Search
200 Fairy Tales for Kids - The Most Beautiful Stories for Children
Lifestyle
App
——————————————— 200 Fairy Tales for Kids...
Little Panda: Habits & Manners
Education and Games
App
For more videos, subscribe to BabyBus on YouTube! ►►https://goo.gl/llI2fX Keeping good...
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) in Movies
Jul 19, 2017
Some of the lighting is well implemented (1 more)
Colin Farrell
Bad CGI (2 more)
The movies 3 leads are extremely annoying
Johnny 'oooh' Depp
Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them - Or JK Rowling and the Never Ending Quest for More Money
Contains spoilers, click to show
First off, full disclosure, I have never been a fan of the Harry Potter franchise. I’ve read a few of the books and seen a few of the movies and it just isn’t my thing. Honestly, I’m not even a fan of fantasy in general, I think Lord Of The Rings is nonsense and Game Of Thrones is vastly overrated and the last Harry Potter movie I saw was the fourth one. However, I was willing to go into this movie with a clean slate and hopefully have it win me over and unfortunately it didn’t. Also this review will contain spoilers if you care about that sort of thing.
This film is a prequel to the other Harry Potter movies, this time set in America rather than Britain and telling the story of the events that led to the great wizarding war between Dumbledore and Grindlewald. The film did have potential, to see what would have essentially been WWII fought with magic could be really cool but unfortunately all we get here is setup and that actual event we want to see will probably take place 4 or 5 movies down the line. The film opens with Eddie Redmayne’s character, Newt Scamander going to New York from London to set free one of the beasts that he keeps inside his Tardis-like brief case. Then he ends up in a bank and meets a ‘Nomaj,’ which is this film’s lazy version of a ‘muggle,’ who we learn is a simple lonely guy that just wants to open his own bakery and that’s another character cliché ticked off the list. We now have the double act of the nerdy, sniveling protagonist and the overweight sympathetic sidekick. Also, for the rest of this review I will be referring to the baker character as fat bloke and this isn’t to be derogatory, but is purely because the script relies on the, ‘fat, jolly, sympathetic, pathetic loner’ stereotype and passes it off as a character arc. If the script isn’t treating the character with any respect, then why should I? So fat bloke it is then.
So the two of them of course have the exact same briefcase and after some cartoony looking CGI animals escape from Redmayne’s case in the bank the suitcases predictably get mixed up and then the fat bloke gets his bakery loan declined and returns home with Redmayne’s suitcase, then more bad CGI animals open the case and attack the fat bloke. Redmayne’s character then gets arrested by some wizarding inspector for letting the, ‘Nomaj,’ (urgh) get away after seeing the animals in the case and is taken to the New York Wizards base, I guess? Then it’s revealed that the wizarding inspector that arrested Redmayne is a bit of a shit inspector and she is trying to redeem herself in the eyes of her superiors, so in front of this high wizard council, she confiscates the case from Redmayne and opens it only to reveal a bunch of cakes inside. Yes, really… Who writes this shit? Rowling is doing to Harry Potter what Lucas did to Star Wars during the prequels at this point.
So Redmayne gets set free and he goes to fat bloke’s house to find him lying on the floor, then some more bad CGI later the inspector turns up and they take him back to her house to meet her sister? Friend? Does it matter? She ends up becoming the love interest for fat bloke. Then for no apparent reason Redmayne and fat bloke enter the case and he shows fat bloke all this crazy shit that apparently humans aren’t supposed to see and then Redmayne does some more sniveling and decides they have to sneak out of the girls’ apartment and recapture the animals that escaped in the bank and from fat bloke’s apartment. They get a couple of the beasts back then they go to central park to find Redmayne’s horny rhino and they dress fat bloke up in a leather rhino costume and use him as rape bait then they ice skate for a bit and capture the rhino. Again, really… I am not making this shit up for satirical reasons.
Then we see a real life prick Ezra Miller playing some sort of weird emo child who is beat by his mother and we see he is working with Colin Farrell to find a big bad dark spirit that is killing people around New York. Colin Farrell is definitely the best thing about the film at this point. After this a bunch of other stupid shit happens, like Ron Perlman and John Voight coming into the movie, showing a ray of potential then being totally wasted. The movie drags in the middle, but eventually after some more fat jokes, bad CGI and sniveling, all of the creatures are captured and Ezra Miller turns into a black death cloud or some such nonsense. Then he is boosting around New York, fucking up shit as he goes and so Redmayne and Farrell follow him down to the subway to stop him. Redmayne seems to be talking him down and then Farrell shows up and essentially tells him to join the dark side. Then there is a CGI wand battle and the council from earlier show up out of nowhere and kill the black cloud of death. Then Colin Farrell gets pissed off and in the best scene in the movie murders half of the council members before he gets arrested by Eddie Redmayne with some magic handcuffs.
Then the worst part in the movie takes place. It is revealed that Colin Farrell is actually Johnny Depp in disguise. I mean he is Grindlewald in disguise but the important part for me is the replacement of Colin Farrell with Johnny Depp. Now I’m not the world’s biggest Colin Farrell fan, he is great in, ‘In Bruges,’ but other than that he is pretty meh, but he was definitely the best thing that this movie had going for it and they fucking swapped him out! With fucking Johnny-‘ooh’-Depp. As if this movie wasn’t shit enough they swapped out the best thing about it for Johnny Depp, the biggest joke in Hollywood. I’m done, fuck this movie, fuck Johnny Depp, fuck JK Rowling, fuck Harry Potter, I’m out.
Okay, let’s briefly talk about the technical side of the film before I score this thing. The whole cast of this movie is phoning it in, so the acting is fine but nothing to write home about, Farrell is the best thing in this movie, but I feel that in the sequels it will just be an ‘ooh,’ off between Depp and Redmayne. The direction is okay as the movie plods along sufficiently, but the writing is wildly inconsistent and the plot as stated above is all over the place. The lighting and cinematography in one scene are fantastic, when Farrell and Miller are conversing in a dark alleyway but other than that they are pretty mundane too. The score is suitably Harry Potter like and the CGI is also to a similar standard of the Harry Potter films. The problem with that is that the CGI was ropey and of a fairly poor standard in the Harry Potter movies 10 years ago and it doesn’t seem like it has improved much since then. This movie isn’t for me, but even from an objective standpoint, based solely from a moviemaking perspective this movie is poor.
