Search
Search results
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated The Beast Within: A Tale of Beauty's Prince (Villains #2) in Books
Aug 24, 2019
Beauty and the Beast is arguably one of my favourite Disney classics. I adored Tale as Old as Time and so the Beast’s version of the villain’s tale series had some pretty big boots to fill.
The Beast Within is the second book in the villains’ series and shifts between time periods to provide the reader with an insight to the Beast’s life before and after he was cursed. This was such an interesting concept because each version of Beauty and the Beast contains the vain prince who shuns the enchantress: it’s a pretty key part of the story! However, Serena Valentino expands upon this and, although the Prince becomes no more likeable, Valentino humanises him. We learn the extent of his vanity and, to be honest, probably dislike him more than the original version!
We also receive more of an insight into the Odd Sisters within this novel. We visit their house and gain an idea of the pecking order within the foursome. Yes foursome! I have not drunk too much prosecco and can no longer count (well not yet) – the witches have a little sister.
Circe is as beautiful as her sisters are odd and also happens to be engaged to the Prince (massive coincidence I am sure) but is rejected by him when his best friend Gaston reveals that her family are pig farmers. He claims she deceived him with her beauty and is sickened by her grotesque appearance now he knows the truth.
In fact, by placing Gaston and the Prince side by side we start to think that maybe Belle made the wrong choice by dismissing the shallow hunter so quickly!
Needless to say, Circe is crushed: she accuses him of behaving like a beast, being tainted by vanity and not capable of true love. The spurned witch curses the Prince, warning him that he will slowly transform into the horrifying creature that he is within.
The fact that the reader witnesses the full transformation of Prince into Beast is really interesting and Circe’s words have a profound effect on the Prince, his grasp on his sanity and his future relationships. He veers wildly between dismissing Circe as crazy whilst simultaneously finding a bride in order to break the spell.
Naturally, the Prince is not alone in this story: Mrs Potts, Cogsworth and Lumiere unwittingly become swept up in Circe’s curse. In fact, the odd sisters taunt the Beast, implying that he is only concerned about his servants because of what they may do to him if the curse is not lifted.
Valentino does choose to express that Mrs Potts, in particular, had great affection for the Prince and Gaston as children but this isn’t really played on at all. The reader does gain the sense that the Prince is cared for by his staff but there are no real relationships developed here. Even when Lumiere realises that the Prince views the objects of the curse differently from everyone else; there lacks the compassion and assistance of their animated counterparts.
Another relationship that lacked conviction was that between the Beast and Belle. This is one of the most iconic love stories in the Disney portfolio but I’m afraid I just wasn’t feeling it. I understand that Valentino needs to focus on Tulip: she is an important character who shows the Prince’s desperation, his unwillingness to change and his escalating beastly behaviour (she also links into the next book in the series). However, the focus on Tulip seems to sacrifice any detail when it comes to Belle. Yes, we learn that she attended the original ball and that she will do anything to save her father but that’s pretty much it. The blossoming romance that ensues is witnessed third hand via the odd sisters’ mirror and it begs the question: is this the tale of Beauty’s Prince or is the tale of Circe and her sisters?
Despite Circe being the youngest, it is often implied that she is more powerful than her older sisters and, although she does seem more sane, it cannot be said that Circe is a pushover: upon learning of her sisters’ involvement in the Beast’s fate, Circe punishes them; removes the curse and creates the spinning prince complete with fireworks that we remember from the original movie. This transition from bitter, heartbroken witch to sympathetic and forgiving is unforeseen and abrupt. To be honest it felt like it was a convenient way of shoe-horning the movie ending into the book.
Overall, I loved the potential of The Beast Within. I really enjoyed learning more about the Prince’s character and seeing a side of him that the reader cannot merely brush off as young or vain: he was a truly horrible person. I also loved the little nods to the fairy-tale world, such as Gaston suggesting a ball because it all worked out for the Prince’s friend “after the business with the slipper”.
Valentino also provides hints to future novels and so the references to Ursula were very intriguing as I prepare to read ‘Poor Unfortunate Soul’ next. There is the occasional reference to the old Queen, as well as the continuation of the theme of mirrors and love as a weakness: the odd sisters really do dominate the tales.
In a way I almost feel that the book has a little too much going on: we have the beast’s battle against the curse; the odd sister’s magic; Circe and Ursula’s little tangent and the original storyline. In my opinion, all of these factors make the ending of the book very rushed. For example, the Beast juxtaposes from being unable to fall in love with someone like Belle to presenting her with an entire library just to see her smile in a matter of sentences!
It is a shame because, after the ending of ‘Fairest of All’ I was expecting so much more. I did still like the book but I didn’t love it- I felt like the book could have expanded more on the more unique/dark aspects of the story, such as the creepy statues and the Beast’s alternative view of the curse.
Ah well, you can’t love them all! Onwards and upwards to Poor Unfortunate Soul!
The Beast Within is the second book in the villains’ series and shifts between time periods to provide the reader with an insight to the Beast’s life before and after he was cursed. This was such an interesting concept because each version of Beauty and the Beast contains the vain prince who shuns the enchantress: it’s a pretty key part of the story! However, Serena Valentino expands upon this and, although the Prince becomes no more likeable, Valentino humanises him. We learn the extent of his vanity and, to be honest, probably dislike him more than the original version!
We also receive more of an insight into the Odd Sisters within this novel. We visit their house and gain an idea of the pecking order within the foursome. Yes foursome! I have not drunk too much prosecco and can no longer count (well not yet) – the witches have a little sister.
Circe is as beautiful as her sisters are odd and also happens to be engaged to the Prince (massive coincidence I am sure) but is rejected by him when his best friend Gaston reveals that her family are pig farmers. He claims she deceived him with her beauty and is sickened by her grotesque appearance now he knows the truth.
In fact, by placing Gaston and the Prince side by side we start to think that maybe Belle made the wrong choice by dismissing the shallow hunter so quickly!
Needless to say, Circe is crushed: she accuses him of behaving like a beast, being tainted by vanity and not capable of true love. The spurned witch curses the Prince, warning him that he will slowly transform into the horrifying creature that he is within.
The fact that the reader witnesses the full transformation of Prince into Beast is really interesting and Circe’s words have a profound effect on the Prince, his grasp on his sanity and his future relationships. He veers wildly between dismissing Circe as crazy whilst simultaneously finding a bride in order to break the spell.
Naturally, the Prince is not alone in this story: Mrs Potts, Cogsworth and Lumiere unwittingly become swept up in Circe’s curse. In fact, the odd sisters taunt the Beast, implying that he is only concerned about his servants because of what they may do to him if the curse is not lifted.
Valentino does choose to express that Mrs Potts, in particular, had great affection for the Prince and Gaston as children but this isn’t really played on at all. The reader does gain the sense that the Prince is cared for by his staff but there are no real relationships developed here. Even when Lumiere realises that the Prince views the objects of the curse differently from everyone else; there lacks the compassion and assistance of their animated counterparts.
