Search
Search results
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Door (Seventh Dimenson #1) in Books
Nov 12, 2019
Shale Snyder is a troubled teenager. Her father left her mother when she was little, she has alienated almost all of the other children around her and has problems at school. Following yet another incident she is suspended and feels totally cast adrift. At this point she finds a door and hears a voice calling her to enter...
There is quite a clever concept at the heart of this book; that the Holy Land at the time of Jesus is a sort of dimensional nexus where those who are called can travel and gain spiritual help for themselves as well as the other travellers. It is a fine blending of both science fiction and Christian concepts.
There is also much of The Pilgrim's Progress about this, with Shale's journey and the characters she meets. And although she is living near Nazareth and does encounter Jesus (and other people mentioned in the bible) the religious side is not forced but comes naturally from the narrative. There is also a fair smattering of The Wizard of Oz, as the dimensional copy of the Holy Land from 2000 years ago also contains versions of people that Shale knows from home.
The result is a book that shows how even a little faith by someone as lost as Shale can give her the will to turn her life around and make herself and those around her better people. It is a very positive message, though not gained without significant trials.
There are a couple of negatives. Sometimes the narrative thread can be a little confusing, a side-effect of the dimension-hopping aspect of the story. Also some of the characters appear to serve little purpose, but perhaps as this is the first of a series they will come into play in later books. There is also one comment from her friend Daniel (another traveller from modern-day Israel) that did concern me, I hope this is due to his personal experience rather than a theme of future books.
Overall this is an engrossing read, managing to deliver a positive Christian message without labouring the point and providing a good story arc for Shale to keep the reader invested in the story
There is quite a clever concept at the heart of this book; that the Holy Land at the time of Jesus is a sort of dimensional nexus where those who are called can travel and gain spiritual help for themselves as well as the other travellers. It is a fine blending of both science fiction and Christian concepts.
There is also much of The Pilgrim's Progress about this, with Shale's journey and the characters she meets. And although she is living near Nazareth and does encounter Jesus (and other people mentioned in the bible) the religious side is not forced but comes naturally from the narrative. There is also a fair smattering of The Wizard of Oz, as the dimensional copy of the Holy Land from 2000 years ago also contains versions of people that Shale knows from home.
The result is a book that shows how even a little faith by someone as lost as Shale can give her the will to turn her life around and make herself and those around her better people. It is a very positive message, though not gained without significant trials.
There are a couple of negatives. Sometimes the narrative thread can be a little confusing, a side-effect of the dimension-hopping aspect of the story. Also some of the characters appear to serve little purpose, but perhaps as this is the first of a series they will come into play in later books. There is also one comment from her friend Daniel (another traveller from modern-day Israel) that did concern me, I hope this is due to his personal experience rather than a theme of future books.
Overall this is an engrossing read, managing to deliver a positive Christian message without labouring the point and providing a good story arc for Shale to keep the reader invested in the story
Elli H Burton (1288 KP) rated Mermaids Singing in Books
Nov 22, 2019
See below...
Contains spoilers, click to show
Okay so I finished this book a few nights back but it's taken me until now to be able to write my review down.
I really enjoyed it, couldn't put it down and it has good plot lines that make you NEED to know whats next. You really start to root for most characters and loathe the others. Theres plenty of twists that are completely unexpected, which in some cases you can see a twist coming a mile off so thats a plus.
The reason I put that this contains spoilers is because of how I felt at the end, resulting in my rating only being a 7.
The ending is frustrating!!! I know some writers write their books in sequences (Rosie Goodwin: Days of the week, Annie Murray: Birmingham, Narrowboat Girl etc) so when i reached the ending (AT 1AM BECAUSE I COULDN'T PUT IT DOWN) I assumed it had a sequel. IT DOESNT. So many questions, so many plot lines left unfulfilled. For example, Bella was in love with her step son Edward but he is now married and his father dead. The new Lady Mableton wants to adopt Bellas daughter after discovering she cannot have children and wants an heir to the mableton estate, she will stop at nothing to get this child. Kitty tries her hardest to get hold of Bella after she ran off to be with a man she was sold to when she was younger whom she thought was awful (dont even get me started) you never find out if Bella gets contacted!! Her daughter is left with her mother who says she will not let Lady Mableton have her granddaughter under no circumstances. THATS THE END OF THE BLUMMIN BOOK?!! How do they stop this woman from getting the child? Does bella and her beau come back and save the day? Does Edward put a stop to it? Also will Bellas mother (who was known to not be a very nice woman) give the child over at a price, since it would be of character?
DILLY COURT - PLEASE WRITE A SEQUEL AAARGHHH.
I really enjoyed it, couldn't put it down and it has good plot lines that make you NEED to know whats next. You really start to root for most characters and loathe the others. Theres plenty of twists that are completely unexpected, which in some cases you can see a twist coming a mile off so thats a plus.
