Search
Here in Berlin: A Novel
Book
Long-listed for the Andrew Carnegie Medal for Excellence A New York Times Book Review Editor's...
The Liars' Gospel
Book
Granta Best Young British Novelist 'A visceral retelling of the events surrounding the life of...
Dancing Bees: Karl Von Frisch and the Discovery of the Honeybee Language
Book
We think of bees as being among the busiest workers in the garden, admiring them for their...
All the Ways We Said Goodbye
Karen White, Beatriz Williams and Lauren Willig
8.0
Rate It
Book
The heiress . . . The Resistance fighter . . . The widow . . . Three women whose fates are joined...
Steven Spielberg: A Biography
Book
Steven Spielberg is responsible for some of the most successful films ever made: "Jaws", "Close...
Lawrence in Arabia: War, Deceit, Imperial Folly, and the Making of the Modern Middle East
9.0
Rate It
Book
A thrilling and revelatory narrative of one of the most epic and consequential periods in 20th...
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Wolf by Wolf (Wolf by Wolf, #1) in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
What if the Nazis won the war? That is the setting for this captivating alternative historical novel by Ryan Graudin. In the newly named land of Germania it is 1956, more than a decade has passed since the Nazis won. The world is still not safe, especially for those who do not fit the Aryan race description. Seventeen-year-old Yael is about to set out on her first ever mission on behalf of the secret resistance group, but it will not be easy to fulfill her duty: to kill Hitler.
Yael was a Jewish prisoner in the death camps during the war. To most Nazi officials she was known as Experiment 85, and was undergoing melanin manipulation. What the doctors did not bargain on was that these experimentations would result in the ability to change physical appearance at will. Yael discovered she could change her skin tone, facial features, hair colour, height or even impersonate someone else, purely by concentrating really hard. It is this strange power that is going to help Yael on her quest to defeat Hitler.
In order to succeed, Yael needs to get as close as possible to the Fuhrer and the only way the resistance believe she will be able to do this is be impersonating Adele Wolfe, a motorbike racer, in the Axis tour: an epic long race from Berlin to Tokyo. However it is not as simple as changing skins and winning the race. Yael needs to convince the contestants that she is Adele and avoid all the dangerous tactics of the other racers so that she can get to the finish line.
<i>Wolf by Wolf</i> is an action-packed, exciting novel aimed at young adult readers interested in history and science fiction. Since it is taught in schools, most people are aware of the Holocaust and have an idea of the horrors Jews faced. But what if that did not stop at the end of the war? This is the idea explored within this novel amongst the exhilaration of the motorcycle race. No one would be completely happy under Hitler’s rule, and we can be thankful that this is only a ‘what if?’ scenario rather than our reality.
The science-fiction element was an interesting twist to the storyline. It does, however, detract from the seriousness of the Nazi rule. Without reminders of the time period, it could almost be a dystopian novel set in the future where a tyrant controls the world.
What I personally liked about <i>Wolf by Wolf</i> is that whilst the main storyline is playing out, we learn more about Yael’s life. She may have lost her true identity but there are several people who have impacted on who Yael is inside. These people are represent by five wolves tattooed onto her arm, and with the memories of each individual fresh in her mind, Yael has the courage and strength to do what she needs to do.
Although not one of the easiest topics to read about – a lot of unnecessary death – I highly recommend <i>Wolf by Wolf </i>to all young adult readers regardless of gender or reading preferences. This book covers such a wide range of genres that it is bound to cater to all tastes. If you love this book you will be pleased to know that it is the first in a series meaning that the story does not end here!
What if the Nazis won the war? That is the setting for this captivating alternative historical novel by Ryan Graudin. In the newly named land of Germania it is 1956, more than a decade has passed since the Nazis won. The world is still not safe, especially for those who do not fit the Aryan race description. Seventeen-year-old Yael is about to set out on her first ever mission on behalf of the secret resistance group, but it will not be easy to fulfill her duty: to kill Hitler.
Yael was a Jewish prisoner in the death camps during the war. To most Nazi officials she was known as Experiment 85, and was undergoing melanin manipulation. What the doctors did not bargain on was that these experimentations would result in the ability to change physical appearance at will. Yael discovered she could change her skin tone, facial features, hair colour, height or even impersonate someone else, purely by concentrating really hard. It is this strange power that is going to help Yael on her quest to defeat Hitler.
In order to succeed, Yael needs to get as close as possible to the Fuhrer and the only way the resistance believe she will be able to do this is be impersonating Adele Wolfe, a motorbike racer, in the Axis tour: an epic long race from Berlin to Tokyo. However it is not as simple as changing skins and winning the race. Yael needs to convince the contestants that she is Adele and avoid all the dangerous tactics of the other racers so that she can get to the finish line.
<i>Wolf by Wolf</i> is an action-packed, exciting novel aimed at young adult readers interested in history and science fiction. Since it is taught in schools, most people are aware of the Holocaust and have an idea of the horrors Jews faced. But what if that did not stop at the end of the war? This is the idea explored within this novel amongst the exhilaration of the motorcycle race. No one would be completely happy under Hitler’s rule, and we can be thankful that this is only a ‘what if?’ scenario rather than our reality.