Another relationship that lacked conviction was that between the Beast and Belle. This is one of the most iconic love stories in the Disney portfolio but I’m afraid I just wasn’t feeling it. I understand that Valentino needs to focus on Tulip: she is an important character who shows the Prince’s desperation, his unwillingness to change and his escalating beastly behaviour (she also links into the next book in the series). However, the focus on Tulip seems to sacrifice any detail when it comes to Belle. Yes, we learn that she attended the original ball and that she will do anything to save her father but that’s pretty much it. The blossoming romance that ensues is witnessed third hand via the odd sisters’ mirror and it begs the question: is this the tale of Beauty’s Prince or is the tale of Circe and her sisters?
Despite Circe being the youngest, it is often implied that she is more powerful than her older sisters and, although she does seem more sane, it cannot be said that Circe is a pushover: upon learning of her sisters’ involvement in the Beast’s fate, Circe punishes them; removes the curse and creates the spinning prince complete with fireworks that we remember from the original movie. This transition from bitter, heartbroken witch to sympathetic and forgiving is unforeseen and abrupt. To be honest it felt like it was a convenient way of shoe-horning the movie ending into the book.
Overall, I loved the potential of The Beast Within. I really enjoyed learning more about the Prince’s character and seeing a side of him that the reader cannot merely brush off as young or vain: he was a truly horrible person. I also loved the little nods to the fairy-tale world, such as Gaston suggesting a ball because it all worked out for the Prince’s friend “after the business with the slipper”.
Valentino also provides hints to future novels and so the references to Ursula were very intriguing as I prepare to read ‘Poor Unfortunate Soul’ next. There is the occasional reference to the old Queen, as well as the continuation of the theme of mirrors and love as a weakness: the odd sisters really do dominate the tales.
In a way I almost feel that the book has a little too much going on: we have the beast’s battle against the curse; the odd sister’s magic; Circe and Ursula’s little tangent and the original storyline. In my opinion, all of these factors make the ending of the book very rushed. For example, the Beast juxtaposes from being unable to fall in love with someone like Belle to presenting her with an entire library just to see her smile in a matter of sentences!
It is a shame because, after the ending of ‘Fairest of All’ I was expecting so much more. I did still like the book but I didn’t love it- I felt like the book could have expanded more on the more unique/dark aspects of the story, such as the creepy statues and the Beast’s alternative view of the curse.
Ah well, you can’t love them all! Onwards and upwards to Poor Unfortunate Soul!
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated What Once Was Mine in Books
Oct 25, 2021
𝑾𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒇 𝑹𝒂𝒑𝒖𝒏𝒛𝒆𝒍’𝒔 𝒎𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒅𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒌 𝒂 𝒑𝒐𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒘𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒈 𝒇𝒍𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓?
As you will all know by now, I am in love with the Twisted Tales series and have to read each installment as they are released. What Once was Mine is the 12th Twisted Tale book and the 7th written by Liz Braswell so to say I was excited would be an understatement.
As always, TT books come with a tag line to lure you in and this one is “What if Rapunzel’s mother drank a potion from the wrong flower?” Yes, instead of the golden Sundrop flower, the ailing pregnant queen is mistakenly given a potion using the Moondrop flower, resulting in a silver-haired princess whose power kills rather than heals!
Of course, that casts the whole locking the princess in a tower concept into an entirely new light! However, many of the other elements remain the same as Disney’s ‘Tangled’ movie: Gothel is Rapunzel’s captor and “mother”, Flynn steals a crown and is on the run from the Stabbington brothers and Rapunzel is desperate to see the floating lights.
What Liz Braswell manages to do (very well, in my opinion) is to maintain all these similarities, keeping her readers rooted to the original story but also to bend the original fairytale into something a bit more mature, a bit darker and, in some cases, a bit more real.
“𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙡𝙚𝙙, 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙙𝙨, 𝙍𝙖𝙥𝙪𝙣𝙯𝙚𝙡”
What Once was Mine is written from Rapunzel’s perspective. Now, this may be an obvious choice, but it also gives Braswell the opportunity to show her protagonist in a slightly more mature light than we are used to. Yes, Rapunzel is scatty, enthusiastic and teeth-grittingly cheerful about everything but she also believes she is dangerous and that she belongs in the tower for the safety of others.
Rapunzel has always been told that her hair killed her parents and that Gothel has been charged with her care and protection. However, what I really enjoyed about Braswell’s Rapunzel is that, although she begins with the same blind faith in Gothel as she has in the movie, she soon develops an inner turmoil of emotions with regards to her captor, questioning where she spends her days and recognising the little digs often made at the daughter’s expense.
As her journey continues, Rapunzel observes other mother-daughter relationships and her doubt and distrust of Gothel begins to build as a result. Lords, ladies and bandits alike are hunting for Rapunzel in order to claim her as their prize but this couldn’t be orchestrated by her mother, the only family she has ever known, could it?
“𝘽𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙝 𝙮𝙚𝙖𝙧 𝙗𝙮 𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙜𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛, 𝙍𝙖𝙥𝙪𝙣𝙯𝙚𝙡. 𝙏𝙝𝙖𝙩’𝙨 𝙖 𝙛𝙖𝙧 𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙜𝙞𝙛𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣 𝙛𝙡𝙤𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙨.”
I have conflicting feelings when it comes to the darker elements of What Once Was Mine. The inclusion of the very real Countess Bathory took me by surprise and was quite gruesome in places: not a problem for a grown-up Disney nerd but I’m not sure whether I will be passing this one along to the Mini Bookworm any time soon.
There is also the narrator of the story: a brother making up an alternative Rapunzel story for his sister while she is undergoing chemo. I understand this is an emotive topic for the author and I almost got it as a tool for the story-telling, enabling the use of quite modern, colloquial terms such as “murderhair” and enabling the creative inclusion of characters such as Maximus.
I really wanted this technique to be profound and make the story mean more, such as fairytales having an important place in the modern world for example. Unfortunately, it fell a little flat for me: it was an interesting tweak but it didn’t make me feel as much as I wanted it to.
It is not all doom and gloom though, Rapunzel’s perspective of the world provides comic moments: her (limited) knowledge of the world comes from the 37 books that she owns, leading to a moose that is definitely a squirrel and a cat which acts suspiciously like a fox. We are also not deprived of the regulars of The Snuggly Duckling, indeed all of your favourites from the film turn up for this novel.
Braswell’s characterisation when it came to Flynn was spot on in my opinion. The observation by Rapunzel that there is the “real” Flynn and then there is the charming, roguish mask he uses was perfect! Gina was also a great addition, desperately trying to be an adventurer/criminal and not being taken seriously just because she is a girl. The relationship between her and Flynn was adorable and, of course, Gina’s mother is just legendary.
“𝙎𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨𝙣’𝙩 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙨; 𝙨𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙥𝙪𝙧𝙨𝙪𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙣 𝙪𝙣𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙯𝙚𝙙 𝙙𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙢 𝙤𝙛 𝙣𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙡𝙘𝙮”
The writing style isn’t for everyone and, I must admit, this is the twisted tale which I have probably put down and walked away from the most. However, if you can stick it through the slow sections the story is really worth it and provides a much-admired evolution of the Disney Princess.
