Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Water for Elephants (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The future is bright with promise for Jacob, a Cornell veterinary sciences student, ready to graduate and follow in his father’s footsteps. But after a series of unfortunate events, Jacob finds himself a college dropout, homeless and penniless. He sets out to find work and stows away on a passing train which turns out to be the Benzini Brothers Circus train.
Jacob appeals to the vanity of the heartless circus owner and ringmaster, August, convincing him to keep him on as the circus veterinary doctor. One of his first patients is the horse of the circus’ star attraction, Marlena, who also happens to be August’s wife. When Marlena’s horse is replaced by an elephant, Jacob is made responsible for the elephant’s care and training. This gives Marlena and Jacob a common ally in Rosie, the elephant, and a common enemy in an increasingly violent August. Cue the furtive glances, the stilted conversations and awkward moments that signal the start of the mutual attraction between Marlena and Jacob.
While Jacob, Marlena and August form the romantic triangle that drives the story, it’s Rosie and the circus backdrop that provide the more entertaining aspects of the movie. Director Francis Lawrence (Constantine and I Am Legend) pays decent attention to period detail, highlighting the desperation and brutality of The Great Depression while romanticizing the ephemeral circus life and the subversive lifestyles enjoyed in defiance of The Prohibition. Sadly they were just quick peeks into a curious world.
Based on a best-selling novel of the same name by Sara Gruen, Water for Elephants is a sweet tale told in retrospect by a 90-something-year old Jacob, played by a wistful Hal Holbrook. Robert Pattinson plays young Jacob capably, and I have no doubt his fans will swoon at the many close ups of his brooding stare, pained grimaces and the occasional delighted smile. While this character gives him a few more lines than his more well-known role as Edward, the tortured vampire of the Twilight saga, it was difficult to watch him and not see the similarities in how he portrays Jacob and Edward. Reese Witherspoon’s Marlena was in turns adequately fragile and sufficiently steely. With negligible chemistry, Pattinson and Witherspoon’s performances paled in comparison to that of Christoph Waltz whose sadistic August was played with cunning zeal.
A carefully told story, Water for Elephants is however too carefully told, in a predictable, pedantic pace. However, fans of Pattinson will not be disappointed.
Jacob appeals to the vanity of the heartless circus owner and ringmaster, August, convincing him to keep him on as the circus veterinary doctor. One of his first patients is the horse of the circus’ star attraction, Marlena, who also happens to be August’s wife. When Marlena’s horse is replaced by an elephant, Jacob is made responsible for the elephant’s care and training. This gives Marlena and Jacob a common ally in Rosie, the elephant, and a common enemy in an increasingly violent August. Cue the furtive glances, the stilted conversations and awkward moments that signal the start of the mutual attraction between Marlena and Jacob.
While Jacob, Marlena and August form the romantic triangle that drives the story, it’s Rosie and the circus backdrop that provide the more entertaining aspects of the movie. Director Francis Lawrence (Constantine and I Am Legend) pays decent attention to period detail, highlighting the desperation and brutality of The Great Depression while romanticizing the ephemeral circus life and the subversive lifestyles enjoyed in defiance of The Prohibition. Sadly they were just quick peeks into a curious world.
Based on a best-selling novel of the same name by Sara Gruen, Water for Elephants is a sweet tale told in retrospect by a 90-something-year old Jacob, played by a wistful Hal Holbrook. Robert Pattinson plays young Jacob capably, and I have no doubt his fans will swoon at the many close ups of his brooding stare, pained grimaces and the occasional delighted smile. While this character gives him a few more lines than his more well-known role as Edward, the tortured vampire of the Twilight saga, it was difficult to watch him and not see the similarities in how he portrays Jacob and Edward. Reese Witherspoon’s Marlena was in turns adequately fragile and sufficiently steely. With negligible chemistry, Pattinson and Witherspoon’s performances paled in comparison to that of Christoph Waltz whose sadistic August was played with cunning zeal.
A carefully told story, Water for Elephants is however too carefully told, in a predictable, pedantic pace. However, fans of Pattinson will not be disappointed.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Another Round (2020) in Movies
Apr 21, 2021
Interesting...but the ending did not resonate
Films have a tendency to fall on one of 2 sides when their subject matter is drinking, partying and alchoholism - (1) “They’re just a bunch of partying fun people” or (2) “They’re drinking to cover up emotions they don’t want to deal with and, eventually, it will lead to their ruin”.
Danish Director Thomas Vinterberg was the surprise Oscar nominee for his direction in the film ANOTHER ROUND (a film he also co-wrote) as he attempted the noble feat of straddling these two sides.
And…the result is an admirable attempt that falls just shy of being good.
Starring the great Mads Mikkelsen (the villain in the first DR. STRANGE film), ANOTHER ROUND tells the tale of 4 Danish High School teachers who are stuck in a rut (call it a mid-life crisis) and come up with the idea of being slightly drunk all of the time to elevate their lives.
