state award once.
3. I had a pretty big review pile already
However, as I got started, I realized I was underestimating, and I actually enjoyed it in most cases. But what really started to get the ball rolling?
Zayn's mother gets accused of witchcraft and burned to death.
I know it sounds really mean and really odd of me that it would catch my attention. But think about it. If that happened to me (or any of us really), I would be looking for revenge as well after I get over my initial shock, which could last for who knows how long.
Zayn gah, I keep putting an e at the end. One Direction, this is not the time to slip into a review is probably by far one of the strongest heroines I've read about. She goes through so many trials throughout the book from her mother's murder to rape to finding out what she really is and hasn't broken down for most of the book. Definitely shorter than me, but Zayn seems to be pretty impulsive for a good half of the book.
For the first half, there's a lot of flashbacks throughout the beginning to Zayn's childhood, in which I sort of found pointless. I'm not exactly sure what the connection really is, aside from how she meets Guy de Molay and Earic Goodwin. It's not until the second half where the interesting stuff happens and there's not as many flashbacks, but the first half by all means isn't boring at all. I find that Zayn has a lot of backstory, which frankly makes her less of a pancake (flat characters).
The ending though, felt like a stand alone, but it didn't feel like a stand alone. I'm surprised this isn't a series to be honest. However, if you're the type who enjoys reading a bit of history and a little mythology, perhaps you should consider Knight Assassin. It's a nice change from other genres (particularly aliens and angels at the moment) as there aren't many books set in the late 1100s.
<b>Random Thought:</b>
<blockquote>I will never recover my male ego, so long as Zayn is around to humble me.</blockquote>
Perhaps where there's a Carter, Jace, Daemon or a Herondale, there needs to be a Zayn. She might be able to keep their ego in check... well, particularly the third one. ;)
--------------------
Original Rating: 4.5 out of 5 Owls
Advance review copy provided by publisher for review
This review and more can be found at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/03/arc-review-knight-assassin-by-rima-jean.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Gi5Rk5yLloA/UtliaUbdL3I/AAAAAAAACbE/J27z92_qrYU/s1600/Official+Banner.png"; /></a>
I was actually a bit reluctant to accept Knight Assassin for review for a few reasons:
1. It didn't sound very appealing A girl's mother gets murdered and she wants revenge. Then she meets a guy from her past who actually ends up being her enemy. Nope... not really for me, though the last part is semi-intriguing.
2. I don't know that much about the Knights Templar. I don't even remember that one book I read and it was nominated for a state award once.
3. I had a pretty big review pile already
However, as I got started, I realized I was underestimating, and I actually enjoyed it in most cases. But what really started to get the ball rolling?
Zayn's mother gets accused of witchcraft and burned to death.
I know it sounds really mean and really odd of me that it would catch my attention. But think about it. If that happened to me (or any of us really), I would be looking for revenge as well after I get over my initial shock, which could last for who knows how long.
Zayn gah, I keep putting an e at the end. One Direction, this is not the time to slip into a review is probably by far one of the strongest heroines I've read about. She goes through so many trials throughout the book from her mother's murder to rape to finding out what she really is and hasn't broken down for most of the book. Definitely shorter than me, but Zayn seems to be pretty impulsive for a good half of the book.
For the first half, there's a lot of flashbacks throughout the beginning to Zayn's childhood, in which I sort of found pointless. I'm not exactly sure what the connection really is, aside from how she meets Guy de Molay and Earic Goodwin. It's not until the second half where the interesting stuff happens and there's not as many flashbacks, but the first half by all means isn't boring at all. I find that Zayn has a lot of backstory, which frankly makes her less of a pancake (flat characters).
The ending though, felt like a stand alone, but it didn't feel like a stand alone. I'm surprised this isn't a series to be honest. However, if you're the type who enjoys reading a bit of history and a little mythology, perhaps you should consider Knight Assassin. It's a nice change from other genres (particularly aliens and angels at the moment) as there aren't many books set in the late 1100s.