The reason I put that this contains spoilers is because of how I felt at the end, resulting in my rating only being a 7.
The ending is frustrating!!! I know some writers write their books in sequences (Rosie Goodwin: Days of the week, Annie Murray: Birmingham, Narrowboat Girl etc) so when i reached the ending (AT 1AM BECAUSE I COULDN'T PUT IT DOWN) I assumed it had a sequel. IT DOESNT. So many questions, so many plot lines left unfulfilled. For example, Bella was in love with her step son Edward but he is now married and his father dead. The new Lady Mableton wants to adopt Bellas daughter after discovering she cannot have children and wants an heir to the mableton estate, she will stop at nothing to get this child. Kitty tries her hardest to get hold of Bella after she ran off to be with a man she was sold to when she was younger whom she thought was awful (dont even get me started) you never find out if Bella gets contacted!! Her daughter is left with her mother who says she will not let Lady Mableton have her granddaughter under no circumstances. THATS THE END OF THE BLUMMIN BOOK?!! How do they stop this woman from getting the child? Does bella and her beau come back and save the day? Does Edward put a stop to it? Also will Bellas mother (who was known to not be a very nice woman) give the child over at a price, since it would be of character?
DILLY COURT - PLEASE WRITE A SEQUEL AAARGHHH.
The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole Aged 13 3/4
7.3
Rate It
Book
Re-issued with the charming original artwork from 1982, The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole Aged 13 3/4...
Child Exploitation and Trafficking: Examining Global Enforcement and Supply Chain Challenges and U.S. Responses
Virginia M. Kendall, T. Markus Funk and Richard A. Posner
Book
Each year, more than two million children around the world fall victim to commercial sexual and...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Tomorrowland (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I have to be honest. I was confused when I first heard that a movie was being made called Tomorrowland, and even more so when I heard it that actually is based on the themed area of Disney parks. How could they do it? What would it be about? It was strange. The teaser trailer didn’t give a whole lot away either (as teasers are designed to do). When I saw the full trailer, I had a little more understanding, and it definitely piqued my interest, but I was still totally in the dark. And I wanted to see the movie! I guess Disney really did their job right.
In this film, Tomorrowland is a place of unlimited possibilities. Another dimension, where the inhabitants of that dimension actively seek out intelligent people, inventors, who can do something that can change the world for the better. We begin at the 1964 World Fair in New York where we see a young Frank Walker (Thomas Robinson) entering into the inventor’s competition with a jetpack that doesn’t quite work. However, a mysterious young woman named Athena (Raffey Cassidy) takes an interest in him, offers him a pin and instructs him to follow her. Thus begins Frank’s adventure and we move forward in time to the present day, where we meet Casey Newton (Britt Robertson).
Casey is the teenage daughter of a NASA engineer, who is no slough in the intelligence department herself. We are introduced to her as she is sabotaging equipment at a NASA launch pad that is scheduled to be taken down, which will leave her father without a job. We see Athena again, who has mysteriously not aged, leaving a pin for Casey to discover Tomorrowland on her own. Only, this pin is a simple advertisement. We soon learn that something has gone terribly wrong, and our world is in danger. Athena leads Casey to an aged Frank Walker (George Clooney), who has since been banished from Tomorrowland, but still feeds off of their signal and sits and waits for the end of the world, which he knows when it will happen. But he and Athena see something in Casey that will help save both Tomorrowland, and our world.
Given the conversations, the imagery, and the theme of this movie, it is clearly targeted towards children more than adults. Though, there is plenty for an adult to enjoy about the movie, it is important to understand that the movie is clearly targeted to a younger audience. I say this because I feel, as did my guests who attended the press screening, that the main plot device, the main conflict of the movie, is far too complex a concept for this younger audience to understand. So before you read any further, spoiler alert. You have been forewarned. If you do not want to know, skip the next two paragraphs.
The idea here is that Frank Walker built a machine that could see any point in time. Past, future or present. With this machine, he saw the end of our world. The proposed resolution to stop the destruction of earth is this: turn off the machine. The argument being that the world ends because we see it ending. It becomes a fixation of our mind, and so it will happen. Apparently, the people of Tomorrowland have been streaming this information to Earth for years, but instead of taking steps to prevent it, Earth has embraced it. One of my favorite lines, delivered by one of my favorite actors (Hugh Laurie) indicated that we had simultaneous epidemics of obesity and starvation on Earth. It’s mind boggling. But the Casey comes up with the brilliant idea of turning it off, which will prevent the destruction of Earth because people will no longer be so focused on it. It’s a little more complicated than that, but this is the gist of it. Way too complex for your average child to comprehend.