The first half of the film flirts with “Frat Boy Party” territory as the 4 friends embark on the quest to see if staying slightly drunk elevates them. The results are quite mixed with moments of joy and triumph mixed in with some cringe-inducing moments. But then Vinterberg mines the “dark side” of alcoholism and the film takes a dark - and more interesting turn - only to have another turn at the end that just didn’t work for me.
Mikkelsen, of course, is quite good in the central role of Martin - the family man in mid-life depression crisis that kicks into “Frat Boy” mode when drinking “just enough”. His character switches back and forth between these 2 modes and Mikkelsen handles these changes like the terrific actor that he is.
His 3 friends played by Magnus Millang, Lars Ranthe and Thomas Bo Larson are all equally depressed and switch back and forth right along with Martin. Unfortunately, none of these 3 have the “it” factor of Mikkelsen, so are really kept in his shadow - with the possible exception of a few moments by Larson.
This is the first film I have seen from Vinterberg, but what I have read about him is that this film pretty much sums up his career. An interesting idea, told fairly well with an ending that doesn’t really land. And that’s what I thought of this film. I’m glad I saw it, but it will fade after a time, as the ending just didn’t provide enough depth to keep ANOTHER ROUND with me for long.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Danish Director Thomas Vinterberg was the surprise Oscar nominee for his direction in the film ANOTHER ROUND (a film he also co-wrote) as he attempted the noble feat of straddling these two sides.
And…the result is an admirable attempt that falls just shy of being good.
Starring the great Mads Mikkelsen (the villain in the first DR. STRANGE film), ANOTHER ROUND tells the tale of 4 Danish High School teachers who are stuck in a rut (call it a mid-life crisis) and come up with the idea of being slightly drunk all of the time to elevate their lives.
The first half of the film flirts with “Frat Boy Party” territory as the 4 friends embark on the quest to see if staying slightly drunk elevates them. The results are quite mixed with moments of joy and triumph mixed in with some cringe-inducing moments. But then Vinterberg mines the “dark side” of alcoholism and the film takes a dark - and more interesting turn - only to have another turn at the end that just didn’t work for me.
Mikkelsen, of course, is quite good in the central role of Martin - the family man in mid-life depression crisis that kicks into “Frat Boy” mode when drinking “just enough”. His character switches back and forth between these 2 modes and Mikkelsen handles these changes like the terrific actor that he is.
His 3 friends played by Magnus Millang, Lars Ranthe and Thomas Bo Larson are all equally depressed and switch back and forth right along with Martin. Unfortunately, none of these 3 have the “it” factor of Mikkelsen, so are really kept in his shadow - with the possible exception of a few moments by Larson.
This is the first film I have seen from Vinterberg, but what I have read about him is that this film pretty much sums up his career. An interesting idea, told fairly well with an ending that doesn’t really land. And that’s what I thought of this film. I’m glad I saw it, but it will fade after a time, as the ending just didn’t provide enough depth to keep ANOTHER ROUND with me for long.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BookInspector (124 KP) rated Big Sister in Books
Sep 24, 2020
More book reviews at https://bbookinspector.wordpress.com
This book was my first encounter with this author’s writing, but from what I have seen so far, I will be definitely checking out more of Gunnar’s work.
In the beginning, I was a little bit confused, because for some reason I thought Varg was a woman. 😀 (Have no idea why…) So, yes, Varg is the protagonist in this story, and a very complex one, to be honest. He is over sixty and still risking his life for his cases, that is pretty amusing to me. 🙂 I really liked him as a personality, and I think he got away with his nosiness pretty well. I liked that Varg is very realistic, he is very clever, but at the same time, he doesn’t try to pose as some kind of super detective. I really liked all the characters which the author chose for this story, they made the story really interesting and rich.
The narrative was told from a single perspective, but for me, it was enough. The author had my curiosity growing with every chapter, as he cleverly delivered the clues and completely unexpected twists and turns throughout the pages. Staalesen has a great eye for a detail, and the descriptions of the settings were very visual and well delivered. I really enjoyed the topics which author addressed, such as family relationships; divorce and it’s consequences; rape and how it affects people; depression and what it can lead to; and many more. Even though this book is not very big, it touches and addresses a lot of important topics.
I really enjoyed the writing style of this novel, Staalesen’s writing is very creative, detailed and compact. I admire, how he can put so much into his words. For me, this book was very pleasant to read, except for the names of characters and places. I had a bit of a difficulty sorting out the characters, because their names didn’t stay in my head, and I skipped most of the place’s names because it was difficult for me to pronounce them. I loved the short chapters, which this book had to offer, and the whole book was a pretty quick read. Even though the ending concluded the story very nicely and with another surprise, it still left some cliffhangers, which will be bothering me until the next book. 😀
So, to conclude, it is very fast paced and suspenseful novel, filled with very intriguing characters and very surprising twists and turns, and I do strongly recommend to give this book a try. Enjoy the sun and a good book! 😉
This book was my first encounter with this author’s writing, but from what I have seen so far, I will be definitely checking out more of Gunnar’s work.