Don’t get me wrong - in the animated movie Rapunzel is great and all but by the end she is a princess with a haircut and a smouldering husband. Braswell’s Rapunzel has magic that she needs to study, understand and control, she is a future Queen in the making and simply has more of a purpose than her animated counterpart.
“𝙎𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙖𝙙 𝙥𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙖 𝙨𝙩𝙪𝙗𝙗𝙤𝙧𝙣 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣”
What Once Was Mine brings a whole new depth to the characters of Disney’s Tangled. It gives us a new (frankly, disgusting) villain alongside all our favourite characters and definitely presents a creative twist on the traditional story. Don’t worry, Rapunzel still gets her Happily Ever After, but she fought a little harder for it this time around!
As you will all know by now, I am in love with the Twisted Tales series and have to read each installment as they are released. What Once was Mine is the 12th Twisted Tale book and the 7th written by Liz Braswell so to say I was excited would be an understatement.
As always, TT books come with a tag line to lure you in and this one is “What if Rapunzel’s mother drank a potion from the wrong flower?” Yes, instead of the golden Sundrop flower, the ailing pregnant queen is mistakenly given a potion using the Moondrop flower, resulting in a silver-haired princess whose power kills rather than heals!
Of course, that casts the whole locking the princess in a tower concept into an entirely new light! However, many of the other elements remain the same as Disney’s ‘Tangled’ movie: Gothel is Rapunzel’s captor and “mother”, Flynn steals a crown and is on the run from the Stabbington brothers and Rapunzel is desperate to see the floating lights.
What Liz Braswell manages to do (very well, in my opinion) is to maintain all these similarities, keeping her readers rooted to the original story but also to bend the original fairytale into something a bit more mature, a bit darker and, in some cases, a bit more real.
“𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙩𝙝 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙡𝙚𝙙, 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙙𝙨, 𝙍𝙖𝙥𝙪𝙣𝙯𝙚𝙡”
What Once was Mine is written from Rapunzel’s perspective. Now, this may be an obvious choice, but it also gives Braswell the opportunity to show her protagonist in a slightly more mature light than we are used to. Yes, Rapunzel is scatty, enthusiastic and teeth-grittingly cheerful about everything but she also believes she is dangerous and that she belongs in the tower for the safety of others.
Rapunzel has always been told that her hair killed her parents and that Gothel has been charged with her care and protection. However, what I really enjoyed about Braswell’s Rapunzel is that, although she begins with the same blind faith in Gothel as she has in the movie, she soon develops an inner turmoil of emotions with regards to her captor, questioning where she spends her days and recognising the little digs often made at the daughter’s expense.
As her journey continues, Rapunzel observes other mother-daughter relationships and her doubt and distrust of Gothel begins to build as a result. Lords, ladies and bandits alike are hunting for Rapunzel in order to claim her as their prize but this couldn’t be orchestrated by her mother, the only family she has ever known, could it?
“𝘽𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙝 𝙮𝙚𝙖𝙧 𝙗𝙮 𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙜𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛, 𝙍𝙖𝙥𝙪𝙣𝙯𝙚𝙡. 𝙏𝙝𝙖𝙩’𝙨 𝙖 𝙛𝙖𝙧 𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙜𝙞𝙛𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣 𝙛𝙡𝙤𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙨.”
I have conflicting feelings when it comes to the darker elements of What Once Was Mine. The inclusion of the very real Countess Bathory took me by surprise and was quite gruesome in places: not a problem for a grown-up Disney nerd but I’m not sure whether I will be passing this one along to the Mini Bookworm any time soon.
There is also the narrator of the story: a brother making up an alternative Rapunzel story for his sister while she is undergoing chemo. I understand this is an emotive topic for the author and I almost got it as a tool for the story-telling, enabling the use of quite modern, colloquial terms such as “murderhair” and enabling the creative inclusion of characters such as Maximus.
I really wanted this technique to be profound and make the story mean more, such as fairytales having an important place in the modern world for example. Unfortunately, it fell a little flat for me: it was an interesting tweak but it didn’t make me feel as much as I wanted it to.
It is not all doom and gloom though, Rapunzel’s perspective of the world provides comic moments: her (limited) knowledge of the world comes from the 37 books that she owns, leading to a moose that is definitely a squirrel and a cat which acts suspiciously like a fox. We are also not deprived of the regulars of The Snuggly Duckling, indeed all of your favourites from the film turn up for this novel.
Braswell’s characterisation when it came to Flynn was spot on in my opinion. The observation by Rapunzel that there is the “real” Flynn and then there is the charming, roguish mask he uses was perfect! Gina was also a great addition, desperately trying to be an adventurer/criminal and not being taken seriously just because she is a girl. The relationship between her and Flynn was adorable and, of course, Gina’s mother is just legendary.
“𝙎𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨𝙣’𝙩 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙨; 𝙨𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙥𝙪𝙧𝙨𝙪𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙣 𝙪𝙣𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙯𝙚𝙙 𝙙𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙢 𝙤𝙛 𝙣𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙡𝙘𝙮”
The writing style isn’t for everyone and, I must admit, this is the twisted tale which I have probably put down and walked away from the most. However, if you can stick it through the slow sections the story is really worth it and provides a much-admired evolution of the Disney Princess.
Don’t get me wrong - in the animated movie Rapunzel is great and all but by the end she is a princess with a haircut and a smouldering husband. Braswell’s Rapunzel has magic that she needs to study, understand and control, she is a future Queen in the making and simply has more of a purpose than her animated counterpart.
“𝙎𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙖𝙙 𝙥𝙤𝙬𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙖 𝙨𝙩𝙪𝙗𝙗𝙤𝙧𝙣 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣”
What Once Was Mine brings a whole new depth to the characters of Disney’s Tangled. It gives us a new (frankly, disgusting) villain alongside all our favourite characters and definitely presents a creative twist on the traditional story. Don’t worry, Rapunzel still gets her Happily Ever After, but she fought a little harder for it this time around!
Lee (2222 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Mar 31, 2019
It's set to be a busy year for live action Disney remakes, with Aladdin and The Lion King already lined up for release this year. Kicking things off though, is this reimagining of the 1941 classic Dumbo, with Tim Burton directing.
It's 1919 and Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) has returned from World War I, arriving by train to join the Medici Brothers Circus, where he worked before the war as a performer. But Holt has a number of issues to contend with on his return, the least of which being the loss one of his arms while in service. He's greeted at the station by his two young children, Milly and Joe, who lost their mother, Holt's wife, to influenza while he was away. On top of that, he learns that while he was away, the cash strapped circus owner, Max Medici (Danny DeVito) decided to sell the horses that were part of Holt's star act. Holt is put in charge of pregnant elephant Jumbo, with Max hoping that the arrival of a cute baby elephant will bring in the much needed crowds. It's a lot for Holt to come to terms with and adjust to.
Soon after, the baby elephant is born. But with clumsy, oversized ears, he's not quite the cute crowd pleaser they had all hoped for. Attempts to hide his ears only end in disaster, and ridicule from the circus crowds. Milly and Joe fall in love with the new arrival, and when they discover that he has the ability to use those big ears for flying, interest in him is quickly renewed.