Another part of the resolution and the end of the movie was brilliant, but I think it was poorly illustrated. As I mentioned earlier, the residents of Tomorrowland were searching for intelligent people, often high IQ inventors, who could make the world a better place. At the end of the film, Casey idea is to bring not only intelligent people, but anyone who will make a difference. Dancers, musicians, doctors, pilots, farmers, etc. I think I even saw a waitress in there. These are people who may not normally be recognized as highly intelligent, but can make huge differences in the world. The idea was to not be so limited in thinking, and understand how everything can contribute to a better world. However, they did not really do a great job of pointing this out, so some movie-goers may miss this point completely and simply see it as a rebuilding of Tomorrowland to its former glory.
Other than those two issues, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It had a great amount of humor, action and endearing moments. It was visually stunning, and took a concept that I never thought could be made into a movie and did just that. The movie was brilliantly cast, even down to the minor characters like Hugo (Keegan-Michael Key) and Ursula (Kathryn Hahn). Of course the score was fantastic, it is a Disney film after all. And despite my issues with the complexity of the plot, I still think that everyone, young and old, will enjoy this film.
Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But it is entertaining, and definitely worth seeing on the big screen. So go check it out. In theaters everywhere, today.
In this film, Tomorrowland is a place of unlimited possibilities. Another dimension, where the inhabitants of that dimension actively seek out intelligent people, inventors, who can do something that can change the world for the better. We begin at the 1964 World Fair in New York where we see a young Frank Walker (Thomas Robinson) entering into the inventor’s competition with a jetpack that doesn’t quite work. However, a mysterious young woman named Athena (Raffey Cassidy) takes an interest in him, offers him a pin and instructs him to follow her. Thus begins Frank’s adventure and we move forward in time to the present day, where we meet Casey Newton (Britt Robertson).
Casey is the teenage daughter of a NASA engineer, who is no slough in the intelligence department herself. We are introduced to her as she is sabotaging equipment at a NASA launch pad that is scheduled to be taken down, which will leave her father without a job. We see Athena again, who has mysteriously not aged, leaving a pin for Casey to discover Tomorrowland on her own. Only, this pin is a simple advertisement. We soon learn that something has gone terribly wrong, and our world is in danger. Athena leads Casey to an aged Frank Walker (George Clooney), who has since been banished from Tomorrowland, but still feeds off of their signal and sits and waits for the end of the world, which he knows when it will happen. But he and Athena see something in Casey that will help save both Tomorrowland, and our world.
Given the conversations, the imagery, and the theme of this movie, it is clearly targeted towards children more than adults. Though, there is plenty for an adult to enjoy about the movie, it is important to understand that the movie is clearly targeted to a younger audience. I say this because I feel, as did my guests who attended the press screening, that the main plot device, the main conflict of the movie, is far too complex a concept for this younger audience to understand. So before you read any further, spoiler alert. You have been forewarned. If you do not want to know, skip the next two paragraphs.
The idea here is that Frank Walker built a machine that could see any point in time. Past, future or present. With this machine, he saw the end of our world. The proposed resolution to stop the destruction of earth is this: turn off the machine. The argument being that the world ends because we see it ending. It becomes a fixation of our mind, and so it will happen. Apparently, the people of Tomorrowland have been streaming this information to Earth for years, but instead of taking steps to prevent it, Earth has embraced it. One of my favorite lines, delivered by one of my favorite actors (Hugh Laurie) indicated that we had simultaneous epidemics of obesity and starvation on Earth. It’s mind boggling. But the Casey comes up with the brilliant idea of turning it off, which will prevent the destruction of Earth because people will no longer be so focused on it. It’s a little more complicated than that, but this is the gist of it. Way too complex for your average child to comprehend.
Another part of the resolution and the end of the movie was brilliant, but I think it was poorly illustrated. As I mentioned earlier, the residents of Tomorrowland were searching for intelligent people, often high IQ inventors, who could make the world a better place. At the end of the film, Casey idea is to bring not only intelligent people, but anyone who will make a difference. Dancers, musicians, doctors, pilots, farmers, etc. I think I even saw a waitress in there. These are people who may not normally be recognized as highly intelligent, but can make huge differences in the world. The idea was to not be so limited in thinking, and understand how everything can contribute to a better world. However, they did not really do a great job of pointing this out, so some movie-goers may miss this point completely and simply see it as a rebuilding of Tomorrowland to its former glory.
Other than those two issues, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It had a great amount of humor, action and endearing moments. It was visually stunning, and took a concept that I never thought could be made into a movie and did just that. The movie was brilliantly cast, even down to the minor characters like Hugo (Keegan-Michael Key) and Ursula (Kathryn Hahn). Of course the score was fantastic, it is a Disney film after all. And despite my issues with the complexity of the plot, I still think that everyone, young and old, will enjoy this film.
Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But it is entertaining, and definitely worth seeing on the big screen. So go check it out. In theaters everywhere, today.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Soul (2020) in Movies
Dec 30, 2020
Soul is Pixar at its most cerebral
In the last few days I've seen Pixar's latest animation - "Soul" - described by various reviewers as a cross between "Inside Out", "Coco", "La La Land" and "Whiplash". I'll add to that some older movies with more obvious parallels with the story: 1946's "A Matter of Life and Death" with David Niven; 1941's "Here Comes Mr Jordan" with Robert Montgomery and its 1978 remake - a personal favourite of mine - "Heaven Can Wait" with Warren Beatty. For these all tell the story of someone plucked from the world a tad too early.
In "Soul", Joe (Jamie Foxx) is a talented jazz pianist always dreaming of getting to be a big time session musician. He is stuck though in a worthwhile but unappreciated job as a high school music teacher. But his luck is - temporarily - about to change when an old successful student (nice touch) recommends him to provide backing to the fearsome jazz star Dorothea Williams (Angela Bassett).
Just as things seem to going his way, an open manhole cover has other ideas, and Joe falls to his 'death'. Feeling his soul has exited the world too early, and just before he gets his big shot, Joe's spirit struggles to return to the world with the help of reluctant soul/recruit "22" (Tina Fey).
Pete Docter seems to have done it again with "Soul". The man behind Pixar's hugely successful "Up" and "Inside Out" has the magic touch with these animated classics. He's had more than his share of Oscar success. (Although having gone straight to streaming on Disney+, does it qualify for the Oscars this year? Or have they relaxed the rules?) Assuming it is eligible, you'd be a brave man to bet against "Soul" winning Best Animated Feature this year.
For there are some sequences of this movie that are breathtakingly effective. The fall of Joe from the "stairway to the great beyond" to the pre-life domain (as shown in the trailer) is a masterpiece of graphic design. (And do I detect in there a tribute to the "stargate" in "2001: A Space Odyssey"?) What makes these sequences distinctive is not the afterlife soul's or the "great before" souls, who resemble blue variants of Casper. It's the 'counsellors' of the realms. They are surreally drawn Picasso-style in 2D and - although easy to draw for preschooler's with a crayon - might be a bit of a stretch for them to relate to.
But will the kids get it? I know that my 6-year old grandson enjoyed watching it. But ultimately, this is principally a Pixar film squarely targeted at adults to enjoy. Indeed, the themes of death and afterlife might be disturbing for younger children (as in "Coco"). They will certainly struggle to understand the land of lost souls, where those obsessed with their work or hobbies (metal detecting! LOL!) are almost beyond reach. And surely the message of 'enjoying the everyday here and now' rather than getting too wrapped up in career or life goals will only be relatable to adults.
"Soul" is brim-full with Pixar quirkiness. As per normal, the movie has a lot of detail that will need multiple watches. And I can confirm that the pause button helps! For example, "22" has been an earth-apprentice for so many millennia that he has had just about every mentor who's ever passed through. His 'den' is wallpapered with "Hello, My Name is ...." badges, and a pause at that point reveals mentors as varied as Gandhi, Aretha Franklin, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking! And in the end titles, the usual list of babies born during production are "Recent You Seminar graduates"!
The movie also features two of the most distinctive voices from UK television. Graham Norton plays Moonwind: a sign-spinning hippy and lost-soul-sea piratical captain (I've honestly not been taking drugs). And Richard Ayoade, a UK TV regular but familiar to US audiences from his role in "The IT Crowd", plays Counsellor Jerry (well, one of them!). Alice Braga, as another Counsellor Jerry and most recently seen as the doctor in "The New Mutants", is another familiar voice
For once, Michael Giacchino doesn't get the scoring gig. Instead, this went to the "Nine Inch Nails" partnership of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. (The soundtrack for "Mank" was their most recent work). The music is perhaps not as immediately accessible as some of the previous Pixar scores. But I think will be a 'grower'.
I have a "but" in my review. I sobbed like a young child during parts of "Up". And similarly, I was a mess as 'Bing Bong' faded away in "Inside Out". And yet here, my tear ducts remained stubbornly unchallenged. Perhaps this is a personal thing, and others were a soggy mess after this movie. But, for me, it simply didn't connect with me at the same raw emotional level that Docter's other work (and indeed other Pixar movies) have done. So, for that reason (only), I'm going to hold off my highest rating.
It's highly recommended since, notwithstanding this, it's a magnificent effort. (At the 11th hour, it made my "Number 7" slot in my Top 10 of 2020). It's also worth noting that it's mildly groundbreaking in being the first Pixar movie with a black leading character.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the full review in One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/30/soul-is-pixar-at-its-most-cerebral/).
In "Soul", Joe (Jamie Foxx) is a talented jazz pianist always dreaming of getting to be a big time session musician. He is stuck though in a worthwhile but unappreciated job as a high school music teacher. But his luck is - temporarily - about to change when an old successful student (nice touch) recommends him to provide backing to the fearsome jazz star Dorothea Williams (Angela Bassett).
