Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Dec 19, 2018 (Updated Dec 19, 2018)
A wonderful movie
I have been really looking forward to seeing this movie. I, along with countless millions around the world, have fond memories of watching regular re-runs of Laurel & Hardy movies on TV, and they hold a very special place in so many people's hearts. Timeless legends that deserve to be remembered for generations to come. That being said, the preview screening I attended last night was probably only a quarter full, so I fear that this story detailing the latter part of their career isn't really going to appeal to mainstream audiences. I kind of hope it reignites interest in their work though as this truly is a wonderful film.
The movie begins in 1937, where Stan and Ollie are currently riding high as the most successful comedy performers in Hollywood. They're at Hal Roach studios, making their way to the set of Way Out West in order to shoot another scene. They're just chatting away together as we follow them - about their wives, about money. Stan's contract with Hal Roach is due to end shortly, while Ollie's isn't, and Stan is conscious of the fact that they don't actually own the rights to their own movies, so don't make as much money as performers such as Charlie Chaplin. He argues a bit with Hal Roach about it, before he and Ollie perform a song and dance number for the movie (the original clip of this scene is shown at the end of this movie, highlighting just how perfectly they nailed the recreation of it here). That short conversation, and the differing viewpoints regarding money and their film rights, lays the foundations for the rest of the movie, and we then jump forward 16 years.
The boys arrive in Newcastle, England in 1953. They're here to perform a tour of the UK, recreating classic scenes from their movies in an attempt to generate enough interest in them to get a movie made. A retelling of Robin Hood, which is being written by Stan. Age is clearly catching up with them though, particularly with Ollie, while Stan remains the driving force of the pair, constantly performing classic gags and coming up with new ideas. Unfortunately for them, they barely manage to fill half the seats of the theatres they perform in, with concern growing as to whether or not their eventual London dates will even go ahead. Their wives are due to join them on tour in a couple of weeks time, and they're also concerned as to what they'll make of it all when they arrive, especially as the boys are currently only staying in small, simple guest houses. Promoter Bernard Delfont (one of the movies funniest supporting roles) is keen to get them out and about promoting themselves, attending events and meeting dignitaries. His interests initially seem focused elsewhere in the theatre business, particularly with upcoming British comedy performer Norman Wisdom, so it's hard work generating interest in Laurel & Hardy once more. Luckily though, the effort pays off, and they eventually upgrade their London show to a bigger theatre, selling it out.
John C Reilly and Steve Coogan are just perfect as Stan and Ollie. I struggled a little at times with Steve Coogan, as I've been a big fan of his varied comedy work for nearly 30 years now, so found it a bit distracting. But he definitely pulls this off, and it's incredible to see so many mannerisms and iconic scenes from their movies so perfectly reproduced by both leads. The other outstanding and hilarious double act in this movie are the wives, who arrive in London to support their husbands and mix things up a little. They are clearly very caring and protective of their husbands though, supporting them through ill health, and an unfortunate falling out between Stan and Ollie related to events that occurred 16 years ago. A pivotal moment in their careers which was alluded to in the opening scenes of the movie, and further elaborated on in a number of flashbacks later on. It's a bit of an emotional roller-coaster, but overall this is a wonderfully heartwarming and moving love story about two of Hollywoods greatest. And it succeeded in making me want to watch every single one of their movies again.
The movie begins in 1937, where Stan and Ollie are currently riding high as the most successful comedy performers in Hollywood. They're at Hal Roach studios, making their way to the set of Way Out West in order to shoot another scene. They're just chatting away together as we follow them - about their wives, about money. Stan's contract with Hal Roach is due to end shortly, while Ollie's isn't, and Stan is conscious of the fact that they don't actually own the rights to their own movies, so don't make as much money as performers such as Charlie Chaplin. He argues a bit with Hal Roach about it, before he and Ollie perform a song and dance number for the movie (the original clip of this scene is shown at the end of this movie, highlighting just how perfectly they nailed the recreation of it here). That short conversation, and the differing viewpoints regarding money and their film rights, lays the foundations for the rest of the movie, and we then jump forward 16 years.
The boys arrive in Newcastle, England in 1953. They're here to perform a tour of the UK, recreating classic scenes from their movies in an attempt to generate enough interest in them to get a movie made. A retelling of Robin Hood, which is being written by Stan. Age is clearly catching up with them though, particularly with Ollie, while Stan remains the driving force of the pair, constantly performing classic gags and coming up with new ideas. Unfortunately for them, they barely manage to fill half the seats of the theatres they perform in, with concern growing as to whether or not their eventual London dates will even go ahead. Their wives are due to join them on tour in a couple of weeks time, and they're also concerned as to what they'll make of it all when they arrive, especially as the boys are currently only staying in small, simple guest houses. Promoter Bernard Delfont (one of the movies funniest supporting roles) is keen to get them out and about promoting themselves, attending events and meeting dignitaries. His interests initially seem focused elsewhere in the theatre business, particularly with upcoming British comedy performer Norman Wisdom, so it's hard work generating interest in Laurel & Hardy once more. Luckily though, the effort pays off, and they eventually upgrade their London show to a bigger theatre, selling it out.
John C Reilly and Steve Coogan are just perfect as Stan and Ollie. I struggled a little at times with Steve Coogan, as I've been a big fan of his varied comedy work for nearly 30 years now, so found it a bit distracting. But he definitely pulls this off, and it's incredible to see so many mannerisms and iconic scenes from their movies so perfectly reproduced by both leads. The other outstanding and hilarious double act in this movie are the wives, who arrive in London to support their husbands and mix things up a little. They are clearly very caring and protective of their husbands though, supporting them through ill health, and an unfortunate falling out between Stan and Ollie related to events that occurred 16 years ago. A pivotal moment in their careers which was alluded to in the opening scenes of the movie, and further elaborated on in a number of flashbacks later on. It's a bit of an emotional roller-coaster, but overall this is a wonderfully heartwarming and moving love story about two of Hollywoods greatest. And it succeeded in making me want to watch every single one of their movies again.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Sky Without Stars (System Divine, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
<h2><strong>I totally skipped over <em>Sky Without Stars</em> at first.</strong></h2>
Hello, I'm confessing that I scrolled straight past <em>Sky Without Stars</em> until someone said the words, "<em>Les Misérables</em> in space."