The flying elephant not only draws in the crowds, but also the attentions of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), who offers Max a deal for him and his circus troupe to join his huge fancy theme park. It's at this point that the movie should really begin to soar, having introduced the circus family and their new arrival. Unfortunately, the arrival of Vandevere signals a sharp downward spiral in terms of story telling. The circus cast are all but forgotten, with the story focusing instead on the tired, familiar tale of sleazy, greedy businessman who is only interested in money and success, at the expense of the poor, trusting people who believed him.
The computerised Dumbo is simply oozing cuteness and technical wizardry. The eyes and the facial expressions are wonderful and he manages to steal every scene he is in. Every time he takes flight, it is a joy to watch. Unfortunately though, this version of Dumbo is trying to add a lot more to the original story and ends up becoming bit of a drag at times. The human characters are poorly written and mostly forgettable, and the movie really only soars when Dumbo himself does. While trying to steer clear of being a straight up remake, opting instead for the addition of plot and characters, it ultimately loses a lot of the charm. As with the recent remake of Beauty and the Beast, it's another case of style over substance.
It's 1919 and Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) has returned from World War I, arriving by train to join the Medici Brothers Circus, where he worked before the war as a performer. But Holt has a number of issues to contend with on his return, the least of which being the loss one of his arms while in service. He's greeted at the station by his two young children, Milly and Joe, who lost their mother, Holt's wife, to influenza while he was away. On top of that, he learns that while he was away, the cash strapped circus owner, Max Medici (Danny DeVito) decided to sell the horses that were part of Holt's star act. Holt is put in charge of pregnant elephant Jumbo, with Max hoping that the arrival of a cute baby elephant will bring in the much needed crowds. It's a lot for Holt to come to terms with and adjust to.
Soon after, the baby elephant is born. But with clumsy, oversized ears, he's not quite the cute crowd pleaser they had all hoped for. Attempts to hide his ears only end in disaster, and ridicule from the circus crowds. Milly and Joe fall in love with the new arrival, and when they discover that he has the ability to use those big ears for flying, interest in him is quickly renewed.
The flying elephant not only draws in the crowds, but also the attentions of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), who offers Max a deal for him and his circus troupe to join his huge fancy theme park. It's at this point that the movie should really begin to soar, having introduced the circus family and their new arrival. Unfortunately, the arrival of Vandevere signals a sharp downward spiral in terms of story telling. The circus cast are all but forgotten, with the story focusing instead on the tired, familiar tale of sleazy, greedy businessman who is only interested in money and success, at the expense of the poor, trusting people who believed him.
The computerised Dumbo is simply oozing cuteness and technical wizardry. The eyes and the facial expressions are wonderful and he manages to steal every scene he is in. Every time he takes flight, it is a joy to watch. Unfortunately though, this version of Dumbo is trying to add a lot more to the original story and ends up becoming bit of a drag at times. The human characters are poorly written and mostly forgettable, and the movie really only soars when Dumbo himself does. While trying to steer clear of being a straight up remake, opting instead for the addition of plot and characters, it ultimately loses a lot of the charm. As with the recent remake of Beauty and the Beast, it's another case of style over substance.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Here we go again
I can’t be the only one surprised that the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise has managed to withstand five films. Created on a whim by Disney in 2003, the first film propelled Johnny Depp into the lives of movie fans like never before.
However, come 2017 and Depp’s star is sinking faster than the Black Pearl. After three pretty dreadful sequels, the cast reunites for Salazar’s Revenge. But does a change in directors herald a new and exciting path for the plucky pirates?
Thrust into an all-new adventure, a down-on-his-luck Captain Jack Sparrow (Depp) feels the winds of ill-fortune blowing strongly when ghost sailors led by his nemesis, evil Captain Salazar (Javier Bardem), escape from the Devil’s Triangle. Jack’s only hope lies in seeking out the legendary Trident of Poseidon, but to find it, he must forge an uneasy alliance with a brilliant and beautiful astronomer (Kaya Scodelario and a headstrong young man in the British navy (Brenton Thwaites).
Newcomer directors Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg craft a film that is magnificent to look at and stunning to listen to, but features all of the same problems as its predecessors. The time really is up on this franchise.
Of the cast, only Javier Bardem’s snarling Salazar makes any sort of lasting impact. In fact, he’s probably the best antagonist the series has ever had and makes for a menacing presence throughout. Depp looks like he’s on autopilot, almost as bored of Jack Sparrow’s drunken antics as we are, and the normally excellent Kaya Scodelario (Skins, Maze Runner) plays a particularly bland female lead during the films running time.
Speaking of which, at 142 minutes, this is one migraine inducing slog. All four previous films have suffered from being overstuffed, and with the extra abundance of characters this time around, it’s even more painful. There simply is no need to create a film that’s nearly two and a half hours long, especially considering the plot is as paint-by-numbers as you can get.
Nevertheless, to look at, Salazar’s Revenge really is breath-taking. The action is filmed confidently and the sets are fantastically detailed using some exceptional practical effects. There are ghost sharks, glistening islands and the motion capture used on Javier Bardem and his crew is seamless. Only the CGI-heavy finale lets the film down. The music is also sublime. Geoff Zanelli’s thunderous melody features the trademark theme-tune mixed with some really lovely orchestral music.
Overall, Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge kicks off a summer season filled to the brim with sequels and after the previous film’s poor reception, expectation was almost as low as it is for Transformers: the Last Knight.
What we’ve ended up with is a bit of a double-edged sword then. It’s certainly better than the previous three sequels and almost up to the standard of the 2003 original; the problem is, that film wasn’t particularly good in the first place.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/26/here-we-go-again-pirates-of-the-caribbean-salazars-revenge-review/
However, come 2017 and Depp’s star is sinking faster than the Black Pearl. After three pretty dreadful sequels, the cast reunites for Salazar’s Revenge. But does a change in directors herald a new and exciting path for the plucky pirates?
Thrust into an all-new adventure, a down-on-his-luck Captain Jack Sparrow (Depp) feels the winds of ill-fortune blowing strongly when ghost sailors led by his nemesis, evil Captain Salazar (Javier Bardem), escape from the Devil’s Triangle. Jack’s only hope lies in seeking out the legendary Trident of Poseidon, but to find it, he must forge an uneasy alliance with a brilliant and beautiful astronomer (Kaya Scodelario and a headstrong young man in the British navy (Brenton Thwaites).
Newcomer directors Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg craft a film that is magnificent to look at and stunning to listen to, but features all of the same problems as its predecessors. The time really is up on this franchise.
Of the cast, only Javier Bardem’s snarling Salazar makes any sort of lasting impact. In fact, he’s probably the best antagonist the series has ever had and makes for a menacing presence throughout. Depp looks like he’s on autopilot, almost as bored of Jack Sparrow’s drunken antics as we are, and the normally excellent Kaya Scodelario (Skins, Maze Runner) plays a particularly bland female lead during the films running time.
Speaking of which, at 142 minutes, this is one migraine inducing slog. All four previous films have suffered from being overstuffed, and with the extra abundance of characters this time around, it’s even more painful. There simply is no need to create a film that’s nearly two and a half hours long, especially considering the plot is as paint-by-numbers as you can get.
