Search
Search results
ClareR (5589 KP) rated Bone China in Books
Aug 19, 2019
Bone China by Laura Purcell is a gothic novel set in Cornwall. Hester Why has travelled to Cornwall to take up a post as a Lady’s maid - and also to escape her past. But if she thinks she’s going to have an easy time of it, she has another thing coming! Morvoren House has its own secrets, not helped by the very strange Creeda, who believes that fairies will spirit Miss Rosewyn (the ward of Miss Pinecroft, the elderly woman that Hester is looking after) away.
We also get to see some of Hester’s past before Cornwall - and the reason why she has ended up in Morvoren House; and that of Louise, some 40 years before Hester’s arrival.
Unsurprisingly, bone china features prominently in this story, and I was delighted to hear the story of the willow pattern again - a story that my own grandmother used to tell me when showing me her willow pattern tea service.
Louise’s story tells of the time after her mother and siblings have died of phthisis (or tuberculosis), and her father, who was a doctor, deciding that he will find a cure for it. Prisoners from the local prison are kept in caves beneath the house, the theory being that the fresh air would strengthen their lungs. I know! Horrifying!!
I didn’t find the jumping between timelines at all confusing, and I really enjoyed the way it did this. The unreliability of Hester’s narrative due to gin and laudanum was also really well done. I never knew if what was happening was due to the gin, laudanum, actual reality or the fairies!
And the landscape and sights of Cornwall were beautifully described. I love Cornwall - it’s one of my most favourite places. The rawness of the coast is a pleasure to read about, and instantly took me to the cliffs by the sea.
I tried to make this book last longer, but had no luck at all because I was desperate to know what was going to happen! And that ending - I’m still in shock!!!!
Many thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for my copy of this completely absorbing book! It was a pleasure to read.
We also get to see some of Hester’s past before Cornwall - and the reason why she has ended up in Morvoren House; and that of Louise, some 40 years before Hester’s arrival.
Unsurprisingly, bone china features prominently in this story, and I was delighted to hear the story of the willow pattern again - a story that my own grandmother used to tell me when showing me her willow pattern tea service.
Louise’s story tells of the time after her mother and siblings have died of phthisis (or tuberculosis), and her father, who was a doctor, deciding that he will find a cure for it. Prisoners from the local prison are kept in caves beneath the house, the theory being that the fresh air would strengthen their lungs. I know! Horrifying!!
I didn’t find the jumping between timelines at all confusing, and I really enjoyed the way it did this. The unreliability of Hester’s narrative due to gin and laudanum was also really well done. I never knew if what was happening was due to the gin, laudanum, actual reality or the fairies!
And the landscape and sights of Cornwall were beautifully described. I love Cornwall - it’s one of my most favourite places. The rawness of the coast is a pleasure to read about, and instantly took me to the cliffs by the sea.
I tried to make this book last longer, but had no luck at all because I was desperate to know what was going to happen! And that ending - I’m still in shock!!!!
Many thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for my copy of this completely absorbing book! It was a pleasure to read.
David McK (3227 KP) rated Jurassic World: Dominion (2022) in Movies
Aug 14, 2022
Insect park?
Jurassic Park (the original) is a masterpiece of cinema.
Jurassic Park 2: The Lost World has it's moments (the raptors in the long grass), but also has the annoying-kid-doing-gymnastics-while-a-Raptor-watches.
Jurassic Park 3 takes some scenes from the original novel (most noticeably the aviary) that were left out of the previous films, but also has the stupid ringing phone that a dinosaur has swallowed that remind the viewer too much (and not in a good way) of Peter Pan and Captain Hook crocodile.
Jurassic World follows the same format as Jurassic Park, except goes larger. It's not a bad movie.
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom goes in a completely different direction, going the haunted house route in the second half, and ends with the dinosaurs released on the mainland.
Which is where Jurassic World: Dominion picks up, roughly four years on from the ending of Fallen Kingdom. Lots have been made of the fact that this also reunites the original cast - Sam Neill, Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum - alongside the newer duo of Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard.
The problem, however, is that more is quite often less, which I found to be the case here - plenty of action (and dinosaurs), yes, but also, well, just missing something :(
Jurassic Park 2: The Lost World has it's moments (the raptors in the long grass), but also has the annoying-kid-doing-gymnastics-while-a-Raptor-watches.
Jurassic Park 3 takes some scenes from the original novel (most noticeably the aviary) that were left out of the previous films, but also has the stupid ringing phone that a dinosaur has swallowed that remind the viewer too much (and not in a good way) of Peter Pan and Captain Hook crocodile.
Jurassic World follows the same format as Jurassic Park, except goes larger. It's not a bad movie.
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom goes in a completely different direction, going the haunted house route in the second half, and ends with the dinosaurs released on the mainland.
Which is where Jurassic World: Dominion picks up, roughly four years on from the ending of Fallen Kingdom. Lots have been made of the fact that this also reunites the original cast - Sam Neill, Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum - alongside the newer duo of Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard.
The problem, however, is that more is quite often less, which I found to be the case here - plenty of action (and dinosaurs), yes, but also, well, just missing something :(
Cyn Armistead (14 KP) rated Unusual Suspects: Stories of Mystery & Fantasy in Books
Mar 1, 2018
Another uneven anthology. I still have it in my hands, so I'll try to hit each story briefly.
"Lucky" by Charlaine Harris - Sookie is much easier to take in short form. I can't help it, the woman grates on me (in the TV show even worse than in the books). The other characters keep me reading.
