Search
Search results
iWallpaper Maker Lite : Custom Wallpaper theme ( for home screen, lock screen, kakao, whatsapp )
Catalogs and Lifestyle
8.0
Rate It
App
Optimized for iOS 8. Enjoy the new wallpaper. * * * Pro ( image x 1000+ ) : Limited time 50% OFF *...
Spelling 1-2
Education and Games
App
Rescue fish, win prizes, and become a super speller! A G-R-E-A-T app to help good spellers become...
Dr. Panda Town
Education
App
Let your imagination run wild and discover Dr. Panda Town! Step outside the house and go to the...
The Guides
Games
App
Featured by Apple in: 15 Most Mind-Bending Puzzlers, 15 Most Mysterious Games, The Best Games...
Dr. Panda Mailman
Education and Games
App
**Winner of a Parents' Choice Gold Award for 2015!** Be a mailman and deliver mail as you explore a...
A Circle of Firelight
Book
The execution is for the most part charming and clever, with lively dialogue, easy pacing, and...
War of Mist (The Oremere Chronicles #3)
8.0
Rate It
Book
War is here. Toxic mist drives all life to the brink of destruction and the conqueror queen, Ines,...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Disney knocks it out of the park
It was 1964 when the world was introduced to a practically-perfect British nanny in Walt Disney’s Mary Poppins. Back then, Julie Andrews starred as the eponymous character alongside Dick van Dyke and David Tomlinson. It was an instant hit and became one of Disney’s most-loved feature films.
That is, by everyone apart from the author of Mary Poppins, PL Travers. So incensed by what she felt was Disney’s misunderstanding of her source material, she banned all future work with the studio.
So, 54 years later and with Travers’ estate finally agreeing to a sequel (I wonder how much Disney executives had to pay for that), we get a sequel that no-one was really asking for. Mary Poppins Returns brings the titular character back into the hearts of newcomers and fans alike, but is the film as practically-perfect in every way like its lead? Or is it a bit of a dud?
Now an adult with three children, bank teller Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) learns that his house will be repossessed in five days unless he can pay back a loan. His only hope is to find a missing certificate that shows proof of valuable shares that his father left him years earlier. Just as all seems lost, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) receive the surprise of a lifetime when Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the beloved nanny from their childhood, arrives to save the day and take the Banks family on a magical, fun-filled adventure.
Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins? You’re right to be sceptical. After all, how can an American actress bring to life a character so quintessentially British? Remarkably, she does it, with a cracking British accent to match. Blunt is, as she is in all her films, picture-perfect and oozing charisma. In fact, the entire cast is fabulous with the likes of Colin Firth and Meryl Streep joining the party as a sneaky bank manager and Mary Poppins’ cousin respectively. We’ve also got Julie Walters popping up every now and then as Ellen the housekeeper.
The new Banks children are absolutely wonderful. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh and Joel Dawson show a range of emotions that would make seasoned actors blush, but here they thrive and look like they were having a blast. And that’s a trait clearly shared by the entire cast. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s plucky lamp-lighter, Jack, is obviously having the time of his life and this makes the whimsical nature of Mary Poppins Returns even more apparent.
In its hey-day, Mary Poppins was a technical revolution. Mixing live-action with colourful animation made the screen burst alive with imagination. Of course, special effects have moved on in the 50+ years that Mary has been away from our screens, but you’ll be pleased to know that each sequence feels just as magical.
From under the sea adventures to topsy-turvy houses, the ‘action’ scenes are beautifully filmed by director Rob Marshall. One scene in particular, involving hundreds of lamp-lighters is absolutely astounding and exquisitely choreographed.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be?
The setting of Depression-era London lives and breathes before your very eyes. The CGI and practical effects used to create the capital in 1935 is astonishing, and testament to the teams behind the film. That £130million budget was clearly very well spent.
Then there are the songs. We all know the masterpieces from the original, but will there be any here that children will still be singing along to when they grow older? That’s debatable, but there are three or four that have the potential to be future classics. Look out for Trip the Light Fantastic, which makes up part of the film’s best scenes.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be? The world is filled with such atrocities, it’s nice to sit back, relax with the family and enjoy a film that allows you to escape into your own imagination.
Any downsides? Well, while the pacing is nearly spot on, there’s no denying that Mary Poppins Returns is a long film by family film standards. At 130 minutes, it feels like this sequel is perhaps more for fans of the original than the children that the older film was clearly made for.
But these are small gripes in a sequel that pleasantly surprises on each and every turn. While lacking in the typical Disney poignancy, the film’s message is read loud and clear. There’s no doubt that Mary Poppins Returns is yet another hit for the studio and you’re sure to leave the cinema with a huge smile on your face. Mary is back and she means business.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/23/mary-poppins-returns-review-disney-knocks-it-out-of-the-park/
That is, by everyone apart from the author of Mary Poppins, PL Travers. So incensed by what she felt was Disney’s misunderstanding of her source material, she banned all future work with the studio.
