Search
Search results
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated First Kill (The Slayer Chronicles, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Original Review posted on <a title="First Kill by Heather Brewer" href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2013/06/review-first-kill-by-heather-brewer.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Note: Formatting has been lost due to copy and paste.
Joss has always had this perfect life good parents, a super close cousin that can pass as a best friend, and an ever so adorable little sister until she was murdered. Then his life goes downhill from there and he discovers a group of vampire slayers that some of his family members are a part of for generations that can help avenge his sister's death.
I thought The Slayer Chronicles would be a spin-off from The Chroniclesof Vladimir Tod (you know... after that kind of cliff-hanger in Twelfth Grade Bites.) But it's not and now that I think about it... Captain Obvious pretty much slaps me in the face. Of course it wouldn't be a spin-off. Go figure. But I probably already embarrassed myself saying that in my review for Twelfth Grade Bites from earlier this year (oopsies). And even if it's not... at least we get to hear the other side of the story and how Joss friend, enemy, frenemy? - became a Slayer and crossed paths with our best vampire friend from Bathory, Vladimir Tod. ^_^
Joss's sister is absolutely adorable (then again, aren't all little kids are? Even if most hate me for no particular reason... O_o) so it was really depressing that she was murdered by a vampire. (Thank gods it's not Vlad!) In front of Joss. It's a lot for a 10 year old to handle a loved one getting murdered by a creature of the night that is usually find in fairy tales or books. Abraham hasn't changed that much from Vlad's side still strict and harsh, and definitely not getting any nicer. Maybe a little, but in the broad side, not really. But it's hard to imagine Abraham being creamed and practically screaming "bloody vampire" and it somehow gets worse than that.
I would never have expected who the traitor would actually be. For some reason, I thought it would be anyone but him (his name is anonymous in this review, by the way. ;)). He was like an alternative father that Joss didn't seem to have after his sister's death who was sympathetic/empathetic, kind, caring pretty much everything that you can imagine from a perfect father (or maybe Father of the Year) and just seemed too nice to be backstabbing his fellow Slayers in the end.
It's also really surprising, however, to find Joss making promises but later breaks them after he meets Vlad (I probably would've done the same if I were Joss...). But of all places, what in the world is someone else* doing interacting with Joss? (Curiosity hasn't killed the cat has it?) And -! Consider that break off as probably saying too much if I say it. Wayyy too much. O_o
*Words have been changed to avoid possible spoilers. You're welcome. :)
Note: Formatting has been lost due to copy and paste.
Joss has always had this perfect life good parents, a super close cousin that can pass as a best friend, and an ever so adorable little sister until she was murdered. Then his life goes downhill from there and he discovers a group of vampire slayers that some of his family members are a part of for generations that can help avenge his sister's death.
I thought The Slayer Chronicles would be a spin-off from The Chroniclesof Vladimir Tod (you know... after that kind of cliff-hanger in Twelfth Grade Bites.) But it's not and now that I think about it... Captain Obvious pretty much slaps me in the face. Of course it wouldn't be a spin-off. Go figure. But I probably already embarrassed myself saying that in my review for Twelfth Grade Bites from earlier this year (oopsies). And even if it's not... at least we get to hear the other side of the story and how Joss friend, enemy, frenemy? - became a Slayer and crossed paths with our best vampire friend from Bathory, Vladimir Tod. ^_^
Joss's sister is absolutely adorable (then again, aren't all little kids are? Even if most hate me for no particular reason... O_o) so it was really depressing that she was murdered by a vampire. (Thank gods it's not Vlad!) In front of Joss. It's a lot for a 10 year old to handle a loved one getting murdered by a creature of the night that is usually find in fairy tales or books. Abraham hasn't changed that much from Vlad's side still strict and harsh, and definitely not getting any nicer. Maybe a little, but in the broad side, not really. But it's hard to imagine Abraham being creamed and practically screaming "bloody vampire" and it somehow gets worse than that.
I would never have expected who the traitor would actually be. For some reason, I thought it would be anyone but him (his name is anonymous in this review, by the way. ;)). He was like an alternative father that Joss didn't seem to have after his sister's death who was sympathetic/empathetic, kind, caring pretty much everything that you can imagine from a perfect father (or maybe Father of the Year) and just seemed too nice to be backstabbing his fellow Slayers in the end.
It's also really surprising, however, to find Joss making promises but later breaks them after he meets Vlad (I probably would've done the same if I were Joss...). But of all places, what in the world is someone else* doing interacting with Joss? (Curiosity hasn't killed the cat has it?) And -! Consider that break off as probably saying too much if I say it. Wayyy too much. O_o
*Words have been changed to avoid possible spoilers. You're welcome. :)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Lost Ruins of Arnak in Tabletop Games
Feb 7, 2021
If you are reading this review, chances are you have heard something about the board game “Lost Ruins of Arnak.” If not, continue forward, as there’s a lot to discover in this jungle adventure experience. “Lost Ruins of Arnak” for those that have not already been exposed to the exciting hype leading up to its release date, is a board game that delves deep into the jungle, not unlike a 1980’s Indiana Jones film. It has treasure, hidden idols, lost artifacts, guardians of the jungle, and exploration in the form of a very large game board. The box boasts of multiple gaming mechanisms that all work in tandem for one epic journey. From deckbuilding, exploration, worker placement, to resource management this game throws the entire kitchen at the players. Whether that is a positive or negative is up to each player. I share my thoughts at the very bottom if you want to skip past the gameplay portion of the review.
Players, or “archaeologists” as the game coins them, will have only 5 rounds to explore as much of the board as possible, which includes a hidden temple as well as the jungle proper. At the end of the 5 rounds, players will add up all victory points they have obtained from the temple, any treasure they have left, points on any cards collected, and guardians they have overcome.