"Bogieman" by Carole Nelson Douglas - Delilah Street does more than grate on my nerves in long form. She's more palatable in short form, too, but there are reminders of why I don't intend to read more in that series.
"Looks are Deceiving" by Michael A. Stackpole - If I've read any of Stackpole's work before, it's been in anthologies, and I don't remember it. I did wonder if this short story is set in a universe he uses in longer works, though. It wasn't bad at all.
"The House of Seven Spirits" by Sharon Shinn - I loved this story! And how often do you say that about a haunted house tale? I must track down and read some of Shinn's novels. Any suggestions?
"Glamour" by Mike Doogan - The Peasantry Anti-Defamation League might be after Doogan if he isn't careful (at least, representatives of the male peasantry). The story was cute, and it did make me laugh.
"Spellbound" by Donna Andrews - This is another author whose books are going on my (groaning) to-read shelf. The story hit a few clichés, but was fun enough to get away with them.
"The Duh Vice" by Michael Armstrong - Ugh. A little too preachy, and way too much anti-fat prejudice.
"Weight of the World" by John Straley - Where does Santa Claus go in the off-season? That's the biggest question answered in this piece. The "mystery" was "solved" nearly as soon as it was discovered.
"Illumination" by Laura Anne Gilman - Bonnie's back story! I think a bit of this story is used in the first chapter of Gilman's first PUPI novel, but I'll know more when I get my hands on it. It's a must-read for fans of the Cosa Nostradamus universe, though.
"The House" by Laurie R. King - could we maybe call a hiatus on the abused-kid stories? Maybe I'm hypersensitive, but I'm tired of them.
"Appetite for Murder" by Simon R. Green - another dark Nightside story. I don't think I'll ever need to read more in that universe.
"A Woman's Work" by Dana Stabenow - I'm an unabashed Stabenow fangirl. Despite that, I wasn't sure how she'd do in a fantasy setting. She proved herself, certainly. I can only hope that we'll see longer fantasy works from her in print at some juncture.
"Lucky" by Charlaine Harris - Sookie is much easier to take in short form. I can't help it, the woman grates on me (in the TV show even worse than in the books). The other characters keep me reading.
"Bogieman" by Carole Nelson Douglas - Delilah Street does more than grate on my nerves in long form. She's more palatable in short form, too, but there are reminders of why I don't intend to read more in that series.
"Looks are Deceiving" by Michael A. Stackpole - If I've read any of Stackpole's work before, it's been in anthologies, and I don't remember it. I did wonder if this short story is set in a universe he uses in longer works, though. It wasn't bad at all.
"The House of Seven Spirits" by Sharon Shinn - I loved this story! And how often do you say that about a haunted house tale? I must track down and read some of Shinn's novels. Any suggestions?
"Glamour" by Mike Doogan - The Peasantry Anti-Defamation League might be after Doogan if he isn't careful (at least, representatives of the male peasantry). The story was cute, and it did make me laugh.
"Spellbound" by Donna Andrews - This is another author whose books are going on my (groaning) to-read shelf. The story hit a few clichés, but was fun enough to get away with them.
"The Duh Vice" by Michael Armstrong - Ugh. A little too preachy, and way too much anti-fat prejudice.
"Weight of the World" by John Straley - Where does Santa Claus go in the off-season? That's the biggest question answered in this piece. The "mystery" was "solved" nearly as soon as it was discovered.
"Illumination" by Laura Anne Gilman - Bonnie's back story! I think a bit of this story is used in the first chapter of Gilman's first PUPI novel, but I'll know more when I get my hands on it. It's a must-read for fans of the Cosa Nostradamus universe, though.
"The House" by Laurie R. King - could we maybe call a hiatus on the abused-kid stories? Maybe I'm hypersensitive, but I'm tired of them.
"Appetite for Murder" by Simon R. Green - another dark Nightside story. I don't think I'll ever need to read more in that universe.
"A Woman's Work" by Dana Stabenow - I'm an unabashed Stabenow fangirl. Despite that, I wasn't sure how she'd do in a fantasy setting. She proved herself, certainly. I can only hope that we'll see longer fantasy works from her in print at some juncture.
JT (287 KP) rated The Orphanage (2007) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
This is an eerie and creepy Spanish horror/thriller and was an outstanding achievement for foreign film. Executive produced by Guillermo del Toro the film centres around a young woman returning to her childhood home to open an Orphanage for disabled children.
The couples young son Simon is able to run freely around the old gothic house and play to his heart’s content, but when he begins playing with an imaginary friend things start to take a sinister turn.
The Orphanage is beautifully shot and the setting could not be more apt for a ghost story. The surroundings do enough to make the spine chill before we even catch sight of any odd goings on – but when we do it’s subtle, yet frightening.
The plot doesn’t need to rely on buckets of gore. Maybe with the exception of one particular scene. Instead it takes the audience on a roller coaster journey by manipulating their senses to what they “may or may not” have seen.
The acting too deserves a mention and Belen Rueda who plays Laura displays great emotional prowess as a mother who is on the verge of collapsing with only her husband Carlos (Fernando Cayo) to offer a glimmer of support. While there may be similarities drawn from other films of this genre; such as The Others and The Shining it doesn’t try to copy or imitate it in any shape or form.
Without spoiling it, the ending is one that will leave film goers everywhere asking many questions and in some cases these may never be answered, something which I love. It’s a brilliant and well scripted film and one I would highly recommend.
The couples young son Simon is able to run freely around the old gothic house and play to his heart’s content, but when he begins playing with an imaginary friend things start to take a sinister turn.