This film is a prequel to the other Harry Potter movies, this time set in America rather than Britain and telling the story of the events that led to the great wizarding war between Dumbledore and Grindlewald. The film did have potential, to see what would have essentially been WWII fought with magic could be really cool but unfortunately all we get here is setup and that actual event we want to see will probably take place 4 or 5 movies down the line. The film opens with Eddie Redmayne’s character, Newt Scamander going to New York from London to set free one of the beasts that he keeps inside his Tardis-like brief case. Then he ends up in a bank and meets a ‘Nomaj,’ which is this film’s lazy version of a ‘muggle,’ who we learn is a simple lonely guy that just wants to open his own bakery and that’s another character cliché ticked off the list. We now have the double act of the nerdy, sniveling protagonist and the overweight sympathetic sidekick. Also, for the rest of this review I will be referring to the baker character as fat bloke and this isn’t to be derogatory, but is purely because the script relies on the, ‘fat, jolly, sympathetic, pathetic loner’ stereotype and passes it off as a character arc. If the script isn’t treating the character with any respect, then why should I? So fat bloke it is then.
So the two of them of course have the exact same briefcase and after some cartoony looking CGI animals escape from Redmayne’s case in the bank the suitcases predictably get mixed up and then the fat bloke gets his bakery loan declined and returns home with Redmayne’s suitcase, then more bad CGI animals open the case and attack the fat bloke. Redmayne’s character then gets arrested by some wizarding inspector for letting the, ‘Nomaj,’ (urgh) get away after seeing the animals in the case and is taken to the New York Wizards base, I guess? Then it’s revealed that the wizarding inspector that arrested Redmayne is a bit of a shit inspector and she is trying to redeem herself in the eyes of her superiors, so in front of this high wizard council, she confiscates the case from Redmayne and opens it only to reveal a bunch of cakes inside. Yes, really… Who writes this shit? Rowling is doing to Harry Potter what Lucas did to Star Wars during the prequels at this point.
So Redmayne gets set free and he goes to fat bloke’s house to find him lying on the floor, then some more bad CGI later the inspector turns up and they take him back to her house to meet her sister? Friend? Does it matter? She ends up becoming the love interest for fat bloke. Then for no apparent reason Redmayne and fat bloke enter the case and he shows fat bloke all this crazy shit that apparently humans aren’t supposed to see and then Redmayne does some more sniveling and decides they have to sneak out of the girls’ apartment and recapture the animals that escaped in the bank and from fat bloke’s apartment. They get a couple of the beasts back then they go to central park to find Redmayne’s horny rhino and they dress fat bloke up in a leather rhino costume and use him as rape bait then they ice skate for a bit and capture the rhino. Again, really… I am not making this shit up for satirical reasons.
Then we see a real life prick Ezra Miller playing some sort of weird emo child who is beat by his mother and we see he is working with Colin Farrell to find a big bad dark spirit that is killing people around New York. Colin Farrell is definitely the best thing about the film at this point. After this a bunch of other stupid shit happens, like Ron Perlman and John Voight coming into the movie, showing a ray of potential then being totally wasted. The movie drags in the middle, but eventually after some more fat jokes, bad CGI and sniveling, all of the creatures are captured and Ezra Miller turns into a black death cloud or some such nonsense. Then he is boosting around New York, fucking up shit as he goes and so Redmayne and Farrell follow him down to the subway to stop him. Redmayne seems to be talking him down and then Farrell shows up and essentially tells him to join the dark side. Then there is a CGI wand battle and the council from earlier show up out of nowhere and kill the black cloud of death. Then Colin Farrell gets pissed off and in the best scene in the movie murders half of the council members before he gets arrested by Eddie Redmayne with some magic handcuffs.
Then the worst part in the movie takes place. It is revealed that Colin Farrell is actually Johnny Depp in disguise. I mean he is Grindlewald in disguise but the important part for me is the replacement of Colin Farrell with Johnny Depp. Now I’m not the world’s biggest Colin Farrell fan, he is great in, ‘In Bruges,’ but other than that he is pretty meh, but he was definitely the best thing that this movie had going for it and they fucking swapped him out! With fucking Johnny-‘ooh’-Depp. As if this movie wasn’t shit enough they swapped out the best thing about it for Johnny Depp, the biggest joke in Hollywood. I’m done, fuck this movie, fuck Johnny Depp, fuck JK Rowling, fuck Harry Potter, I’m out.
Okay, let’s briefly talk about the technical side of the film before I score this thing. The whole cast of this movie is phoning it in, so the acting is fine but nothing to write home about, Farrell is the best thing in this movie, but I feel that in the sequels it will just be an ‘ooh,’ off between Depp and Redmayne. The direction is okay as the movie plods along sufficiently, but the writing is wildly inconsistent and the plot as stated above is all over the place. The lighting and cinematography in one scene are fantastic, when Farrell and Miller are conversing in a dark alleyway but other than that they are pretty mundane too. The score is suitably Harry Potter like and the CGI is also to a similar standard of the Harry Potter films. The problem with that is that the CGI was ropey and of a fairly poor standard in the Harry Potter movies 10 years ago and it doesn’t seem like it has improved much since then. This movie isn’t for me, but even from an objective standpoint, based solely from a moviemaking perspective this movie is poor.
Great, inspiring memoir
I'm not going to do my usual paragraph of description for Becoming, Michelle Obama's memoir, because, well, we all know who Michelle Obama is. This memoir is Mrs. Obama's reflection on her life to date, from her childhood in the South Side of Chicago, her time at Princeton, her work as a lawyer and executive, meeting Barack Obama and being introduced to politics through him, and their historic road to the White House.
"Your story is what you have, what you will always have. It is something to own."
I almost do not want to review this book, because I feel like I cannot do justice to the woman that is Michelle Obama. This is a really beautiful book, and it's also really informative. I learned so much about Mrs. Obama and her life, which I very much enjoyed.