Then all the grabby hands came out because <em>I love that movie</em> AND I love space??? And I sure as hell am not going to read 1000+ pages of the classic. <s>Hahaha, required reading scarred me.</s>
<h2><em><strong>Sky Without Stars</strong></em><strong> has the feel of <em>Les Misérables.</em></strong></h2>
It's been like 5+ years since I <em>watched</em> the movie so I don't remember much from the movie aside from the French revolution. I also recall having a fascination with Éponine, who I don't recall having much screentime. Despite not remembering much from the musical, <em>Sky Without Stars</em> gave off the vibes and had many elements frequently nodding to the classic.
<h3><strong>The different perspectives worked in favor.</strong></h3>
This whopping novel is divided between three different characters who will all eventually play a role in the brewing revolution on Laterre. With such a long length, having one perspective could have easily bogged down the story and be boring. But having three characters who each brought their own perspective and struggles? I enjoyed learning about each of them while reading <em>Sky Without Stars</em>.
<strong>Chatine:</strong> Chatine, based on Éponine (I think?), is by far my favorite perspective out of the three. She dresses up as a boy to go about her life in the Frets because she feels being a girl would put her at a disadvantage (and it really would). With the goal of leaving Laterre one day, she goes about her life stealing on the streets to save up for the passage.
<strong>Alouette:</strong> Y'all, I hated Cosette for some reason but I adore Alouette??? Brody and Rendell give Cosette a very nice upgrade here in <em>Sky Without Stars</em> that fit into the timeframe here! Alouette, despite not knowing much of her past and living underground, is curious and crafty as she occasionally navigates aboveground.
<strong>Marcellus:</strong> Poor Marcellus is divided between believing his grandfather as he's always had growing up or his now-deemed-traitor former governess. Despite being the least interesting perspective I read, I enjoy seeing his internal conflict and want to know what he will do in later books.
<h3><strong>There's apparently a love triangle.</strong></h3>
Younger me found the revolution too fascinating to care about trivial things such as romance. Lo and behold, I didn't even notice the love triangle until near the end, whoops. However, romance is a minor aspect of <em>Sky Without Stars,</em> and I found myself more swept away by the world.
<h2><strong>A lot of worldbuilding on Laterre.</strong></h2>
Drop yourselves into a rocket ship and let's go soaring into space because the worldbuilding is A+! Sometimes I found myself overwhelmed because I am a character development and fast-paced action person in books. However, I think it's well worth going through nearly 600 pages of mostly setup. Brody and Rendell will sweep you away to another world while bringing in elements from the original.
<h2><strong>Solid beginning to a series.</strong></h2>
<em>Sky Without Stars</em> is a solid start as a first novel, and I enjoyed seeing Brody's and Rendell's take on <em>Les Misérables</em>! This book is perfect for those who are fans of the musical or enjoy a good sci-fi with a brewing rebellion on another planet.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/sky-without-stars-by-jessica-brody-and-joanne-rendell/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<h2><strong>I totally skipped over <em>Sky Without Stars</em> at first.</strong></h2>
Hello, I'm confessing that I scrolled straight past <em>Sky Without Stars</em> until someone said the words, "<em>Les Misérables</em> in space."
Then all the grabby hands came out because <em>I love that movie</em> AND I love space??? And I sure as hell am not going to read 1000+ pages of the classic. <s>Hahaha, required reading scarred me.</s>
<h2><em><strong>Sky Without Stars</strong></em><strong> has the feel of <em>Les Misérables.</em></strong></h2>
It's been like 5+ years since I <em>watched</em> the movie so I don't remember much from the movie aside from the French revolution. I also recall having a fascination with Éponine, who I don't recall having much screentime. Despite not remembering much from the musical, <em>Sky Without Stars</em> gave off the vibes and had many elements frequently nodding to the classic.
<h3><strong>The different perspectives worked in favor.</strong></h3>
This whopping novel is divided between three different characters who will all eventually play a role in the brewing revolution on Laterre. With such a long length, having one perspective could have easily bogged down the story and be boring. But having three characters who each brought their own perspective and struggles? I enjoyed learning about each of them while reading <em>Sky Without Stars</em>.
<strong>Chatine:</strong> Chatine, based on Éponine (I think?), is by far my favorite perspective out of the three. She dresses up as a boy to go about her life in the Frets because she feels being a girl would put her at a disadvantage (and it really would). With the goal of leaving Laterre one day, she goes about her life stealing on the streets to save up for the passage.
<strong>Alouette:</strong> Y'all, I hated Cosette for some reason but I adore Alouette??? Brody and Rendell give Cosette a very nice upgrade here in <em>Sky Without Stars</em> that fit into the timeframe here! Alouette, despite not knowing much of her past and living underground, is curious and crafty as she occasionally navigates aboveground.
<strong>Marcellus:</strong> Poor Marcellus is divided between believing his grandfather as he's always had growing up or his now-deemed-traitor former governess. Despite being the least interesting perspective I read, I enjoy seeing his internal conflict and want to know what he will do in later books.
<h3><strong>There's apparently a love triangle.</strong></h3>
Younger me found the revolution too fascinating to care about trivial things such as romance. Lo and behold, I didn't even notice the love triangle until near the end, whoops. However, romance is a minor aspect of <em>Sky Without Stars,</em> and I found myself more swept away by the world.
<h2><strong>A lot of worldbuilding on Laterre.</strong></h2>
Drop yourselves into a rocket ship and let's go soaring into space because the worldbuilding is A+! Sometimes I found myself overwhelmed because I am a character development and fast-paced action person in books. However, I think it's well worth going through nearly 600 pages of mostly setup. Brody and Rendell will sweep you away to another world while bringing in elements from the original.
<h2><strong>Solid beginning to a series.</strong></h2>
<em>Sky Without Stars</em> is a solid start as a first novel, and I enjoyed seeing Brody's and Rendell's take on <em>Les Misérables</em>! This book is perfect for those who are fans of the musical or enjoy a good sci-fi with a brewing rebellion on another planet.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/sky-without-stars-by-jessica-brody-and-joanne-rendell/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Alien (1979) in Movies
Feb 22, 2020
This classic holds up very, very well more than 40 years later
I convinced my cynical 19 year old to watch an "ancient" film (her phrase) - so I was careful with my choice. I know she likes horror, so thought I would try to see if she could be scared the old fashioned way and pulled the 1979 Sci-Fi/Horror classic ALIEN off the shelves to show her.