The Orphanage is beautifully shot and the setting could not be more apt for a ghost story. The surroundings do enough to make the spine chill before we even catch sight of any odd goings on – but when we do it’s subtle, yet frightening.
The plot doesn’t need to rely on buckets of gore. Maybe with the exception of one particular scene. Instead it takes the audience on a roller coaster journey by manipulating their senses to what they “may or may not” have seen.
The acting too deserves a mention and Belen Rueda who plays Laura displays great emotional prowess as a mother who is on the verge of collapsing with only her husband Carlos (Fernando Cayo) to offer a glimmer of support. While there may be similarities drawn from other films of this genre; such as The Others and The Shining it doesn’t try to copy or imitate it in any shape or form.
Without spoiling it, the ending is one that will leave film goers everywhere asking many questions and in some cases these may never be answered, something which I love. It’s a brilliant and well scripted film and one I would highly recommend.
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2090 KP) rated Death of a Gigolo in Books
Oct 28, 2019
Jaine’s Latest Adventure is Fun as Always
Freeland writer Jaine Austen has landed a new job, this time for Bel Air heiress Daisy Kincaid. Daisy hires Jaine to write a romance novel entitled Fifty Shades of Turquoise. Jaine is working at Daisy’s house each day, so she is there for the arrival of Tommy, a young man who quickly worms his way into Daisy’s heart while alienating everyone else in Daisy’s life. To everyone’s horror, it isn’t long before the two announce their engagement. But when Tommy is murdered the day before the wedding, Jaine finds herself trying to figure out what really happened. Can she do it?
Yes, there are some strong sub-plots as well. Jaine is back with an ex. Will the romance bloom this time? Or will Jaine’s cat, Prozac, derail everything. Meanwhile, in a series of e-mails, we learn about the latest saga her parents are going through. All I will tell you is it involves a bad haircut and a sculpting class.
Those familiar with the series know what to expect, and they won’t be disappointed. Yes, the murder takes place a little late in the book, but the time isn’t wasted as everything is set up. Once Tommy dies, we are off to the races with plenty of twists and turns. Meanwhile, the two sub-plots weave in and out perfectly. There are tons of laughs along the way as all the stories build to their climaxes. The characters are more caricatures, but they fit this book perfectly. More realistic characters wouldn’t work here. Author Laura Levine used to write sitcoms, and that really is the best way to look at this book – as if your favorite sitcom characters were involved in a murder mystery. The result is light, fun, and delightful. So next time you need to smile, pick up this book.
Yes, there are some strong sub-plots as well. Jaine is back with an ex. Will the romance bloom this time? Or will Jaine’s cat, Prozac, derail everything. Meanwhile, in a series of e-mails, we learn about the latest saga her parents are going through. All I will tell you is it involves a bad haircut and a sculpting class.
Those familiar with the series know what to expect, and they won’t be disappointed. Yes, the murder takes place a little late in the book, but the time isn’t wasted as everything is set up. Once Tommy dies, we are off to the races with plenty of twists and turns. Meanwhile, the two sub-plots weave in and out perfectly. There are tons of laughs along the way as all the stories build to their climaxes. The characters are more caricatures, but they fit this book perfectly. More realistic characters wouldn’t work here. Author Laura Levine used to write sitcoms, and that really is the best way to look at this book – as if your favorite sitcom characters were involved in a murder mystery. The result is light, fun, and delightful. So next time you need to smile, pick up this book.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Jan 19, 2020
Well Acted Scenes Do Not A Good Movie Make
Noah Baumbach is one of those filmmakers that is highly regarded in the "Art House" community for his semi-autobiographical humanistic films. These are domestic dramas heavy on dialogue - the type of film that "A-List" Actors swarm to perform in for the acting challenges it brings. His latest, MARRIAGE STORY, is no exception as it follows the dissolution of a marriage and the struggles of the 2 main players involved. The husband and wife are written realistically (according to Baumbach) with moments of pathos and moments of repulsion thrown in at equal measure.
So, naturally, Baumbach (THE SQUID AND THE WHALE) was able to draw 2 of the better performers working in film today to play the leads - Scarlett Johannson and Adam Driver - and they deliver the goods (along with Laura Dern) - all 3 were deserved Oscar nominees - and the performances of ALL of the actors on screen are worth watching.
But...that's about all this film has going for it. For I found the first hour and a half of this film tedious with (at times) preposterous dialogue that looked good on paper - and was enthusiastically performed - but wrang (at least to me) as unrealistic. Consequently, this film is filled with well acted scenes that I kept saying to myself - "that was a well acted scene and that was an interesting choice that that actor made in that scene", but I found that these disparate scenes in this part of the film did not hold together as a movie. It seemed to me a series of acting class scenes and not a film.
And, for that, I blame Writer/Director Baumbach. This film, purportedly, parallels his divorce from actress Jennifer Jason Leigh (HATEFUL 8) and it shows. It's a little too "on the nose" and "inside baseball" for my tastes. The dialogue, at times, was "too cute" and the pacing was deliberate - which is a nice way of saying "slow".
What saves this film is the performances. Johannson dominates the first part of this film and she brings her "A" game, bringing a strength and awakening purpose to her character that will have you rooting for her - at the beginning. The first half of the film (for the most part) is Johannson's film and is what gives her her Oscar nomination (she won't win), but she deserves the nomination.