Nevertheless, to look at, Salazar’s Revenge really is breath-taking. The action is filmed confidently and the sets are fantastically detailed using some exceptional practical effects. There are ghost sharks, glistening islands and the motion capture used on Javier Bardem and his crew is seamless. Only the CGI-heavy finale lets the film down. The music is also sublime. Geoff Zanelli’s thunderous melody features the trademark theme-tune mixed with some really lovely orchestral music.
Overall, Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge kicks off a summer season filled to the brim with sequels and after the previous film’s poor reception, expectation was almost as low as it is for Transformers: the Last Knight.
What we’ve ended up with is a bit of a double-edged sword then. It’s certainly better than the previous three sequels and almost up to the standard of the 2003 original; the problem is, that film wasn’t particularly good in the first place.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/26/here-we-go-again-pirates-of-the-caribbean-salazars-revenge-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Sing (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Fun for all the family
Talking animated animals are big business over in Hollywood. After all, Disney’s Zootopia was one of only a handful of films to gross over $1billion last year. Its competitor, The Secret Life of Pets performed well but wasn’t critically successful.
Here, the company behind that second film, Illumination Entertainment, try to get the genre right with Sing. But are we looking at the next superstar of the animated genre?
Koala Buster Moon (Matthew McConaughey) presides over a once-grand theatre that has recently fallen on hard times. An eternal optimist, he loves his work enormously and will do anything to preserve it. Facing the crumbling of his life’s ambition, he takes one final chance to restore his fading jewel to its former glory by producing a singing competition, with eternal glory facing the winner.
There’s an impressive roster of talent on offer in Sing, something that parents will no doubt enjoy slightly more than the offspring they no doubt have to bring with them. With Matthew McConaughey taking the lead role, Taron Egerton, Reese Witherspoon, Scarlett Johansson and Seth McFarlane to name a few all lend their voices. There’s even a role for Brit-favourite Jennifer Saunders as a grumpy old sheep, it’s not ground-breaking, but it’s immensely likeable stuff.
Illumination Entertainment has brought us the brilliant Despicable Me franchise as well as its ridiculously successful spin-off Minions, but they’ve been criticised heavily for relying too much on the funny yellow critters to cash their paycheques. Thankfully, bar the now infamous company logo, the tic-tac shaped creatures are nowhere to be found and Sing is a vastly entertaining movie, in spite of their absence.
Whilst it’s true that the animation lacks the depth or fluidity of offerings from Pixar, Disney, and Dreamworks, there is a certain charm to its simplistic colour palate that children will find endearing. The plot is woefully unoriginal but director Garth Jennings, in his first animated feature, utilises that well, cleverly referencing the many talent shows that feature on our television screens – including those we are sick of.
There are some moral lessons in here too. Tori Kelly’s stage-shy elephant Meena has a great story arc that sees her face her fears and embrace her talents, whilst Taron Egerton’s gorilla Johnny stands up to his criminal father and learns that a life of crime doesn’t always pay.
In fact, only Seth MacFarlane’s obnoxious mouse Mike fails to make an impact on the plot, with his berating of an asthmatic sheep in the cleverly produced opening sequence coming across a little crude in comparison to the rest of the script.
Overall, Sing is a great film to hold the kid’s attention as we approach the half-term holidays. It would be easy to criticise it for lacking an original story, but there’s more to offer here than a half-baked plot. It’s beautifully voiced and reasonably well animated. Illumination Entertainment may not have topped Zootopia, but this is their best offering outside of Despicable Me by a country mile.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/01/28/fun-for-all-the-family-sing-review/
Here, the company behind that second film, Illumination Entertainment, try to get the genre right with Sing. But are we looking at the next superstar of the animated genre?
Koala Buster Moon (Matthew McConaughey) presides over a once-grand theatre that has recently fallen on hard times. An eternal optimist, he loves his work enormously and will do anything to preserve it. Facing the crumbling of his life’s ambition, he takes one final chance to restore his fading jewel to its former glory by producing a singing competition, with eternal glory facing the winner.
There’s an impressive roster of talent on offer in Sing, something that parents will no doubt enjoy slightly more than the offspring they no doubt have to bring with them. With Matthew McConaughey taking the lead role, Taron Egerton, Reese Witherspoon, Scarlett Johansson and Seth McFarlane to name a few all lend their voices. There’s even a role for Brit-favourite Jennifer Saunders as a grumpy old sheep, it’s not ground-breaking, but it’s immensely likeable stuff.
Illumination Entertainment has brought us the brilliant Despicable Me franchise as well as its ridiculously successful spin-off Minions, but they’ve been criticised heavily for relying too much on the funny yellow critters to cash their paycheques. Thankfully, bar the now infamous company logo, the tic-tac shaped creatures are nowhere to be found and Sing is a vastly entertaining movie, in spite of their absence.
Whilst it’s true that the animation lacks the depth or fluidity of offerings from Pixar, Disney, and Dreamworks, there is a certain charm to its simplistic colour palate that children will find endearing. The plot is woefully unoriginal but director Garth Jennings, in his first animated feature, utilises that well, cleverly referencing the many talent shows that feature on our television screens – including those we are sick of.
There are some moral lessons in here too. Tori Kelly’s stage-shy elephant Meena has a great story arc that sees her face her fears and embrace her talents, whilst Taron Egerton’s gorilla Johnny stands up to his criminal father and learns that a life of crime doesn’t always pay.
In fact, only Seth MacFarlane’s obnoxious mouse Mike fails to make an impact on the plot, with his berating of an asthmatic sheep in the cleverly produced opening sequence coming across a little crude in comparison to the rest of the script.
Overall, Sing is a great film to hold the kid’s attention as we approach the half-term holidays. It would be easy to criticise it for lacking an original story, but there’s more to offer here than a half-baked plot. It’s beautifully voiced and reasonably well animated. Illumination Entertainment may not have topped Zootopia, but this is their best offering outside of Despicable Me by a country mile.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/01/28/fun-for-all-the-family-sing-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Legend of Tarzan (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
CPR Needed
As tends to be the case with Hollywood, studios pay very close attention to their rivals release schedules, eyeing up potential competition to pit their films against, maxing box-office returns in the process.
And when Disney announced they were rebooting The Jungle Book in March this year, Warner Bros quickly responded with another jungle-themed film; The Legend of Tarzan. But does this interpretation on the classic character swing or fall?
It’s been nearly a decade since Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgård), aka John Clayton III, left Africa to live in Victorian England with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie). Danger lurks on the horizon as Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), a treacherous envoy for King Leopold, devises a scheme that lures the couple and friend George Williams (Samuel L Jackson) to the Congo. Rom plans to capture Tarzan and deliver him to an old enemy in exchange for diamonds. When Jane becomes a pawn in his devious plot, Tarzan must return to the jungle to save the woman he loves.
Directed by David Yates (Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows), Legend of Tarzan features committed performances from its lead cast, immersive scenery and impressive special effects, but all of the glitz can’t save a film that plods along at a dreadful pace. Not since Peter Jackson’s King Kong has there been a movie that wastes so much of its opening act.