So, 54 years later and with Travers’ estate finally agreeing to a sequel (I wonder how much Disney executives had to pay for that), we get a sequel that no-one was really asking for. Mary Poppins Returns brings the titular character back into the hearts of newcomers and fans alike, but is the film as practically-perfect in every way like its lead? Or is it a bit of a dud?
Now an adult with three children, bank teller Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) learns that his house will be repossessed in five days unless he can pay back a loan. His only hope is to find a missing certificate that shows proof of valuable shares that his father left him years earlier. Just as all seems lost, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) receive the surprise of a lifetime when Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the beloved nanny from their childhood, arrives to save the day and take the Banks family on a magical, fun-filled adventure.
Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins? You’re right to be sceptical. After all, how can an American actress bring to life a character so quintessentially British? Remarkably, she does it, with a cracking British accent to match. Blunt is, as she is in all her films, picture-perfect and oozing charisma. In fact, the entire cast is fabulous with the likes of Colin Firth and Meryl Streep joining the party as a sneaky bank manager and Mary Poppins’ cousin respectively. We’ve also got Julie Walters popping up every now and then as Ellen the housekeeper.
The new Banks children are absolutely wonderful. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh and Joel Dawson show a range of emotions that would make seasoned actors blush, but here they thrive and look like they were having a blast. And that’s a trait clearly shared by the entire cast. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s plucky lamp-lighter, Jack, is obviously having the time of his life and this makes the whimsical nature of Mary Poppins Returns even more apparent.
In its hey-day, Mary Poppins was a technical revolution. Mixing live-action with colourful animation made the screen burst alive with imagination. Of course, special effects have moved on in the 50+ years that Mary has been away from our screens, but you’ll be pleased to know that each sequence feels just as magical.
From under the sea adventures to topsy-turvy houses, the ‘action’ scenes are beautifully filmed by director Rob Marshall. One scene in particular, involving hundreds of lamp-lighters is absolutely astounding and exquisitely choreographed.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be?
The setting of Depression-era London lives and breathes before your very eyes. The CGI and practical effects used to create the capital in 1935 is astonishing, and testament to the teams behind the film. That £130million budget was clearly very well spent.
Then there are the songs. We all know the masterpieces from the original, but will there be any here that children will still be singing along to when they grow older? That’s debatable, but there are three or four that have the potential to be future classics. Look out for Trip the Light Fantastic, which makes up part of the film’s best scenes.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be? The world is filled with such atrocities, it’s nice to sit back, relax with the family and enjoy a film that allows you to escape into your own imagination.
Any downsides? Well, while the pacing is nearly spot on, there’s no denying that Mary Poppins Returns is a long film by family film standards. At 130 minutes, it feels like this sequel is perhaps more for fans of the original than the children that the older film was clearly made for.
But these are small gripes in a sequel that pleasantly surprises on each and every turn. While lacking in the typical Disney poignancy, the film’s message is read loud and clear. There’s no doubt that Mary Poppins Returns is yet another hit for the studio and you’re sure to leave the cinema with a huge smile on your face. Mary is back and she means business.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/23/mary-poppins-returns-review-disney-knocks-it-out-of-the-park/
Scott Tostik (389 KP) rated The Burning (1981) in Movies
Jun 21, 2017
Amazing SFX by Tom Savini (2 more)
One of the best camp slashers
A great killer before the likes of Jason, Myers and Freddy
Welcome to Camp... Oh who gives a shit... Let's get on with the killing
This has got to be one of my favorite and top 5 first watch in a relationship films of all time.
Not for the squeamish at all. The Burning has some of the best post CGI kill effects... And personally I love practical effects, nothing destroys a good beheading like digitized blood flying around out of sync with the body dropping.
Effects Master Tom Savini was fresh off the original Friday the 13th when he landed this flick.
A few years into the past the kids of a summer camp decide to pull a prank on the asshole caretaker involving a skull all dolled up with maggots, worms and burning eyes for effect. They sneak it into his dilapidated cabin, where he is sleeping off a drunk, and proceed to bang on his windows shaking him awake and scaring the hell out of hum. In his flailing fear he knocks the skull onto a pile of blankets and his hanging curtains and the whole place goes up in flames... As does he... His name is Cropsey... And he is engulfed in fire. The kids run like hell to get away as Cropsey flies out the door, rolls down a hill and ends up in the lake. Now I'm no doctor, never claim to be and certainly have never played one on tv, but in my imagination dirty lake water and freshly burnt skin do not a good combination make.
We skip ahead a few years and Cropsey is released from the hospital and goes into the downtown core of wherever the hell he is, searching for something. Wearing a trenchcoat and an old fedora over his scars. He picks up a hooker and goes to her place. She gets him to take off his clothes and recoils in horror. He grabs a pair of scissors and exacts revenge.
Without giving more away. You can see where this is going. A slash and gash festival unlike anything is about to follow. Starring a few familiar faces such as Seinfeld's Jason Alexander, Short Circut's Fisher Stevens and a young Holly Hunter in what I imagine was their first big breaks in film. This movie offers the viewer a glimpse of things to come in the slasher sub-genre of horror.
