Search
Maria Sibylla Merian. Metamorphosis Insectorum Surinamensium
Book
Maria Sibylla Merian was a German naturalist and scientific illustrator. She is considered by none...
Sarah (7799 KP) rated Our Planet in TV
Apr 14, 2019
Well done but isn't harsh enough
You've got to hand it to them, Netflix really know what they're doing. Everyone knows you can't go wrong with a David Attenborough documentary, so it's very smart of Netflix to get him to narrate their nature documentary.
Visually, this documentary is stunning and absolutely flawless. To the point where the picture quality in some scenes looks that sharp and defined that it almost looks fake. Having the episodes focus on specific areas of the planet is a good move although because of this it only touches briefly on certain species and circumstances without going into too much depth. And it wouldn't be a nature documentary without some truly heart wrenching scenes (the flamingos and walruses especially) and also some wonderfully adorable scenes too (the otters)..
This documentary series main aim is to highlight what we're doing to ruin our planet and how it's affecting the wildlife. It definitely does this, but I dont think it does it very well. It touches on these issues but even with David Attenborough's sombre narrative, it never comes across as harsh enough. Despite the message, the score and scenes used in the episodes come across as far too positive and upbeat and it comes across as a little confused. Yes there are some positives with some parts of the planet and wildlife recovering, but this is only the minority. This should have been a hard hitting bleak no holds barred documentary about the damage we're doing to our planet, and it just isn't. When it comes to the damage that's being done to nature, it shouldn't be sugar coated.
Visually, this documentary is stunning and absolutely flawless. To the point where the picture quality in some scenes looks that sharp and defined that it almost looks fake. Having the episodes focus on specific areas of the planet is a good move although because of this it only touches briefly on certain species and circumstances without going into too much depth. And it wouldn't be a nature documentary without some truly heart wrenching scenes (the flamingos and walruses especially) and also some wonderfully adorable scenes too (the otters)..
This documentary series main aim is to highlight what we're doing to ruin our planet and how it's affecting the wildlife. It definitely does this, but I dont think it does it very well. It touches on these issues but even with David Attenborough's sombre narrative, it never comes across as harsh enough. Despite the message, the score and scenes used in the episodes come across as far too positive and upbeat and it comes across as a little confused. Yes there are some positives with some parts of the planet and wildlife recovering, but this is only the minority. This should have been a hard hitting bleak no holds barred documentary about the damage we're doing to our planet, and it just isn't. When it comes to the damage that's being done to nature, it shouldn't be sugar coated.
If I Could Tell You Just One Thing...: Encounters with Remarkable People and Their Most Valuable Advice
8.0
Rate It
Book
Adventures in advice with some of the world's most remarkable people. President Bill Clinton, Clare...
Natural Histories: 25 Extraordinary Species That Have Changed Our World
Stephen Moss and Brett Westwood
Book
Prepare to dive to the depths of the sea with 100-foot-long giant squid, travel through space after...
Kicking the Bar: The Life and Legacy of Broadcaster Huw Wheldon
Book
Written by his son, Kicking the Bar is the comprehensive biography of Huw Wheldon, one of the most...
The Great Animal Orchestra: Finding the Origins of Music in the World’s Wild Places
Book
Bernie Krause is the world's leading expert in natural sound. Beginning by recording the sound of...
The Penguin Knitting Book
Book
The Penguin Knitting Book by James Norbury is a charming how-to-knit classic packed with...
Having read, loved and recommended The Bees many times (and The Ice, too!), I thought I knew what to expect from Laline Paull. Well, I was right and wrong!
Firstly, I loved Pod.
Secondly, it gave me a lot to think about.
Thirdly, how does Laline Paull put herself in a dolphins shoes (flippers? Sorry…) and not make it sound like a children’s book? And I should stress: this is NOT a children’s book.
Paull may have anthropomorphised dolphins, various fish, all and any sea life, but she has stayed pretty close to what I’ve learnt is their true nature (thank you David Attenborough!). Dolphins are very intelligent, playful and seem to know what humans want (maybe that’s just me reading more into these things). But they’re also hunters, they have a pecking order, and I don’t think you’d want to be at the bottom of it if you were a dolphin!
This novel shows the joyful side of being a dolphin, the way that they must work together for the greater good of the pod. It also shows how violent they are - there’s even a dolphin rape scene that was every bit as upsetting as if it had been a human.
In amongst all the dolphin drama is a message for us humans. We see the damage the human race is doing to the oceans: pollution, over-fishing, capturing dolphins for food, entertainment, or warfare.
Pod is graphic in places. It most definitely doesn’t pull its punches - and why should it?