First of all, she's a great storyteller. This is a big book, and it's a bit of an undertaking, but it's an easy read, and a really interesting one. I found myself completely immersed--I really loved learning about her childhood and her family. And, of course, it's fun to hear about how she met Barack (his marriage proposal is pretty amazing). Learning about both of their origins is fascinating, honestly. I mean, I knew that the Obamas weren't from the old-school political establishment, but it wasn't until I was reading about her life--and hearing more about the former President's--that it really hit home to me. It's amazing how much they have accomplished for our country.
Ms. Obama does a wonderful job of weaving her themes throughout her story--the power of education, of having an advocate, the importance of diversity and women's rights, and how vital children are in her life. She is honest about the realities of working motherhood: both for her life and for those of working Americans. It's also great to get little asides about her daughters (e.g., families at their schools sending in cupcakes for the Secret Service agents on birthdays); funny stories about meeting the Queen; and her mom sounds like a real trip.
"Kids made me feel like myself again. To them, I wasn't a spectacle. I was just a nice, kinda-tall lady."
She also talks about serious matters: race, education, and her reluctance about getting her family into politics. We see how importance her daughters are to her and how hard it was, knowing what they were sacrificing when her husband ran for President. We hear about her struggles being the first African American First Lady--the stings she felt from the racial insults aimed at both her and her husband, the fear she felt for her family's safety, and the attempts she made to find her place in Washington. I found myself copying quotes right and left, because she is so intelligent and profound and because, truly, as we all learned over eight years, she's such a relatable person.
"Kids wake up each day believing in the goodness of things, in the magic of what be. They're uncynical, believers at their core. We owe it to them to stay strong and keep working to create a more fair and humane world. For them, we need to remain both tough and hopeful, to acknowledge that there's more growing to be done."
Overall, this was a great memoir. It was informative, educational, and also inspiring and funny. It made me miss the Obama family all over again and appreciate so much their time in the Oval Office. It also gave me even more insight into Mrs. Obama, her life, and her feelings. I highly recommend it.
"Your story is what you have, what you will always have. It is something to own."
I almost do not want to review this book, because I feel like I cannot do justice to the woman that is Michelle Obama. This is a really beautiful book, and it's also really informative. I learned so much about Mrs. Obama and her life, which I very much enjoyed.
First of all, she's a great storyteller. This is a big book, and it's a bit of an undertaking, but it's an easy read, and a really interesting one. I found myself completely immersed--I really loved learning about her childhood and her family. And, of course, it's fun to hear about how she met Barack (his marriage proposal is pretty amazing). Learning about both of their origins is fascinating, honestly. I mean, I knew that the Obamas weren't from the old-school political establishment, but it wasn't until I was reading about her life--and hearing more about the former President's--that it really hit home to me. It's amazing how much they have accomplished for our country.
Ms. Obama does a wonderful job of weaving her themes throughout her story--the power of education, of having an advocate, the importance of diversity and women's rights, and how vital children are in her life. She is honest about the realities of working motherhood: both for her life and for those of working Americans. It's also great to get little asides about her daughters (e.g., families at their schools sending in cupcakes for the Secret Service agents on birthdays); funny stories about meeting the Queen; and her mom sounds like a real trip.
"Kids made me feel like myself again. To them, I wasn't a spectacle. I was just a nice, kinda-tall lady."
She also talks about serious matters: race, education, and her reluctance about getting her family into politics. We see how importance her daughters are to her and how hard it was, knowing what they were sacrificing when her husband ran for President. We hear about her struggles being the first African American First Lady--the stings she felt from the racial insults aimed at both her and her husband, the fear she felt for her family's safety, and the attempts she made to find her place in Washington. I found myself copying quotes right and left, because she is so intelligent and profound and because, truly, as we all learned over eight years, she's such a relatable person.
"Kids wake up each day believing in the goodness of things, in the magic of what be. They're uncynical, believers at their core. We owe it to them to stay strong and keep working to create a more fair and humane world. For them, we need to remain both tough and hopeful, to acknowledge that there's more growing to be done."
Overall, this was a great memoir. It was informative, educational, and also inspiring and funny. It made me miss the Obama family all over again and appreciate so much their time in the Oval Office. It also gave me even more insight into Mrs. Obama, her life, and her feelings. I highly recommend it.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Labor Day (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Director Jason Reitman is no stranger to obtaining a few awards from his varied career, with films like Juno and Up in the Air under his belt, you would be forgiven for thinking that he could put himself on autopilot – however his latest offering Labor Day stays well clear of such drama.
Starring Kate Winslet and Josh Brolin, the film stays on the right side of touching without feeling overly sentimental and cheesy. But is it worth a watch?
Following the story of Adele (Winslet) and her son Henry (Gattlin Griffith) as they comes to terms with repairing their lives after an unsuccessful marriage, Labor Day leaves the story and plot of Joyce Maynard’s hugely popular novel to the audience, who piece things together themselves, culminating in a pleasing if slightly clumsy final act.
Josh Brolin stars as Frank Chambers, an escaped murderer looking for somewhere tolabor-day-poster1 lay low whilst the police continue searching for him. Brolin is a master of playing the bad guy gone good and his performance here is no exception to that rule. His convict-like scowls are brilliantly juxtaposed with scenes involving him cooking and baking, leaving the viewer slightly perplexed by his real intentions – at the start that is anyway.
As the story takes place over a weekend, the film does feel a little drawn out in places but this adds to its simplistic charm, with the characters and their sublime acting doing most of the work.
Winslet is excellent as Adele, a woman so heartbroken and terrified by the painful effects of love she no longer leaves the house. Her fragility is exceptionally intense; her hands and facial expressions talk more than words ever could and this is a theme throughout the film. I wouldn’t be surprised if Winslet is nominated for an Oscar at next year’s awards.
However, by far the standout is Gattlin Griffith’s performance as young Henry. Here is a boy who would do anything for his mother. His transition from moody teenager to vulnerable young adult is beautiful to watch and again, his facial expressions speak volumes.
As the police close in on Frank’s location and Adele and Henry’s behaviour becomes ever more suspicious, Labor Day becomes increasingly intense in a ‘will they won’t they’ kind of way. As much as the film drives home the simplicity of its intentions, you can’t helped but get sucked into their predicament and this, along with the acting, is where it stuns most.
Unfortunately, the simple nature of the directing and cinematography leaves a lot of room for other areas to fill, and this doesn’t quite happen.