It scared the crap outta her.
Directed by Ridley Scott (more on him later) Alien tells the tale of a working-class deep space vehicle, returning home with a full cargo when they intercept a distress call at a distant, non-descript planet, they go to investigate and...
As told by Ridley Scott, based on a script and story by Dan O'Bannon, Alien is a masterwork in suspense and mood. Scott takes his time telling this story, setting up the feel and atmosphere, showing a gritty, working-man's vessel (and not a sleek silver and chrome shiny ship) where the people inside the craft are not heroes, but working class stiff's just trying to make a buck.
What surprised me this time around seeing this film is how deliberate (some would say slow) that the pacing of this film is - but, darn it all, if it doesn't work. The tension slowly builds so when violence/action happens it explodes and seems all the bigger due to the fact that it is coming out of silence.
The cast - a group of relative unknowns at the time - is stellar. In the DVD commentary, Director Scott said he spent quite a bit of time casting this film to ensure he had the right mix - and his work shows on screen. The 7 actors in this film work well together - and each one of them brings a real character to the screen that is interesting to watch.
Tom Skerrit (the film version of M*A*S*H) as laconic, laid back Captain Dallas and Yaphet Kotto (the villain in the James Bond flick LIVE AND LET DIE) as gruff, looking-for-a-buck mechanic Parker were the most well known of the 7 at the time of the release of the film - and they do bring some star power to the proceedings, but are met, evenly, by others like former child star Veronica Cartwright (Alfred Hitchcock's THE BIRDS), veteran character Actor Harry Dean Stanton ( THE ROSE) and John Hurt (THE ELEPHANT MAN). All 3 bring interesting characters - and faces - to the proceedings.
But...for me 2 the standouts in this cast is IAN HOLM (TIME BANDITS) as Science Officer Ash - a character with some "quirks" (to put it mildly) and, of course Sigourney Weaver (GHOSTBUSTERS) in her star making role as 3rd officer Ripley. I don't want to spoil anything in this film, but Weaver's Ripley is the type of strong female character - fighting the typical, chauvinistic male hierarchy - that was heretofore unknown/rarely seen in film and is the prototype of these types of characters to this day. Weaver's performance and the writing and direction of this character is that strong/groundbreaking that it continues to influence writing and filmmaking all these years later.
The 8th character in this film is the look and feel of the ship - the Nostromo - and the look and feel of the titular Alien character as brought to life in an Oscar winning effort in Visual Effects for the team of H.R. Giger, Carlo Rambaldi, Brian Johnson, Nick Allder and Dennis Ayling (based on drawings by Giger). This is truly remarkable, bravura and groundbreaking design and filmmaking - one that holds up very well more than 40 years later - made all the more astounding when you realize that these are all practical effects (CGI had not be invented yet) and the filmmakers had to rely on puppetry, editing, performance and what you don't see (but your mind thinks you do) to fill in the gaps.
It all works tremendously well - if you haven't seen this in awhile, do yourself a favor and watch it again. If you have never seen it, well...you are in for a treat.
Letter Grade: A+
10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It scared the crap outta her.
Directed by Ridley Scott (more on him later) Alien tells the tale of a working-class deep space vehicle, returning home with a full cargo when they intercept a distress call at a distant, non-descript planet, they go to investigate and...
As told by Ridley Scott, based on a script and story by Dan O'Bannon, Alien is a masterwork in suspense and mood. Scott takes his time telling this story, setting up the feel and atmosphere, showing a gritty, working-man's vessel (and not a sleek silver and chrome shiny ship) where the people inside the craft are not heroes, but working class stiff's just trying to make a buck.
What surprised me this time around seeing this film is how deliberate (some would say slow) that the pacing of this film is - but, darn it all, if it doesn't work. The tension slowly builds so when violence/action happens it explodes and seems all the bigger due to the fact that it is coming out of silence.
The cast - a group of relative unknowns at the time - is stellar. In the DVD commentary, Director Scott said he spent quite a bit of time casting this film to ensure he had the right mix - and his work shows on screen. The 7 actors in this film work well together - and each one of them brings a real character to the screen that is interesting to watch.
Tom Skerrit (the film version of M*A*S*H) as laconic, laid back Captain Dallas and Yaphet Kotto (the villain in the James Bond flick LIVE AND LET DIE) as gruff, looking-for-a-buck mechanic Parker were the most well known of the 7 at the time of the release of the film - and they do bring some star power to the proceedings, but are met, evenly, by others like former child star Veronica Cartwright (Alfred Hitchcock's THE BIRDS), veteran character Actor Harry Dean Stanton ( THE ROSE) and John Hurt (THE ELEPHANT MAN). All 3 bring interesting characters - and faces - to the proceedings.
But...for me 2 the standouts in this cast is IAN HOLM (TIME BANDITS) as Science Officer Ash - a character with some "quirks" (to put it mildly) and, of course Sigourney Weaver (GHOSTBUSTERS) in her star making role as 3rd officer Ripley. I don't want to spoil anything in this film, but Weaver's Ripley is the type of strong female character - fighting the typical, chauvinistic male hierarchy - that was heretofore unknown/rarely seen in film and is the prototype of these types of characters to this day. Weaver's performance and the writing and direction of this character is that strong/groundbreaking that it continues to influence writing and filmmaking all these years later.
The 8th character in this film is the look and feel of the ship - the Nostromo - and the look and feel of the titular Alien character as brought to life in an Oscar winning effort in Visual Effects for the team of H.R. Giger, Carlo Rambaldi, Brian Johnson, Nick Allder and Dennis Ayling (based on drawings by Giger). This is truly remarkable, bravura and groundbreaking design and filmmaking - one that holds up very well more than 40 years later - made all the more astounding when you realize that these are all practical effects (CGI had not be invented yet) and the filmmakers had to rely on puppetry, editing, performance and what you don't see (but your mind thinks you do) to fill in the gaps.
It all works tremendously well - if you haven't seen this in awhile, do yourself a favor and watch it again. If you have never seen it, well...you are in for a treat.