“Lost Ruins of Arnak” takes place on, well… Arnak. It’s a fictional jungle that is teeming with wild animals and guardians which keep watch over various treasures all over the expansive island, from here forward referred to as the giant game board. These guardians appear when you explore a new jungle tile for the first time. They attack only if you stay in the location longer than a turn OR if you return to the location on a subsequent turn. If you eliminate a guardian, they provide a couple victory points towards your overall total at the end of the game, and a slight bonus when collecting artifacts from other locations later. Being attacked by a guardian isn’t the end of the world, but can have detrimental effects on your personal deck of cards if you fail to overcome a guardian too many times.
While in the jungle, you may place a single meeple, or “archaeologist” on your turn to discover a new area, or visit a previously discovered one. These new areas contain a guardian and some sort of gold amount or trinket (idols, artifacts, or jewels). These items can be used to push your token further through the hidden temple (see below) OR to purchase cards to improve your play deck going forward. While navigating this mysterious jungle can seem exciting at first glance, you have to be careful not to let your gold fever take over, as it may leave you with minimal points by not using some worker placement to explore the mysterious temple ruins further.
While the jungle takes up a majority of the board, there is a temple which players navigate through simultaneously on the right hand side of the giant board. While it isn’t as visually appealing as the jungle portion of the board, it serves by far the highest purpose by scoring victory points. As your token travels through this temple, more and more treasure (victory points) await. It is not suggested in the rulebook, but should be noted that failing to spend ample treasure to work your way through the temple is almost a sure-fire means of not having a chance to win the game. The mechanic of exploring the temple is unique, but can be costly in terms of managing your resources properly. In my opinion, this takes away from the luster of traversing through a hidden temple and finding as much fat loots as possible. Rather, it feels like another board game I own, where you are furiously chucking dice just trying to get through with no time to look around.
The final mechanic of the game, which, as I read reviews myself prior to purchase, thought would be more prominent, is the deck building mechanic. You are provided a few cards at the start, which is similar to most any deckbuilding game. These basic cards are your first few resources to use for traveling around the board OR for their monetary value in either gold or scrolls. Using the cards for travel allow you to explore different levels of the jungle on the game board. The lower areas of the board require less travel points, while the more lucrative spaces higher up in the jungle require more. To get more travel points, you will need better cards from the decks provided. By using your gold, also an aspect of each card, you may purchase stronger cards from the supply. So, there is a balance you must find between using your cards for travel or for purchases each turn. This can be very limiting with only having the 5 rounds in which to play.
My final thoughts: I am a total sucker for pretty much anything that says the words “deck building” on them, and this game was no exception. I went into this game thinking there was going to be this new way of using a deck building mechanic to also explore a really well crafted game board. I could not have been more wrong. The deck building aspect got so lost in the other mechanics, that I felt like I rarely had the opportunity to actually build my deck. After 3-4 plays of this game, with varying player counts from 2-4, I always ended up with a deck no bigger than about 15-20 cards. When I think deck build, I think of those powerhouses like Marvel Legendary, Ascension, or Star Realms where you are really transforming your deck into a large deck by the end. On top of that, most highly regarded deck builders require you to strategize somewhat in which cards that you buy to compliment your current deck further. Arnak completely leaves both of these elements out. Most times I found myself only able to purchase 1 card in the supply due to lack of resources that I did not have any choice in how that card would compliment my deck or not. It was merely just collecting a card to try and give my deck any sort of a distinct advantage going forward. Now, don’t get me wrong, like the game board, the artwork on the cards is stunning. By far this saves the poor mechanism of the actual cards themselves.
To me, the amount of mechanisms in the game is what gets in its own way. Its that classic, everything but the kitchen sink expression. The exploration gets in the way of the deck-building, which gets in the way of the worker placement, which gets in the way of the resource management. When I found myself wanting to build my deck, it was more crucial that I move up the temple one step. When I wanted to move up the temple, I was missing a certain idol, so I had to resort to wasting cards for gold to purchase a card for my deck that I really didn’t want. So while I think the premise is really thrilling for what this game could have been, in my opinion it just fell short. I left me wanting to explore the upper part of the jungle I never got to. I left me wanting to look at more of the artwork on the cards I never was able to purchase. In the end, I made it to the top of the temple. I couldn’t wait to enjoy my heaping pile of fat loots that awaited my studded archaeologist. However, once I turned over the treasure token, I only acquired another measly 12 victory points. This feeling left me wanting more from this game that was so hyped for its gameplay. I no longer felt like Indiana Jones, and more like I was in a bad B movie hoping for a better acting career.
Players, or “archaeologists” as the game coins them, will have only 5 rounds to explore as much of the board as possible, which includes a hidden temple as well as the jungle proper. At the end of the 5 rounds, players will add up all victory points they have obtained from the temple, any treasure they have left, points on any cards collected, and guardians they have overcome.
“Lost Ruins of Arnak” takes place on, well… Arnak. It’s a fictional jungle that is teeming with wild animals and guardians which keep watch over various treasures all over the expansive island, from here forward referred to as the giant game board. These guardians appear when you explore a new jungle tile for the first time. They attack only if you stay in the location longer than a turn OR if you return to the location on a subsequent turn. If you eliminate a guardian, they provide a couple victory points towards your overall total at the end of the game, and a slight bonus when collecting artifacts from other locations later. Being attacked by a guardian isn’t the end of the world, but can have detrimental effects on your personal deck of cards if you fail to overcome a guardian too many times.
While in the jungle, you may place a single meeple, or “archaeologist” on your turn to discover a new area, or visit a previously discovered one. These new areas contain a guardian and some sort of gold amount or trinket (idols, artifacts, or jewels). These items can be used to push your token further through the hidden temple (see below) OR to purchase cards to improve your play deck going forward. While navigating this mysterious jungle can seem exciting at first glance, you have to be careful not to let your gold fever take over, as it may leave you with minimal points by not using some worker placement to explore the mysterious temple ruins further.