Alexander Skarsgård is likeable and commanding as the titular character, but lacks enough acting prowess to tackle the deeper, more emotional side that writers Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer have brought to the table here. Therefore, the scenes featuring a solo Tarzan suffer somewhat and Samuel L Jackson feels wasted in a poorly written and half-hearted role.
It is in Margot Robbie and Christoph Waltz that we find the film’s saving graces. Their characters leap off the screen with Waltz in particular being a highlight throughout. It’s unfortunate that one of our greatest living actors is lambasted with poor dialogue however, though the script just about keeps him afloat.
David Yates brings a similar filming style here to that of his foray into Harry Potter. The action is confidently filmed, but he avoids the use of shaky-cam that many directors seem to find appealing nowadays. The CGI is on the whole very good, especially in the finale which is breath-taking to watch.
It’s just a shame the rest of the film is such a drag. The first hour is incredibly poorly paced with very brief, albeit well-filmed, action sequences not doing enough to brighten Legend of Tarzan up. Elsewhere, the use of flashbacks is at first a decent way of giving the audience some exposition, but after the tenth one, they’re a nuisance.
Overall, The Legend of Tarzan does a lot more with its iconic character than other films have done, but that doesn’t excuse its poor pacing. Thankfully, the exciting finale lifts the final act above the standard of the first hour, and commanding performances from all the cast sustain interest just about enough to see it through to the end.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/07/cpr-needed-the-legend-of-tarzan-review/
And when Disney announced they were rebooting The Jungle Book in March this year, Warner Bros quickly responded with another jungle-themed film; The Legend of Tarzan. But does this interpretation on the classic character swing or fall?
It’s been nearly a decade since Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgård), aka John Clayton III, left Africa to live in Victorian England with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie). Danger lurks on the horizon as Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), a treacherous envoy for King Leopold, devises a scheme that lures the couple and friend George Williams (Samuel L Jackson) to the Congo. Rom plans to capture Tarzan and deliver him to an old enemy in exchange for diamonds. When Jane becomes a pawn in his devious plot, Tarzan must return to the jungle to save the woman he loves.
Directed by David Yates (Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows), Legend of Tarzan features committed performances from its lead cast, immersive scenery and impressive special effects, but all of the glitz can’t save a film that plods along at a dreadful pace. Not since Peter Jackson’s King Kong has there been a movie that wastes so much of its opening act.
Alexander Skarsgård is likeable and commanding as the titular character, but lacks enough acting prowess to tackle the deeper, more emotional side that writers Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer have brought to the table here. Therefore, the scenes featuring a solo Tarzan suffer somewhat and Samuel L Jackson feels wasted in a poorly written and half-hearted role.
It is in Margot Robbie and Christoph Waltz that we find the film’s saving graces. Their characters leap off the screen with Waltz in particular being a highlight throughout. It’s unfortunate that one of our greatest living actors is lambasted with poor dialogue however, though the script just about keeps him afloat.
David Yates brings a similar filming style here to that of his foray into Harry Potter. The action is confidently filmed, but he avoids the use of shaky-cam that many directors seem to find appealing nowadays. The CGI is on the whole very good, especially in the finale which is breath-taking to watch.
It’s just a shame the rest of the film is such a drag. The first hour is incredibly poorly paced with very brief, albeit well-filmed, action sequences not doing enough to brighten Legend of Tarzan up. Elsewhere, the use of flashbacks is at first a decent way of giving the audience some exposition, but after the tenth one, they’re a nuisance.
Overall, The Legend of Tarzan does a lot more with its iconic character than other films have done, but that doesn’t excuse its poor pacing. Thankfully, the exciting finale lifts the final act above the standard of the first hour, and commanding performances from all the cast sustain interest just about enough to see it through to the end.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/07/cpr-needed-the-legend-of-tarzan-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Tomorrowland (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A CGI disaster
Disney has an intriguing track record when it comes to movies. The multi-billion dollar company has produced some incredible films and some absolute stinkers, with its live-action department bearing the brunt of this misfortune.
Here, The Incredibles director Brad Bird is hoping to add another great film to his CV with Tomorrowland: A World Beyond, but does this George Clooney fantasy adventure tick all the right boxes?
Tomorrowland is based on Disney’s adventure ride of the same name and like The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, requires a completely original story to ensure it translates well onto the big screen.
George Clooney, Hugh Laurie and Britt Robertson star in a film that is visually stunning but horrifically uneven with a story that doesn’t make much sense. Its vague environmental message is one of the only things to take away from it.
Clooney stars as Frank Walker, a disgruntled inventor who transports Robertson’s Casey Newton to a place in time and space known only as Tomorrowland. Once there, they must change the past in order to secure their future.
Bird’s direction is as usual, supremely confident with stunning CGI landscapes of the metropolis being beautifully juxtaposed with the Earth we know and love. There are scenes here that look like something from an art installation.
Clooney is as dynamic as ever in between all the special effects and Robertson channels Jennifer Lawrence in her role as the plucky teenager, but Tomorrowland showcases Hugh Laurie the best. His David Nix is an intriguing character who is sorely underused with the CGI being the main focus here.
Unfortunately, as countless blockbusters have proved time and time again, brilliant special effects don’t equal a brilliant film and Tomorrowland falls head first into that trap. Yes, the other dimension is on the whole, breath-taking but there’s such a lack of detail anywhere else that it feels decidedly hollow.
This isn’t to say that we have a film like Transformers: Age of Extinction on our hands but it doesn’t reach the heights of Saving Mr Banks or even the Narnia films.
Being stuck in the middle isn’t the best place to be for a movie with a rumoured production cost of $200m and it’s this lack of identity that may hold Tomorrowland back when it comes to box-office performance.
There’s also some debate over the target audience. With a 12A rating, you’d expect a similar tone to The Hunger Games or even The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but what the audience gets is a PG movie with a couple of scenes of violence, pushing it over into the coveted ‘teen market’.
Overall, Tomorrowland is a fun if entirely forgetful fantasy adventure brimming with CGI and unfortunately not much else. Hugh Laurie is an eccentric and painfully underused presence and that pretty much sums up the entire production.
Everything feels a little underdone, like there was something else under the surface waiting to break free that just didn’t come to fruition.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/24/a-cgi-disaster-tomorrowland-review/
Here, The Incredibles director Brad Bird is hoping to add another great film to his CV with Tomorrowland: A World Beyond, but does this George Clooney fantasy adventure tick all the right boxes?
Tomorrowland is based on Disney’s adventure ride of the same name and like The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, requires a completely original story to ensure it translates well onto the big screen.
George Clooney, Hugh Laurie and Britt Robertson star in a film that is visually stunning but horrifically uneven with a story that doesn’t make much sense. Its vague environmental message is one of the only things to take away from it.
Clooney stars as Frank Walker, a disgruntled inventor who transports Robertson’s Casey Newton to a place in time and space known only as Tomorrowland. Once there, they must change the past in order to secure their future.
Bird’s direction is as usual, supremely confident with stunning CGI landscapes of the metropolis being beautifully juxtaposed with the Earth we know and love. There are scenes here that look like something from an art installation.
