Search
Search results
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Mistletoe Miracles (Ransom Canyon #7) in Books
Sep 12, 2018
Lovable Characters (3 more)
Interesting Plot
Great Worldbuilding
Good Pacing
A Clean, Sweet Read
I'm not usually a romance person, but the synopsis for Mistletoe Miracles by Jodi Thomas caught my attention. I'm really glad I read Mistletoe Miracles because I absolutely adored this book. In fact, Mistletoe Miracles may have converted me to be a romance reader. It has definitely made me a Jodi Thomas fan for sure.
The pacing for Mistletoe Miracles was spot on. It wasn't a fast paced book, but it wasn't slow paced either. It moved at a nice relaxing pace, and I found myself loving it.
The plot for Mistletoe Miracles is a sweet one. It was interesting to see each couple's relationship blossom. Mallory is on the run from her abusive ex-boyfriend. She ends up in a car crash. Her dog is also injured in the crash. Little does Jax know he has her dog, but once he figures it out, it's the start of something sweet. Griffin needs a rich bride in order to save his working ranch that's been in the family for generations. Sunlan, a ranch girl herself, is just the right woman to fill that position. She's also looking for someone to take her away from her overbearing father. Wyatt is a soldier just looking for a place to rest while on leave. With everyone assuming he's Jamie's husband, he is taken to Jamie's house after he falls asleep and has a small crash. Jamie has been out of town, but when she returns, she's gets the biggest surprise of her life. However, she's been telling everyone she's married even though she's not. Wyatt may just be the (pretend) husband she needs. The reader has the pleasure of reading about each immersive relationship and how each one blossoms in its own way. There are no major plot twists, but Mistletoe Miracles is a book that doesn't need plot twists to be enjoyable. All loose ends are also tied up by the end of the book which I was happy about. I also liked that Mistletoe Miracles can be read as a standalone.
I felt that the world building in Mistletoe Miracles was done very well. Jodi Thomas makes it so easy to feel as if you are one of the characters in her book. She puts you right in the midst of everything that is happening, and it is so easy to lose yourself within each page of the story. Mistletoe Miracles takes place in Texas which made me enjoy the book even more! The world building is so realistic in this novel that I would lose track of time whenever I was reading it.
I loved every character in Mistletoe Miracles. I felt each character was fleshed out substantially, and every character felt like they were an actual real person instead of a character in a book. My favorite characters in this book were Sunlan and Griffin. I loved how they started out a bit distant towards each other, but eventually, they warmed up to one another and came out of their shell, especially Sunlan. Don't get me wrong, I loved the other characters too, but it was Sunlan's and Griffin's relationship that I loved the most. I did enjoy reading about all the other character's relationships as well, and I found them to be very interesting. Each character had something to bring to the table to make Mistletoe Miracles the great read it is.
There aren't many trigger warnings for Mistletoe Miracles. I would classify it was a clean romance. There's no swearing and no steamy scenes. There is some violence although it is not graphic. There is some drinking of alcohol as well as kissing. There's also talk about making love but everything is implied and not described in graphic detail.
Overall, Mistletoe Miracles is a very sweet and refreshing read that will warm even the most hardened hearts. It's got very likable and realistic characters characters, an interesting plot, and fantastic world building. I would definitely recommend Mistletoe Miracles by Jodi Thomas to everyone aged 16+ whether they like romance or not. This is one of those books that everyone should read even if romance isn't their preferred genre.
(Thank you to Netgalley for providing me with a copy of this title in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
The pacing for Mistletoe Miracles was spot on. It wasn't a fast paced book, but it wasn't slow paced either. It moved at a nice relaxing pace, and I found myself loving it.