Just as things seem to going his way, an open manhole cover has other ideas, and Joe falls to his 'death'. Feeling his soul has exited the world too early, and just before he gets his big shot, Joe's spirit struggles to return to the world with the help of reluctant soul/recruit "22" (Tina Fey).
Pete Docter seems to have done it again with "Soul". The man behind Pixar's hugely successful "Up" and "Inside Out" has the magic touch with these animated classics. He's had more than his share of Oscar success. (Although having gone straight to streaming on Disney+, does it qualify for the Oscars this year? Or have they relaxed the rules?) Assuming it is eligible, you'd be a brave man to bet against "Soul" winning Best Animated Feature this year.
For there are some sequences of this movie that are breathtakingly effective. The fall of Joe from the "stairway to the great beyond" to the pre-life domain (as shown in the trailer) is a masterpiece of graphic design. (And do I detect in there a tribute to the "stargate" in "2001: A Space Odyssey"?) What makes these sequences distinctive is not the afterlife soul's or the "great before" souls, who resemble blue variants of Casper. It's the 'counsellors' of the realms. They are surreally drawn Picasso-style in 2D and - although easy to draw for preschooler's with a crayon - might be a bit of a stretch for them to relate to.
But will the kids get it? I know that my 6-year old grandson enjoyed watching it. But ultimately, this is principally a Pixar film squarely targeted at adults to enjoy. Indeed, the themes of death and afterlife might be disturbing for younger children (as in "Coco"). They will certainly struggle to understand the land of lost souls, where those obsessed with their work or hobbies (metal detecting! LOL!) are almost beyond reach. And surely the message of 'enjoying the everyday here and now' rather than getting too wrapped up in career or life goals will only be relatable to adults.
"Soul" is brim-full with Pixar quirkiness. As per normal, the movie has a lot of detail that will need multiple watches. And I can confirm that the pause button helps! For example, "22" has been an earth-apprentice for so many millennia that he has had just about every mentor who's ever passed through. His 'den' is wallpapered with "Hello, My Name is ...." badges, and a pause at that point reveals mentors as varied as Gandhi, Aretha Franklin, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking! And in the end titles, the usual list of babies born during production are "Recent You Seminar graduates"!
The movie also features two of the most distinctive voices from UK television. Graham Norton plays Moonwind: a sign-spinning hippy and lost-soul-sea piratical captain (I've honestly not been taking drugs). And Richard Ayoade, a UK TV regular but familiar to US audiences from his role in "The IT Crowd", plays Counsellor Jerry (well, one of them!). Alice Braga, as another Counsellor Jerry and most recently seen as the doctor in "The New Mutants", is another familiar voice
For once, Michael Giacchino doesn't get the scoring gig. Instead, this went to the "Nine Inch Nails" partnership of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. (The soundtrack for "Mank" was their most recent work). The music is perhaps not as immediately accessible as some of the previous Pixar scores. But I think will be a 'grower'.
I have a "but" in my review. I sobbed like a young child during parts of "Up". And similarly, I was a mess as 'Bing Bong' faded away in "Inside Out". And yet here, my tear ducts remained stubbornly unchallenged. Perhaps this is a personal thing, and others were a soggy mess after this movie. But, for me, it simply didn't connect with me at the same raw emotional level that Docter's other work (and indeed other Pixar movies) have done. So, for that reason (only), I'm going to hold off my highest rating.
It's highly recommended since, notwithstanding this, it's a magnificent effort. (At the 11th hour, it made my "Number 7" slot in my Top 10 of 2020). It's also worth noting that it's mildly groundbreaking in being the first Pixar movie with a black leading character.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the full review in One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/30/soul-is-pixar-at-its-most-cerebral/).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 7, 2019
Hader steals the film
The "secret sauce" of the first chapter of IT (based on the horror novel by Stephen King) was NOT the gore or scares that were thrown at the audience, it was the characters and the performances that made that first film work. The young members of the "Loser's Club" - and especially the young actors populating these characters - created people that you wanted to root and cheer for throughout their ordeal with Pennywise the Clown and the bullies of Derry.
So...it should have been a "no-brainer" for Director Andy Muschietti and the filmmakers to repeat that pattern - it worked very, very well. But, somewhere along the way they forgot what made the first film good and Muschietti and new screenwriter Gary Dauberman decided to focus on the horror, gore and frights and let their talented group of adult actors inhabit the characters with little (maybe no) help from the screenplay.
And...the result is a "fine" film that wraps up the first film just "fine", but ultimately falls short of that first film and definitely falls short of what "could have been".
IT: CHAPTER TWO picks up 27 years later when Pennywise the Dancing Clown comes back (per his cycle) to terrorize the children of Derry once again. The Loser's Club from the first film band back together (per their pact at the end of the first film) to battle - and finally destroy - this dark threat.