Laura Dern is also Oscar nominated for her role as Johannson's Divorce Attorney. Bright, funny, articulate and a shark in the courtroom and boardroom, Dern's character was fascinating to watch onscreen. While I thought this performance was "fine" and I was "okay" with it getting an Oscar nomination, I kept waiting for the "Oscar scene" for this supporting character - and about 2/3 of the way into the film this character had that moment - and Dern killed it. I would now say Dern is the deserved frontrunner for Best Supporting Actress (ironically, over Johansson who is ALSO nominated for Supporting Actress for JoJo Rabbit).
This scene propels the last 1/3 of this film into interesting territory - a place that this film had not gone to thus far. I was sucked into this last part and I think it is in no small reason due to the fact that this part of the film is driven (no pun intended) by Adam Driver's character. I've always found Driver to be a fascinating actor and while his character was not front and center much in the first part of the film, he commands center stage in the last part and I could not take my eyes off of his powerful performance. In a strong year of Best Acting performances, he shines and I would be happily surprised and satisfied if he won the Best Actor Oscar.
Alan Alda, as usual, brings an interesting character to the screen as does Julie Hagerty (remember her from AIRPLANE?) as Scarlett's mother. The surprise to me was the strong play of Ray Liotta as one of Driver's lawyers - it is his best work in quite some time and shows he does have some acting chops. Finally, good ol' Wallace Shawn (the "inconceivable" Count Visini in PRINCESS BRIDE) was fun - and annoying - in his scenes.
So...if you want to see some good acting in scenes that I am sure will end up as good scenes in an acting class performed very strongly, then check out MARRIAGE STORY. Just make sure you are well rested. A fast-paced romp it is not.
Letter Grade: B (for the strong performances)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So, naturally, Baumbach (THE SQUID AND THE WHALE) was able to draw 2 of the better performers working in film today to play the leads - Scarlett Johannson and Adam Driver - and they deliver the goods (along with Laura Dern) - all 3 were deserved Oscar nominees - and the performances of ALL of the actors on screen are worth watching.
But...that's about all this film has going for it. For I found the first hour and a half of this film tedious with (at times) preposterous dialogue that looked good on paper - and was enthusiastically performed - but wrang (at least to me) as unrealistic. Consequently, this film is filled with well acted scenes that I kept saying to myself - "that was a well acted scene and that was an interesting choice that that actor made in that scene", but I found that these disparate scenes in this part of the film did not hold together as a movie. It seemed to me a series of acting class scenes and not a film.
And, for that, I blame Writer/Director Baumbach. This film, purportedly, parallels his divorce from actress Jennifer Jason Leigh (HATEFUL 8) and it shows. It's a little too "on the nose" and "inside baseball" for my tastes. The dialogue, at times, was "too cute" and the pacing was deliberate - which is a nice way of saying "slow".
What saves this film is the performances. Johannson dominates the first part of this film and she brings her "A" game, bringing a strength and awakening purpose to her character that will have you rooting for her - at the beginning. The first half of the film (for the most part) is Johannson's film and is what gives her her Oscar nomination (she won't win), but she deserves the nomination.
Laura Dern is also Oscar nominated for her role as Johannson's Divorce Attorney. Bright, funny, articulate and a shark in the courtroom and boardroom, Dern's character was fascinating to watch onscreen. While I thought this performance was "fine" and I was "okay" with it getting an Oscar nomination, I kept waiting for the "Oscar scene" for this supporting character - and about 2/3 of the way into the film this character had that moment - and Dern killed it. I would now say Dern is the deserved frontrunner for Best Supporting Actress (ironically, over Johansson who is ALSO nominated for Supporting Actress for JoJo Rabbit).
This scene propels the last 1/3 of this film into interesting territory - a place that this film had not gone to thus far. I was sucked into this last part and I think it is in no small reason due to the fact that this part of the film is driven (no pun intended) by Adam Driver's character. I've always found Driver to be a fascinating actor and while his character was not front and center much in the first part of the film, he commands center stage in the last part and I could not take my eyes off of his powerful performance. In a strong year of Best Acting performances, he shines and I would be happily surprised and satisfied if he won the Best Actor Oscar.
Alan Alda, as usual, brings an interesting character to the screen as does Julie Hagerty (remember her from AIRPLANE?) as Scarlett's mother. The surprise to me was the strong play of Ray Liotta as one of Driver's lawyers - it is his best work in quite some time and shows he does have some acting chops. Finally, good ol' Wallace Shawn (the "inconceivable" Count Visini in PRINCESS BRIDE) was fun - and annoying - in his scenes.
So...if you want to see some good acting in scenes that I am sure will end up as good scenes in an acting class performed very strongly, then check out MARRIAGE STORY. Just make sure you are well rested. A fast-paced romp it is not.
Letter Grade: B (for the strong performances)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Dec 27, 2019
The top billing cast on IMDb read like my top list of reasons not to see a film. Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh and Timothée Chalamet... all are raved about by various people but all have their own quirks that I can't stand to watch on screen. Chalamet did redeem himself with The King earlier this year for Netflix but none of the others have done anything recently to sway me.
Of course here's where I have to eat my words... Saoirse Ronan as Jo gave a very solid performance in Little Women and I enjoyed her throughout the whole thing. Her scenes with Laurie (Chalamet) we particularly entertaining, if a little rollercoastery, but overall she had the right balance of forthright and funny that really helped the story progress.
We all know my feelings about Emma Watson (#notmyDisneyPrincess) and the trailer wasn't helping her case, her accent seemed to be on the dubious side in the few moments we saw. Thankfully in the full film it rounded out quite well. I still can't say I'm a fan though, while moments of her performance amused me when they should and help some power in them I couldn't help but think she still hasn't found a genre of film that suits her.