The plot for Mistletoe Miracles is a sweet one. It was interesting to see each couple's relationship blossom. Mallory is on the run from her abusive ex-boyfriend. She ends up in a car crash. Her dog is also injured in the crash. Little does Jax know he has her dog, but once he figures it out, it's the start of something sweet. Griffin needs a rich bride in order to save his working ranch that's been in the family for generations. Sunlan, a ranch girl herself, is just the right woman to fill that position. She's also looking for someone to take her away from her overbearing father. Wyatt is a soldier just looking for a place to rest while on leave. With everyone assuming he's Jamie's husband, he is taken to Jamie's house after he falls asleep and has a small crash. Jamie has been out of town, but when she returns, she's gets the biggest surprise of her life. However, she's been telling everyone she's married even though she's not. Wyatt may just be the (pretend) husband she needs. The reader has the pleasure of reading about each immersive relationship and how each one blossoms in its own way. There are no major plot twists, but Mistletoe Miracles is a book that doesn't need plot twists to be enjoyable. All loose ends are also tied up by the end of the book which I was happy about. I also liked that Mistletoe Miracles can be read as a standalone.
I felt that the world building in Mistletoe Miracles was done very well. Jodi Thomas makes it so easy to feel as if you are one of the characters in her book. She puts you right in the midst of everything that is happening, and it is so easy to lose yourself within each page of the story. Mistletoe Miracles takes place in Texas which made me enjoy the book even more! The world building is so realistic in this novel that I would lose track of time whenever I was reading it.
I loved every character in Mistletoe Miracles. I felt each character was fleshed out substantially, and every character felt like they were an actual real person instead of a character in a book. My favorite characters in this book were Sunlan and Griffin. I loved how they started out a bit distant towards each other, but eventually, they warmed up to one another and came out of their shell, especially Sunlan. Don't get me wrong, I loved the other characters too, but it was Sunlan's and Griffin's relationship that I loved the most. I did enjoy reading about all the other character's relationships as well, and I found them to be very interesting. Each character had something to bring to the table to make Mistletoe Miracles the great read it is.
There aren't many trigger warnings for Mistletoe Miracles. I would classify it was a clean romance. There's no swearing and no steamy scenes. There is some violence although it is not graphic. There is some drinking of alcohol as well as kissing. There's also talk about making love but everything is implied and not described in graphic detail.
Overall, Mistletoe Miracles is a very sweet and refreshing read that will warm even the most hardened hearts. It's got very likable and realistic characters characters, an interesting plot, and fantastic world building. I would definitely recommend Mistletoe Miracles by Jodi Thomas to everyone aged 16+ whether they like romance or not. This is one of those books that everyone should read even if romance isn't their preferred genre.
(Thank you to Netgalley for providing me with a copy of this title in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Kim Pook (101 KP) rated Fear Street Part Three: 1666 (2021) in Movies
May 31, 2022
We get a recap of what has happened so far, much like in the previous film.
Deena has woken up in 1666,only her name is now Sarah and she is not the only person to be in this century. Every character from the past 2 movies are here too but all with different names, apart from Tommy who is now Thomas. It's all very confusing.
Anyway after a night of passion with the pastors daughter, strange things start to happen such as food going mouldy, a pig eating their young and Sarah's dog throws itself in the well. This leads to Sarah believing this is all her fault, and that she's being punished by the devil for her sins, and after a rather disturbing scene both hannah and Sarah are accused of being witches, and a witch hut begins to rid them from the earth.
Meanwhile, Sarah plans to save them both by making a deal with the devil revealing the truth about Sarah Friers curse.
I was surprised to find that only the first half of the movie was in 1666, as we are thrown back to 1994 as Deena comes out of her vision and realises what needs to be done to save shady side.
As I'm not really a fan of old time movies, I went into this expecting to hate it, but I actually ended up liking it. I liked that every moment throughout the series is answered and nothing is left hanging in the air. I thought the accents in 1666 were strange though, I couldn't tell what the accent was meant to be, Irish maybe!?!
I did enjoy the second half of the movie more than the first, it has a few light hearted funny moments which wasn't present in 1666, did they not have a sense of humour back then??
I liked that at the end of the movie it made way for another possible movie which would be interesting to see.
Deena has woken up in 1666,only her name is now Sarah and she is not the only person to be in this century. Every character from the past 2 movies are here too but all with different names, apart from Tommy who is now Thomas. It's all very confusing.
Anyway after a night of passion with the pastors daughter, strange things start to happen such as food going mouldy, a pig eating their young and Sarah's dog throws itself in the well. This leads to Sarah believing this is all her fault, and that she's being punished by the devil for her sins, and after a rather disturbing scene both hannah and Sarah are accused of being witches, and a witch hut begins to rid them from the earth.