The score is mind-numbingly dull which is a true shame. Rolfe Kent has created some stunning pieces of music for films across the decades including his Golden Globe nominated work on Sideways, not forgetting the excellent score in The Wedding Crashers. Despite some lift in the latter half of the picture, it remains a relatively music-free affair.
Tobey Maguire’s narration is also a little dull. Those of you familiar with the Spider-Man trilogy will know how irritating Maguire’s voice can be, and unfortunately it’s the case here too.
Overall though, Labor Day fills the void in between the magic of the Christmas blockbuster and the frantic summer season which is approaching thick and fast. Filled with some fine performances from the three lead actors and a story which really makes you believe in second chances, it’s an utterly compelling and emotional spring flick. Only the poor score and uninspiring cinematography lets it down.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/03/27/labor-day-review/
Starring Kate Winslet and Josh Brolin, the film stays on the right side of touching without feeling overly sentimental and cheesy. But is it worth a watch?
Following the story of Adele (Winslet) and her son Henry (Gattlin Griffith) as they comes to terms with repairing their lives after an unsuccessful marriage, Labor Day leaves the story and plot of Joyce Maynard’s hugely popular novel to the audience, who piece things together themselves, culminating in a pleasing if slightly clumsy final act.
Josh Brolin stars as Frank Chambers, an escaped murderer looking for somewhere tolabor-day-poster1 lay low whilst the police continue searching for him. Brolin is a master of playing the bad guy gone good and his performance here is no exception to that rule. His convict-like scowls are brilliantly juxtaposed with scenes involving him cooking and baking, leaving the viewer slightly perplexed by his real intentions – at the start that is anyway.
As the story takes place over a weekend, the film does feel a little drawn out in places but this adds to its simplistic charm, with the characters and their sublime acting doing most of the work.
Winslet is excellent as Adele, a woman so heartbroken and terrified by the painful effects of love she no longer leaves the house. Her fragility is exceptionally intense; her hands and facial expressions talk more than words ever could and this is a theme throughout the film. I wouldn’t be surprised if Winslet is nominated for an Oscar at next year’s awards.
However, by far the standout is Gattlin Griffith’s performance as young Henry. Here is a boy who would do anything for his mother. His transition from moody teenager to vulnerable young adult is beautiful to watch and again, his facial expressions speak volumes.
As the police close in on Frank’s location and Adele and Henry’s behaviour becomes ever more suspicious, Labor Day becomes increasingly intense in a ‘will they won’t they’ kind of way. As much as the film drives home the simplicity of its intentions, you can’t helped but get sucked into their predicament and this, along with the acting, is where it stuns most.
Unfortunately, the simple nature of the directing and cinematography leaves a lot of room for other areas to fill, and this doesn’t quite happen.
The score is mind-numbingly dull which is a true shame. Rolfe Kent has created some stunning pieces of music for films across the decades including his Golden Globe nominated work on Sideways, not forgetting the excellent score in The Wedding Crashers. Despite some lift in the latter half of the picture, it remains a relatively music-free affair.
Tobey Maguire’s narration is also a little dull. Those of you familiar with the Spider-Man trilogy will know how irritating Maguire’s voice can be, and unfortunately it’s the case here too.
Overall though, Labor Day fills the void in between the magic of the Christmas blockbuster and the frantic summer season which is approaching thick and fast. Filled with some fine performances from the three lead actors and a story which really makes you believe in second chances, it’s an utterly compelling and emotional spring flick. Only the poor score and uninspiring cinematography lets it down.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/03/27/labor-day-review/
Becca Major (96 KP) rated The Nutcracker Prince (1990) in Movies
Jan 20, 2018
Decent writing (3 more)
Good animation
Semi-active heroine
Loyal to the book
Dance sequence, especially the Pas de Deux (3 more)
Music placement
Weak and confusing ending
Marie
The Nutcracker Prince
Contains spoilers, click to show
Summary:
The Nutcracker Prince is an enjoyable little children's movie that is a strange mashup of the novel by E.T.A. Hoffman and the popular ballet. The story is fairly simple and follows Clara as she interacts with her family at the yearly Christmas party, where she and her siblings receive the titular Nutcracker from their Uncle Drosselmeyer, as well as a golden castle. He then proceeds to tell Clara about the Nutcracker’s backstory. Then Fritz, Clara’s little brother, breaks the Nutcracker and she scolds him.
Later that night, the Mouse King attacks, attempting to kill the Nutcracker, and Clara watches the toys do battle with the Mouse King’s army. Clara ends up tripping and hurting herself, which makes her bedridden. During this time, Fritz brings her a partially eaten box of chocolates, which she puts in her nightstand drawer. Later that night, the Mouse King approaches her and threatens her. Clara offers him the box of chocolates and when he hops in the drawer to eat them, she shuts him in. She runs downstairs to protect the Nutcracker, which transitions to the second attack of the Mouse King and his army. The toys and mice battle, and eventually the Nutcracker runs the Mouse King through (off-screen of course), and the day is won.
The Nutcracker invites Clara to visit the Land of the Dolls. She does and is impressed by the beauty around her, and the Nutcracker asks her to stay and become his Queen. She turns him down, for good reasons, and everyone in the Land of the Dolls starts to turn back into lifeless objects. Then, to make everything weirder, the “dead” Mouse King shows up for one more hurrah and fights with Clara. He ends up falling over the balcony and dying. Clara returns home via “It was just a dream,” freaks out, runs to her Uncle Drosselmeyer’s house, and meets his nephew, who looks exactly like the Nutcracker, but not really.
Overall:
When all is said and done, I would have to say that I like the beginning of the movie a lot more than the end. The rules for how the magic works make sense, and the characters are pretty well defined. Clara is competitive with her siblings and thinks they are weird, and she is basically about as active as the material allows her to be. The Nutcracker himself is pretty bland and soft-spoken in comparison, but he does try his best with the situation he’s in, so I can’t dislike him. The Mouse King is somewhat threatening, if one dimensional. There isn’t much to say about the side characters. Clara’s siblings are fine, as are most of the side characters. With the exception of Marie, none of them are particularly annoying.
The music is fine, if occasionally distracting. It is Tschaikowsky, after all.