The filmmakers pull a strong group of actors together to play the adult versions of the Loser's Club - headlined by Jessica Chastain (ZERO DARK THIRTY) as the adult Beverly Marsh and James McAvoy (Professor X in the recent run of X-MEN films) as the adult Bill Denborough. I find McAvoy to be (for the most part) a solid, if unspectacular, actor and he is true to from here. Solid, but unspectacular in a role that was written that way. Chastain, perhaps, is the biggest disappointment for me in this film as the young Beverly Marsh (as portrayed by Sophia Lillis) was the highlight of the first film but here this character is...bland and somewhat boring. I don't fault Chastain (an actress that I usually enjoy very, very much), I blame the screenplay which saddles these two characters with an underwritten "love triangle" with the adult Ben Hascombe (Jay Ryan - somewhat of a newcomer, who has smoldering good looks, but not much else going for him). It was rumored that Chris Pratt was circling this character (I would imagine he walked away when he saw the screenplay). That's too bad, for he might have brought some life to all 3 of these characters.
Faring better is the usually reliable Isiah Mustafa (TV's SHADOWHUNTERS) as the adult Mike Hanlon, the only one of the Loser's Club who stayed in Derry to keep a vigilant watch against Pennywise' return. He has a haunted air about him - certainly in keeping with the the past that only he remembers. And Andy Bean (SWAMP THING) has a nice couple of moments as the adult Stanley Uris.
The only truly interesting dynamic of the returning Loser's Club is the characters and love/hate relationship between the older Eddie Kaspbrak, the hypochondriac (played by James Ransome, TV's THE WIRE) and smart-mouth Richie Tolzier (inhabited by SNL vet Bill Hader). While Ransome's Eddie is quite a bit more interesting than he was as a youth (and that's no slight on Jack Dylan Grazer who played the younger Eddie, I just found Ransome's portrayal more nuanced and somewhat more interesting). But it is Hader who steals this film. His Richie is constantly using humor to cover his emotions building on the interesting characterization that Finn Wolfhard brought to the younger version and giving us more. Hader is a master comedian, so handles the comedy parts as deftly as you would think he would, but it is when the other emotions - fear, rage, love - come barreling out of him that Hader elevates this character (and the movie) to a higher level. I would be thrilled if Hader was nominated for an Oscar for this role - he is that good.
Also coming back are all of the "kids" from the first film to flesh out some scenes - and set up some other scenes/moments by the adults - they are a welcome addition and shine a spotlight at how weak - and underwritten - most of the adult characters are in this film.
Bill Skarsgard is seen quite a bit more as Pennywise - and that makes him less menacing and threatening (but still scary) and there are 2 fun cameos along the way by 2 prominent individuals, so that was fun.
There is a running gag throughout the film about author Bill Denborough (the surrogate for Stephen King) not being able to write a decent ending - a critique that King receives constantly - and they changed the ending of this film from the book. I am a big fan of the book, but would agree that the ending of the book was not that good, so was open to this trying a different way to end things...and...this new ending lands about as well as the original ending (oh well...).
But that's just a quibble, for by that time you've ridden with these characters for over 5 hours and while the first chapter is stronger than the first, the journey is good (enough) for an enjoyable (enough) time at the Cineplex.
Come for the Loser's Club and the scares - stay for Hader's Oscar worthy performance.
Letter Grade: B+
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So...it should have been a "no-brainer" for Director Andy Muschietti and the filmmakers to repeat that pattern - it worked very, very well. But, somewhere along the way they forgot what made the first film good and Muschietti and new screenwriter Gary Dauberman decided to focus on the horror, gore and frights and let their talented group of adult actors inhabit the characters with little (maybe no) help from the screenplay.
And...the result is a "fine" film that wraps up the first film just "fine", but ultimately falls short of that first film and definitely falls short of what "could have been".
IT: CHAPTER TWO picks up 27 years later when Pennywise the Dancing Clown comes back (per his cycle) to terrorize the children of Derry once again. The Loser's Club from the first film band back together (per their pact at the end of the first film) to battle - and finally destroy - this dark threat.
The filmmakers pull a strong group of actors together to play the adult versions of the Loser's Club - headlined by Jessica Chastain (ZERO DARK THIRTY) as the adult Beverly Marsh and James McAvoy (Professor X in the recent run of X-MEN films) as the adult Bill Denborough. I find McAvoy to be (for the most part) a solid, if unspectacular, actor and he is true to from here. Solid, but unspectacular in a role that was written that way. Chastain, perhaps, is the biggest disappointment for me in this film as the young Beverly Marsh (as portrayed by Sophia Lillis) was the highlight of the first film but here this character is...bland and somewhat boring. I don't fault Chastain (an actress that I usually enjoy very, very much), I blame the screenplay which saddles these two characters with an underwritten "love triangle" with the adult Ben Hascombe (Jay Ryan - somewhat of a newcomer, who has smoldering good looks, but not much else going for him). It was rumored that Chris Pratt was circling this character (I would imagine he walked away when he saw the screenplay). That's too bad, for he might have brought some life to all 3 of these characters.