Meanwhile, Sarah plans to save them both by making a deal with the devil revealing the truth about Sarah Friers curse.
I was surprised to find that only the first half of the movie was in 1666, as we are thrown back to 1994 as Deena comes out of her vision and realises what needs to be done to save shady side.
As I'm not really a fan of old time movies, I went into this expecting to hate it, but I actually ended up liking it. I liked that every moment throughout the series is answered and nothing is left hanging in the air. I thought the accents in 1666 were strange though, I couldn't tell what the accent was meant to be, Irish maybe!?!
I did enjoy the second half of the movie more than the first, it has a few light hearted funny moments which wasn't present in 1666, did they not have a sense of humour back then??
I liked that at the end of the movie it made way for another possible movie which would be interesting to see.
<i>Mean Streets</i> is one of the best anthologies I've read in a while. It only has four different pieces in it, but they're all novellas, and all by strong, experienced writers. I don't think any of them are here riding on someone else's name on the book cover.
Jim Butcher's "Warrior," the first piece, is very good. It follows Harry and the Carpenter family after they experienced some major changes in the last Dresden novel. I could have stood a little more Molly, but Harry and Michael were the focus characters and they worked out some things that really needed to be dealt with. I'm glad I read this before the next Dresden novel, because I feel there's important character development. I seriously recommend this book to all Dresden fans.
I haven't read any of Simon R. Green's novels, though I've heard of the Nightside series and thought about picking one up. If "The Difference a Day Makes" is typical, though, I may not bother. He is a good writer, so I'm not sure what it is that bothered me so much. I know that something framed as one of the nastiest things people could choose to do in this piece isn't even in my top 10, but I feel there's something else that I just can't quite articulate yet.
I've read all three of Kat Richardson's Greywalker novels and enjoyed them enough that I plan to keep reading. "The Third Death of the Little Clay Dog" is my favorite piece of her work, hands down. There's more light, somehow, and that's important to me.
"Noah's Orphans" is my first exposure to Thomas E. Sniegoski, as far as I can recall. It was an interesting piece. I found myself wondering about Remy Chandler's past, about how the character has developed. If there are novels featuring that character, I may give them a read. In any case, it brought up some interesting questions about faith and obedience. I think it would have been more personally relevant to me about 20 years ago, though.
Jim Butcher's "Warrior," the first piece, is very good. It follows Harry and the Carpenter family after they experienced some major changes in the last Dresden novel. I could have stood a little more Molly, but Harry and Michael were the focus characters and they worked out some things that really needed to be dealt with. I'm glad I read this before the next Dresden novel, because I feel there's important character development. I seriously recommend this book to all Dresden fans.
I haven't read any of Simon R. Green's novels, though I've heard of the Nightside series and thought about picking one up. If "The Difference a Day Makes" is typical, though, I may not bother. He is a good writer, so I'm not sure what it is that bothered me so much. I know that something framed as one of the nastiest things people could choose to do in this piece isn't even in my top 10, but I feel there's something else that I just can't quite articulate yet.
I've read all three of Kat Richardson's Greywalker novels and enjoyed them enough that I plan to keep reading. "The Third Death of the Little Clay Dog" is my favorite piece of her work, hands down. There's more light, somehow, and that's important to me.
"Noah's Orphans" is my first exposure to Thomas E. Sniegoski, as far as I can recall. It was an interesting piece. I found myself wondering about Remy Chandler's past, about how the character has developed. If there are novels featuring that character, I may give them a read. In any case, it brought up some interesting questions about faith and obedience. I think it would have been more personally relevant to me about 20 years ago, though.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Power of the Dog (2021) in Movies
Dec 7, 2021
Deep and Layered
If the movie you are watching has a long shot of wheat blowing in the wind, then you are watching a character drama. If that same film also includes a 5 minute scene of someone braiding rope, then you have THE POWER OF THE DOG.