The animation is pretty good for a direct to VHS movie. The run-cycles are pretty goofy, but it flows and has detail.
I like the obvious nods to the aspects of the book that the writers changed, such as naming the new doll Marie. As someone who read the book recently, it was nice to know that they cared about the material they were adapting.
In the end, I feel that considering the movie is twenty-eight years old, it holds up pretty good. I would definitely watch it again and probably share it with the students in my class, or with my nephew.
The Nutcracker Prince is an enjoyable little children's movie that is a strange mashup of the novel by E.T.A. Hoffman and the popular ballet. The story is fairly simple and follows Clara as she interacts with her family at the yearly Christmas party, where she and her siblings receive the titular Nutcracker from their Uncle Drosselmeyer, as well as a golden castle. He then proceeds to tell Clara about the Nutcracker’s backstory. Then Fritz, Clara’s little brother, breaks the Nutcracker and she scolds him.
Later that night, the Mouse King attacks, attempting to kill the Nutcracker, and Clara watches the toys do battle with the Mouse King’s army. Clara ends up tripping and hurting herself, which makes her bedridden. During this time, Fritz brings her a partially eaten box of chocolates, which she puts in her nightstand drawer. Later that night, the Mouse King approaches her and threatens her. Clara offers him the box of chocolates and when he hops in the drawer to eat them, she shuts him in. She runs downstairs to protect the Nutcracker, which transitions to the second attack of the Mouse King and his army. The toys and mice battle, and eventually the Nutcracker runs the Mouse King through (off-screen of course), and the day is won.
The Nutcracker invites Clara to visit the Land of the Dolls. She does and is impressed by the beauty around her, and the Nutcracker asks her to stay and become his Queen. She turns him down, for good reasons, and everyone in the Land of the Dolls starts to turn back into lifeless objects. Then, to make everything weirder, the “dead” Mouse King shows up for one more hurrah and fights with Clara. He ends up falling over the balcony and dying. Clara returns home via “It was just a dream,” freaks out, runs to her Uncle Drosselmeyer’s house, and meets his nephew, who looks exactly like the Nutcracker, but not really.
Overall:
When all is said and done, I would have to say that I like the beginning of the movie a lot more than the end. The rules for how the magic works make sense, and the characters are pretty well defined. Clara is competitive with her siblings and thinks they are weird, and she is basically about as active as the material allows her to be. The Nutcracker himself is pretty bland and soft-spoken in comparison, but he does try his best with the situation he’s in, so I can’t dislike him. The Mouse King is somewhat threatening, if one dimensional. There isn’t much to say about the side characters. Clara’s siblings are fine, as are most of the side characters. With the exception of Marie, none of them are particularly annoying.
The music is fine, if occasionally distracting. It is Tschaikowsky, after all.
The animation is pretty good for a direct to VHS movie. The run-cycles are pretty goofy, but it flows and has detail.
I like the obvious nods to the aspects of the book that the writers changed, such as naming the new doll Marie. As someone who read the book recently, it was nice to know that they cared about the material they were adapting.
In the end, I feel that considering the movie is twenty-eight years old, it holds up pretty good. I would definitely watch it again and probably share it with the students in my class, or with my nephew.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Electric Dreams (1984) in Movies
Oct 13, 2019
Let me start off by saying I recently purchased a region free DVD/Blu Ray player for myself when I discovered there were films I have not seen in 20+ years because they have never had a DVD/Blu Ray release in the US, but are actually available overseas! When I discovered this fact, among the first movies I purchased is this 1980s classic which has been mostly forgotten due to its unavailability.
Miles is an unorganized, nerdy architect who is delighted to discover a young, beautiful cellist moving in to the apartment above his sparse decorated pad in San Francisco. At the same time, a work colleague tells Miles he should get himself organized so he doesn't miss meetings spending all his time working on a new earthquake=proof brick, his dream pet project. Miles heads to his local electronic store (80s version) and gets talked into buying one of these "new" personal computers which everyone seems to be getting.
After some initial difficulty during set up, Miles decides to fully jump in to the PC world and not only sets up his new toy, but decides to have it fully integrated into his apartment including running his lights, door locks and appliances. He then thinks it would be a good idea to do a mass download of information for his work servers to beef up his own unit's capacity. He quickly realizes this is an overload to his machine when it starts to buzz and flash. In a panic, he douses the machine with some champagne to cool it off inadvertently giving it the spark of "life".
His new machine works quickly to understand its new world around including listening and harmonizing music with the beautiful neighbor upstairs. This leads to the two town house cohabitants developing a relationship. This does not sit well with the PC eventually as "he" has now also evolved to the point where he wants to understand love. Tensions escalate and there is a confrontation for the ultimate fate of the relationships and who will ultimately get the girl.
Since it had been probably 30 years since I had seen Electric Dreams, one of those guilty pleasures from the 80s, I was extremely anxious to rewatch; however, was also worried a new viewing in my adulthood would ruin the magic I had remembered from my youth. I couldn't have been more wrong.
The first thing I had forgotten was all the humor of the film including those awkward moments when Miles and the computer where getting to know each other and the goofy dialogue. Also, it's funny how I read a lot of the functions the computer performed had to be simulated at the time since home PCs were still pretty new to everyone at that point, but now those functions are fairly commonplace including the aforementioned "Smart Home" features among other things.
Yes fine, there are plenty of 80s staples present almost immediately like music montages, bad hairdos, leg warmers and boom boxes, but that still gives the movie charm. After thinking about it, there were elements from other 80s classics like Weird Science, WarGames, and a lot of Short Circuit where an AI was learning about itself. Who remembers Max Headroom?
The soundtrack for the film is also front and center with much of it playing a key role in the budding relationship between Miles and his musical love interest, but it works well and still holds up.
I also have to mention Virginia Madsen. I looked up she was 23 when she made this film (she looked like she was 18), but still looks as remarkable as she did then (80s crush speaking here).
I'm sure I probably still revere this movie more than the people who actually made it, but I can handle that.
Miles is an unorganized, nerdy architect who is delighted to discover a young, beautiful cellist moving in to the apartment above his sparse decorated pad in San Francisco. At the same time, a work colleague tells Miles he should get himself organized so he doesn't miss meetings spending all his time working on a new earthquake=proof brick, his dream pet project. Miles heads to his local electronic store (80s version) and gets talked into buying one of these "new" personal computers which everyone seems to be getting.