In the beginning, I was a little bit confused, because for some reason I thought Varg was a woman. 😀 (Have no idea why…) So, yes, Varg is the protagonist in this story, and a very complex one, to be honest. He is over sixty and still risking his life for his cases, that is pretty amusing to me. 🙂 I really liked him as a personality, and I think he got away with his nosiness pretty well. I liked that Varg is very realistic, he is very clever, but at the same time, he doesn’t try to pose as some kind of super detective. I really liked all the characters which the author chose for this story, they made the story really interesting and rich.
The narrative was told from a single perspective, but for me, it was enough. The author had my curiosity growing with every chapter, as he cleverly delivered the clues and completely unexpected twists and turns throughout the pages. Staalesen has a great eye for a detail, and the descriptions of the settings were very visual and well delivered. I really enjoyed the topics which author addressed, such as family relationships; divorce and it’s consequences; rape and how it affects people; depression and what it can lead to; and many more. Even though this book is not very big, it touches and addresses a lot of important topics.
I really enjoyed the writing style of this novel, Staalesen’s writing is very creative, detailed and compact. I admire, how he can put so much into his words. For me, this book was very pleasant to read, except for the names of characters and places. I had a bit of a difficulty sorting out the characters, because their names didn’t stay in my head, and I skipped most of the place’s names because it was difficult for me to pronounce them. I loved the short chapters, which this book had to offer, and the whole book was a pretty quick read. Even though the ending concluded the story very nicely and with another surprise, it still left some cliffhangers, which will be bothering me until the next book. 😀
So, to conclude, it is very fast paced and suspenseful novel, filled with very intriguing characters and very surprising twists and turns, and I do strongly recommend to give this book a try. Enjoy the sun and a good book! 😉
Studs Lonigan
Book
This Library of America volume contains one of the masterpieces of American naturalism and a major...
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Big Trail (1930) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
“The Indians are my friends…” Breck Coleman – John Wayne
Not exactly a statement that would exemplify the Career of a man rightly or wrongly associated as being the Cowboy of the Cowboy and Indian movies. But there is no doubt that John Wayne was certainly one of the biggest western stars of cinema.
And The Big Trail is where it really begins for Wayne, but this 1930’s classic was a box office failure, coming not only at the dawn of sound film, but at the time of The Great Depression. It would be another decade by the time “The Duke” wold be born and John Wayne would take his crown as the western superstar which we all know today.
But The Big Trail, originally entitled The Oregon Trail, is not really a John Wayne vehicle. He was a relative unknown actor alongside stage talent, many of whom were drafted into Hollywood at this time simply because they could give a decent vocal performance, as many a silent star was falling, failing to adapt the talkies.
But again, sound is not the selling point of this movie. This was one of a handful of films which pioneered the 70mm film format, in this case, Fox Grandeur, or Grandeur 70. A none anamorphic widescreen format, which whilst not the first attempt, nor the first 70mm film format, it was the nearest to which would succeed later.
2oth Century Fox would change cinema in 1953 with the release of the first CinemaScope film, The Robe, a year after the debut of Cinerama, but Grandeur more closest resembles Todd AO, a format which is still technically used today though in a somewhat different way. The secret to CinemaScope’s later success was in many ways the reason for the failure of Grandeur and that was the fact that CinemaScope was an anamorphic process, screening the image from a regular 35mm film and expanding with the lens, therefore making it a lot cheaper to adapt existing projectors and auditoriums.
Grandeur on the other hand was a larger film format and required a complete upgrade to theatres and therefore, especially at the dawn of the depression era, was financially untenable. Only two theatres in the U.S. would ever show this film in its widescreen glory, with rest showing the alternate 35mm Academy version.
And this film, had SIX versions shot simultaneously, in four different languages, 35mm and 70mm, each requiring different takes with different cameras or casts. This was an incredible feet but one which would soon be reduced with the use of audio dubbing, subtitles and ability to pan and scan.
The problem with this film is simple. It has a loose plot but no real twists and turns. This is almost a documentary following the wagon train trail across the west as group of pioneers make their way to the better life and building the United States, or at least personifying the romantic version of it.
But the film’s pacing and visual style works best through the widescreen lens, a beautiful journey with the untamed west as backdrop, but this is not the the version that most people have seen. The majority only saw the 35mm version which is 20 minutes shorter, edited more quickly and simply doesn’t have the visual flare of the Grandeur version. And without this vast visual canvas, the thousands of extras and props are almost cut from the film, a film with now feels a bit pointless and bit wayward.
Starring an unknown, though despite his hammy acting, Wayne manages to hold his own, the pacing is rushed and the fact that this is an epic journey which we are embarking on with them is somewhat lost.