While the jungle takes up a majority of the board, there is a temple which players navigate through simultaneously on the right hand side of the giant board. While it isn’t as visually appealing as the jungle portion of the board, it serves by far the highest purpose by scoring victory points. As your token travels through this temple, more and more treasure (victory points) await. It is not suggested in the rulebook, but should be noted that failing to spend ample treasure to work your way through the temple is almost a sure-fire means of not having a chance to win the game. The mechanic of exploring the temple is unique, but can be costly in terms of managing your resources properly. In my opinion, this takes away from the luster of traversing through a hidden temple and finding as much fat loots as possible. Rather, it feels like another board game I own, where you are furiously chucking dice just trying to get through with no time to look around.
The final mechanic of the game, which, as I read reviews myself prior to purchase, thought would be more prominent, is the deck building mechanic. You are provided a few cards at the start, which is similar to most any deckbuilding game. These basic cards are your first few resources to use for traveling around the board OR for their monetary value in either gold or scrolls. Using the cards for travel allow you to explore different levels of the jungle on the game board. The lower areas of the board require less travel points, while the more lucrative spaces higher up in the jungle require more. To get more travel points, you will need better cards from the decks provided. By using your gold, also an aspect of each card, you may purchase stronger cards from the supply. So, there is a balance you must find between using your cards for travel or for purchases each turn. This can be very limiting with only having the 5 rounds in which to play.
My final thoughts: I am a total sucker for pretty much anything that says the words “deck building” on them, and this game was no exception. I went into this game thinking there was going to be this new way of using a deck building mechanic to also explore a really well crafted game board. I could not have been more wrong. The deck building aspect got so lost in the other mechanics, that I felt like I rarely had the opportunity to actually build my deck. After 3-4 plays of this game, with varying player counts from 2-4, I always ended up with a deck no bigger than about 15-20 cards. When I think deck build, I think of those powerhouses like Marvel Legendary, Ascension, or Star Realms where you are really transforming your deck into a large deck by the end. On top of that, most highly regarded deck builders require you to strategize somewhat in which cards that you buy to compliment your current deck further. Arnak completely leaves both of these elements out. Most times I found myself only able to purchase 1 card in the supply due to lack of resources that I did not have any choice in how that card would compliment my deck or not. It was merely just collecting a card to try and give my deck any sort of a distinct advantage going forward. Now, don’t get me wrong, like the game board, the artwork on the cards is stunning. By far this saves the poor mechanism of the actual cards themselves.
To me, the amount of mechanisms in the game is what gets in its own way. Its that classic, everything but the kitchen sink expression. The exploration gets in the way of the deck-building, which gets in the way of the worker placement, which gets in the way of the resource management. When I found myself wanting to build my deck, it was more crucial that I move up the temple one step. When I wanted to move up the temple, I was missing a certain idol, so I had to resort to wasting cards for gold to purchase a card for my deck that I really didn’t want. So while I think the premise is really thrilling for what this game could have been, in my opinion it just fell short. I left me wanting to explore the upper part of the jungle I never got to. I left me wanting to look at more of the artwork on the cards I never was able to purchase. In the end, I made it to the top of the temple. I couldn’t wait to enjoy my heaping pile of fat loots that awaited my studded archaeologist. However, once I turned over the treasure token, I only acquired another measly 12 victory points. This feeling left me wanting more from this game that was so hyped for its gameplay. I no longer felt like Indiana Jones, and more like I was in a bad B movie hoping for a better acting career.
Goldenarrow74 (10 KP) rated My Scientology Movie (2015) in Movies
Jun 3, 2018
Frustrating but still unashamedly Louis
Now this is a good one:
• Scientology fascinates/horrifies me in equal measure
• I love Louis Theroux’s work over the years, from pornstars to neo-nazis
So, if you add together one of the most unassuming yet tenacious investigative journalists and one of the most misunderstood religions and there’s bound to be sparks flying, right?
Well almost. I recall some comments about a Louis documentary where he kinda lost his usual cool and got wound up/ deterred by his would-be interviewees. Perhaps this could be the one.
Even if this is not the film in question, it’s certainly a little more subdued than his usual material. Because the church told him to sod off.
I guess his view that he wants to offer an unbiased and impartial view on their religion is not one shared by David Whatshisface. This is a shame as I’d loved to have seen LT probe the chief scientist with his softly, softly good cop/nicer cop style of interviewing.
It could well have been a titanic battle of intellect and wills. Almost on a parallel with Westley & Vizzini in the Princess Bride. But now we’ll never know.
Seriously, it’s sort of hobbled the film from the start if we don’t get to speak to anyone from the church, as all we are going to here from therefore are people who don’t know about what really happens or do know but have now come out from the protective umbrella of Scientology and are (quite reasonably) regarded as “embittered”.
Even Louis is being asked a lot to conjure something truly worthwhile with his only evidence coming from potentially biased sources.
It’s only at the hour mark that we even hear of the charitable causes the church supports, from drug abuse to disaster relief. And not long before that we even see a very limited glimpse of the drills, or ‘tech’ that forms part of the Scientologist’s belief system.
What makes me laugh, disappointedly, is that Louis is complaining that the lawyers are accusing him of dwelling on those embittered “squirrels”.... when that’s exactly what he has been doing, out of necessity as he has no other material.
I’m happy to give the benefit of the doubt to LT whenever possible but I think he dropped a bollock there.
I also wonder if the reason we are only given such a brief example of the dianetics system is that the Church’s powerful tentacles reach all the way to the Beeb? I’ve always though that Jeremy Paxman had a steely determination that came from more than just political vigour...
Or maybe it’s because Louis didn’t think it was important enough? Hardly. Maybe because Marty Rathbun got upset and stopped doing it (incidentally he is a crap teacher! Getting visibly disappointed when the student doesn’t immediately see/feel/get what you intend is not the way to help relax and convince someone).
It was slightly disappointing to not see Isaac Hayes who left South Park in a strop because they were planning an episode on Scientology - when he had no problem participating in storylines concerning paedophilia, terrorism, Satan & Saddam Hussein having sex etc..