After some initial difficulty during set up, Miles decides to fully jump in to the PC world and not only sets up his new toy, but decides to have it fully integrated into his apartment including running his lights, door locks and appliances. He then thinks it would be a good idea to do a mass download of information for his work servers to beef up his own unit's capacity. He quickly realizes this is an overload to his machine when it starts to buzz and flash. In a panic, he douses the machine with some champagne to cool it off inadvertently giving it the spark of "life".
His new machine works quickly to understand its new world around including listening and harmonizing music with the beautiful neighbor upstairs. This leads to the two town house cohabitants developing a relationship. This does not sit well with the PC eventually as "he" has now also evolved to the point where he wants to understand love. Tensions escalate and there is a confrontation for the ultimate fate of the relationships and who will ultimately get the girl.
Since it had been probably 30 years since I had seen Electric Dreams, one of those guilty pleasures from the 80s, I was extremely anxious to rewatch; however, was also worried a new viewing in my adulthood would ruin the magic I had remembered from my youth. I couldn't have been more wrong.
The first thing I had forgotten was all the humor of the film including those awkward moments when Miles and the computer where getting to know each other and the goofy dialogue. Also, it's funny how I read a lot of the functions the computer performed had to be simulated at the time since home PCs were still pretty new to everyone at that point, but now those functions are fairly commonplace including the aforementioned "Smart Home" features among other things.
Yes fine, there are plenty of 80s staples present almost immediately like music montages, bad hairdos, leg warmers and boom boxes, but that still gives the movie charm. After thinking about it, there were elements from other 80s classics like Weird Science, WarGames, and a lot of Short Circuit where an AI was learning about itself. Who remembers Max Headroom?
The soundtrack for the film is also front and center with much of it playing a key role in the budding relationship between Miles and his musical love interest, but it works well and still holds up.
I also have to mention Virginia Madsen. I looked up she was 23 when she made this film (she looked like she was 18), but still looks as remarkable as she did then (80s crush speaking here).
I'm sure I probably still revere this movie more than the people who actually made it, but I can handle that.
Charmed & Dangerous
10.0
Rate It
Book
Magic takes many forms. From malignant hexes to love charms gone amok, you’ll find a vast array of...
Urban Fantasy Paranormal MM Romance
Piper (13 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Strong Characters (3 more)
Clever Camerawork
Myers is Finally Threatening Again
Callbacks and Subversions
"You're The New Doctor Loomis" (3 more)
Plot Holes
Predictable
Too Much Off-Screen Action
Halloween: Predictably Unpredictable
Contains spoilers, click to show
After the nightmare of a film that was Rob Zombie’s 2007 remake, I refused to bother seeing the new Halloween on its release, choosing instead to pick up a DVD when the price got knocked down significantly enough - after all, we’ve had sixty-three Halloween films now and only half of them were worth watching (really, Season of the Witch?) and this looked, in all honesty, like just another slasher-film-reboot that wasn’t worth the time. Now don’t get me wrong, it absolutely was just another slasher film, but I wish I’d seen it in the cinema. And a year earlier than I did, too, because I missed out big-time with this one.
The plot is predictable, because of course it is. It’s Michael Myers, what’s he going to do except escape from a mental institution and murder some people? But it’s beautifully subverted; some of the characters you might expect to last till the end die before the halfway mark, and while there are a fair amount who are clearly written in just to be killed minutes later, they contribute to some fine, gory moments, so it’s kind of okay. There’s no real heartbreaker here - everyone you really rooted for just about makes it, and everyone that was kind of a dick is killed. And that’s fine, because in a way this isn’t the kind of slasher where it matters who lives or dies. This is a film about preserving a legacy, or perhaps just making one, and it works. We’re told fairly early on that this is a direct sequel to the original Halloween (Myers’ death toll at the start of this version, apparently, is five, which matches the amount of kills he made in the first movie - as far as I’m aware, Myers has actually killed over 100 people in all the films combined, so this is a nice subtle way of telling us what to remember and what to ignore completely). Having said that, references are made throughout to previous films, the best of which is of course a callback to the infamous scene where Myers tumbles out of a window only for his body to completely disappear - this time it’s Laurie Strode who does the tumbling, and she very much intends to do a little vanishing act of her own, Michael, so keep an eye on - oh, no, you looked away, I wonder what’s happening down there!
Focusing on Laurie for a moment, Jamie Lee Curtis does an absolutely excellent job here. Age has given her character wisdom, paranoia, and a whole lot of guns, and the acting carries a huge amount of weight and strength with it. Having said that, there are a couple of moments where all of Laurie’s fear-induced calculations don’t seem to have quite worked out - why bother going to such extreme measures to protect your house, if the front door you’re standing behind is half glass? But that’s the thing about this movie - whatever you plan for, whatever you think Michael Myers is capable of, he’s stronger than you think, he’s far more terrifying than you remember, and right until the end, he’s here to remind you that nothing you can plan for will ever be enough. Of course, we never actually see him die (again) so here’s looking forward to the next sequel…
The cinematography is something to at least wonder over - settings and locations are used well and established with some wonderful wide shots, and some of the best scenes are those where the camera just stays in one place, at a very carefully-selected window for example, and watches. Two scenes are worth a particular mention; the first, in which we follow our two podcast-host characters to a gas station, seems fairly dull until Myers catches up to them, but if you watch the background carefully enough you’ll see he’s there all along, beating people up and murdering quite happily (swapping his prison jumpsuit for those traditional blues in the process). The second seems a little superficial, in the grand scheme of the movie, but it’s well-shot nonetheless - we watch, from that aforementioned window, as a woman hears about all the nasty things Michael might do, and of course we can see him through another window, heading for her front door, and when he finally appears inside the house he’s all the way across the room, somehow, and he calmly wanders on over and stabs the woman quite coolly through the throat, in a scene which I think is most reminiscent of the original films.