Faring better is the usually reliable Isiah Mustafa (TV's SHADOWHUNTERS) as the adult Mike Hanlon, the only one of the Loser's Club who stayed in Derry to keep a vigilant watch against Pennywise' return. He has a haunted air about him - certainly in keeping with the the past that only he remembers. And Andy Bean (SWAMP THING) has a nice couple of moments as the adult Stanley Uris.
The only truly interesting dynamic of the returning Loser's Club is the characters and love/hate relationship between the older Eddie Kaspbrak, the hypochondriac (played by James Ransome, TV's THE WIRE) and smart-mouth Richie Tolzier (inhabited by SNL vet Bill Hader). While Ransome's Eddie is quite a bit more interesting than he was as a youth (and that's no slight on Jack Dylan Grazer who played the younger Eddie, I just found Ransome's portrayal more nuanced and somewhat more interesting). But it is Hader who steals this film. His Richie is constantly using humor to cover his emotions building on the interesting characterization that Finn Wolfhard brought to the younger version and giving us more. Hader is a master comedian, so handles the comedy parts as deftly as you would think he would, but it is when the other emotions - fear, rage, love - come barreling out of him that Hader elevates this character (and the movie) to a higher level. I would be thrilled if Hader was nominated for an Oscar for this role - he is that good.
Also coming back are all of the "kids" from the first film to flesh out some scenes - and set up some other scenes/moments by the adults - they are a welcome addition and shine a spotlight at how weak - and underwritten - most of the adult characters are in this film.
Bill Skarsgard is seen quite a bit more as Pennywise - and that makes him less menacing and threatening (but still scary) and there are 2 fun cameos along the way by 2 prominent individuals, so that was fun.
There is a running gag throughout the film about author Bill Denborough (the surrogate for Stephen King) not being able to write a decent ending - a critique that King receives constantly - and they changed the ending of this film from the book. I am a big fan of the book, but would agree that the ending of the book was not that good, so was open to this trying a different way to end things...and...this new ending lands about as well as the original ending (oh well...).
But that's just a quibble, for by that time you've ridden with these characters for over 5 hours and while the first chapter is stronger than the first, the journey is good (enough) for an enjoyable (enough) time at the Cineplex.
Come for the Loser's Club and the scares - stay for Hader's Oscar worthy performance.
Letter Grade: B+
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Cleopatra's Moon in Books
Feb 15, 2019
<i>Cleopatra's Moon</i> tells the childhood story of Cleopatra Selene, daughter of Marc Antony (Marcus Antonius) and the most famous Cleopatra (VII) in history. The story covers her life from ages six to sixteen, from her parents' fall from power to the capture of Cleopatra Selene and her brothers to their lives living in Rome.
Catered to the young adult market, <i>Cleopatra's Moon</i> has a lot to offer older readers as well. While there may not be as much meat on the bones as many adult historical fiction novels have, the history is plentiful and smoothly incorporated into the story. Aside from a few, minor instances, not much Cleopatra Selene said or did stood out as odd and the history seemed sound (though I am far from an expert). The author's writing style is easy to read, has a nice flow, and the descriptions are well-done; I could easily picture the surroundings, so the scenes came alive for me. She doesn't shy away from suggestive scenes, making the story feel more realistic, though nothing is described explicitly either. The author is up front about what is and is not fact in the six-page section at the end of book entitled "The Facts Within the Fiction," which gives the reader more information about the people mentioned within the book. If anyone goes into this book expecting more love story than historical fiction, they will be sadly disappointed. Any love story takes a back seat to Cleopatra Selene's struggle with both herself and her circumstances in life.
If I had one quibble with the book, it was the children's and Cleopatra Selene's voices. The children sounded a bit too mature at times, including Cleopatra Selene when young. Although in her case, it was more her voice didn't change much throughout the ten years the book covered and it was too familiar. I've come across other young adult protagonists that sounded very similar to her, both historical and contemporary, so I was hoping hers would be a bit more distinctive from the rest. Still, it's a very small thing and I did like Cleo Selene; she wasn't passive, but she wasn't aggressive either, she fell somewhere in between the two, which worked well for the book.
After all has been said, <i>Cleopatra's Moon</i> does what any (good) historical fiction novel should aspire to, it made me want to know more about the time, people, and places.