I jest, of course. And that’s obviously a mistake as it’s abundantly clear that Scientologists have no sense of humour whatsoever. I’m going to be constantly scanning my rear view mirror for a large, clumsily driven Toyota 4x4 now. That won’t stand out at all in the small towns of rural Buckinghamshire will it?
• Scientology fascinates/horrifies me in equal measure
• I love Louis Theroux’s work over the years, from pornstars to neo-nazis
So, if you add together one of the most unassuming yet tenacious investigative journalists and one of the most misunderstood religions and there’s bound to be sparks flying, right?
Well almost. I recall some comments about a Louis documentary where he kinda lost his usual cool and got wound up/ deterred by his would-be interviewees. Perhaps this could be the one.
Even if this is not the film in question, it’s certainly a little more subdued than his usual material. Because the church told him to sod off.
I guess his view that he wants to offer an unbiased and impartial view on their religion is not one shared by David Whatshisface. This is a shame as I’d loved to have seen LT probe the chief scientist with his softly, softly good cop/nicer cop style of interviewing.
It could well have been a titanic battle of intellect and wills. Almost on a parallel with Westley & Vizzini in the Princess Bride. But now we’ll never know.
Seriously, it’s sort of hobbled the film from the start if we don’t get to speak to anyone from the church, as all we are going to here from therefore are people who don’t know about what really happens or do know but have now come out from the protective umbrella of Scientology and are (quite reasonably) regarded as “embittered”.
Even Louis is being asked a lot to conjure something truly worthwhile with his only evidence coming from potentially biased sources.
It’s only at the hour mark that we even hear of the charitable causes the church supports, from drug abuse to disaster relief. And not long before that we even see a very limited glimpse of the drills, or ‘tech’ that forms part of the Scientologist’s belief system.
What makes me laugh, disappointedly, is that Louis is complaining that the lawyers are accusing him of dwelling on those embittered “squirrels”.... when that’s exactly what he has been doing, out of necessity as he has no other material.
I’m happy to give the benefit of the doubt to LT whenever possible but I think he dropped a bollock there.
I also wonder if the reason we are only given such a brief example of the dianetics system is that the Church’s powerful tentacles reach all the way to the Beeb? I’ve always though that Jeremy Paxman had a steely determination that came from more than just political vigour...
Or maybe it’s because Louis didn’t think it was important enough? Hardly. Maybe because Marty Rathbun got upset and stopped doing it (incidentally he is a crap teacher! Getting visibly disappointed when the student doesn’t immediately see/feel/get what you intend is not the way to help relax and convince someone).
It was slightly disappointing to not see Isaac Hayes who left South Park in a strop because they were planning an episode on Scientology - when he had no problem participating in storylines concerning paedophilia, terrorism, Satan & Saddam Hussein having sex etc..
I jest, of course. And that’s obviously a mistake as it’s abundantly clear that Scientologists have no sense of humour whatsoever. I’m going to be constantly scanning my rear view mirror for a large, clumsily driven Toyota 4x4 now. That won’t stand out at all in the small towns of rural Buckinghamshire will it?
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Equity (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
Today’s movie for your consideration is from the same selection of films you’d find ‘The Boiler Room’ with only this one is far more ‘reality based’. A financial thriller depicting the cutthroat and take-no-prisoners world of investment banking and Wall Street. ‘Equity’ is directed by Meera Menon and written by Sarah Megan Thomas, Alysia Renier, and Amy Fox. The film centers on investment banker, Naomi Bishop who is attempting to put together one of the biggest deals in her life and Wall Street history after her first ‘failure’, while combating rivals in and outside her own company, across gender lines, and a federal investigation focusing on someone she knows intimately … Or so she thinks.
‘Equity’ appeared in competition at the 2016 Sundance Film Festival and stars Anna Gunn, Sarah Megan Thomas, Alysia Renier, James Purefoy, Sophie Von Haselburg, Margret Colin, Lee Tergesen, and Craig Bierko.
Investment banker Naomi Bishop (Anna Gunn) was one of the most successful investment bankers on Wall Street. She was unstoppable. Until she lost her first deal. Well into her career, she is striving to keep her reputation intact as a ‘rain maker’. The one in her company that secures the deal every time and brings record profits for her company in the process. In jeopardy of missing out on a promotion, she pours all her effort into her latest deal and in the process passes over her assistant Erin Manning (Sarah Megan Thomas) for a promotion. An eager young woman with a new husband and a baby on the way, Erin also strives to break through the ‘gender lines’ that still exist and make her on mark on Wall Street. At the same time Samantha (Alysia Reiner), an investigator who has recently made the jump from investigating federal drug cases to white collar crime, is looking into the activities of investment banker Micheal Connor (James Purefoy). Who may or may not be with the same firm as Naomi Bishop and also Naomi’s significant other . Bishop soon discovers the tangled web centering on this latest deal and soon realizes that not only might she have been betrayed, but it might have been from more than one of the people she ‘almost trusts’.
I found this film to be very much an example of the chaos in the world of finance as well as the personal lives that people in this field may or may not have and the dangers posed when you become friends or close to others in said field. A great deal, no pun intended, hinges on this world. The ‘average person’s’ future can be decided here and they have absolutely no control over it and all the while you have these folks bickering amongst themselves and scrambling for every dollar. Sometimes breaking the law in the process and sometimes with no regard as to whether it affects those closest to them. It is indeed chaos in a purer form with no ‘happy ending’ and no ‘bad ending’. It’s a multi-billion dollar game of musical chairs with chairs and people being removed.
The film is ‘realistic’. As far as what we, outside that world, see it as. It’s all a numbers game with the potential for great profit or great lose to them. Your friends and those you trust will turn on you like that. They care about the money and the next big deal. People just fall by the waist side. It’s a rather refreshing take on ‘greed and ambition’. I give this film 4 out of 5 stars.