This novel is not sentimental, jam packed with happy, child-friendly dolphins. Pod looks at the real struggles of sea life (and there’s not just dolphins involved). These dolphins are fighters, authoritarian, protective of one another, followers of tradition as well as migration routes, they deal with the results of humanity’s selfishness and cost-cutting.
The imagination and empathy that must have gone in to writing this: I’ve seen how a dolphin, a whale, a wrasse, a clam, a remora and a sea anemone feel and behave (I like to think so, anyway!).
How could I NOT love this book? 🤷🏼♀️
Firstly, I loved Pod.
Secondly, it gave me a lot to think about.
Thirdly, how does Laline Paull put herself in a dolphins shoes (flippers? Sorry…) and not make it sound like a children’s book? And I should stress: this is NOT a children’s book.
Paull may have anthropomorphised dolphins, various fish, all and any sea life, but she has stayed pretty close to what I’ve learnt is their true nature (thank you David Attenborough!). Dolphins are very intelligent, playful and seem to know what humans want (maybe that’s just me reading more into these things). But they’re also hunters, they have a pecking order, and I don’t think you’d want to be at the bottom of it if you were a dolphin!
This novel shows the joyful side of being a dolphin, the way that they must work together for the greater good of the pod. It also shows how violent they are - there’s even a dolphin rape scene that was every bit as upsetting as if it had been a human.
In amongst all the dolphin drama is a message for us humans. We see the damage the human race is doing to the oceans: pollution, over-fishing, capturing dolphins for food, entertainment, or warfare.
Pod is graphic in places. It most definitely doesn’t pull its punches - and why should it?
This novel is not sentimental, jam packed with happy, child-friendly dolphins. Pod looks at the real struggles of sea life (and there’s not just dolphins involved). These dolphins are fighters, authoritarian, protective of one another, followers of tradition as well as migration routes, they deal with the results of humanity’s selfishness and cost-cutting.
The imagination and empathy that must have gone in to writing this: I’ve seen how a dolphin, a whale, a wrasse, a clam, a remora and a sea anemone feel and behave (I like to think so, anyway!).
How could I NOT love this book? 🤷🏼♀️
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Marvelous Cash Cows and How to Milk Them.
As just about everyone in the whole muggle world (or nomaj world if you’re reading this in the States) knows, FBaWtFT is the first of a five film spin-off series from the Potter franchise, still under the careful stewardship of David Yates. (And if the other films in the series were ‘amber-lit’ rather than ‘green-lit’, their production now seems assured after the US opening weekend alone has brought in nearly half its $180 million budget).
Set in New York in the mid-1920’s Eddie Redmayne (“The Danish Girl”; “The Theory of Everything”) plays Newt Scamander, a Brit newly arrived with a case full of trouble. Newt is a bit like an amiable and ditsy David Attenborough, with a strong desire to protect and establish breeding colonies for endangered species. It’s fair to say though that these are creatures that even Sir David hasn’t yet filmed.
Within the battered old case (a forerunner of Hermione Grainger’s bag, which was probably borrowed from Mary Poppins), Newt stores a menagerie of strange and wonderful creatures which – after a bump and a mishap – get released by wannabe baker and muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler, “Fanboys”). Newt has the job of rounding up the strays with the help of Tina (Katherine Waterston, “Steve Jobs”), an out of favour member of the Magical Congress of the USA (MACUSA). Unfortunately this couldn’t be happening at a worse time: something else – nothing to do with Newt – is wreaking havoc across New York and MACUSA is on red alert suspecting the involvement of a dark wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, following attacks in Europe. And keeping the secrets of wizardry from the NoMaj population is getting increasingly difficult, especially with the efforts of the “Second Salemers” movement run by Mary Lou (Samantha Morton, “Minority Report”) and her strange adopted family.
This film will obviously be an enormous success given the love of all things Potter, but is it any good? Well, its different for sure, being set many years before Potter and only having glancing references to Hogwarts and related matters. And that gives the opportunity to start afresh with new characters and new relationships which is refreshing. It’s all perfectly amiable, with Redmayne’s slightly embarrassed lack of eye-contact* in delivering his lines being charming. [* Is this perhaps the second leading character in a month that is high on the autistic spectrum?] . Redmayne does have a tendency to mutter though and (particularly with the sound system for the cinema I saw this in) this made a lot of his dialogue inaudible. Waterston makes for a charming if somewhat insipid heroine, not being given an awful lot to do in the action sequences.
Kowalski adds a humorous balance to the mixture, but the star comic turns are some of the creatures, especially the Niffler… a light fingered magpie-like creature with a voluminous pouch and expensive tastes!