Florence Pugh's overly dramatic and divaish Amy was by far my favourite of all the sisters. While bratty and a little spoilt every piece fit together perfectly and Pugh managed to add just the right amount of childish behaviour when it was needed.
Marmee was a wonderful character to watch and Laura Dern was an excellent choice. I feel like she's having a mainstream resurgence recently and it's well deserved.
The only other cast member I want to mention is Meryl Streep, we can't ignore her in a cast list! I love Meryl (who doesn't!?) and the light humour in Aunt March's sternness is delightful, but I don't think I like seeing her play old characters. I know she's 70 but she isn't 70 in my head and that's the way she must stay.
The palette of this whole film feels very much like a vintage filter, the colours and hues all sit well with the historical setting and in the March house give a wonderful sense of homeliness. Locations, sets and costumes all back this up and it comes together for an excellent visual retelling of the classic novel.
Emotion throughout the film was always very well matched to the scenes and when that thing happens that we won't talk about... because spoilers... I found myself wanting to do a Joey and put the film in the freezer while I cried my eyes out, the scene was set up incredibly well and the symmetry was beautiful as well as heartbreaking.
With all this great stuff going on in Little Women it bugs me that I had something to quibble about. A few times during the film we get a character doing a voiceover that then transitions to them speaking at the camera... eh, no. It was so out of place with the rest of the perfectly balanced film that I looked on with a furrowed brow and wrote a grumbly comment in my notes.
Given that last issue I'm forced to make a deduction. It was difficult trying to work out what to score this, there were so many wonderful pieces and I will be seeing it again soon, but, period dramas don't tend to make it into my home rewatch list so it should have got a 4... but it really deserved the extra half.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/little-women-movie-review.html
Of course here's where I have to eat my words... Saoirse Ronan as Jo gave a very solid performance in Little Women and I enjoyed her throughout the whole thing. Her scenes with Laurie (Chalamet) we particularly entertaining, if a little rollercoastery, but overall she had the right balance of forthright and funny that really helped the story progress.
We all know my feelings about Emma Watson (#notmyDisneyPrincess) and the trailer wasn't helping her case, her accent seemed to be on the dubious side in the few moments we saw. Thankfully in the full film it rounded out quite well. I still can't say I'm a fan though, while moments of her performance amused me when they should and help some power in them I couldn't help but think she still hasn't found a genre of film that suits her.
Florence Pugh's overly dramatic and divaish Amy was by far my favourite of all the sisters. While bratty and a little spoilt every piece fit together perfectly and Pugh managed to add just the right amount of childish behaviour when it was needed.
Marmee was a wonderful character to watch and Laura Dern was an excellent choice. I feel like she's having a mainstream resurgence recently and it's well deserved.
The only other cast member I want to mention is Meryl Streep, we can't ignore her in a cast list! I love Meryl (who doesn't!?) and the light humour in Aunt March's sternness is delightful, but I don't think I like seeing her play old characters. I know she's 70 but she isn't 70 in my head and that's the way she must stay.
The palette of this whole film feels very much like a vintage filter, the colours and hues all sit well with the historical setting and in the March house give a wonderful sense of homeliness. Locations, sets and costumes all back this up and it comes together for an excellent visual retelling of the classic novel.
Emotion throughout the film was always very well matched to the scenes and when that thing happens that we won't talk about... because spoilers... I found myself wanting to do a Joey and put the film in the freezer while I cried my eyes out, the scene was set up incredibly well and the symmetry was beautiful as well as heartbreaking.
With all this great stuff going on in Little Women it bugs me that I had something to quibble about. A few times during the film we get a character doing a voiceover that then transitions to them speaking at the camera... eh, no. It was so out of place with the rest of the perfectly balanced film that I looked on with a furrowed brow and wrote a grumbly comment in my notes.
Given that last issue I'm forced to make a deduction. It was difficult trying to work out what to score this, there were so many wonderful pieces and I will be seeing it again soon, but, period dramas don't tend to make it into my home rewatch list so it should have got a 4... but it really deserved the extra half.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/little-women-movie-review.html
Allison Anders recommended Monterey Pop (1968) in Movies (curated)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tiny People, Big Mess.
From the trailer this film looked quirky, funny and interesting and has been on my “looking forward to” list for many months. Oh dear, what a let down.
Matt Damon (“The Martian“, “The Great Wall“, “Jason Bourne“) and Kristen Wiig (“mother!“, “Ghostbusters“) play Paul and Audrey Safranek. Paul is a laid-back and hardworking occupational therapist; Audrey has materialistic ambitions over and above their available finances. The two decide to “downsize” making use of a revolutionary Norwegian invention that reduces humans, and most other lifeforms, to a fraction of their normal size. This offers huge wealth to the normal American, since the cost of living in downsized form within the mini-estate called LeisureLand is tiny in comparison to “big folks”. But all does not go well in the transition (unlike the trailer, no spoilers here) and Paul needs to find a new purpose in life as bigger problems loom.
It’s clearly written to be a social satire, and there are some clever angles to be explored here: everyone publicly positions their downsizing based on ‘environmental issues’ and ‘saving the planet’, but most everyone’s real reason is the lifestyle benefits. Also lightly touched on, but never deeply explored, are the impacts that the downsizing initiative is having on the broader American economy and property markets, with the ‘big people’ questioning why small people should have the same rights and votes as them.
But the film never really gets into the meat of any of this. Worse than that, the movie never settles on what it is trying to be. I think we can write off “Sci-Fi” pretty early on. But is it a drama? A comedy? A love story? A socialist rant? An environmental cri de coeur? The film jumbles all these aspects together and treats each so halfheartedly that none of them get properly addressed.