Written and Directed by Jane Campion (THE PIANO) and based on the best-selling novel by Thomas Savage, THE POWER OF THE DOG tells the tale of 2 brothers, talkative and charismatic Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) and quiet and contemplative George (Jesse Plemons) who are tending their cattle ranch in Montana in the mid-1920’s. As horses give way to horseless carriages, George falls for a widow (Kirsten Dunst) who has an effeminate son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and this relationship makes Phil face his own feelings - and a changing world.
In the hands of Campion, this film is a quiet, introspective look at how a hard-drinking, hard-living Cowboy deals with a changing world - and his own pent up emotions - and it works well. She weaves a fascinating story that takes its time unfurling it’s pages and the time that the audience takes in steeping themselves in the story and the characters is time well spent, indeed.
This is because the great Benedict Cumberbatch (TV’s SHERLOCK) is on-screen for 95% of the film as Phil and he commands the screen every moment that his presence is known. It is a bravura - though eerily quiet and introspective - performance by Cumberbatch. Campion and Cumberbatch create a memorable character that fills the screen not because he is wide or high or showy, but because he is deep and layered and the film spends most of its 2 hour and 6 minute running time peeling back the layers and digging deep into this character. It is an Oscar-worthy performance and is a shoo-in Oscar nominee and would not be surprising if Cumberbatch finally wins his Oscar for this role.
Plemons and Dunst (who played a couple in the first season of the TV series FARGO) are the catalyst that set the film - and the discoveries - in motion, but, though they are good, they have very little to do besides react to Cumberbatch’s characters’ moves.
Surprisingly, the character that does stand-out and the actor who does go toe-to-toe with Cumberbatch’s Phil is Peter, the son of Rose and played by Kodi Smit-McPhee (NIghtcrawler in X-MEN:APOCALYPSE) who is (at first) befriended by Phil as a joke and becomes closer and closer to him as the film progresses. It is through Peter that we dig through the layers of Phil - and it is a fascinating journey.
This is a gorgeous film to look at - Cinematographer Ari Wegner (THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE) is a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination as well - and this is good, because Phil (and the audience) spend long stretches looking out in the wilderness, contemplating the world - and change.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever encounter, but if you are in the mood for this sort of thing and can get caught up with discovering the layers of Phil, then you will be rewarded with a layered and deep experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Written and Directed by Jane Campion (THE PIANO) and based on the best-selling novel by Thomas Savage, THE POWER OF THE DOG tells the tale of 2 brothers, talkative and charismatic Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) and quiet and contemplative George (Jesse Plemons) who are tending their cattle ranch in Montana in the mid-1920’s. As horses give way to horseless carriages, George falls for a widow (Kirsten Dunst) who has an effeminate son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and this relationship makes Phil face his own feelings - and a changing world.
In the hands of Campion, this film is a quiet, introspective look at how a hard-drinking, hard-living Cowboy deals with a changing world - and his own pent up emotions - and it works well. She weaves a fascinating story that takes its time unfurling it’s pages and the time that the audience takes in steeping themselves in the story and the characters is time well spent, indeed.
This is because the great Benedict Cumberbatch (TV’s SHERLOCK) is on-screen for 95% of the film as Phil and he commands the screen every moment that his presence is known. It is a bravura - though eerily quiet and introspective - performance by Cumberbatch. Campion and Cumberbatch create a memorable character that fills the screen not because he is wide or high or showy, but because he is deep and layered and the film spends most of its 2 hour and 6 minute running time peeling back the layers and digging deep into this character. It is an Oscar-worthy performance and is a shoo-in Oscar nominee and would not be surprising if Cumberbatch finally wins his Oscar for this role.
Plemons and Dunst (who played a couple in the first season of the TV series FARGO) are the catalyst that set the film - and the discoveries - in motion, but, though they are good, they have very little to do besides react to Cumberbatch’s characters’ moves.
Surprisingly, the character that does stand-out and the actor who does go toe-to-toe with Cumberbatch’s Phil is Peter, the son of Rose and played by Kodi Smit-McPhee (NIghtcrawler in X-MEN:APOCALYPSE) who is (at first) befriended by Phil as a joke and becomes closer and closer to him as the film progresses. It is through Peter that we dig through the layers of Phil - and it is a fascinating journey.