Letter Grade: A+
10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Old (2021) in Movies
Jul 28, 2021
Cinematography and Sound Design - very Hitchcockian (1 more)
Concept and initial set-up of the movie
Dafter than the Dharma initiative.
"Old" is the latest from the gloriously inconsistent writer/director M. Night Shyamalan. Will this be great Shyamalan (à la "The Sixth Sense") or dire Shyamalan (à la "The Last Airbender")? The answer, in my view, is somewhere in the middle. It's a curate's egg of a movie.
Positives:
- The premise feels very familiar (desert island beach; time slips; weird things happening.... "Lost" anyone?). But as a shell for a big screen adventure it kept me well-engaged.
- Shyamalan and his "Glass" cinematographer Mike Gioulakis use some novel techniques to portray the ageing effects. The angles they utilize feel quite Hitchcockian at times. Shyamalan supports this with the sound design, which makes this a REALLY good movie to watch in a cinema with good surround sound. Often the camera will be spinning showing nothing but ocean or rocks, with the character's conversation rotating behind you in the cinema. It's really quite effective.
- Shyamalan knows that no visual effects can improve on the horrors your mind can come up with. Although a '15' certificate, the "sustained threat, strong violence and injury detail" referenced by the BBFC pales into insignificance (in terms of what you actually see) compared to the equally rated "Freaky".
- I've seen other reviews comment that the "twist" (no spoilers here) was obvious. But, although not a ground-breaking idea, I was sufficiently satisfied with the denouement. It made sense, albeit twisted sense.
Negatives:
- I enjoyed the movie's leisurely set-up, introducing the characters and the movie's concept. (In many ways, it felt like the start of one of Irwin Allen's disaster movies of the 70's and 80's). But then Shyamalan turns the dial up to 11 and the action becomes increasingly farcical. Add into that the fact that you can see some of the 'jolts' coming a mile off, and the movie becomes progressively more disappointing, with a high ERQ (eye-rolling quotient) by the end.
- In particular, there are inconsistencies to the story that get you asking uncomfortable questions. For example, wounds can heal in the blink of an eye.... but not stab wounds apparently.
- The cast is truly global in nature: Vicky ("Phantom Thread") Krieps hails from Luxembourg; Bernal is Mexican; Sewell is a Brit; Amuka-Bird ("David Copperfield") is Nigerian; Leung is American; Eliza Scanlan is an Aussie; and Thomasin McKenzie (so good in "Jojo Rabbit", and good here too) is a Kiwi. But although it's clearly quite natural that an exotic beach resort would attract guests from all over the world, the combination of accents here makes the whole thing, unfortunately, sound like a dodgy spaghetti western!
Summary Thoughts: 'Time' and 'ageing' have of course been a popular movie topic for many years. I remember being both gripped and horrified by George Pal's wonderful 1960's version of "The Time Machine" when Rod Taylor threw his machine into fast forward and the dead Morlock decomposed in front of his eyes! Ursula Andress did the same as the rapidly ageing Ayesha in 1965's "She". And, more recently and with better effects, Julian Glover did the same in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
Unfortunately, "Old" isn't likely to join any of these classic movies in my consciousness. It's a diverting enough movie, with fabulous views of the Dominican Republic (which the local tourist board will no doubt be delighted with). A "less is more" approach might have made this a classic. But unfortunately, that's not what Shyamalan delivered here. Since what we get is a 'Lost-lite' with farcical elements.
And, by the way.... The movie that Charles (Rufus Sewell) refers to starring Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando is "The Missouri Breaks". It has a very unusual John Williams soundtrack, which I have on vinyl somewhere and is probably worth a few bob!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- The premise feels very familiar (desert island beach; time slips; weird things happening.... "Lost" anyone?). But as a shell for a big screen adventure it kept me well-engaged.
- Shyamalan and his "Glass" cinematographer Mike Gioulakis use some novel techniques to portray the ageing effects. The angles they utilize feel quite Hitchcockian at times. Shyamalan supports this with the sound design, which makes this a REALLY good movie to watch in a cinema with good surround sound. Often the camera will be spinning showing nothing but ocean or rocks, with the character's conversation rotating behind you in the cinema. It's really quite effective.
- Shyamalan knows that no visual effects can improve on the horrors your mind can come up with. Although a '15' certificate, the "sustained threat, strong violence and injury detail" referenced by the BBFC pales into insignificance (in terms of what you actually see) compared to the equally rated "Freaky".
- I've seen other reviews comment that the "twist" (no spoilers here) was obvious. But, although not a ground-breaking idea, I was sufficiently satisfied with the denouement. It made sense, albeit twisted sense.
Negatives:
- I enjoyed the movie's leisurely set-up, introducing the characters and the movie's concept. (In many ways, it felt like the start of one of Irwin Allen's disaster movies of the 70's and 80's). But then Shyamalan turns the dial up to 11 and the action becomes increasingly farcical. Add into that the fact that you can see some of the 'jolts' coming a mile off, and the movie becomes progressively more disappointing, with a high ERQ (eye-rolling quotient) by the end.
- In particular, there are inconsistencies to the story that get you asking uncomfortable questions. For example, wounds can heal in the blink of an eye.... but not stab wounds apparently.
- The cast is truly global in nature: Vicky ("Phantom Thread") Krieps hails from Luxembourg; Bernal is Mexican; Sewell is a Brit; Amuka-Bird ("David Copperfield") is Nigerian; Leung is American; Eliza Scanlan is an Aussie; and Thomasin McKenzie (so good in "Jojo Rabbit", and good here too) is a Kiwi. But although it's clearly quite natural that an exotic beach resort would attract guests from all over the world, the combination of accents here makes the whole thing, unfortunately, sound like a dodgy spaghetti western!
Summary Thoughts: 'Time' and 'ageing' have of course been a popular movie topic for many years. I remember being both gripped and horrified by George Pal's wonderful 1960's version of "The Time Machine" when Rod Taylor threw his machine into fast forward and the dead Morlock decomposed in front of his eyes! Ursula Andress did the same as the rapidly ageing Ayesha in 1965's "She". And, more recently and with better effects, Julian Glover did the same in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
Unfortunately, "Old" isn't likely to join any of these classic movies in my consciousness. It's a diverting enough movie, with fabulous views of the Dominican Republic (which the local tourist board will no doubt be delighted with). A "less is more" approach might have made this a classic. But unfortunately, that's not what Shyamalan delivered here. Since what we get is a 'Lost-lite' with farcical elements.