‘Equity’ appeared in competition at the 2016 Sundance Film Festival and stars Anna Gunn, Sarah Megan Thomas, Alysia Renier, James Purefoy, Sophie Von Haselburg, Margret Colin, Lee Tergesen, and Craig Bierko.
Investment banker Naomi Bishop (Anna Gunn) was one of the most successful investment bankers on Wall Street. She was unstoppable. Until she lost her first deal. Well into her career, she is striving to keep her reputation intact as a ‘rain maker’. The one in her company that secures the deal every time and brings record profits for her company in the process. In jeopardy of missing out on a promotion, she pours all her effort into her latest deal and in the process passes over her assistant Erin Manning (Sarah Megan Thomas) for a promotion. An eager young woman with a new husband and a baby on the way, Erin also strives to break through the ‘gender lines’ that still exist and make her on mark on Wall Street. At the same time Samantha (Alysia Reiner), an investigator who has recently made the jump from investigating federal drug cases to white collar crime, is looking into the activities of investment banker Micheal Connor (James Purefoy). Who may or may not be with the same firm as Naomi Bishop and also Naomi’s significant other . Bishop soon discovers the tangled web centering on this latest deal and soon realizes that not only might she have been betrayed, but it might have been from more than one of the people she ‘almost trusts’.
I found this film to be very much an example of the chaos in the world of finance as well as the personal lives that people in this field may or may not have and the dangers posed when you become friends or close to others in said field. A great deal, no pun intended, hinges on this world. The ‘average person’s’ future can be decided here and they have absolutely no control over it and all the while you have these folks bickering amongst themselves and scrambling for every dollar. Sometimes breaking the law in the process and sometimes with no regard as to whether it affects those closest to them. It is indeed chaos in a purer form with no ‘happy ending’ and no ‘bad ending’. It’s a multi-billion dollar game of musical chairs with chairs and people being removed.
The film is ‘realistic’. As far as what we, outside that world, see it as. It’s all a numbers game with the potential for great profit or great lose to them. Your friends and those you trust will turn on you like that. They care about the money and the next big deal. People just fall by the waist side. It’s a rather refreshing take on ‘greed and ambition’. I give this film 4 out of 5 stars.
Ten Junk Miles
1.0
Rate It
Podcast
A lighthearted conversation by trail, road, and ultra runners about their lives as runners and the...
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament in Books
Jun 29, 2018
In Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2006), Eugene H. Merrill sets out to provide a theology of the Old Testament which represents the O.T. as a consistent whole that has God as its ultimate source. As such, he supports a high view of biblical inspiration as verbal: “The word of God to the prophets was verbal; and what they spoke and wrote, therefore, was also verbal. The means by which the verbalizing was effected is never disclosed, nor is it necessary to know. The point is that the prophetic word, the highest form of divine revelation, was recognized at the time to be the words of God, a view maintained by virtually unanimous consensus in Jewish and Christian tradition until the inroads of modern criticism.”
Insofar as Merrill is a Christian writing about the Old Testament's theology, this creates a dilemma in regard to the role the New Testament is allowed to play in his interpretation. Merrill acknowledges this from the get go:
“Old Testament theology is the study of biblical theology that employs the methods of that discipline to the Old Testament alone while being aware of the limitations inherent in not addressing the New Testament witness in any comprehensive way. This delimitation can be justified on the grounds that the Old Testament speaks its own message, one that is legitimate and authoritative in every sense of the term even if, from the Christian viewpoint, its message is not ultimately complete.”
As such, his work attempts to focus on what the Old Testament says on its own, though he occasionally appeals to New Testament ideas as a means of providing an additional witness to his interpretation.
Merrill tends to provide basic level interpretation in the canonical order of the Old Testament books. As such, little of his exegesis is particularly creative. However, he does have one unique idea which comes up throughout the book and indeed inspired the title-- the idea that man was made by God as an intermediary for God's dominion over the world:
“The crowning work of creation was the appearance of mankind on the sixth day (Gen. 1:26–28). He is said to be in the image and likeness of God, but the grammar permits and theology favors the idea that he was created as his image and likeness, that is, as God's representative on earth... [This passage] is also the clearest expression of the divine purpose in creation. After all things else had been made and put into their several positions of function and interrelationship, the Lord said, 'Let Us make man [as] Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule' (Gen. 1:26). The significance of this for communicating a (if not the) major theme of Old Testament theology cannot be overstated, and the fact that it is the first divinely articulated expression of the reason for man's existence makes it doubly significant. What is lacking apparently after the whole cosmos has been spoken into existence is its management, a caretaker as it were who will govern it all according to the will of the Creator. He could have done it himself without mediation, but for reasons never revealed in the sacred record, God elected to reign through a subordinate, a surrogate king responsible only to him.”
Merrill explains what had been lost in this divine intention after the Fall: “No longer did man have dominion over all things; instead, he abdicated his role as sovereign and worshipped what he should have ruled.” However, he still highlights partial fulfillments of the divine plan even after the Fall, such as in the Israelite monarchy:
“The creation mandate that mankind should 'be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it' and 'rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth' (Gen. 1:28) finds tangible expression even if only in a highly preliminary and anticipatory manner. David and his dynastic successors never exhibited this kind of universal dominion, of course, but the limited success they did enjoy, especially under Solomon (cf. 1 Kings 4:20–34), was a foretaste of the splendor, glory, and power of his descendants yet to come at the end of human history.”
Of course, this idea of human dominion as a vice-regent of God would only find its final fulfillment in Christ, the second Adam and the second David:
“If paradise was lost at the fall, it will be regained at the re-creation, not least in the restoration of man's glory as the vice-regent of the King of kings.”
The book seems to go out of its way to contrast the wild speculation of liberal theology, resulting in a work which is so straight-forward as to be dull. This is by no means always the case with Merrill's writings, as his Historical Survey of the Old Testament was one of the most interesting books I read as a new Christian. In Everlasting Dominion, however, where skeptical scholarship always assumes that the text is hiding something, Merrill takes it at face value. The result is a theology of the Old Testament which is more grounded, but that also often fails to soar to the heights that the text might allow for. Instead of elucidation and theologizing, Merrill tends to resort to extended (and I do mean extended) summary of the Hebrew canon.