This is a gorgeous film to look at - Cinematographer Ari Wegner (THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE) is a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination as well - and this is good, because Phil (and the audience) spend long stretches looking out in the wilderness, contemplating the world - and change.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever encounter, but if you are in the mood for this sort of thing and can get caught up with discovering the layers of Phil, then you will be rewarded with a layered and deep experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated The Graveyard Apartment in Books
May 16, 2018
I've spent the past few days buried up to my eyeballs in Mariko Koike's The Graveyard Apartment, and to say I thoroughly enjoyed the book would be a lie; in fact, it failed to live up to my expectations and I am left wanting. Before I delve into my review, I would like to thank NetGalley, Thomas Dunne Books, and the author and translator, for providing me with an advanced reader's copy for the purpose of an unbiased review.
Horror is my ultimate weakness. Anything that has the potential to be spooky or scary, I am likely to gobble up without a second thought: or, at the very least, take the time to sit down and read or watch. After reading the synopsis for Mariko Koike's The Graveyard Apartment, I eagerly applied for the opportunity to review a copy of the book prior to release. Now that I've finished devouring it, I find myself with many unanswered questions.
The Graveyard Apartment takes place in the late 80s, and was, in fact, originally published in 1986. It tells the tale of a small family, the Kanos, that has made their first real estate purchase: a comfortable, two bedroom apartment located on the eight floor of a new apartment building that, as the book's title indicates, is located near a graveyard... and a temple... and a crematorium. Apparently that's not enough to warn off potential buyers though, because the Kanos are not the only ones duped into purchasing one of the fourteen apartments. Once they've settled in, strange occurrences begin and they quickly find themselves in a living nightmare.
Beginning with the characters, I find nearly all of them to be unlikable in one way or another, with the exception of the daughter, Tamao. Her parents, Misao and Teppei Kano, strike me as extremely self-centered and one-dimensional, as do her aunt and uncle, Naomi and Tatsuji. Their downstairs neighbors, the Inoues, are precisely what you'd expect of a more outgoing family, and the managers of the apartment are rather dry in comparison. I felt little to no sympathy at any point for anyone other than the daughter, the dog, and the finch and for this, especially in something that has been labeled a psychological thriller, is extremely disappointing. Without being able to form a connection to the characters, I tend to find it difficult to actually care about what happens to them, and so upon the conclusion of the book, I simply shrugged and closed my Kindle app.
The story itself has a lot of potential, and yes I am aware that is a word I throw around a lot in my reviews. When I look at a plot, I tend to form my own thoughts regarding what could happen, and a lot of times that does lead to me being let down. For instance, in The Graveyard Apartment we learn that Misao is Teppei's second wife, the first having been lost to tragedy. Though Teppei's first wife, Reiko, is mentioned very often in the book, and made to seem as if there is a key role to be played by her, there actually isn't: it's all useless information that has been thrown out to the reader, but has no real connotation on the story. Likewise, Misao discovers that there had originally been plans to build an underground mall in the area back in the 60s. Given the strange things that happen throughout the book, one might expect to see and learn a lot more about this supposed mall and the aftermath of its construction having been canceled. We don't. Again, it is an element to the story that is not fully fleshed out, even though it is clearly a major factor in the history of the apartment building that the Kanos have moved into.
As if those two players weren't enough of a disappointment, the book does not come to a conclusion, and for me this is a disappointment. I don't care much for happy endings; in fact, I rather prefer unhappy endings. The Graveyard Apartment robs us of any sense of finality, though, and in truth fails to draw the story to a true close. As a reader, we can surmise the outcome based on the book's epilogue, but that's about as much we can do. We can figure out what happened to the Kanos and their fate, but we do not learn why. Instead, Koike continues to hint at a malevolent being haunting a recently built apartment complex whose origins are unknown, and whose origins no one really seems to be overly curious about. Sure, they're scared, but they don't really seem to care beyond that. There wasn't any shortage of clues either, as to why the place may have been haunted; only a lack of motivation in regards to finding out why that extends beyond Teppei's initial apprehension.