And, by the way.... The movie that Charles (Rufus Sewell) refers to starring Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando is "The Missouri Breaks". It has a very unusual John Williams soundtrack, which I have on vinyl somewhere and is probably worth a few bob!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated You, Me and the Movies in Books
Oct 2, 2020
You, me and the movies is the perfect book for the fans of the movie theaters. It will fill an emptiness you have felt all your life, because such a book previously didn’t exist. Perfectly entwined movie references with one incredible love story is the only thing you might need for a perfect reading date. Okay, maybe hot chocolate too. And a warm blanket. And a few tissues…
Two people. Ten classic films. A love story you’ll never forget.
Arden has just started university when she meets Mac – and quickly falls head over heels for the handsome, charismatic film lecturer. Their love affair is dramatic, exciting and all-consuming; the sort of thing you only see in the movies. But it didn’t last…
And thirty years later, leading a very different life, Arden is visiting a friend in hospital when she suddenly comes across the man she never forgot. Badly injured in an accident, Mac can only make brief references to the classic films they once watched together: Casablanca, A Star is Born, Pretty Woman among others… and they make Arden remember everything.
Chapter by chapter we dive into the memories that Arden holds close to her heart. All the feelings she though she forgot now flow back to the surface. Mac can’t say more than a few words, but those words mean the world for Arden.
The bittersweet memories of their relationship help Arden re-connect with the world in a way she no longer thought was possible. But will a movie-worthy love ever be hers again?
This book gave me a story I wasn’t prepared for. I am a sucker for romance in real-life, but when it comes to books, I don’t ship couples easily, and I don’t do “awws” and “aaahs”. But this book got me. It captured my heart and then broke it into a million pieces.
I loved every single moment. Every single situation, every memory, every scene at the hospital. The whole story is surreal. Imagine encountering your ex from thirty years ago in a hospital, badly injured, and he can’t say anything more than words that mean so much to you.
And that is amazing, because he can at least say those words. But after so many years, don’t you want to know? Aren’t you curious about the why’s and the how’s and what happened after parts?
Arden had so many questions, unable to be answered. And maybe that was for the best. Leave the past behind and start again?
The time flow was immensely written, jumping from past to present, but in a very tidy and clear way, easy to get into. I knew exactly when in time we were, which made the reading experience significantly better for me.
And despite all this praise, I will still give this book four stars instead of five, and here is my why:
In a couple of years, I will probably remember only the vague details of this book. The movie references and the love story between Mac and Arden. But I will never forget how this book made me feel…
All those tears that I have shed because of them, all those movies I have watched, pausing the book for a while, just so I can grasp the whole meaning, and most importantly, all the ANGER I felt in the end. I finished the book, I read the last few pages and I was angry! Angry at Mac, and angry at Arden, angry at destiny and angry at the writer, for ending this book in this way.
I am slowly beginning to realise and understand why this was the perfect ending, but I can never get over the feeling of anger, and I don’t remember feeling anger in such a way about any other book. (This could be counted as a compliment, I suppose). And that is why this book can’t be my favorite. But it definitely did change something in my life and my experience, and I will carry that with me forever.
Two people. Ten classic films. A love story you’ll never forget.
Arden has just started university when she meets Mac – and quickly falls head over heels for the handsome, charismatic film lecturer. Their love affair is dramatic, exciting and all-consuming; the sort of thing you only see in the movies. But it didn’t last…
And thirty years later, leading a very different life, Arden is visiting a friend in hospital when she suddenly comes across the man she never forgot. Badly injured in an accident, Mac can only make brief references to the classic films they once watched together: Casablanca, A Star is Born, Pretty Woman among others… and they make Arden remember everything.
Chapter by chapter we dive into the memories that Arden holds close to her heart. All the feelings she though she forgot now flow back to the surface. Mac can’t say more than a few words, but those words mean the world for Arden.
The bittersweet memories of their relationship help Arden re-connect with the world in a way she no longer thought was possible. But will a movie-worthy love ever be hers again?
This book gave me a story I wasn’t prepared for. I am a sucker for romance in real-life, but when it comes to books, I don’t ship couples easily, and I don’t do “awws” and “aaahs”. But this book got me. It captured my heart and then broke it into a million pieces.
I loved every single moment. Every single situation, every memory, every scene at the hospital. The whole story is surreal. Imagine encountering your ex from thirty years ago in a hospital, badly injured, and he can’t say anything more than words that mean so much to you.
And that is amazing, because he can at least say those words. But after so many years, don’t you want to know? Aren’t you curious about the why’s and the how’s and what happened after parts?
Arden had so many questions, unable to be answered. And maybe that was for the best. Leave the past behind and start again?
The time flow was immensely written, jumping from past to present, but in a very tidy and clear way, easy to get into. I knew exactly when in time we were, which made the reading experience significantly better for me.
And despite all this praise, I will still give this book four stars instead of five, and here is my why:
In a couple of years, I will probably remember only the vague details of this book. The movie references and the love story between Mac and Arden. But I will never forget how this book made me feel…
All those tears that I have shed because of them, all those movies I have watched, pausing the book for a while, just so I can grasp the whole meaning, and most importantly, all the ANGER I felt in the end. I finished the book, I read the last few pages and I was angry! Angry at Mac, and angry at Arden, angry at destiny and angry at the writer, for ending this book in this way.
I am slowly beginning to realise and understand why this was the perfect ending, but I can never get over the feeling of anger, and I don’t remember feeling anger in such a way about any other book. (This could be counted as a compliment, I suppose). And that is why this book can’t be my favorite. But it definitely did change something in my life and my experience, and I will carry that with me forever.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated The King of ZING in Tabletop Games
Feb 27, 2021
Board game design these days has taken quite an innovative turn – with the creation of new mechanics, combination of game styles, and unique themes being introduced. It seems that everywhere you look, there is something new! That doesn’t mean we have to give up on the classic mechanics and gameplay styles, though, and thats where The King of Zing comes into play.