Clooney is as dynamic as ever in between all the special effects and Robertson channels Jennifer Lawrence in her role as the plucky teenager, but Tomorrowland showcases Hugh Laurie the best. His David Nix is an intriguing character who is sorely underused with the CGI being the main focus here.
Unfortunately, as countless blockbusters have proved time and time again, brilliant special effects don’t equal a brilliant film and Tomorrowland falls head first into that trap. Yes, the other dimension is on the whole, breath-taking but there’s such a lack of detail anywhere else that it feels decidedly hollow.
This isn’t to say that we have a film like Transformers: Age of Extinction on our hands but it doesn’t reach the heights of Saving Mr Banks or even the Narnia films.
Being stuck in the middle isn’t the best place to be for a movie with a rumoured production cost of $200m and it’s this lack of identity that may hold Tomorrowland back when it comes to box-office performance.
There’s also some debate over the target audience. With a 12A rating, you’d expect a similar tone to The Hunger Games or even The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but what the audience gets is a PG movie with a couple of scenes of violence, pushing it over into the coveted ‘teen market’.
Overall, Tomorrowland is a fun if entirely forgetful fantasy adventure brimming with CGI and unfortunately not much else. Hugh Laurie is an eccentric and painfully underused presence and that pretty much sums up the entire production.
Everything feels a little underdone, like there was something else under the surface waiting to break free that just didn’t come to fruition.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/24/a-cgi-disaster-tomorrowland-review/
postapocalypticplayground (27 KP) rated The Hazel Wood in Books
Feb 28, 2018
Review of The Hazel Wood
"Seventeen-year-old Alice and her mother have spent most of Alice's life on the road, always a step ahead of the strange bad luck biting at their heels. But when Alice's grandmother, the reclusive author of a book of pitch-dark fairy tales, dies alone on her estate - the Hazel Wood - Alice learns how bad her luck can really get. Her mother is stolen away - by a figure who claims to come from the cruel supernatural world where her grandmother's stories are set. Alice's only lead is the message her mother left behind: STAY AWAY FROM THE HAZEL WOOD.
To retrieve her mother, Alice must venture first to the Hazel Wood, then into the world where her grandmother's tales began . . ."
I'm not to sure how to start with this review. I found The Hazel Wood a real book of 2 halves, one half was very contemporary and not what I would have traditionally expected from a fantasy whereas the other was dark, twisted and incredibly chilling to read at times. I found that not only did I feel this way with the story but also with the characters too. I struggled immensely with the main protagonist Alice, I really couldn't warm to her at all and given her character arc perhaps there is good reason for her being written that way. Whilst she has clearly had to build up walls from the nomadic existence she has had with her mother, I just found her very frustrating in her manner. Juxtaposed with Ellery Finch, her partner in crime of sorts, it really brings out her brattish qualities. Ellery is fabulous though and despite his privilege and flaws I just really enjoyed his character. His fanboy status in relation to the book written by Alice's grandmother also gives us an insight into a few of the dark stories themselves, as he re-tells them to Alice in his own words.
For me the contemporary element was a bit too overwhelming, the breadcrumbs had to be laid and followed in true Hansel and Gretel style but I felt that it took a bit too long to get to where it needed to go. However, when it reached that point I really started to enjoy it more, the pace picked up and I got a sense of both excitement and dread as I was reading. The story telling becomes darker and you know you are very much in the Grimm fairy tale camp rather than Disney. Tricks and twists are plenty as Alice tries to fulfil an almost prophetic course to an ending which isn't quite what you may be expecting.
Whilst I enjoyed it immensely in places, at times I found it a bit of a slog - I need more fantasy in my fantasy. I think it would have been lovely as well to actually have more of the "Tales from the Hinterland" stories within the book as I feel that could have really added an extra dimension to the latter part of the story. From me, The Hazel Wood gets 3*
To retrieve her mother, Alice must venture first to the Hazel Wood, then into the world where her grandmother's tales began . . ."
I'm not to sure how to start with this review. I found The Hazel Wood a real book of 2 halves, one half was very contemporary and not what I would have traditionally expected from a fantasy whereas the other was dark, twisted and incredibly chilling to read at times. I found that not only did I feel this way with the story but also with the characters too. I struggled immensely with the main protagonist Alice, I really couldn't warm to her at all and given her character arc perhaps there is good reason for her being written that way. Whilst she has clearly had to build up walls from the nomadic existence she has had with her mother, I just found her very frustrating in her manner. Juxtaposed with Ellery Finch, her partner in crime of sorts, it really brings out her brattish qualities. Ellery is fabulous though and despite his privilege and flaws I just really enjoyed his character. His fanboy status in relation to the book written by Alice's grandmother also gives us an insight into a few of the dark stories themselves, as he re-tells them to Alice in his own words.
For me the contemporary element was a bit too overwhelming, the breadcrumbs had to be laid and followed in true Hansel and Gretel style but I felt that it took a bit too long to get to where it needed to go. However, when it reached that point I really started to enjoy it more, the pace picked up and I got a sense of both excitement and dread as I was reading. The story telling becomes darker and you know you are very much in the Grimm fairy tale camp rather than Disney. Tricks and twists are plenty as Alice tries to fulfil an almost prophetic course to an ending which isn't quite what you may be expecting.
Whilst I enjoyed it immensely in places, at times I found it a bit of a slog - I need more fantasy in my fantasy. I think it would have been lovely as well to actually have more of the "Tales from the Hinterland" stories within the book as I feel that could have really added an extra dimension to the latter part of the story. From me, The Hazel Wood gets 3*
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Big Hero 6 (2014) in Movies
Nov 5, 2018
Phenomenal
Big Hero 6 sits on top for me as probably the best under-the-radar film of all-time. No one talks about it or really brings it up. Anytime I mention its greatness, I get the typical response: “Well, yeah, I guess it was kind of awesome.” Not only is it one of the best under-the-radar films, but it’s the best film I have reviewed so far. Disagree all you want, but hear me out on my argument.
Set in the swanky, futuristic city of San Fransokyo, Big Hero 6 is the story of how young Hiro Hamada develops an unlikely friendship with his brother’s marshmallow-esque robot Baymax and they form an unlikely superhero team.
Acting: 10
Each voice actor does an excellent job capturing the essence of their character. Strong, emotional moments suck you into the film and keep you invested. As in most Disney films, there are no weaknesses from an acting standpoint. Damon Wayans Jr. was my personal favorite playing the role of Wasabi one of Hiro’s friends. He doesn’t dominate the scenes that he stars in, but definitely manages to make the most of his lines.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The animations are beautiful and crisp. The opening scene provides a breathtaking view of the city of San Fransokyo. Building lights pop against the night sky. Bay waters glimmer. Attention to detail is exquisite. There is one scene where Hiro and Baymax are falling through an open window in slow-motion. Bushes below rustle while glass flies past them. It only lasts for a couple of seconds, but it’s a testament to the solid work that went into the animation of this film.
The powers the team displayed added to the film’s visual prowess. I loved watching Fred breathe fire in his awful (and also hilarious) superhero costume. Their powers and team-ups made for some stunning battles against a unique villain.