Not only are the audience confused: none of the actors seem to be too sure why they’re there either. Damon – never Mr Personality – should have been able to develop some chemistry with the feisty and dynamic Ms Wiig, but even these early scenes plod along with you thinking “what a dull film”. Things perk up slightly at the LeisureLand sales fair, where Neil Patrick Harris (“Gone Girl“) and a naked Laura Dern (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi“) glibly try to sell a luxury doll’s house to the assembled crowd. American consumerism in miniature.
But post-downsizing the film crashes back to ‘Dullesville Arizona’ again, but with added depression, requiring Christophe Waltz (“Django Unchanined”, “Spectre“), as a dodgy Serbian entrepreneur Dusan Mirkovic, to over-act manically to try to add any sort of energy into the film (which he is only mildly successful at doing). There’s a rather bizarre supporting role from Udo Kier – looking for all the world like Terence Stamp – as Mirkovic’s ship-owning pal, and an almost cameo performance from Jason Sudeikis (“Colossal“).
Enter stage-left Thai-born Hong Chau as Ngoc Lan Tran, a Vietnamese cleaner. There’s a clever angle here: where “average American Joes” like Safranek can live like kings, but the poor still have to scrape by, living in ‘skyscraper Portacabins’, as the menial classes: there’s no escaping class structures, even when 5 inches tall. Chau sums up the uneven nature of the film, as she mostly plays her lines for laughs but then (in a spectacularly good bit of acting in the midst of, I have to say, some pretty poor hamming) bursts into uncontrollable tears.
Just when you think things are going to limp to a unmemorable close, the film ups and leaves LeisureLand to add a completely bizarre final act. (It’s pretty unusual in the UK for people to walk out of a cinema mid-film, but a couple did so at this point). This segment bears no relationship to the downsizing theme whatsoever, since all the players at this point could be full-sized. Aside from an amusing “50 shades of f**k” speech from Ngoc Lan Tran and a “massive explosion”, this story goes nowhere, says nothing (at least not to me) and merely irritates. Throw in a completely anti-climatic non-ending and I genuinely shared a “WTF look” with the stranger sat next to me!
This is all very strange, since this comes from Alexander Payne, who also directed and co-wrote “The Descendants”, one of the most impressive films of the decade. Jim Taylor co-writes (as he has co-written numerous other films with Payne).
I note that in this morning’s London Times that their film critic, Kevin Maher – someone who’s views I am generally pretty well aligned with – gave it 4 *’s out of 5. I can only assume that he either saw a completely different cut of the film, or he is a lot cleverer than I am and understood amazing sub-texts that completely passed me by! Maybe… but I have a sneaking suspicion that the general viewing public will more share my opinion on this than his.
I was tempted to give this just one star as it was such a disappointment to me, but the underlying concept is a good one: it is just one that has, in my humble opinion, been implemented in a bizarrely slipshod manner.
Definitely not recommended. Go and see “Coco” instead!
Matt Damon (“The Martian“, “The Great Wall“, “Jason Bourne“) and Kristen Wiig (“mother!“, “Ghostbusters“) play Paul and Audrey Safranek. Paul is a laid-back and hardworking occupational therapist; Audrey has materialistic ambitions over and above their available finances. The two decide to “downsize” making use of a revolutionary Norwegian invention that reduces humans, and most other lifeforms, to a fraction of their normal size. This offers huge wealth to the normal American, since the cost of living in downsized form within the mini-estate called LeisureLand is tiny in comparison to “big folks”. But all does not go well in the transition (unlike the trailer, no spoilers here) and Paul needs to find a new purpose in life as bigger problems loom.
It’s clearly written to be a social satire, and there are some clever angles to be explored here: everyone publicly positions their downsizing based on ‘environmental issues’ and ‘saving the planet’, but most everyone’s real reason is the lifestyle benefits. Also lightly touched on, but never deeply explored, are the impacts that the downsizing initiative is having on the broader American economy and property markets, with the ‘big people’ questioning why small people should have the same rights and votes as them.
But the film never really gets into the meat of any of this. Worse than that, the movie never settles on what it is trying to be. I think we can write off “Sci-Fi” pretty early on. But is it a drama? A comedy? A love story? A socialist rant? An environmental cri de coeur? The film jumbles all these aspects together and treats each so halfheartedly that none of them get properly addressed.
Not only are the audience confused: none of the actors seem to be too sure why they’re there either. Damon – never Mr Personality – should have been able to develop some chemistry with the feisty and dynamic Ms Wiig, but even these early scenes plod along with you thinking “what a dull film”. Things perk up slightly at the LeisureLand sales fair, where Neil Patrick Harris (“Gone Girl“) and a naked Laura Dern (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi“) glibly try to sell a luxury doll’s house to the assembled crowd. American consumerism in miniature.
But post-downsizing the film crashes back to ‘Dullesville Arizona’ again, but with added depression, requiring Christophe Waltz (“Django Unchanined”, “Spectre“), as a dodgy Serbian entrepreneur Dusan Mirkovic, to over-act manically to try to add any sort of energy into the film (which he is only mildly successful at doing). There’s a rather bizarre supporting role from Udo Kier – looking for all the world like Terence Stamp – as Mirkovic’s ship-owning pal, and an almost cameo performance from Jason Sudeikis (“Colossal“).