The King of Zing is a card game of take-that and hand management in which players are trying to be the first to reach 100 points. Sounds simple enough, right? Well, throw some Specialty cards into the mix that allow opponents to manipulate your turn strategy, and even occasionally place their own tokens on your board, and you’ve got quite a strategic conundrum!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup for a game of The King of Zing, first place the board in the center of the table. Shuffle the deck of cards, dealing 5 to each player, and give players the 25 tokens in their chosen color. (Note: This prototype did not include tokens, so I improvised and borrowed some from another game. The final tokens will not look like the ones pictured below!). Place the remaining cards on the Deck space of the board, creating a draw deck, and flip over the top card to the Discard space. Choose a starting player, and the game is ready to begin!
Throughout the game, you will be drawing or playing cards. At the start of your turn, you will either draw the top card of the Draw deck, or take the top card of the Discard pile into your hand. If the card you drew matches your chosen color, you may immediately play it to your Grave (personal discard pile) and place one of your tokens onto your player board on the corresponding number, thus ending your turn. Otherwise, once you draw a card, you can do the following: select a card from your hand to go in the communal Discard pile, play a Specialty card, place a card from your hand face-up or face-down onto any player’s open Hold space, or play the face-down card from your own Hold space. **Important note** If there is ever a face-up card in your Hold at the start of your turn, you must play it and your turn ends. (This could be a strategic way to encumber opponents!). Play continues in this fashion until a player has collected 4 tokens in a row on their player board. Points are then scored (based on the number of tokens you played), and then the game resets – a series of games is played until one player reaches 100 points and is declared the ultimate winner!
The first thing I want to touch on is the rulebook for The King of Zing. As far as rulebooks go, it is not my favorite. There are some areas of ambiguity that left me confused, and it definitely took several read-throughs and a couple of false-starts at playing to figure out exactly how the gameplay flows. Being a prototype copy of the game, I imagine that editing/rewriting of the rulebook is something that will happen before final production.
Next, the overall gameplay. The different elements are reminiscent of other classic games – getting 4 tokens in a row a la Connect 4, the use of Specialty cards (Reverse, Skip, etc.) a la UNO. In their respective games, these mechanics work well, but how do they work together in The King of Zing? For the most part, I would say they work relatively well together. The mechanics compliment each other and feel logical in play. Probably the most unique aspect of Zing for me is the Hold space for each player. The ability to play cards to Hold spaces, either your own or of an opponent, gives you the opportunity to either plan a strategy/turn in advance, or potentially hinder an opponent. Playing a card face-up to a Hold guarantees that it will be played on the next turn, so not only are you planning ahead, but also broadcasting your move to your opponents. Conversely, a card played face-down could be resolved in any future turn, and can be a battle of risk/reward when played by opponents. A card played to my Hold face-down could just be a useless card for me, causing me to waste a turn to resolve it. BUT, what if an opponent gives you a card you actually need face-down – you don’t know that it is useful, but are you willing to risk a wasted turn to find out? The Hold space adds a new twist to the game that elevates the gameplay.
Components. Zing consists of a board and a big stack of cards. The board is nice and sturdy, the play areas clearly marked. The cards are colorful and thick, and the art is mostly minimal. The Specialty cards have a short description of their use printed on the card, but a more in-depth explanation can be found in the rulebook. As I stated above, this copy did not have any player tokens, so I cannot comment on how those will look in final production. All in all, a decent production quality.
All in all, The King of Zing feels like a take on an old classic. The gameplay incorporates several tried-and-true mechanics, and the flow of the game is pretty straightforward. The rulebook even suggests some gameplay variations, so The King of Zing can be played with gamers as young as 4 years old. Ultimately, the rulebook needs an overhaul, but the skeleton of the game seems to hold up. If you’re looking for something that brings back some nostalgia for older games, try The King of Zing.
The King of Zing is a card game of take-that and hand management in which players are trying to be the first to reach 100 points. Sounds simple enough, right? Well, throw some Specialty cards into the mix that allow opponents to manipulate your turn strategy, and even occasionally place their own tokens on your board, and you’ve got quite a strategic conundrum!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup for a game of The King of Zing, first place the board in the center of the table. Shuffle the deck of cards, dealing 5 to each player, and give players the 25 tokens in their chosen color. (Note: This prototype did not include tokens, so I improvised and borrowed some from another game. The final tokens will not look like the ones pictured below!). Place the remaining cards on the Deck space of the board, creating a draw deck, and flip over the top card to the Discard space. Choose a starting player, and the game is ready to begin!
Throughout the game, you will be drawing or playing cards. At the start of your turn, you will either draw the top card of the Draw deck, or take the top card of the Discard pile into your hand. If the card you drew matches your chosen color, you may immediately play it to your Grave (personal discard pile) and place one of your tokens onto your player board on the corresponding number, thus ending your turn. Otherwise, once you draw a card, you can do the following: select a card from your hand to go in the communal Discard pile, play a Specialty card, place a card from your hand face-up or face-down onto any player’s open Hold space, or play the face-down card from your own Hold space. **Important note** If there is ever a face-up card in your Hold at the start of your turn, you must play it and your turn ends. (This could be a strategic way to encumber opponents!). Play continues in this fashion until a player has collected 4 tokens in a row on their player board. Points are then scored (based on the number of tokens you played), and then the game resets – a series of games is played until one player reaches 100 points and is declared the ultimate winner!
The first thing I want to touch on is the rulebook for The King of Zing. As far as rulebooks go, it is not my favorite. There are some areas of ambiguity that left me confused, and it definitely took several read-throughs and a couple of false-starts at playing to figure out exactly how the gameplay flows. Being a prototype copy of the game, I imagine that editing/rewriting of the rulebook is something that will happen before final production.