The one major exception to this tendency is in Merrill's discussion of dominion, which we discussed above in detail. However, more work could certainly have been done on this topic, particularly in regard to how Jesus brings the idea to its fulfillment. Since it is Merrill's goal to explain the Old Testament with as little light from the New as possible, it is difficult to fault him for this. But it's also hard to fault the reader for wanting more when he reads tantalizing sections like this:
“What we propose in the following comments is done with a great deal of tentativeness since, as far as we can determine, we are virtually alone in making the case that Jesus, in his earthly ministry, frequently performed miraculous works to demonstrate not just his full deity but also his role as Urmensch, the second Adam who came to display in character and life what God had intended as the ideal for the whole human race. Without pursuing the biblical arguments for a full-blown Christology that is sensitive to both his divine and human natures, let it be said that there is universal consensus that the New Testament presents Jesus not only as God but also as perfect man.”
That being said, it does seem like an exaggeration to claim that Genesis 1:26 is the key text to understanding Old Testament theology. That it is a major theme, particularly in relation to its underemphasis by most biblical commentators, does not by any means strain credulity. It also seems to be in the back of the mind of many New Testament authors who emphasize restoration of the Kingdom of God involving our reigning with Christ and inheriting the eternal life and dominion over the world which was originally connected with our Edenic charge.
In the final analysis, Everlasting Dominion provides a good straight-forward overview of the Old Testament, but simply doesn't provide enough insight to warrant its nearly 700 pages.
Insofar as Merrill is a Christian writing about the Old Testament's theology, this creates a dilemma in regard to the role the New Testament is allowed to play in his interpretation. Merrill acknowledges this from the get go:
“Old Testament theology is the study of biblical theology that employs the methods of that discipline to the Old Testament alone while being aware of the limitations inherent in not addressing the New Testament witness in any comprehensive way. This delimitation can be justified on the grounds that the Old Testament speaks its own message, one that is legitimate and authoritative in every sense of the term even if, from the Christian viewpoint, its message is not ultimately complete.”
As such, his work attempts to focus on what the Old Testament says on its own, though he occasionally appeals to New Testament ideas as a means of providing an additional witness to his interpretation.
Merrill tends to provide basic level interpretation in the canonical order of the Old Testament books. As such, little of his exegesis is particularly creative. However, he does have one unique idea which comes up throughout the book and indeed inspired the title-- the idea that man was made by God as an intermediary for God's dominion over the world:
“The crowning work of creation was the appearance of mankind on the sixth day (Gen. 1:26–28). He is said to be in the image and likeness of God, but the grammar permits and theology favors the idea that he was created as his image and likeness, that is, as God's representative on earth... [This passage] is also the clearest expression of the divine purpose in creation. After all things else had been made and put into their several positions of function and interrelationship, the Lord said, 'Let Us make man [as] Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule' (Gen. 1:26). The significance of this for communicating a (if not the) major theme of Old Testament theology cannot be overstated, and the fact that it is the first divinely articulated expression of the reason for man's existence makes it doubly significant. What is lacking apparently after the whole cosmos has been spoken into existence is its management, a caretaker as it were who will govern it all according to the will of the Creator. He could have done it himself without mediation, but for reasons never revealed in the sacred record, God elected to reign through a subordinate, a surrogate king responsible only to him.”
Merrill explains what had been lost in this divine intention after the Fall: “No longer did man have dominion over all things; instead, he abdicated his role as sovereign and worshipped what he should have ruled.” However, he still highlights partial fulfillments of the divine plan even after the Fall, such as in the Israelite monarchy:
“The creation mandate that mankind should 'be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it' and 'rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth' (Gen. 1:28) finds tangible expression even if only in a highly preliminary and anticipatory manner. David and his dynastic successors never exhibited this kind of universal dominion, of course, but the limited success they did enjoy, especially under Solomon (cf. 1 Kings 4:20–34), was a foretaste of the splendor, glory, and power of his descendants yet to come at the end of human history.”
Of course, this idea of human dominion as a vice-regent of God would only find its final fulfillment in Christ, the second Adam and the second David:
“If paradise was lost at the fall, it will be regained at the re-creation, not least in the restoration of man's glory as the vice-regent of the King of kings.”
The book seems to go out of its way to contrast the wild speculation of liberal theology, resulting in a work which is so straight-forward as to be dull. This is by no means always the case with Merrill's writings, as his Historical Survey of the Old Testament was one of the most interesting books I read as a new Christian. In Everlasting Dominion, however, where skeptical scholarship always assumes that the text is hiding something, Merrill takes it at face value. The result is a theology of the Old Testament which is more grounded, but that also often fails to soar to the heights that the text might allow for. Instead of elucidation and theologizing, Merrill tends to resort to extended (and I do mean extended) summary of the Hebrew canon.
The one major exception to this tendency is in Merrill's discussion of dominion, which we discussed above in detail. However, more work could certainly have been done on this topic, particularly in regard to how Jesus brings the idea to its fulfillment. Since it is Merrill's goal to explain the Old Testament with as little light from the New as possible, it is difficult to fault him for this. But it's also hard to fault the reader for wanting more when he reads tantalizing sections like this:
“What we propose in the following comments is done with a great deal of tentativeness since, as far as we can determine, we are virtually alone in making the case that Jesus, in his earthly ministry, frequently performed miraculous works to demonstrate not just his full deity but also his role as Urmensch, the second Adam who came to display in character and life what God had intended as the ideal for the whole human race. Without pursuing the biblical arguments for a full-blown Christology that is sensitive to both his divine and human natures, let it be said that there is universal consensus that the New Testament presents Jesus not only as God but also as perfect man.”