However, there are moments when you don’t see Michael at all, just the aftermath, or where we watch him enter a room and are forced to linger in the corridor while he does the dirty work. A couple of times that’s just fine, but considering the nature of the film it would be nice to watch the magic happen a couple more times. And while we’re on the negatives, I might mention that the reveal that the Doctor Loomis-type character who looked, felt, and sounded like a rip-off of Doctor Loomis, and was even referred to as “The New Doctor Loomis” did EXACTLY the same thing that Doctor Loomis did, surprise, and we were somehow expected to not see that coming like it was all one big, obvious, heavy-handed bluff. A couple of the other characters, too, felt like they were purely rammed in there to be irritating - there were a couple of strong scenes with our podcast hosts, but ultimately they were rude, on-the-nose and annoyingly egotistical, and I was happy to see them go, just like Alison’s friend Foggy Nelson.
The score, incidentally, is worth mentioning, from a haunting retune of the original Myers theme to darker and more dramatic variations on it later on that really would have been quite something to hear in surround-sound. I’m never usually one to appreciate the music of a film quite fully enough, so it was nice to have this grab my attention in quite the way it did. Overall, it’s a genuinely good follow-on that takes the best of the films before and makes the best use of the worst of them. Some of the characters might be a little annoying, some of the action could have translated better on-screen than off, but it was an honest and straight-up slasher film and it just wasn’t that bad at all.
The plot is predictable, because of course it is. It’s Michael Myers, what’s he going to do except escape from a mental institution and murder some people? But it’s beautifully subverted; some of the characters you might expect to last till the end die before the halfway mark, and while there are a fair amount who are clearly written in just to be killed minutes later, they contribute to some fine, gory moments, so it’s kind of okay. There’s no real heartbreaker here - everyone you really rooted for just about makes it, and everyone that was kind of a dick is killed. And that’s fine, because in a way this isn’t the kind of slasher where it matters who lives or dies. This is a film about preserving a legacy, or perhaps just making one, and it works. We’re told fairly early on that this is a direct sequel to the original Halloween (Myers’ death toll at the start of this version, apparently, is five, which matches the amount of kills he made in the first movie - as far as I’m aware, Myers has actually killed over 100 people in all the films combined, so this is a nice subtle way of telling us what to remember and what to ignore completely). Having said that, references are made throughout to previous films, the best of which is of course a callback to the infamous scene where Myers tumbles out of a window only for his body to completely disappear - this time it’s Laurie Strode who does the tumbling, and she very much intends to do a little vanishing act of her own, Michael, so keep an eye on - oh, no, you looked away, I wonder what’s happening down there!
Focusing on Laurie for a moment, Jamie Lee Curtis does an absolutely excellent job here. Age has given her character wisdom, paranoia, and a whole lot of guns, and the acting carries a huge amount of weight and strength with it. Having said that, there are a couple of moments where all of Laurie’s fear-induced calculations don’t seem to have quite worked out - why bother going to such extreme measures to protect your house, if the front door you’re standing behind is half glass? But that’s the thing about this movie - whatever you plan for, whatever you think Michael Myers is capable of, he’s stronger than you think, he’s far more terrifying than you remember, and right until the end, he’s here to remind you that nothing you can plan for will ever be enough. Of course, we never actually see him die (again) so here’s looking forward to the next sequel…
The cinematography is something to at least wonder over - settings and locations are used well and established with some wonderful wide shots, and some of the best scenes are those where the camera just stays in one place, at a very carefully-selected window for example, and watches. Two scenes are worth a particular mention; the first, in which we follow our two podcast-host characters to a gas station, seems fairly dull until Myers catches up to them, but if you watch the background carefully enough you’ll see he’s there all along, beating people up and murdering quite happily (swapping his prison jumpsuit for those traditional blues in the process). The second seems a little superficial, in the grand scheme of the movie, but it’s well-shot nonetheless - we watch, from that aforementioned window, as a woman hears about all the nasty things Michael might do, and of course we can see him through another window, heading for her front door, and when he finally appears inside the house he’s all the way across the room, somehow, and he calmly wanders on over and stabs the woman quite coolly through the throat, in a scene which I think is most reminiscent of the original films.
However, there are moments when you don’t see Michael at all, just the aftermath, or where we watch him enter a room and are forced to linger in the corridor while he does the dirty work. A couple of times that’s just fine, but considering the nature of the film it would be nice to watch the magic happen a couple more times. And while we’re on the negatives, I might mention that the reveal that the Doctor Loomis-type character who looked, felt, and sounded like a rip-off of Doctor Loomis, and was even referred to as “The New Doctor Loomis” did EXACTLY the same thing that Doctor Loomis did, surprise, and we were somehow expected to not see that coming like it was all one big, obvious, heavy-handed bluff. A couple of the other characters, too, felt like they were purely rammed in there to be irritating - there were a couple of strong scenes with our podcast hosts, but ultimately they were rude, on-the-nose and annoyingly egotistical, and I was happy to see them go, just like Alison’s friend Foggy Nelson.
The score, incidentally, is worth mentioning, from a haunting retune of the original Myers theme to darker and more dramatic variations on it later on that really would have been quite something to hear in surround-sound. I’m never usually one to appreciate the music of a film quite fully enough, so it was nice to have this grab my attention in quite the way it did. Overall, it’s a genuinely good follow-on that takes the best of the films before and makes the best use of the worst of them. Some of the characters might be a little annoying, some of the action could have translated better on-screen than off, but it was an honest and straight-up slasher film and it just wasn’t that bad at all.
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated The Priory of the Orange Tree in Books
May 3, 2019
AMAZING epic fantasy.
Holy COW, you guys. I keep saying “I haven’t read much epic fantasy lately” and “I don’t have time to read such long books/series” but I made an exception for Priory, and I’m SO glad I did. Just WOW.
So the basic premise of this world is that The Nameless One (some gigantic evil dragon) was locked away a thousand years ago, and all his minions with him. The exact details of how and who did it have been mostly lost to history. It’s said that as long as the House of Berethnet rules Inys, he’ll never rise again, and Berethnet queens always have one child, a daughter. The current queen, however, is unwed, and minions of The Nameless One have begun rising, and in fact have conquered a few neighboring nations. We have three main factions of countries; The East, who have dragon riders, but make a distinction between their dragons, who are aquatic and identify with the stars, and the evil minions of The Nameless One, who are full of fire. Then we have Virtudom, which is headed by Inys, and is a coalition of countries who have made a religion of the Knightly Virtues. This is the West, and they make no distinction between the draconic servants of The Nameless One and the water dragons of the East. This has forced a split between the West and the East, because Virtudom won’t have anything to do with countries that have anything to do with dragons, because most of what they see is the third faction – the Draconic countries. These are countries conquered by minions of the Nameless One, and they are full of chaos, fire, evil, and plague.