Enter stage-left Thai-born Hong Chau as Ngoc Lan Tran, a Vietnamese cleaner. There’s a clever angle here: where “average American Joes” like Safranek can live like kings, but the poor still have to scrape by, living in ‘skyscraper Portacabins’, as the menial classes: there’s no escaping class structures, even when 5 inches tall. Chau sums up the uneven nature of the film, as she mostly plays her lines for laughs but then (in a spectacularly good bit of acting in the midst of, I have to say, some pretty poor hamming) bursts into uncontrollable tears.
Just when you think things are going to limp to a unmemorable close, the film ups and leaves LeisureLand to add a completely bizarre final act. (It’s pretty unusual in the UK for people to walk out of a cinema mid-film, but a couple did so at this point). This segment bears no relationship to the downsizing theme whatsoever, since all the players at this point could be full-sized. Aside from an amusing “50 shades of f**k” speech from Ngoc Lan Tran and a “massive explosion”, this story goes nowhere, says nothing (at least not to me) and merely irritates. Throw in a completely anti-climatic non-ending and I genuinely shared a “WTF look” with the stranger sat next to me!
This is all very strange, since this comes from Alexander Payne, who also directed and co-wrote “The Descendants”, one of the most impressive films of the decade. Jim Taylor co-writes (as he has co-written numerous other films with Payne).
I note that in this morning’s London Times that their film critic, Kevin Maher – someone who’s views I am generally pretty well aligned with – gave it 4 *’s out of 5. I can only assume that he either saw a completely different cut of the film, or he is a lot cleverer than I am and understood amazing sub-texts that completely passed me by! Maybe… but I have a sneaking suspicion that the general viewing public will more share my opinion on this than his.
I was tempted to give this just one star as it was such a disappointment to me, but the underlying concept is a good one: it is just one that has, in my humble opinion, been implemented in a bizarrely slipshod manner.
Definitely not recommended. Go and see “Coco” instead!
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Zombie Kidz Evolution in Tabletop Games
Nov 9, 2021
You know how you are just browsing BGG and come across some surprising statistics? For example, if you click on a ranking number on a game’s profile page, it will take you to the entire list of games including that search term. I do not believe I had checked on “Children’s Game” ranks for quite some time, so I was taken aback when I noticed that Zombie Kidz Evolution ranks #1 overall, per BGG users. Well, heck. I have children. They like games. I should probably check this out, right? Absolutely!
Zombie Kidz Evolution is a cooperative, horror/zombies, dice rolliling, variable player powers, LEGACY game… for children?? Those mechanics do not scream “children” to me at all! What gives here? In this one, players take on the role of children protecting their schoolhouse from infiltrating zombies, and all players win or lose together. Through multiple plays, however, the game evolves and the way in which the game is played also evolves. Oh, and there’s also stickers, which ALL children love.
To setup, determine play count and which side of the board to play. Each player chooses a standee to represent them, place out one zombie tile in each area with a fence gate, and the other zombies randomly in a line near the board. The lock tokens should be placed nearby and the die is given to the starting player (in our house, my son, as he will cry if we didn’t). The player standees, “kids” from here out, are placed in the central room of the schoolhouse and the game is ready to begin!
Zombie Kidz Evolution is played over several turns, and each turn consists of three or four actions. First, the active player rolls the die. The die face determines in which school zone a zombie tile will spawn. There are five colored spaces relating to five of the six die faces, with one die face being blank – no zombies spawn on that roll. After placing the zombie tile in the appropriate zone, the player may move their kid to an adjacent zone or leave them where they are. However, if a zone contains three or more zombies, the kids cannot enter.
After movement, the player may then eliminate one or two zombies in their zone. This happens automatically – there are no combat mechanics. The player simply removes one or two zombie tiles and places them at the end of the line off-board. Should two kids occupy the same zone outside the school where a fence gate is unlocked, they may high-five and place a lock token on the gate. After this step, the die is passed to the next player for their turn.
The game continues in this fashion of taking turns spawning and eliminating zombies until the players have locked all four gates outside the schoolhouse. A brain sticker is applied to the appropriate space on the back of the rulebook to track victories, and if enough stickers have been applied, players may be allowed to open one of the 13 sealed envelopes. Inside these envelopes are an assortment of items, most of which I am unable to disclose. However, more stickers may be applied to certain components, thus changing their functions completely for subsequent plays – just as all good legacy games provide. If playing with children, expect to play several games in sequence, as it is very addicting.
Components. The physical components in this game are all fine. The standees, board, and tokens are unspectacular, but do their job. The die is cool, but under weak lighting the blue and green can be difficult to differentiate. I will not discuss anything contained in the envelopes, and I apologize for that, but I do not want to spoil anything. The art style, though, is what does it for me. Every component proudly displays amazing artwork, and half the fun is watching little ones stare and smile at the components on the table. My only request here, and I cannot believe I am saying this, is that I do wish the player pieces were minis instead of standees, but I understand the decision to keep the cardboard standees in to keep the price point super reasonable. Outside that, this little box has a ton of game inside it.
My 5-year-old son is completely addicted to this game! He requests we play almost every night, and I happily oblige, as I really enjoy it as well. Yes, it is very light. Hardcore gamers probably will not get much enjoyment out of it, though I could certainly be wrong as well. We have found it to provide so much joy to our family, and though the box says it is intended for ages 7+, I encourage parents of younger children to give it a try as well. The turns are simple: roll, spawn, move, remove, and possibly lock. We are a modern household, so zombies in this game are just “taken care of” instead of “killed,” so we are able to skirt our problematic verbiage. There isn’t much we can do to soften the art of all the kids wielding weapons, though, so beware if that is against your parenting style.