That being said, it does seem like an exaggeration to claim that Genesis 1:26 is the key text to understanding Old Testament theology. That it is a major theme, particularly in relation to its underemphasis by most biblical commentators, does not by any means strain credulity. It also seems to be in the back of the mind of many New Testament authors who emphasize restoration of the Kingdom of God involving our reigning with Christ and inheriting the eternal life and dominion over the world which was originally connected with our Edenic charge.
In the final analysis, Everlasting Dominion provides a good straight-forward overview of the Old Testament, but simply doesn't provide enough insight to warrant its nearly 700 pages.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Blackbird Season in Books
Feb 13, 2018
It's just another day in Mount Oanoke, Pennsylvania when the birds start to fall. Hundreds of dead starlings, dropping from the sky during a baseball game. It seems like the birds started it all, but really the secrets and lies began much earlier. Nate Winters, high school teacher and baseball coach, is beloved in the town. That is, until a reporter, in town to cover the birds, catches Nate hugging a student at a local motel. Suddenly, the birds are forgotten, and the story becomes much juicier: Nate; his student, Lucia; and their supposed affair. Lucia fuels the fire by affirming the affair and suddenly Nate and his wife, Alecia, are swept up in the story. The only who believes in Nate's innocence, even a sliver, is his friend and co-worker, Bridget. As Lucia's creative writing teacher, she has unique insight into the girl's mind. But when Lucia suddenly goes missing--with Nate as the prime suspect in her disappearance--not even Bridget may be able to save Nate. But is there more to Lucia's disappearance than an affair with her teacher?
<i>Wow, I was really impressed by this novel. It's a complicated novel that is just as much a character-driven study as it is a mystery.</i> It's incredibly well-written, and Moretti expertly embodies the voice of each of her characters, from beleaguered Alecia, who is worn down from mothering her autistic son, Gabe; to the cast of teenager characters; to Bridget, who lost her husband to cancer a year ago. It's <i>so well-done</i> that often with each chapter (which skip from various points of view -- Bridget, Kate, Lucia, Nate, etc.), I found my myself veering between whom I preferred or believed, constantly second-guessing my allegiances or what happened. This is very rare for me: typically I find my "person" in a novel and stick with them, no matter what.
But here, I was confused, wondering. Was Nate really a cad, who cheated on his wife every second he got, or was he the sweet, affable teacher and baseball coach that the whole town admired and adored? And Alecia--was she more than just a weary mom, broken down by years of staying at home with her autistic son, Gabe, unable to give to anyone beyond him? Did she push Nate away, into the arms of others? Or was the truth more complicated that all of this? I have to hand it to Moretti--she was excellent at creating confusion and doubt. In addition to different perspectives, the novel shifts in time (before the birds fell, after the birds fell, before Lucia disappeared, etc.). It's a little tough to keep track of, but it also keeps you on your toes and always wondering, as you piece various parts of the puzzle together.
For me--even more than the mystery of what exactly happened with Lucia--<i>the strength of this novel was the writing and the characters.</i> I felt for them, even when I was frustrated with them. Moretti captures the angst and meanness of high school extremely well, portraying the cliques of a small town quite superbly. (I was reminded of <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2115987339?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1">WHEN WE WERE WORTHY</a>, which I just finished.) I loved the juxtaposition of this being a small town, so the idea is that everyone knows everyone and everything, and yet there are so many secrets, so much unknown. Being a witness to Alecia and Nate's marriage is amazing-- you see firsthand how the events affect them and how they've reached this point. <i>It's an incredibly realistic portrayal of marriage and of motherhood.</i>
As you probably tell, I just really liked this novel. It's very well-written, with quite compelling characters. I worked out some of the plot, but it didn't stop me from reading at all. I think some of the emphasis on character development slows the story at places, but not in any detrimental way. This one will make you think, as well as intrigue you with what happened to Lucia. Quite worth the read. 4+ stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 09/26/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
<i>Wow, I was really impressed by this novel. It's a complicated novel that is just as much a character-driven study as it is a mystery.</i> It's incredibly well-written, and Moretti expertly embodies the voice of each of her characters, from beleaguered Alecia, who is worn down from mothering her autistic son, Gabe; to the cast of teenager characters; to Bridget, who lost her husband to cancer a year ago. It's <i>so well-done</i> that often with each chapter (which skip from various points of view -- Bridget, Kate, Lucia, Nate, etc.), I found my myself veering between whom I preferred or believed, constantly second-guessing my allegiances or what happened. This is very rare for me: typically I find my "person" in a novel and stick with them, no matter what.
But here, I was confused, wondering. Was Nate really a cad, who cheated on his wife every second he got, or was he the sweet, affable teacher and baseball coach that the whole town admired and adored? And Alecia--was she more than just a weary mom, broken down by years of staying at home with her autistic son, Gabe, unable to give to anyone beyond him? Did she push Nate away, into the arms of others? Or was the truth more complicated that all of this? I have to hand it to Moretti--she was excellent at creating confusion and doubt. In addition to different perspectives, the novel shifts in time (before the birds fell, after the birds fell, before Lucia disappeared, etc.). It's a little tough to keep track of, but it also keeps you on your toes and always wondering, as you piece various parts of the puzzle together.