The widescreen version’s main failing is the sound, which is inferior and poorly mixed in comparison to the 35mm cut, which is crisper and louder, but sound was never going to this movie’s strength and it was still rudimentary at this point. But on a visual level, considering the age of the print, the cinematography is up there as being some of the best, with scale and dare I say, “grandeur” about it.
This is an interesting film to watch now, though unless you are a strong western fan, I would say that it will not thrill, though as a peace of cinematic history, it is littered with footnotes and it very watchable.
And The Big Trail is where it really begins for Wayne, but this 1930’s classic was a box office failure, coming not only at the dawn of sound film, but at the time of The Great Depression. It would be another decade by the time “The Duke” wold be born and John Wayne would take his crown as the western superstar which we all know today.
But The Big Trail, originally entitled The Oregon Trail, is not really a John Wayne vehicle. He was a relative unknown actor alongside stage talent, many of whom were drafted into Hollywood at this time simply because they could give a decent vocal performance, as many a silent star was falling, failing to adapt the talkies.
But again, sound is not the selling point of this movie. This was one of a handful of films which pioneered the 70mm film format, in this case, Fox Grandeur, or Grandeur 70. A none anamorphic widescreen format, which whilst not the first attempt, nor the first 70mm film format, it was the nearest to which would succeed later.
2oth Century Fox would change cinema in 1953 with the release of the first CinemaScope film, The Robe, a year after the debut of Cinerama, but Grandeur more closest resembles Todd AO, a format which is still technically used today though in a somewhat different way. The secret to CinemaScope’s later success was in many ways the reason for the failure of Grandeur and that was the fact that CinemaScope was an anamorphic process, screening the image from a regular 35mm film and expanding with the lens, therefore making it a lot cheaper to adapt existing projectors and auditoriums.
Grandeur on the other hand was a larger film format and required a complete upgrade to theatres and therefore, especially at the dawn of the depression era, was financially untenable. Only two theatres in the U.S. would ever show this film in its widescreen glory, with rest showing the alternate 35mm Academy version.
And this film, had SIX versions shot simultaneously, in four different languages, 35mm and 70mm, each requiring different takes with different cameras or casts. This was an incredible feet but one which would soon be reduced with the use of audio dubbing, subtitles and ability to pan and scan.
The problem with this film is simple. It has a loose plot but no real twists and turns. This is almost a documentary following the wagon train trail across the west as group of pioneers make their way to the better life and building the United States, or at least personifying the romantic version of it.
But the film’s pacing and visual style works best through the widescreen lens, a beautiful journey with the untamed west as backdrop, but this is not the the version that most people have seen. The majority only saw the 35mm version which is 20 minutes shorter, edited more quickly and simply doesn’t have the visual flare of the Grandeur version. And without this vast visual canvas, the thousands of extras and props are almost cut from the film, a film with now feels a bit pointless and bit wayward.
Starring an unknown, though despite his hammy acting, Wayne manages to hold his own, the pacing is rushed and the fact that this is an epic journey which we are embarking on with them is somewhat lost.
The widescreen version’s main failing is the sound, which is inferior and poorly mixed in comparison to the 35mm cut, which is crisper and louder, but sound was never going to this movie’s strength and it was still rudimentary at this point. But on a visual level, considering the age of the print, the cinematography is up there as being some of the best, with scale and dare I say, “grandeur” about it.
This is an interesting film to watch now, though unless you are a strong western fan, I would say that it will not thrill, though as a peace of cinematic history, it is littered with footnotes and it very watchable.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
McCarthy and Grant in a memorable double act.
I have a big apology to make to Melissa McCarthy. A few months ago, at the excellent Picturehouse Harbour Lights film trivia quiz (every 2nd Tuesday of the month in Southampton… “be there and be… well… a bit of a film geek”!) there was a fun round of suggesting New Year’s resolutions for movie stars. Mine was the rather spiteful and cutting “Melissa McCarthy…. to retire”. In my defence, I did have the truly dreadful “Happytime Murders” fixed in my memory, and McCarthy’s track record since “Bridesmaids” has not exactly been stellar. As the quiz’s host – Stephen ‘Grand Moff’ Sambrook – justly admonished me for at the time “McCarthy is about to come out with a very different role which is supposed to be pretty good”. This film is that role…. and I take it all back.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
For McCarthy is a revelation in a dramatic role which, whilst having moments of levity, is largely downbeat and very moving.
The Plot.
Based on a true story, McCarthy plays Lee Israel; a cat-loving bestselling biography writer who has seen better days. Her work is now so poor that her publisher (“3rd Rock”‘s Jane Curtin) no longer returns her call. She doesn’t help herself by having an alcohol problem and an ability to get on with other people that borders on the sociopathic.