The science-fiction element was an interesting twist to the storyline. It does, however, detract from the seriousness of the Nazi rule. Without reminders of the time period, it could almost be a dystopian novel set in the future where a tyrant controls the world.
What I personally liked about <i>Wolf by Wolf</i> is that whilst the main storyline is playing out, we learn more about Yael’s life. She may have lost her true identity but there are several people who have impacted on who Yael is inside. These people are represent by five wolves tattooed onto her arm, and with the memories of each individual fresh in her mind, Yael has the courage and strength to do what she needs to do.
Although not one of the easiest topics to read about – a lot of unnecessary death – I highly recommend <i>Wolf by Wolf </i>to all young adult readers regardless of gender or reading preferences. This book covers such a wide range of genres that it is bound to cater to all tastes. If you love this book you will be pleased to know that it is the first in a series meaning that the story does not end here!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Borat (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
One of the funniest and most shockingly outrageous comedies in the history of film has arrived, and it is poised not only to make Sacha Baron Cohen a major star, but also ignite controversy. The film is Borat and it follows Cohen’s Kazakhstan news man, Borat, as he leaves his homeland to film a documentary in New York.
Naturally one would expect a fish out of water story, but fans are treated to much more than this as Borat and his backwards thoughts and practices and given form all over the U.S. often to the shock of those around him as well as howls of laughter from the audience.
You see Borat is a man with a few issues. He is anti-Semitic, a misogynist, ignorant and uncultured, and not ashamed of his actions which grow bolder and more outrageous as the film progresses.
The opening segments in his native land like the entire film is filled with one rapid fire joke after another as Borat introduces us to his family and key people in his town such as the town rapist and his sister the prostitute. As funny as the setup and the settings are, it is the clever comments that Cohen slips in that allows Borat to make some biting social and political commentaries.
Once in America, he travels from New York to Los Angeles making several stops along the way with side splitting results as Borat encounters events ranging from a rodeo, polite society, pop culture, a religious revival and much more.
The amazing thing about the film is that it never grows old and over the roughly 84 minutes of the films running time, there are plenty of jokes and a absence of slow spots which are often so common in comedies today.
Cohen is great at portraying Borat as a likeable guy who does not know any better which makes his comments and actions so easy to take. Cohen who is himself Jewish is able to get away with making jokes about his faith as he is doing it through the persona of someone who is ignorant to many realities in the world.
In a way the film allows us to laugh at ourselves as well as Borat is supposed to be a foreigner who does not know better, but is wiser in some ways due to his ignorance of topics. There is a scene where Borat buys a car is a true look at consumerism in the West as he spells out in graphic detail what he wants in a car and what he expects it to do for his love life.
Not only is the scene outrageous but it underscores the message of sex appeal and desirability that is prevalent in car ads aimed at men. Instead of hinting at it, Borat lifts the lid on the subject and takes it on with no punches pulled.
The film is tricky to review as one of the greatest joys of the film is the sense of discovery and not knowing where or what Borat will say or do next. Suffice it to say, that the film is a comedic masterpiece that will have you shocked and laughing harder than any film in recent memory.
Naturally one would expect a fish out of water story, but fans are treated to much more than this as Borat and his backwards thoughts and practices and given form all over the U.S. often to the shock of those around him as well as howls of laughter from the audience.
You see Borat is a man with a few issues. He is anti-Semitic, a misogynist, ignorant and uncultured, and not ashamed of his actions which grow bolder and more outrageous as the film progresses.
The opening segments in his native land like the entire film is filled with one rapid fire joke after another as Borat introduces us to his family and key people in his town such as the town rapist and his sister the prostitute. As funny as the setup and the settings are, it is the clever comments that Cohen slips in that allows Borat to make some biting social and political commentaries.
Once in America, he travels from New York to Los Angeles making several stops along the way with side splitting results as Borat encounters events ranging from a rodeo, polite society, pop culture, a religious revival and much more.
The amazing thing about the film is that it never grows old and over the roughly 84 minutes of the films running time, there are plenty of jokes and a absence of slow spots which are often so common in comedies today.
Cohen is great at portraying Borat as a likeable guy who does not know any better which makes his comments and actions so easy to take. Cohen who is himself Jewish is able to get away with making jokes about his faith as he is doing it through the persona of someone who is ignorant to many realities in the world.
In a way the film allows us to laugh at ourselves as well as Borat is supposed to be a foreigner who does not know better, but is wiser in some ways due to his ignorance of topics. There is a scene where Borat buys a car is a true look at consumerism in the West as he spells out in graphic detail what he wants in a car and what he expects it to do for his love life.
Not only is the scene outrageous but it underscores the message of sex appeal and desirability that is prevalent in car ads aimed at men. Instead of hinting at it, Borat lifts the lid on the subject and takes it on with no punches pulled.
The film is tricky to review as one of the greatest joys of the film is the sense of discovery and not knowing where or what Borat will say or do next. Suffice it to say, that the film is a comedic masterpiece that will have you shocked and laughing harder than any film in recent memory.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
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).