In the ‘I-almost-know-who-that-is-behind-the-make-up-but-can’t-quite-place-him’ role is Ron “Hellboy” Perlman as the untrustworthy gangster Gnarlack. And in another cameo – and probably paid an enormous fee for his 30 seconds of screen time – is Johnny Depp, which was money well-wasted since, like most of his roles, he was completely unrecognisable (I only knew it was him from checking imdb afterwards).
At the pen is J.K.Rowling herself, and there are a few corking lines in the script. However, in common with many of her novels, there is also a tendency for extrapolation and padding. Some judicial editing could have knocked at least twenty minutes off its child-unfriendly 133 minute running time and made a better film. Undoubtedly the first half of the film is better than the second, with the finale slouching into – as my other half put it – “superhero” territory with much CGI destruction and smashing of glass. What is perhaps most surprising about the story is that there are few obvious set-ups for the next film.
Quirky and original, its a film that will no-doubt please Potter fans and it stands as a decent fantasy film in its own right. It’s difficult though to get the smell of big business and exploitation out of your nostrils: no doubt stockings throughout the world will be full of plush toy nifflers this Christmas.
Set in New York in the mid-1920’s Eddie Redmayne (“The Danish Girl”; “The Theory of Everything”) plays Newt Scamander, a Brit newly arrived with a case full of trouble. Newt is a bit like an amiable and ditsy David Attenborough, with a strong desire to protect and establish breeding colonies for endangered species. It’s fair to say though that these are creatures that even Sir David hasn’t yet filmed.
Within the battered old case (a forerunner of Hermione Grainger’s bag, which was probably borrowed from Mary Poppins), Newt stores a menagerie of strange and wonderful creatures which – after a bump and a mishap – get released by wannabe baker and muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler, “Fanboys”). Newt has the job of rounding up the strays with the help of Tina (Katherine Waterston, “Steve Jobs”), an out of favour member of the Magical Congress of the USA (MACUSA). Unfortunately this couldn’t be happening at a worse time: something else – nothing to do with Newt – is wreaking havoc across New York and MACUSA is on red alert suspecting the involvement of a dark wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, following attacks in Europe. And keeping the secrets of wizardry from the NoMaj population is getting increasingly difficult, especially with the efforts of the “Second Salemers” movement run by Mary Lou (Samantha Morton, “Minority Report”) and her strange adopted family.
This film will obviously be an enormous success given the love of all things Potter, but is it any good? Well, its different for sure, being set many years before Potter and only having glancing references to Hogwarts and related matters. And that gives the opportunity to start afresh with new characters and new relationships which is refreshing. It’s all perfectly amiable, with Redmayne’s slightly embarrassed lack of eye-contact* in delivering his lines being charming. [* Is this perhaps the second leading character in a month that is high on the autistic spectrum?] . Redmayne does have a tendency to mutter though and (particularly with the sound system for the cinema I saw this in) this made a lot of his dialogue inaudible. Waterston makes for a charming if somewhat insipid heroine, not being given an awful lot to do in the action sequences.
Kowalski adds a humorous balance to the mixture, but the star comic turns are some of the creatures, especially the Niffler… a light fingered magpie-like creature with a voluminous pouch and expensive tastes!
In the ‘I-almost-know-who-that-is-behind-the-make-up-but-can’t-quite-place-him’ role is Ron “Hellboy” Perlman as the untrustworthy gangster Gnarlack. And in another cameo – and probably paid an enormous fee for his 30 seconds of screen time – is Johnny Depp, which was money well-wasted since, like most of his roles, he was completely unrecognisable (I only knew it was him from checking imdb afterwards).
At the pen is J.K.Rowling herself, and there are a few corking lines in the script. However, in common with many of her novels, there is also a tendency for extrapolation and padding. Some judicial editing could have knocked at least twenty minutes off its child-unfriendly 133 minute running time and made a better film. Undoubtedly the first half of the film is better than the second, with the finale slouching into – as my other half put it – “superhero” territory with much CGI destruction and smashing of glass. What is perhaps most surprising about the story is that there are few obvious set-ups for the next film.
Quirky and original, its a film that will no-doubt please Potter fans and it stands as a decent fantasy film in its own right. It’s difficult though to get the smell of big business and exploitation out of your nostrils: no doubt stockings throughout the world will be full of plush toy nifflers this Christmas.
Svalbard (Spitsbergen): With Franz Josef Land and Jan Mayen
Roger Norum and Andreas Umbreit
Book
The Bradt guide to Svalbard (Spitsbergen), including Franz Josef Land and Jan Mayen, is a unique,...