Catered to the young adult market, <i>Cleopatra's Moon</i> has a lot to offer older readers as well. While there may not be as much meat on the bones as many adult historical fiction novels have, the history is plentiful and smoothly incorporated into the story. Aside from a few, minor instances, not much Cleopatra Selene said or did stood out as odd and the history seemed sound (though I am far from an expert). The author's writing style is easy to read, has a nice flow, and the descriptions are well-done; I could easily picture the surroundings, so the scenes came alive for me. She doesn't shy away from suggestive scenes, making the story feel more realistic, though nothing is described explicitly either. The author is up front about what is and is not fact in the six-page section at the end of book entitled "The Facts Within the Fiction," which gives the reader more information about the people mentioned within the book. If anyone goes into this book expecting more love story than historical fiction, they will be sadly disappointed. Any love story takes a back seat to Cleopatra Selene's struggle with both herself and her circumstances in life.
If I had one quibble with the book, it was the children's and Cleopatra Selene's voices. The children sounded a bit too mature at times, including Cleopatra Selene when young. Although in her case, it was more her voice didn't change much throughout the ten years the book covered and it was too familiar. I've come across other young adult protagonists that sounded very similar to her, both historical and contemporary, so I was hoping hers would be a bit more distinctive from the rest. Still, it's a very small thing and I did like Cleo Selene; she wasn't passive, but she wasn't aggressive either, she fell somewhere in between the two, which worked well for the book.
After all has been said, <i>Cleopatra's Moon</i> does what any (good) historical fiction novel should aspire to, it made me want to know more about the time, people, and places.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Bird Box (2018) in Movies
Mar 18, 2019
Not a Huge Fan
In a post-apocalyptic world where medusa-like creatures can kill you if you look at them, a woman is trying to get her two kids to one of the only safe zones left in the world.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
A strong choice of characters creates an interesting dynamic, starting with main character Malorie (Sandra Bullock). Malorie is so beaten down by the new life she has entered that she can’t even stand to name her children. The things that she has done and seen have hardened, but underneath all that is a person lost and ready to crack. It’s not hard to empathize with her throughout the story. Outside of Malorie, it’s interesting watching the characters inside the home (where most of the story takes place) interact. Some are scared, others rational, others resigned to their fate. You put them together in different scenarios and it was interesting watching the outcomes play out.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 8
Like a lot of films with a similar gimmick, the movie succeeds by giving you a sense of terror throughout. Much like the characters themselves, you’re in a constant state of worry that something terrible is lingering around the corner. You spend pretty much the entire movie wondering just what that something is. If it’s not creatures, it’s humans on the attack. While some of it is for the sake of shock value, there are some delightfully intense moments that keep things interesting.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 1
Bird Box falls short because there is a lot of much ado about nothing. I don’t want to spoil things for those of you that still haven’t seen it, but it is absolutely missing that “punch” that makes a movie worth rewatching. I left post-credits thinking, “Why was this done this way?” In the end, there was no real message to be had or no point of excitement that makes a typical classic stand the test of time.
Pace: 7
Plot: 5
Resolution: 6
Overall: 69
Bird Box has a great concept, but it doesn’t pack the same punch like films like A Quiet Place managed to do. Because I wasn’t as emotionally connected to the characters as I wanted to be and there was a little bit too much shock value with no real value, I can’t recommend the movie. I wanted it to be better and, with a few tweaks, it definitely could’ve been. Alas.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
A strong choice of characters creates an interesting dynamic, starting with main character Malorie (Sandra Bullock). Malorie is so beaten down by the new life she has entered that she can’t even stand to name her children. The things that she has done and seen have hardened, but underneath all that is a person lost and ready to crack. It’s not hard to empathize with her throughout the story. Outside of Malorie, it’s interesting watching the characters inside the home (where most of the story takes place) interact. Some are scared, others rational, others resigned to their fate. You put them together in different scenarios and it was interesting watching the outcomes play out.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 8
Like a lot of films with a similar gimmick, the movie succeeds by giving you a sense of terror throughout. Much like the characters themselves, you’re in a constant state of worry that something terrible is lingering around the corner. You spend pretty much the entire movie wondering just what that something is. If it’s not creatures, it’s humans on the attack. While some of it is for the sake of shock value, there are some delightfully intense moments that keep things interesting.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 1
Bird Box falls short because there is a lot of much ado about nothing. I don’t want to spoil things for those of you that still haven’t seen it, but it is absolutely missing that “punch” that makes a movie worth rewatching. I left post-credits thinking, “Why was this done this way?” In the end, there was no real message to be had or no point of excitement that makes a typical classic stand the test of time.
Pace: 7
Plot: 5
Resolution: 6
Overall: 69
Bird Box has a great concept, but it doesn’t pack the same punch like films like A Quiet Place managed to do. Because I wasn’t as emotionally connected to the characters as I wanted to be and there was a little bit too much shock value with no real value, I can’t recommend the movie. I wanted it to be better and, with a few tweaks, it definitely could’ve been. Alas.
Fireman Sam - Junior Cadet
Games and Education
App
OFFICIAL LICENSED FIREMAN SAM APP New FREE Update: Includes an 20 Extra Stickers and 4 Exciting New...