Stumbling by accident on a letter from a famous author, she sells it for a decent sum to a dealer in such documents and is asked if she has any similar documents. What follows is a criminal trail of counterfeiting and grand larceny, into which she introduces her only friend: the gay and itinerant Jack Hock (Richard E. Grant).
With newfound success can Lee find criminally-induced happiness? Or will the authorities eventually catch up with her and Jack.
A great double-act.
The reason to see this film is the tremendous double-act between McCarthy and Grant which is just magic. Both have been lauded with nominations during awards season, and both are richly deserved.
Without aspersions against the excellent Shakespearean actress Brenda Fricker, this film could have turned into a 2 hour downer featuring a literary-equivalent of the bird-woman from “Home Alone 2”. The fact it doesn’t – notwithstanding a Central Park scene that just about re-films the final scene of HA/2! – is wholly down to McCarthy’s stunning performance. Although having some scenes of darker comedy, the majority of her performance is dramatically convincing as the conflicted and depressed victim of chronic writer’s block.
Grant as well is just superbly entertaining, all teeth and over-confidence in the face of all odds. If he wasn’t up for an Oscar nomination at one point in the process, then his final scene in the film absolutely nailed it. If you are not moved by this scene, you have a very hard heart indeed.
Ephron-esque.
The script is by the relatively unknown Nicole Holofcener and the debut writer Jeff Whitty, who are nominated for best adapted screenplay for both BAFTA and Oscar award: not bad going! It’s ironic that the late Nora Ephron is (comically) referenced by the screenplay, since there is a strong whiff of Ephron-esque about the film. (This is further enforced through reference to struggling book shops, that harked me back to “You’ve Got Mail”). The movie’s directed by the up and coming Marielle Heller, who’s debut was the well-regarded “Diary of a Teenage Girl”.
Cheer on the anti-hero.
Once again, like last year’s disappointing “Ocean’s 8“, for the film to work we have to emotionally support the actions of a criminal woman and, in this case, her damaged man-friend. This movie almost gets away with it, in that a) the ‘victims’ are unseen wealthy ‘collectors’ who ‘probably have too much money to burn’ anyway and b) Lee expresses such a wondrous delight in the quality of her work; delight that pulls her out of her destructive downward spiral of depression. It’s hard not to get behind her to at least some degree.
Given the movie dives into subjects including animal – or at least animal owner – cruelty, death, depression, homelessness and terminal illness, will you enjoy it? My bell-weather here is my wife Sue, who was unwillingly dragged along to see this, but ended up enjoying it mightily.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Alice Through the Looking Glass starts as Alice (Wasikowska) returns from one of her voyages around the world only to find her dreams of seeing the world have been taken from her. Escaping the real world Wonderland calls Alice back with Queen Mirana (Hathaway) and the rest of the characters need Alice to bring the Hatter (Depp) back to his senses after he falls through memories of his loss.
Alice must travel back through time to save the Hatter’ family and bring him back to his colourful ways. Alice finds herself having to go to Time (Cohen) himself to find a way to save the Hatter where she finds herself coming across an old foe Iracebeth (Carter) who wants to use time to control the kingdoms regaining her crown.
Alice Through the Looking Glass does what Oz the Great and Powerful and Wicked have done to The Wizard of Oz by making us want to sympathise with the villainous characters by showing us how they got driven into evil ways because of the bad decisions by the good one. The travel through time works because it does explain certain moments from the story like why Hatter and co have been waiting so long for the tea party. In the end this just tries slightly too much to not bring any new villainous threat to the world to show Alice the important lesson in the real life she is living.
Actor Review
Johnny Depp: Hatter Tarrant Hightopp has gone into a deep depression when he learns to remember the fate of his family, Alice is trying to go through his past to stop this event so we get to meet Hatter as he was younger and struggling to decide whether to follow in his father’s footsteps. Johnny continues his streak of quirky roles but does get over shadowed by Mia.
Mia Wasikowska: Alice is now an adventurer who travels the world only to return home and find her future gone and being forced to give up her dreams. When she returns to Wonderland she must battle the forces of time to save her old friend Hatter and learn to accept her own changes in her life. Mia is good in this role but it is strange seeing an older version of Alice.
Helena Bonham Carter: Iracebeth is the evil queen who lost her crown in the first film, she wants to use time to change the past keeping her power over the kingdoms, but this time we learn about what drove her to be the way she is. Helena continues her blatant rip off performance from Queenie in Blackadder.
Anne Hathaway: Mirana is the good queen of the kingdom who asks Alice to help the Hatter only for us to learn about her younger ways. Anne is very basic in this supporting performance where she doesn’t get much to work with.
Support Cast: Alice Through the Looking Glass has a big supporting cast with Sacha Baron Cohen shining as Time itself chasing Alice down through time.
Director Review: James Bobin – James gives us a solid sequel but seems to mix Oz the Great and Powerful with time travel.