It's worth it alone of the scene in the canoe... What is that you may ask... Watch The damned movie and find out...lol
Not for the squeamish at all. The Burning has some of the best post CGI kill effects... And personally I love practical effects, nothing destroys a good beheading like digitized blood flying around out of sync with the body dropping.
Effects Master Tom Savini was fresh off the original Friday the 13th when he landed this flick.
A few years into the past the kids of a summer camp decide to pull a prank on the asshole caretaker involving a skull all dolled up with maggots, worms and burning eyes for effect. They sneak it into his dilapidated cabin, where he is sleeping off a drunk, and proceed to bang on his windows shaking him awake and scaring the hell out of hum. In his flailing fear he knocks the skull onto a pile of blankets and his hanging curtains and the whole place goes up in flames... As does he... His name is Cropsey... And he is engulfed in fire. The kids run like hell to get away as Cropsey flies out the door, rolls down a hill and ends up in the lake. Now I'm no doctor, never claim to be and certainly have never played one on tv, but in my imagination dirty lake water and freshly burnt skin do not a good combination make.
We skip ahead a few years and Cropsey is released from the hospital and goes into the downtown core of wherever the hell he is, searching for something. Wearing a trenchcoat and an old fedora over his scars. He picks up a hooker and goes to her place. She gets him to take off his clothes and recoils in horror. He grabs a pair of scissors and exacts revenge.
Without giving more away. You can see where this is going. A slash and gash festival unlike anything is about to follow. Starring a few familiar faces such as Seinfeld's Jason Alexander, Short Circut's Fisher Stevens and a young Holly Hunter in what I imagine was their first big breaks in film. This movie offers the viewer a glimpse of things to come in the slasher sub-genre of horror.
It's worth it alone of the scene in the canoe... What is that you may ask... Watch The damned movie and find out...lol
Jamie (131 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in Books
Jul 30, 2017
Extremely clever (2 more)
Slow-burn terror
Ambiguous and open to interpretation
Indirect and slow plot (1 more)
Dense with metaphor
Is Hill House haunted or is it madness?
Hill House is suffocating in its isolation–the house is buried in hills far away from the nearest town. The house’s architecture is imperfect, the crookedness throwing one’s balance just a little bit off. The urban legends of the house’s tragic history are dark and ripe for a haunted house story. But is the house actually haunted? Is there some supernatural force that drives the inhabitants to madness? Or perhaps the hauntings are the product of a disturbed mind?
This book is absolutely brilliant in its ambiguity. I loved that things aren’t very direct, leaving the reader to decide how to interpret the story for themselves. A reader’s imagination is a writer’s best tool.
One of the first things that struck me was the unusual dialogue between characters, particularly Eleanor. At times it felt like characters were talking at the other person rather than with them. This behavior is a sign of a person that is unable to relate or empathize with other people.
It becomes clear not long after this that there’s something not quite right about Eleanor. She’s lonely and depressed, she lies constantly about her life and desperately seeks approval. She reassures herself constantly that she belongs at Hill House with the other people there and struggles with her attempts to make connections with the other guests. As the story goes on Eleanor perceives everyone else as being both loving and cruel. She sneers at Theo for trying to steal attention away from her out of some conceived notion of jealousy. Eleanor can only view relationships as being built on dependency, she is a textbook definition of an unreliable narrator.
I won’t go into too much more of my thoughts because I don’t want to spoil the plot. It’s definitely not an average ghost story and those looking for more visceral horror will probably be disappointed. The plot is thick with metaphor and the slow-burn while it worked for me may be too slow for others. Regardless, I loved this book and completely understand why it is held in such high regard and the more I think about it, the more my love for it grows. There were points where my gut was in knots with anxiety and anticipation and I just have to admire Jackson’s master craft with her prose.
This book is absolutely brilliant in its ambiguity. I loved that things aren’t very direct, leaving the reader to decide how to interpret the story for themselves. A reader’s imagination is a writer’s best tool.
One of the first things that struck me was the unusual dialogue between characters, particularly Eleanor. At times it felt like characters were talking at the other person rather than with them. This behavior is a sign of a person that is unable to relate or empathize with other people.
It becomes clear not long after this that there’s something not quite right about Eleanor. She’s lonely and depressed, she lies constantly about her life and desperately seeks approval. She reassures herself constantly that she belongs at Hill House with the other people there and struggles with her attempts to make connections with the other guests. As the story goes on Eleanor perceives everyone else as being both loving and cruel. She sneers at Theo for trying to steal attention away from her out of some conceived notion of jealousy. Eleanor can only view relationships as being built on dependency, she is a textbook definition of an unreliable narrator.
I won’t go into too much more of my thoughts because I don’t want to spoil the plot. It’s definitely not an average ghost story and those looking for more visceral horror will probably be disappointed. The plot is thick with metaphor and the slow-burn while it worked for me may be too slow for others. Regardless, I loved this book and completely understand why it is held in such high regard and the more I think about it, the more my love for it grows. There were points where my gut was in knots with anxiety and anticipation and I just have to admire Jackson’s master craft with her prose.