Conflict: 10
I am amazed at the balance of story and action as a film typically has to sacrifice one over the other. Even during their earlier training phases, the action is both consistent and non-stop. It fills the entire landscape of the screen. From battles to car chases to harrowing escapes, Big Hero 6 establishes and maintains a high level of intensity.
Genre: 10
Not only does this film establish itself as one of the best animated films ever done, but it’s also one of the best superhero films ever made. The fact that it excels in both genres just speaks of the film’s overall greatness. I expected to like it, but I never expected to love it. Big Hero 6 is easily in the same class as The Incredibles.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
The ending is perfect. Sappy, yet believable. Great wrap-up of a great movie.
Overall: 100
A great family film with solid superhero action and a fun, meaningful story you can get behind. What more do you need? Loved this movie.
Set in the swanky, futuristic city of San Fransokyo, Big Hero 6 is the story of how young Hiro Hamada develops an unlikely friendship with his brother’s marshmallow-esque robot Baymax and they form an unlikely superhero team.
Acting: 10
Each voice actor does an excellent job capturing the essence of their character. Strong, emotional moments suck you into the film and keep you invested. As in most Disney films, there are no weaknesses from an acting standpoint. Damon Wayans Jr. was my personal favorite playing the role of Wasabi one of Hiro’s friends. He doesn’t dominate the scenes that he stars in, but definitely manages to make the most of his lines.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The animations are beautiful and crisp. The opening scene provides a breathtaking view of the city of San Fransokyo. Building lights pop against the night sky. Bay waters glimmer. Attention to detail is exquisite. There is one scene where Hiro and Baymax are falling through an open window in slow-motion. Bushes below rustle while glass flies past them. It only lasts for a couple of seconds, but it’s a testament to the solid work that went into the animation of this film.
The powers the team displayed added to the film’s visual prowess. I loved watching Fred breathe fire in his awful (and also hilarious) superhero costume. Their powers and team-ups made for some stunning battles against a unique villain.
Conflict: 10
I am amazed at the balance of story and action as a film typically has to sacrifice one over the other. Even during their earlier training phases, the action is both consistent and non-stop. It fills the entire landscape of the screen. From battles to car chases to harrowing escapes, Big Hero 6 establishes and maintains a high level of intensity.
Genre: 10
Not only does this film establish itself as one of the best animated films ever done, but it’s also one of the best superhero films ever made. The fact that it excels in both genres just speaks of the film’s overall greatness. I expected to like it, but I never expected to love it. Big Hero 6 is easily in the same class as The Incredibles.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
The ending is perfect. Sappy, yet believable. Great wrap-up of a great movie.
Overall: 100
A great family film with solid superhero action and a fun, meaningful story you can get behind. What more do you need? Loved this movie.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Meet the Robinsons (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The magicians at Disney have done it again in crafting one of the most enjoyable family films in recent memory. In Meet the Robinsons, audiences are introduced to Lewis, a young orphan who spends his time between adoption interviews tinkering away with all manner of strange inventions.
Lewis is approaching his 13th Birthday, and has given up hope of being adopted, after 150+ adoption interviews have failed to find him a family. In a desire to learn why his mother put him up for adoption, Lewis crafts a new invention that he hopes will not only answer this question, but also win him a prize at the school science fair.
As Lewis is preparing his memory scanner for the show, he is approached by a boy named Wilbur Robinson who tells him to watch out for a man in a bowler hat, as he has designs on the memory scanner.
Lewis and Wilbur are unaware that the Man in the Bowler Hat has indeed already arrived, and has sabotaged the memory scanner causing Lewis to be humiliated when his experiment goes horribly wrong.
Unknown to Lewis, a dastardly plan is underway and while Lewis attempts to make sense of his misfortune and lack of a family, Wilbur whisks Lewis into the future via a time machine in an effort to thwart the Bowler Hat Guy from changing the future for the worse.
During the arrival in the future, the time machine is damaged, and since it is one of only two known to exist, Lewis is forced to make repairs to the ship in order to return to his own time.
It is learned that Wilbur’s father has invented the time machines, and when the Man in the Bowler Hat stole one of the machines, Wilbur took the other one in an attempt to set things right, and is not able to ask for help from his father, less he suffer punishment.
With the very future he knows in danger, Wilbur agrees to help Lewis see his real mother if he is able to fix the time machine, but they both have to deal with The Man in the Bowler Hat and Wilbur’s quirky family if they are to save the day.
The film is a real joy, and the amazing animation was made even better by seeing the film in Direct 3D. I highly suggest seeing the film in this format if there is a theater near you showing the film in 3D.
Many family films strive to offer something that viewers of all ages can enjoy, but few have done as well as “Robinsons“ as the laughs were easily enjoyed by all ages, without being cutesy or forced.
My wife and I really enjoyed the T-Rex character, and hope that should there be future installments of this series, that he gets a larger part in the future.
The film was well paced and never seemed to drag or have a lull in rich visuals to feast your eyes upon while you enjoy a well rounded story and interesting characters.
My advice, put the Robinsons in your future.
Lewis is approaching his 13th Birthday, and has given up hope of being adopted, after 150+ adoption interviews have failed to find him a family. In a desire to learn why his mother put him up for adoption, Lewis crafts a new invention that he hopes will not only answer this question, but also win him a prize at the school science fair.
As Lewis is preparing his memory scanner for the show, he is approached by a boy named Wilbur Robinson who tells him to watch out for a man in a bowler hat, as he has designs on the memory scanner.
Lewis and Wilbur are unaware that the Man in the Bowler Hat has indeed already arrived, and has sabotaged the memory scanner causing Lewis to be humiliated when his experiment goes horribly wrong.
Unknown to Lewis, a dastardly plan is underway and while Lewis attempts to make sense of his misfortune and lack of a family, Wilbur whisks Lewis into the future via a time machine in an effort to thwart the Bowler Hat Guy from changing the future for the worse.
During the arrival in the future, the time machine is damaged, and since it is one of only two known to exist, Lewis is forced to make repairs to the ship in order to return to his own time.
It is learned that Wilbur’s father has invented the time machines, and when the Man in the Bowler Hat stole one of the machines, Wilbur took the other one in an attempt to set things right, and is not able to ask for help from his father, less he suffer punishment.
With the very future he knows in danger, Wilbur agrees to help Lewis see his real mother if he is able to fix the time machine, but they both have to deal with The Man in the Bowler Hat and Wilbur’s quirky family if they are to save the day.
The film is a real joy, and the amazing animation was made even better by seeing the film in Direct 3D. I highly suggest seeing the film in this format if there is a theater near you showing the film in 3D.
Many family films strive to offer something that viewers of all ages can enjoy, but few have done as well as “Robinsons“ as the laughs were easily enjoyed by all ages, without being cutesy or forced.
My wife and I really enjoyed the T-Rex character, and hope that should there be future installments of this series, that he gets a larger part in the future.
The film was well paced and never seemed to drag or have a lull in rich visuals to feast your eyes upon while you enjoy a well rounded story and interesting characters.
My advice, put the Robinsons in your future.