Next, the overall gameplay. The different elements are reminiscent of other classic games – getting 4 tokens in a row a la Connect 4, the use of Specialty cards (Reverse, Skip, etc.) a la UNO. In their respective games, these mechanics work well, but how do they work together in The King of Zing? For the most part, I would say they work relatively well together. The mechanics compliment each other and feel logical in play. Probably the most unique aspect of Zing for me is the Hold space for each player. The ability to play cards to Hold spaces, either your own or of an opponent, gives you the opportunity to either plan a strategy/turn in advance, or potentially hinder an opponent. Playing a card face-up to a Hold guarantees that it will be played on the next turn, so not only are you planning ahead, but also broadcasting your move to your opponents. Conversely, a card played face-down could be resolved in any future turn, and can be a battle of risk/reward when played by opponents. A card played to my Hold face-down could just be a useless card for me, causing me to waste a turn to resolve it. BUT, what if an opponent gives you a card you actually need face-down – you don’t know that it is useful, but are you willing to risk a wasted turn to find out? The Hold space adds a new twist to the game that elevates the gameplay.
Components. Zing consists of a board and a big stack of cards. The board is nice and sturdy, the play areas clearly marked. The cards are colorful and thick, and the art is mostly minimal. The Specialty cards have a short description of their use printed on the card, but a more in-depth explanation can be found in the rulebook. As I stated above, this copy did not have any player tokens, so I cannot comment on how those will look in final production. All in all, a decent production quality.
All in all, The King of Zing feels like a take on an old classic. The gameplay incorporates several tried-and-true mechanics, and the flow of the game is pretty straightforward. The rulebook even suggests some gameplay variations, so The King of Zing can be played with gamers as young as 4 years old. Ultimately, the rulebook needs an overhaul, but the skeleton of the game seems to hold up. If you’re looking for something that brings back some nostalgia for older games, try The King of Zing.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Okja (2017) in Movies
Jan 10, 2018
Solid Film
In their efforts to be cost efficient and profitable, the Mirando Corporation creates a breed of "super pigs" that will be able to feed more homes per pig. One pig in particular, Okja, is being raised by little Mija (Seo-hyeon Ahn) in the mountains of South Korea. When the Mirando Corporation come to claim what is theirs, Mija will stop at nothing to get her best friend back.
There is a lot to like about this film, but one primary thing bothered me overall. At one point, Okja takes an extremely dark turn that I was neither ready for nor did I think was absolutely necessary. People that have seen the film probably know exactly which part I'm referring to. It was merely a piece of an overall delightful puzzle that just didn't match.
Solid acting performances abound in the film and it's not just the big names carrying their weight. Tilda Swinton and Jake Gyllenhaal (almost spelled his name right on the first try!) were really in tune with their respective zany characters. As a viewer the two show you that they are more than mere cardboard antagonists, but rather there were layers and levels to their characters that left you with insight. Of course that can't be pulled off without a solid actor/actress behind the helm. Ahn's performance as Mija was stellar. To be able to exemplify such strength and weakness in the same role takes real talent. My personal favorite of them all was Kim's role played by Choi Woo-Shik. His humor is subtle yet sidesplitting. He accomplishes a lot in the small amount of time he's on screen.
This films captures your attention both in its originality and a consistently entertaining pace. Even during the scenes with heavy dialogue, the film managed to hold on to its unique feel that captured my attention in the first place. Prepare to run the gauntlet of emotions as it goes from funny to heartbreaking to heartwarming to just plain sad at times. So glad I saw what I think has the potential to become a cult classic. I give it an 84.
There is a lot to like about this film, but one primary thing bothered me overall. At one point, Okja takes an extremely dark turn that I was neither ready for nor did I think was absolutely necessary. People that have seen the film probably know exactly which part I'm referring to. It was merely a piece of an overall delightful puzzle that just didn't match.
Solid acting performances abound in the film and it's not just the big names carrying their weight. Tilda Swinton and Jake Gyllenhaal (almost spelled his name right on the first try!) were really in tune with their respective zany characters. As a viewer the two show you that they are more than mere cardboard antagonists, but rather there were layers and levels to their characters that left you with insight. Of course that can't be pulled off without a solid actor/actress behind the helm. Ahn's performance as Mija was stellar. To be able to exemplify such strength and weakness in the same role takes real talent. My personal favorite of them all was Kim's role played by Choi Woo-Shik. His humor is subtle yet sidesplitting. He accomplishes a lot in the small amount of time he's on screen.
This films captures your attention both in its originality and a consistently entertaining pace. Even during the scenes with heavy dialogue, the film managed to hold on to its unique feel that captured my attention in the first place. Prepare to run the gauntlet of emotions as it goes from funny to heartbreaking to heartwarming to just plain sad at times. So glad I saw what I think has the potential to become a cult classic. I give it an 84.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Arrow - Season 1 in TV
May 25, 2017
Stephen Amell is brilliant as Oliver Queen (3 more)
Great cast
Brilliantly directed with great special effects (CGI & Practical)
Action Sequences are brilliantly choreographed
My name is Oliver Queen.. (every single episode) (1 more)
Everyone seems to want to start an argument with Ollie
My name, is Oliver Queen...
Green Arrow is my favourite character in comic books. A modern day Robin Hood, with greater foes that he manages to overcome. However, this show isn't about the Green Arrow, not exactly anyways. It is about The Arrow.
Oliver Queen brings a vigilante justice that crosses a line, as he lets his arrows fly without a care of the lives he takes, as long as they are on the side of the corrupt, they deserve to die. This is his burden to bare, and eventually with the recruitment of John Diggle, he learns that there are others who share his point of view, about the corruption in the city. Finally, with the third addition to their team, Felicity Smoke, Oliver Queen discovers that whilst his goal is good, his methods are not.
Secrets unfold and each episode leaves you wanting more. However, being a CW show, there is a lot of drama between characters, and a lot of audience members seem to find this an issue, because they want more action and don't like to see their heroes facing real world issues with friends and family.
In this first season, it seems that despite him being gone for 5 years, everyone wants to argue with him over petty things. To me, this just brings out a reality to the show that most audiences wouldn't expect from a comic book show. However, if you read more classic Green Arrow comics, you'll discover that there is in fact a lot of drama between Ollie and other characters that help him to evolve into a better man. This show has a lot of drama, the result of which is a great character development throughout the following episodes and seasons.
With a great cast, great writers and brilliant choreographed action, as well as some great references to the comics, and other DC Characters, this season of the show is one of the better seasons, and had me hooked from episode 1.