Adventure: Alice Through the Looking Glass does put Alice on an adventure she could only dream of through time itself.
Family: Alice Through the Looking Glass does feel slightly too dark for the youngest members of family to enjoy.
Fantasy: Alice Through the Looking Glass builds on the fantasy world created on the first outing looking deeper into the backstory of the characters involved.
Settings: Alice Through the Looking Glass brings us back to the Wonderland location with the inclusion of the time warehouse location.
Special Effects: Alice Through the Looking Glass is a film you can almost feel the green screen behind the actors.
Suggestion: Alice Through the Looking Glass is only one to try really I don’t think it is one that is that special. (Try It)
Best Part: Time is a good character.
Worst Part: Just feels like a copy of Oz the Great and the Powerful with time travel.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $170 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 53 Minutes
Tagline: This spring, it’s time for a little madness.
Overall: Simple sequel that offers nothing new to the overall Wonderland world.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/06/23/alice-through-the-looking-glass-2016/
Alice must travel back through time to save the Hatter’ family and bring him back to his colourful ways. Alice finds herself having to go to Time (Cohen) himself to find a way to save the Hatter where she finds herself coming across an old foe Iracebeth (Carter) who wants to use time to control the kingdoms regaining her crown.
Alice Through the Looking Glass does what Oz the Great and Powerful and Wicked have done to The Wizard of Oz by making us want to sympathise with the villainous characters by showing us how they got driven into evil ways because of the bad decisions by the good one. The travel through time works because it does explain certain moments from the story like why Hatter and co have been waiting so long for the tea party. In the end this just tries slightly too much to not bring any new villainous threat to the world to show Alice the important lesson in the real life she is living.
Actor Review
Johnny Depp: Hatter Tarrant Hightopp has gone into a deep depression when he learns to remember the fate of his family, Alice is trying to go through his past to stop this event so we get to meet Hatter as he was younger and struggling to decide whether to follow in his father’s footsteps. Johnny continues his streak of quirky roles but does get over shadowed by Mia.
Mia Wasikowska: Alice is now an adventurer who travels the world only to return home and find her future gone and being forced to give up her dreams. When she returns to Wonderland she must battle the forces of time to save her old friend Hatter and learn to accept her own changes in her life. Mia is good in this role but it is strange seeing an older version of Alice.
Helena Bonham Carter: Iracebeth is the evil queen who lost her crown in the first film, she wants to use time to change the past keeping her power over the kingdoms, but this time we learn about what drove her to be the way she is. Helena continues her blatant rip off performance from Queenie in Blackadder.
Anne Hathaway: Mirana is the good queen of the kingdom who asks Alice to help the Hatter only for us to learn about her younger ways. Anne is very basic in this supporting performance where she doesn’t get much to work with.
Support Cast: Alice Through the Looking Glass has a big supporting cast with Sacha Baron Cohen shining as Time itself chasing Alice down through time.
Director Review: James Bobin – James gives us a solid sequel but seems to mix Oz the Great and Powerful with time travel.
Adventure: Alice Through the Looking Glass does put Alice on an adventure she could only dream of through time itself.
Family: Alice Through the Looking Glass does feel slightly too dark for the youngest members of family to enjoy.
Fantasy: Alice Through the Looking Glass builds on the fantasy world created on the first outing looking deeper into the backstory of the characters involved.
Settings: Alice Through the Looking Glass brings us back to the Wonderland location with the inclusion of the time warehouse location.
Special Effects: Alice Through the Looking Glass is a film you can almost feel the green screen behind the actors.
Suggestion: Alice Through the Looking Glass is only one to try really I don’t think it is one that is that special. (Try It)
Best Part: Time is a good character.
Worst Part: Just feels like a copy of Oz the Great and the Powerful with time travel.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $170 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 53 Minutes
Tagline: This spring, it’s time for a little madness.
Overall: Simple sequel that offers nothing new to the overall Wonderland world.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/06/23/alice-through-the-looking-glass-2016/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Other Mother in Books
Apr 10, 2018
Twisty psychological thriller
When Daphne flees her home, taking very little but her six-month-old daughter, Chloe, she isn't sure what to expect. She's leaving everything behind (including her controlling husband) to work for one of her favorite authors, Schuyler, as an archivist. She'll be living in the shadow of a mental hospital, which Schulyer's late father ran for many years. Daphne hopes this will be a new start and a way to escape both her husband and the dark moods, diagnosed as postpartum mood disorder, she felt when Chloe was born. She'll also miss her friend, Laurel, with whom she formed a tight bond after meeting in a mother's group.