I really, truly can't wrap my head around how much was wasted in this book. It was like watching a B-rated horror flick where someone forgot to tie up the loose ends. Honestly, I would have liked to see more revealed regarding Reiko and the failed underground mall.
Horror is my ultimate weakness. Anything that has the potential to be spooky or scary, I am likely to gobble up without a second thought: or, at the very least, take the time to sit down and read or watch. After reading the synopsis for Mariko Koike's The Graveyard Apartment, I eagerly applied for the opportunity to review a copy of the book prior to release. Now that I've finished devouring it, I find myself with many unanswered questions.
The Graveyard Apartment takes place in the late 80s, and was, in fact, originally published in 1986. It tells the tale of a small family, the Kanos, that has made their first real estate purchase: a comfortable, two bedroom apartment located on the eight floor of a new apartment building that, as the book's title indicates, is located near a graveyard... and a temple... and a crematorium. Apparently that's not enough to warn off potential buyers though, because the Kanos are not the only ones duped into purchasing one of the fourteen apartments. Once they've settled in, strange occurrences begin and they quickly find themselves in a living nightmare.
Beginning with the characters, I find nearly all of them to be unlikable in one way or another, with the exception of the daughter, Tamao. Her parents, Misao and Teppei Kano, strike me as extremely self-centered and one-dimensional, as do her aunt and uncle, Naomi and Tatsuji. Their downstairs neighbors, the Inoues, are precisely what you'd expect of a more outgoing family, and the managers of the apartment are rather dry in comparison. I felt little to no sympathy at any point for anyone other than the daughter, the dog, and the finch and for this, especially in something that has been labeled a psychological thriller, is extremely disappointing. Without being able to form a connection to the characters, I tend to find it difficult to actually care about what happens to them, and so upon the conclusion of the book, I simply shrugged and closed my Kindle app.
The story itself has a lot of potential, and yes I am aware that is a word I throw around a lot in my reviews. When I look at a plot, I tend to form my own thoughts regarding what could happen, and a lot of times that does lead to me being let down. For instance, in The Graveyard Apartment we learn that Misao is Teppei's second wife, the first having been lost to tragedy. Though Teppei's first wife, Reiko, is mentioned very often in the book, and made to seem as if there is a key role to be played by her, there actually isn't: it's all useless information that has been thrown out to the reader, but has no real connotation on the story. Likewise, Misao discovers that there had originally been plans to build an underground mall in the area back in the 60s. Given the strange things that happen throughout the book, one might expect to see and learn a lot more about this supposed mall and the aftermath of its construction having been canceled. We don't. Again, it is an element to the story that is not fully fleshed out, even though it is clearly a major factor in the history of the apartment building that the Kanos have moved into.
As if those two players weren't enough of a disappointment, the book does not come to a conclusion, and for me this is a disappointment. I don't care much for happy endings; in fact, I rather prefer unhappy endings. The Graveyard Apartment robs us of any sense of finality, though, and in truth fails to draw the story to a true close. As a reader, we can surmise the outcome based on the book's epilogue, but that's about as much we can do. We can figure out what happened to the Kanos and their fate, but we do not learn why. Instead, Koike continues to hint at a malevolent being haunting a recently built apartment complex whose origins are unknown, and whose origins no one really seems to be overly curious about. Sure, they're scared, but they don't really seem to care beyond that. There wasn't any shortage of clues either, as to why the place may have been haunted; only a lack of motivation in regards to finding out why that extends beyond Teppei's initial apprehension.
I really, truly can't wrap my head around how much was wasted in this book. It was like watching a B-rated horror flick where someone forgot to tie up the loose ends. Honestly, I would have liked to see more revealed regarding Reiko and the failed underground mall.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Feb 23, 2020
A complete mess, but kids will probably love it.
With the words of Mark Kermode's review ringing in my ears ("It's shockingly poor... and that's the same in any language") I was bracing myself when I went to see this latest incarnation of Hugh Lofting's famous animal-chatting character. And I have to agree that it is a shocking mess of a film, given $175 million was poured into this thing. But, and I say this cautiously without first-hand empirical evidence, I *think* this is a movie that kids in the 6 to 10 age range might fall in love with.
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