Oliver Queen brings a vigilante justice that crosses a line, as he lets his arrows fly without a care of the lives he takes, as long as they are on the side of the corrupt, they deserve to die. This is his burden to bare, and eventually with the recruitment of John Diggle, he learns that there are others who share his point of view, about the corruption in the city. Finally, with the third addition to their team, Felicity Smoke, Oliver Queen discovers that whilst his goal is good, his methods are not.
Secrets unfold and each episode leaves you wanting more. However, being a CW show, there is a lot of drama between characters, and a lot of audience members seem to find this an issue, because they want more action and don't like to see their heroes facing real world issues with friends and family.
In this first season, it seems that despite him being gone for 5 years, everyone wants to argue with him over petty things. To me, this just brings out a reality to the show that most audiences wouldn't expect from a comic book show. However, if you read more classic Green Arrow comics, you'll discover that there is in fact a lot of drama between Ollie and other characters that help him to evolve into a better man. This show has a lot of drama, the result of which is a great character development throughout the following episodes and seasons.
With a great cast, great writers and brilliant choreographed action, as well as some great references to the comics, and other DC Characters, this season of the show is one of the better seasons, and had me hooked from episode 1.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Hex Hall (Hex Hall, #1) in Books
Feb 11, 2019
The first thing that I found curious was that the author does not begin with when Sophie first discovers who she is, but instead begins with what incident propels her to switch to the paranormal-reject-filled boarding school, Hecate Hall - also affectionately known as "Hex Hall." The incident shows the softer side of Sophie, so it is easy to predict the choices she makes throughout the rest of the book.
Hecate Hall is similar to any other high school, just with a paranormal twist. The werewolves can still talk and walk upright, so they are not considered true shapeshifters. The fairies don't have to hide their wings, can turn into balls of light for travel, communicate through mirrors, as well as many other traditions of legend - but all seem to be pretentious snobs. The witches are divided into dark and light, and Sophie is unknowingly cast as a dark witch, though she can't guess how, which puts her in the line of fire from the other three dark witches on campus, who swing from classic "mean girls" to her best friends unpredictably. Plus, what school would be complete without the resident "hottie", whom Sophie can't help but fall for, especially since fate keeps putting the two of them together. And finally, two vampires also reside at school - though they are not considered equals - Sophie's roommate, Jenna, as well as a teacher condemned into hiding, none other than Lord Byron, the poet. While Lord Byron's role turned out to be a major disappointment, Jenna seemed to be the one with all of the secrets, even as she is repeatedly blamed for the new deaths cropping up.
Sophie is easy to like, with a fantastic sense of humor and strong moral sense. The flip-flopping emotions of the cast of characters matched the average teenager well, and made for many entertaining situations. The many surprises that saturated the plot made the book engaging, and I look forward to reading about what Sophie does with her new-found information about herself in the next book, Demonglass.
Hecate Hall is similar to any other high school, just with a paranormal twist. The werewolves can still talk and walk upright, so they are not considered true shapeshifters. The fairies don't have to hide their wings, can turn into balls of light for travel, communicate through mirrors, as well as many other traditions of legend - but all seem to be pretentious snobs. The witches are divided into dark and light, and Sophie is unknowingly cast as a dark witch, though she can't guess how, which puts her in the line of fire from the other three dark witches on campus, who swing from classic "mean girls" to her best friends unpredictably. Plus, what school would be complete without the resident "hottie", whom Sophie can't help but fall for, especially since fate keeps putting the two of them together. And finally, two vampires also reside at school - though they are not considered equals - Sophie's roommate, Jenna, as well as a teacher condemned into hiding, none other than Lord Byron, the poet. While Lord Byron's role turned out to be a major disappointment, Jenna seemed to be the one with all of the secrets, even as she is repeatedly blamed for the new deaths cropping up.
Sophie is easy to like, with a fantastic sense of humor and strong moral sense. The flip-flopping emotions of the cast of characters matched the average teenager well, and made for many entertaining situations. The many surprises that saturated the plot made the book engaging, and I look forward to reading about what Sophie does with her new-found information about herself in the next book, Demonglass.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Beastly in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I have a small obsession with the classic fairy tale of Beauty and the Beast, so any time a new retelling comes out, I must read it. This version written by Alex Flinn is both modernized and aimed at the Young Adult genre. I was curious to see how closely it would parallel the original fairy tale and still feel like an original story, and I think that it succeeded fairly well. There were parts that felt cliche, and it certainly verged into the realm of fantasy with the presence of the witch, but not so much that I was bothered by these elements. Plus, I liked the ways that the author diverged from the original tale and added new elements, such as the continuing involvement of the witch and the character of Kyle's father.
The plot wraps around the character of Kyle Kingsbury, who becomes the Beast. The book mainly felt like a character study as he progressed from a conceited, self-involved boy to a self-sacrificing, repentant young man. This is certainly a change from most retellings of this tale, since it is usually from the viewpoint of the character who plays the role of "Beauty." Many of the side characters were also just as fascinating, such as the blind tutor who comes to live with Kyle. I love the fascination that Kyle adopted for roses and the details of their care that were included in the book, it gave the book more depth. Probably the most exciting part of the book was his frantic race through New York City and the way that he handled the reactions that he created during this foray.
I know that this book was turned into a movie recently. I have not seen it as of yet, other than the previews, but I do look forward to it. But I already know of one major difference that the movie has from the book, and that is Kyle's beastly appearance is changed to resemble extravagant and disfiguring tattoos. I'll reserve opinion on this until after I've seen the movie.
The plot wraps around the character of Kyle Kingsbury, who becomes the Beast. The book mainly felt like a character study as he progressed from a conceited, self-involved boy to a self-sacrificing, repentant young man. This is certainly a change from most retellings of this tale, since it is usually from the viewpoint of the character who plays the role of "Beauty." Many of the side characters were also just as fascinating, such as the blind tutor who comes to live with Kyle. I love the fascination that Kyle adopted for roses and the details of their care that were included in the book, it gave the book more depth. Probably the most exciting part of the book was his frantic race through New York City and the way that he handled the reactions that he created during this foray.
I know that this book was turned into a movie recently. I have not seen it as of yet, other than the previews, but I do look forward to it. But I already know of one major difference that the movie has from the book, and that is Kyle's beastly appearance is changed to resemble extravagant and disfiguring tattoos. I'll reserve opinion on this until after I've seen the movie.