Get ready: this book is a crazy, bewildering ride. It will also always have the distinction of being the novel I was reading on an airplane trip to San Diego when one of my five-year-old daughters threw up. Twice. So it will be memorable in several ways. :)
If you're looking for an easy, linear psychological thriller, this one may not be for you. This novel is confusing and crazy and makes you question everything you're reading. But it's an exciting, twisty thriller and a great, fast read (and a welcome distraction from vomiting children). Most of it is told in current-day descriptions from Daphne, along with excerpts from her journal from her postpartum mothers group. As Daphne meets her new boss, Schuyler, and becomes fascinated with a patient of her father's, Edith, we also eventually hear from Edith and excerpts from Edith's journal, too. The entire result is a wonderful, twisted, tale that has you frantically turning pages, trying to work things out and figure out who is who and what the heck is going on.
I don't want to reveal too much, as it's best going in without too many preconceived notions. The novel has a bit of gothic in it, as many of Goodman's do, with the mental hospital looming in the background. The idea of postpartum depression and motherhood is a theme running throughout, as well.
Overall, even though I was sometimes frustrated as I tried to work through this one, I wound up enjoying it. I was impressed at how things came together and enjoyed the wild ride I was on. I've loved Goodman since The Lake of Dead Languages and find myself looking forward to each new novel she releases. This one was different, but I was quite caught up in its characters and dark themes. Definitely worth a read.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Librarything in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Get ready: this book is a crazy, bewildering ride. It will also always have the distinction of being the novel I was reading on an airplane trip to San Diego when one of my five-year-old daughters threw up. Twice. So it will be memorable in several ways. :)
If you're looking for an easy, linear psychological thriller, this one may not be for you. This novel is confusing and crazy and makes you question everything you're reading. But it's an exciting, twisty thriller and a great, fast read (and a welcome distraction from vomiting children). Most of it is told in current-day descriptions from Daphne, along with excerpts from her journal from her postpartum mothers group. As Daphne meets her new boss, Schuyler, and becomes fascinated with a patient of her father's, Edith, we also eventually hear from Edith and excerpts from Edith's journal, too. The entire result is a wonderful, twisted, tale that has you frantically turning pages, trying to work things out and figure out who is who and what the heck is going on.
I don't want to reveal too much, as it's best going in without too many preconceived notions. The novel has a bit of gothic in it, as many of Goodman's do, with the mental hospital looming in the background. The idea of postpartum depression and motherhood is a theme running throughout, as well.
Overall, even though I was sometimes frustrated as I tried to work through this one, I wound up enjoying it. I was impressed at how things came together and enjoyed the wild ride I was on. I've loved Goodman since The Lake of Dead Languages and find myself looking forward to each new novel she releases. This one was different, but I was quite caught up in its characters and dark themes. Definitely worth a read.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Librarything in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Finding the Light of Jesus in Books
Feb 11, 2019
When I first started to read this book, I realized very quickly how simply written this book is. The first ten chapters read as if I were sitting in a therapy session with the author and she were talking to me. They are written without much emphasis on detail, and seemed to focus largely on how a person feels in regards to stress and depression. Though the author writes extensively on the light of Jesus, she does not quote a single Bible verse, though she attempts to paraphrase a few - without citations. The beginning and end of each of these ten chapters also contain a poem she wrote and calls prayers, though the poetry is badly written and has little resemblance to an actual prayer, in my opinion. Also scattered through the chapters are activities that the author recommends for the reader, such as journaling and answering questions.
The final chapter is actually a collection of prayers and reflections that the reader is supposed to follow over the course of seven days. This is followed by a section of "Conversations With Jesus" that focus on different topics such as anger, jealousy, being overwhelmed, and fear. This is followed by five pages in which she quotes a scripture from the New American Bible, and leaves a blank space for the reader to journal the answers to her questions about the scripture verse. This is followed by more of her prayers and a further 30 days of prayer and reflection.
Overall, the author presents a Jesus that is only concerned about a person's feelings, whom the author seems to believe that everyone has inside of him or her from birth. She further indicates that everyone goes to heaven, and Jesus' strongest quality is being a "light." No mention is made of the basic precepts of Bible-based Christianity, such as sin, salvation, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Instead she writes things that seem to contradict parts of scripture, such as stating that Jesus does not judge us and that we are the "light," as well as what I previously mentioned about everyone going to heaven. In the context of that paragraph, I almost expected the author to write that we are all Jesus. I also noticed while reading that nowhere does she ever refer to Him as Jesus Christ either. The entire book has a vague New Age feel, as many of the things Tuttle writes mimic the doctrine of a New Age Jesus.
The author, Cindy Tuttle, has a background of working in the mental health industry for more than twenty-five years. Based on what I have read in this book, I have no doubt that she is good at her job and finds great success with her patients, but I do not find this book of the same calibur.
The final chapter is actually a collection of prayers and reflections that the reader is supposed to follow over the course of seven days. This is followed by a section of "Conversations With Jesus" that focus on different topics such as anger, jealousy, being overwhelmed, and fear. This is followed by five pages in which she quotes a scripture from the New American Bible, and leaves a blank space for the reader to journal the answers to her questions about the scripture verse. This is followed by more of her prayers and a further 30 days of prayer and reflection.