<b>Random Thought:</b>
<blockquote>I will never recover my male ego, so long as Zayn is around to humble me.</blockquote>
Perhaps where there's a Carter, Jace, Daemon or a Herondale, there needs to be a Zayn. She might be able to keep their ego in check... well, particularly the third one. ;)
--------------------
Original Rating: 4.5 out of 5 Owls
Advance review copy provided by publisher for review
This review and more can be found at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/03/arc-review-knight-assassin-by-rima-jean.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Gi5Rk5yLloA/UtliaUbdL3I/AAAAAAAACbE/J27z92_qrYU/s1600/Official+Banner.png"; /></a>
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
As an Alice in Wonderland enthusiast, I was more than thrilled when Disney announced they were making Alice Through the Looking Glass, since the first film was visually stunning I went into watching the sequel with the same expectation that it would be rich in color and visuals. Visually it did not disappoint, with lavish costumes, and whimsical set design from beginning to end; the film was entertaining to watch. With returning characters such as Alice (Mia Wasikowska), The Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp), The Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter), and The White Queen (Anne Hathaway); the main story focuses on Alice trying to save the Hatter. With the citizens of Wonderland concerned for the Hatter’s wellbeing they rely on Alice to try to save the Hatter before it is too late, however Alice must race against Time (Sacha Baron Cohen) to try to learn what has happened to the Hatters family. Alice learns you can’t change the past but you can learn from it for the future; but will this knowledge help her save the Hatter or keep her stuck in the past?
Alice Through the Looking Glass mainly focuses on the friendship of Alice and the Hatter but also gives background history into the past of the Hatter, The Red Queen, and The White Queen. I found this really insightful and made it easier to get invested into the films plot points. I also found this film much more fast paced then the first film, literally about 10 minutes into the film Alice is jumping through the looking glass into Wonderland and right into the action. The newest addition to this film however is Time; who at first is given the main antagonist slot of the film, but as the story progresses that is not entirely the case. The film really shows good and evil are subjective in a sense, all while giving a good old fashion Disney happy ending.
Tim Burton’s Alice Through the Looking Glass keeps the accomplished directors personal style while keeping the characters of Lewis Carroll’s novel noticeable. However, I will warn you, if you were wanting to see this and hoping it was just like the novel.
It’s not. It’s actually the furthest from the actual book Through the Looking-Glass. The only reason it should probably have this title is due to Alice walking through the looking glass to get to Wonderland, but story wise it has nothing in common story wise. Burton used heavy creative license in the film, and even added Time as a leading role and main plot point that’s not even in Carroll’s novel. While the film is visually stunning and the beloved characters help the audience get invested, the overall plot is somewhat lacking the whimsy that is known in Carroll’s story. While the first film tells the story of Carroll’s novel, the sequel is definitely a story of Burton’s creation. So overall I would say the film is decent; if you enjoyed the first one you should enjoy this one. However, for those who loved the novel and were hoping for an accurate adaptation, this might not be for you. For me personally as a lover of all things “Alice in Wonderland”; I enjoyed it visually, and the portrayal of characters was great, but I felt the story was lacking.
Alice Through the Looking Glass mainly focuses on the friendship of Alice and the Hatter but also gives background history into the past of the Hatter, The Red Queen, and The White Queen. I found this really insightful and made it easier to get invested into the films plot points. I also found this film much more fast paced then the first film, literally about 10 minutes into the film Alice is jumping through the looking glass into Wonderland and right into the action. The newest addition to this film however is Time; who at first is given the main antagonist slot of the film, but as the story progresses that is not entirely the case. The film really shows good and evil are subjective in a sense, all while giving a good old fashion Disney happy ending.
Tim Burton’s Alice Through the Looking Glass keeps the accomplished directors personal style while keeping the characters of Lewis Carroll’s novel noticeable. However, I will warn you, if you were wanting to see this and hoping it was just like the novel.
It’s not. It’s actually the furthest from the actual book Through the Looking-Glass. The only reason it should probably have this title is due to Alice walking through the looking glass to get to Wonderland, but story wise it has nothing in common story wise. Burton used heavy creative license in the film, and even added Time as a leading role and main plot point that’s not even in Carroll’s novel. While the film is visually stunning and the beloved characters help the audience get invested, the overall plot is somewhat lacking the whimsy that is known in Carroll’s story. While the first film tells the story of Carroll’s novel, the sequel is definitely a story of Burton’s creation. So overall I would say the film is decent; if you enjoyed the first one you should enjoy this one. However, for those who loved the novel and were hoping for an accurate adaptation, this might not be for you. For me personally as a lover of all things “Alice in Wonderland”; I enjoyed it visually, and the portrayal of characters was great, but I felt the story was lacking.