This is the world the book opens on. Most of our main characters – Queen Sabran, her handmaiden Ead, the dragonrider Tané – are women, but we also have Doctor Niclays Roos, an alchemist, and Lord Arteloth Beck, a friend of the Queen. In this world, women are just as capable as men, and are treated as such. There are female knights, and same-sex relationships are just as ordinary as opposite-sex ones. There is a bit too much moral emphasis placed on monogamy/sex within the bounds of marriage, but I guess that’s “Knightly Virtue” for you. Skin color is only mentioned a couple of times, but I seem to remember Lord Arteloth being described as very dark-skinned, and Ead as golden-brown. Rather nice to see a fantasy NOT all caught up in racial and gender differences. Not to say there isn’t a fair amount of bigotry, but in this book it’s based pretty much solely on nationality and religion. And when the biggest sticking point is “do you like evil dragons or not” that kind of makes sense!
I think the only thing I didn’t like about this book was its size. It’s unwieldy to read, at over 800 pages! I’m not sure why they didn’t break it into a duology. Regardless, if you have the choice, I’d read it on Kindle. It would be far easier to handle. I’m not complaining about the amount of text, mind you. Just the sheer physical size. I can’t imagine the story being told in less time. There’s So. Much. Here.
This book goes from Queen Sabran’s court to the dragonrider academy in the East, to the draconic kingdom of Yscalin, to the Abyss where the Nameless One sleeps. We see glittering courts, hidden islands, sweltering tunnels through volcanic mountains, and deep valleys with secret magic trees. We battle wyrms and cockatrices, swim through endless seas with dragonriders, sail through storms with pirate crews, and navigate the trickiest of diplomatic matters with courtiers. The Priory of the Orange Tree paints an elaborate, incredibly complex world and I am absolutely here for it.
Okay, so one tiny quibble – while I liked the romance, I feel like it started kind of oddly. I didn’t see any reason for the initial spark. From there, it progressed perfectly, but I just didn’t get the beginning.
This book has multiple queer couples! There’s at least one same-sex couple mentioned as attending a party; Doctor Roos spends a lot of time mourning his dead lover, and there’s the lesbian romance between a couple of main characters. And one character has at least strong affection for a man before falling in love with a woman; I think she was in love with both. No trans or ace rep, but plenty of gay, lesbian, and bi!
This is hands-down the best book I’ve read so far this year. It took me three days – it’s a big book – but it is absolutely fantastic.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
So the basic premise of this world is that The Nameless One (some gigantic evil dragon) was locked away a thousand years ago, and all his minions with him. The exact details of how and who did it have been mostly lost to history. It’s said that as long as the House of Berethnet rules Inys, he’ll never rise again, and Berethnet queens always have one child, a daughter. The current queen, however, is unwed, and minions of The Nameless One have begun rising, and in fact have conquered a few neighboring nations. We have three main factions of countries; The East, who have dragon riders, but make a distinction between their dragons, who are aquatic and identify with the stars, and the evil minions of The Nameless One, who are full of fire. Then we have Virtudom, which is headed by Inys, and is a coalition of countries who have made a religion of the Knightly Virtues. This is the West, and they make no distinction between the draconic servants of The Nameless One and the water dragons of the East. This has forced a split between the West and the East, because Virtudom won’t have anything to do with countries that have anything to do with dragons, because most of what they see is the third faction – the Draconic countries. These are countries conquered by minions of the Nameless One, and they are full of chaos, fire, evil, and plague.
This is the world the book opens on. Most of our main characters – Queen Sabran, her handmaiden Ead, the dragonrider Tané – are women, but we also have Doctor Niclays Roos, an alchemist, and Lord Arteloth Beck, a friend of the Queen. In this world, women are just as capable as men, and are treated as such. There are female knights, and same-sex relationships are just as ordinary as opposite-sex ones. There is a bit too much moral emphasis placed on monogamy/sex within the bounds of marriage, but I guess that’s “Knightly Virtue” for you. Skin color is only mentioned a couple of times, but I seem to remember Lord Arteloth being described as very dark-skinned, and Ead as golden-brown. Rather nice to see a fantasy NOT all caught up in racial and gender differences. Not to say there isn’t a fair amount of bigotry, but in this book it’s based pretty much solely on nationality and religion. And when the biggest sticking point is “do you like evil dragons or not” that kind of makes sense!
I think the only thing I didn’t like about this book was its size. It’s unwieldy to read, at over 800 pages! I’m not sure why they didn’t break it into a duology. Regardless, if you have the choice, I’d read it on Kindle. It would be far easier to handle. I’m not complaining about the amount of text, mind you. Just the sheer physical size. I can’t imagine the story being told in less time. There’s So. Much. Here.
This book goes from Queen Sabran’s court to the dragonrider academy in the East, to the draconic kingdom of Yscalin, to the Abyss where the Nameless One sleeps. We see glittering courts, hidden islands, sweltering tunnels through volcanic mountains, and deep valleys with secret magic trees. We battle wyrms and cockatrices, swim through endless seas with dragonriders, sail through storms with pirate crews, and navigate the trickiest of diplomatic matters with courtiers. The Priory of the Orange Tree paints an elaborate, incredibly complex world and I am absolutely here for it.
Okay, so one tiny quibble – while I liked the romance, I feel like it started kind of oddly. I didn’t see any reason for the initial spark. From there, it progressed perfectly, but I just didn’t get the beginning.
This book has multiple queer couples! There’s at least one same-sex couple mentioned as attending a party; Doctor Roos spends a lot of time mourning his dead lover, and there’s the lesbian romance between a couple of main characters. And one character has at least strong affection for a man before falling in love with a woman; I think she was in love with both. No trans or ace rep, but plenty of gay, lesbian, and bi!
This is hands-down the best book I’ve read so far this year. It took me three days – it’s a big book – but it is absolutely fantastic.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com