Overall, the author presents a Jesus that is only concerned about a person's feelings, whom the author seems to believe that everyone has inside of him or her from birth. She further indicates that everyone goes to heaven, and Jesus' strongest quality is being a "light." No mention is made of the basic precepts of Bible-based Christianity, such as sin, salvation, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Instead she writes things that seem to contradict parts of scripture, such as stating that Jesus does not judge us and that we are the "light," as well as what I previously mentioned about everyone going to heaven. In the context of that paragraph, I almost expected the author to write that we are all Jesus. I also noticed while reading that nowhere does she ever refer to Him as Jesus Christ either. The entire book has a vague New Age feel, as many of the things Tuttle writes mimic the doctrine of a New Age Jesus.
The author, Cindy Tuttle, has a background of working in the mental health industry for more than twenty-five years. Based on what I have read in this book, I have no doubt that she is good at her job and finds great success with her patients, but I do not find this book of the same calibur.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Big Hero 6 (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Mixing Anime with the cutting edge animation that Disney is famous for, “Big Hero 6” is the latest offering from the studio legendary for animated classics.
The film is sent in a near-future San Francisco which is now known as San Fransokyo and follows a boy genius named Hiro (Ryan Potter) who along with his older brother Tadashi (Daniel Henney) lives with his Aunt after being orphaned.
Hiro is very good at designing fighting robots and despite it being illegal; he has managed to earn himself some nice money winning fights on the underground circuit.
His brother wants him to do better and takes him to his college, and encourages him to enroll and follow him and his friends in helping build a better tomorrow.
Hiro opts to enter a technology showcase and blows away the competition which ensures him a place in the school and working with his brother and his team.
At the moment of his greatest triumph, tragedy strikes and Hiro finds himself in deep depression and unwilling to enter school and complete his education. When a freak discovery leads Hiro to learn that his invention has been stolen by a mysterious figure in a Kabuki mask, Hiro must use his knowledge along with Baymax (Scott Adsit), a medical robot designed by his brother to save the day.
Hiro is not without help as aside from complex fighting and flight tools and armor added to Baymax, Hiro enlists and equips his brother’s friends to form an elite fighting unit.
As the team gets closer to the mystery the danger grows, and Hiro must grow beyond his years to do what is right and learn some hard life lessons in the process.
The film is a bit slow to start and parents will want to note the PG rating as it may be a bit dark and intense for younger viewers.
Old viewers may get a bit impatient with the setup but after the first 45 minutes the film gets down to great characters and action which are the selling points of the film.
It was very clear to me that Disney was aiming the film mainly to the Asian markets and to fans of anime but I found the characters growing on me as it went along and I really enjoyed the 3D animation which was wonderful to behold.
In the end it was a pleasant enough introduction to what I hope is the first of many films in the series. Eagle eyed viewers will want to look carefully for a Stan Lee cameo as it is one to enjoy as is this charming new franchise film from Disney.
http://sknr.net/2014/11/07/big-hero-6/
The film is sent in a near-future San Francisco which is now known as San Fransokyo and follows a boy genius named Hiro (Ryan Potter) who along with his older brother Tadashi (Daniel Henney) lives with his Aunt after being orphaned.
Hiro is very good at designing fighting robots and despite it being illegal; he has managed to earn himself some nice money winning fights on the underground circuit.
His brother wants him to do better and takes him to his college, and encourages him to enroll and follow him and his friends in helping build a better tomorrow.
Hiro opts to enter a technology showcase and blows away the competition which ensures him a place in the school and working with his brother and his team.
At the moment of his greatest triumph, tragedy strikes and Hiro finds himself in deep depression and unwilling to enter school and complete his education. When a freak discovery leads Hiro to learn that his invention has been stolen by a mysterious figure in a Kabuki mask, Hiro must use his knowledge along with Baymax (Scott Adsit), a medical robot designed by his brother to save the day.
Hiro is not without help as aside from complex fighting and flight tools and armor added to Baymax, Hiro enlists and equips his brother’s friends to form an elite fighting unit.
As the team gets closer to the mystery the danger grows, and Hiro must grow beyond his years to do what is right and learn some hard life lessons in the process.
The film is a bit slow to start and parents will want to note the PG rating as it may be a bit dark and intense for younger viewers.
Old viewers may get a bit impatient with the setup but after the first 45 minutes the film gets down to great characters and action which are the selling points of the film.
It was very clear to me that Disney was aiming the film mainly to the Asian markets and to fans of anime but I found the characters growing on me as it went along and I really enjoyed the 3D animation which was wonderful to behold.
In the end it was a pleasant enough introduction to what I hope is the first of many films in the series. Eagle eyed viewers will want to look carefully for a Stan Lee cameo as it is one to enjoy as is this charming new franchise film from Disney.
http://sknr.net/2014/11/07/big-hero-6/