As a game, and especially as a children’s game, this one is just incredible. I can certainly understand why it is rated #1 in Children’s Games on BGG. The game tackles more advanced mechanics and throws them into a game meant for little ones. And it does this beautifully. Unfortunately, though, I have noticed that my son now is exhibiting some completionist behaviors, as he likes to complete missions in the rulebook so we can advance toward opening more and more envelopes. It is so very easy for Purple Phoenix Games to give this one a well-deserved 20 / 24. That score includes opinions from not only Laura and me, but also my wife and son. We all love it!
If you are looking for an lighter (at first) legacy game to get your feet wet, I cannot recommend Zombie Kidz Evolution enough. Adults may be able to breeze through a few games in a night, but don’t expect it to be a pushover. The die will still roll against your wishes and fill up zones you wanted to clear, and then that blocks your movement through that zone, or you may find it difficult to travel around the board very easily, as kids can only move one zone each turn, so when they are three zones away from trauma, the pressure becomes real. We have probably lost almost as many games as we have won, but we have always had a great time. And when you are spending this quality time with the people you love, “taking care of” zombies, you want to tell the whole world to enjoy the game as much as you have. So, go grab yourselves a copy right now!
Zombie Kidz Evolution is a cooperative, horror/zombies, dice rolliling, variable player powers, LEGACY game… for children?? Those mechanics do not scream “children” to me at all! What gives here? In this one, players take on the role of children protecting their schoolhouse from infiltrating zombies, and all players win or lose together. Through multiple plays, however, the game evolves and the way in which the game is played also evolves. Oh, and there’s also stickers, which ALL children love.
To setup, determine play count and which side of the board to play. Each player chooses a standee to represent them, place out one zombie tile in each area with a fence gate, and the other zombies randomly in a line near the board. The lock tokens should be placed nearby and the die is given to the starting player (in our house, my son, as he will cry if we didn’t). The player standees, “kids” from here out, are placed in the central room of the schoolhouse and the game is ready to begin!
Zombie Kidz Evolution is played over several turns, and each turn consists of three or four actions. First, the active player rolls the die. The die face determines in which school zone a zombie tile will spawn. There are five colored spaces relating to five of the six die faces, with one die face being blank – no zombies spawn on that roll. After placing the zombie tile in the appropriate zone, the player may move their kid to an adjacent zone or leave them where they are. However, if a zone contains three or more zombies, the kids cannot enter.
After movement, the player may then eliminate one or two zombies in their zone. This happens automatically – there are no combat mechanics. The player simply removes one or two zombie tiles and places them at the end of the line off-board. Should two kids occupy the same zone outside the school where a fence gate is unlocked, they may high-five and place a lock token on the gate. After this step, the die is passed to the next player for their turn.
The game continues in this fashion of taking turns spawning and eliminating zombies until the players have locked all four gates outside the schoolhouse. A brain sticker is applied to the appropriate space on the back of the rulebook to track victories, and if enough stickers have been applied, players may be allowed to open one of the 13 sealed envelopes. Inside these envelopes are an assortment of items, most of which I am unable to disclose. However, more stickers may be applied to certain components, thus changing their functions completely for subsequent plays – just as all good legacy games provide. If playing with children, expect to play several games in sequence, as it is very addicting.
Components. The physical components in this game are all fine. The standees, board, and tokens are unspectacular, but do their job. The die is cool, but under weak lighting the blue and green can be difficult to differentiate. I will not discuss anything contained in the envelopes, and I apologize for that, but I do not want to spoil anything. The art style, though, is what does it for me. Every component proudly displays amazing artwork, and half the fun is watching little ones stare and smile at the components on the table. My only request here, and I cannot believe I am saying this, is that I do wish the player pieces were minis instead of standees, but I understand the decision to keep the cardboard standees in to keep the price point super reasonable. Outside that, this little box has a ton of game inside it.
My 5-year-old son is completely addicted to this game! He requests we play almost every night, and I happily oblige, as I really enjoy it as well. Yes, it is very light. Hardcore gamers probably will not get much enjoyment out of it, though I could certainly be wrong as well. We have found it to provide so much joy to our family, and though the box says it is intended for ages 7+, I encourage parents of younger children to give it a try as well. The turns are simple: roll, spawn, move, remove, and possibly lock. We are a modern household, so zombies in this game are just “taken care of” instead of “killed,” so we are able to skirt our problematic verbiage. There isn’t much we can do to soften the art of all the kids wielding weapons, though, so beware if that is against your parenting style.
As a game, and especially as a children’s game, this one is just incredible. I can certainly understand why it is rated #1 in Children’s Games on BGG. The game tackles more advanced mechanics and throws them into a game meant for little ones. And it does this beautifully. Unfortunately, though, I have noticed that my son now is exhibiting some completionist behaviors, as he likes to complete missions in the rulebook so we can advance toward opening more and more envelopes. It is so very easy for Purple Phoenix Games to give this one a well-deserved 20 / 24. That score includes opinions from not only Laura and me, but also my wife and son. We all love it!
If you are looking for an lighter (at first) legacy game to get your feet wet, I cannot recommend Zombie Kidz Evolution enough. Adults may be able to breeze through a few games in a night, but don’t expect it to be a pushover. The die will still roll against your wishes and fill up zones you wanted to clear, and then that blocks your movement through that zone, or you may find it difficult to travel around the board very easily, as kids can only move one zone each turn, so when they are three zones away from trauma, the pressure becomes real. We have probably lost almost as many games as we have won, but we have always had a great time. And when you are spending this quality time with the people you love, “taking care of” zombies, you want to tell the whole world to enjoy the game as much as you have. So, go grab yourselves a copy right now!