For me--even more than the mystery of what exactly happened with Lucia--<i>the strength of this novel was the writing and the characters.</i> I felt for them, even when I was frustrated with them. Moretti captures the angst and meanness of high school extremely well, portraying the cliques of a small town quite superbly. (I was reminded of <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2115987339?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1">WHEN WE WERE WORTHY</a>, which I just finished.) I loved the juxtaposition of this being a small town, so the idea is that everyone knows everyone and everything, and yet there are so many secrets, so much unknown. Being a witness to Alecia and Nate's marriage is amazing-- you see firsthand how the events affect them and how they've reached this point. <i>It's an incredibly realistic portrayal of marriage and of motherhood.</i>
As you probably tell, I just really liked this novel. It's very well-written, with quite compelling characters. I worked out some of the plot, but it didn't stop me from reading at all. I think some of the emphasis on character development slows the story at places, but not in any detrimental way. This one will make you think, as well as intrigue you with what happened to Lucia. Quite worth the read. 4+ stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 09/26/2017.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Suburbicon (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Suburbicon is a picturesque community built to free families from all the hustle and bustle of the big city but with all the amenities a community will need. For all intents in purposes Suburbicon is the ideal place to raise a family in the 1950s. That is exactly what the Lodge family is doing. That is until the night Nicky (Noah Jupe) is awoken by his father, Gardner (Matt Damon), and told that there are two men in the house. The two criminals, Sloan and Louis (Glenn Fleshler and Alex Hassell), move the family to the kitchen and tie Nicky, Gardner, Nicky’s mother Rose (Julianne Moore) and Rose’s sister Margaret (also Julianne Moore) to chairs and put them to sleep using chloroform. When Nicky awakens in the hospital his father and aunt are waiting for him but sadly his mother was overdosed with chloroform and died. After the funeral it is decided by Gardner that Aunt Margaret should come stay with them. When officer Hightower (Jack Conley) calls to let them know they have found two possible suspects Gardner rushes to the police station to look at a lineup. Gardner arrives and is surprised to find Margaret and Nicky there. He asks that Nicky be left outside to save him from the trauma. After a line of potential criminals are paraded in front of Gardner and Margaret both agree that the perpetrators are not there. When they turn around they are surprised to see Nicky with a shocked look on his face as he is staring directly at Sloan and Louis. Nicky now knows that something is going on with his mother’s death and he may be trapped in a house with the two people who are responsible. He is not the only one that thinks something is amiss an insurance investigator, Bud Cooper (Oscar Isaac), shows up with questions about the policy. Is the Suburbicon truly the sanctuary that it looks like from the outside or is there something sinister happening behind closed doors?
This dark comedy, thriller, and mystery is directed by George Clooney (The Monuments Men, Leatherheads) and written by Joel and Ethan Coen (Fargo, The Big Lebowski). The film has some fun moments and interesting twists. I enjoyed how they made the film authentic to the 1950s era. The scenery and sets all give you the feel of the time period. The performances were are mostly well done. Julianne Moore’s performance was really good in both roles but especially as the out there Margaret. She was at times very innocent and loving and the next moment really scary in a deranged kind of way. The supporting cast was large and all were fun, especially the dry Hightower (Conley) and the lovable Uncle Mitch (Gary Basaraba). Matt Damon is part scary and funny but sometimes over the top.
Where this film lost me was on parts of the story really that felt disjointed from other parts of the film. For instance another story line that is playing out during the film is that the Mayers’ family moves to Suburbicon on the same day that the break in at the Lodge’s. The Mayers are the first African American family to move into the area and they are instantly judged and discriminated against. As the movie continues and more craziness is happing at the Lodge home, which shares a back yard with the Mayers, there is an escalation in the persecution of the Mayers. I totally understand what point the film was attempting to make about how people were up in arms about a single family that just moving the town and ignoring, or rather too busy to even notice, the evil deeds being committed so close. I just believe that two stories never felt like they were truly tied together and in some points even part of the same film. I really believe an opportunity was missed. Also the comedy was at times really good but also times where it felt forced. When Matt Damon is riding a child bike with a blood soaked shirt down suburban streets you would think that would be funny, and it looked funny in the trailer, but it felt forced when put into the context of the scene.
Overall this is a film was good but really left me feeling like I just didn’t get it. It was definitely original and I would encourage people to watch it and come to their own conclusions.
This dark comedy, thriller, and mystery is directed by George Clooney (The Monuments Men, Leatherheads) and written by Joel and Ethan Coen (Fargo, The Big Lebowski). The film has some fun moments and interesting twists. I enjoyed how they made the film authentic to the 1950s era. The scenery and sets all give you the feel of the time period. The performances were are mostly well done. Julianne Moore’s performance was really good in both roles but especially as the out there Margaret. She was at times very innocent and loving and the next moment really scary in a deranged kind of way. The supporting cast was large and all were fun, especially the dry Hightower (Conley) and the lovable Uncle Mitch (Gary Basaraba). Matt Damon is part scary and funny but sometimes over the top.
Where this film lost me was on parts of the story really that felt disjointed from other parts of the film. For instance another story line that is playing out during the film is that the Mayers’ family moves to Suburbicon on the same day that the break in at the Lodge’s. The Mayers are the first African American family to move into the area and they are instantly judged and discriminated against. As the movie continues and more craziness is happing at the Lodge home, which shares a back yard with the Mayers, there is an escalation in the persecution of the Mayers. I totally understand what point the film was attempting to make about how people were up in arms about a single family that just moving the town and ignoring, or rather too busy to even notice, the evil deeds being committed so close. I just believe that two stories never felt like they were truly tied together and in some points even part of the same film. I really believe an opportunity was missed. Also the comedy was at times really good but also times where it felt forced. When Matt Damon is riding a child bike with a blood soaked shirt down suburban streets you would think that would be funny, and it looked funny in the trailer, but it felt forced when put into the context of the scene.
Overall this is a film was good but really left me feeling like I just didn’t get it. It was definitely original and I would encourage people to watch it and come to their own conclusions.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Disney knocks it out of the park
It was 1964 when the world was introduced to a practically-perfect British nanny in Walt Disney’s Mary Poppins. Back then, Julie Andrews starred as the eponymous character alongside Dick van Dyke and David Tomlinson. It was an instant hit and became one of Disney’s most-loved feature films.
That is, by everyone apart from the author of Mary Poppins, PL Travers. So incensed by what she felt was Disney’s misunderstanding of her source material, she banned all future work with the studio.
So, 54 years later and with Travers’ estate finally agreeing to a sequel (I wonder how much Disney executives had to pay for that), we get a sequel that no-one was really asking for. Mary Poppins Returns brings the titular character back into the hearts of newcomers and fans alike, but is the film as practically-perfect in every way like its lead? Or is it a bit of a dud?
Now an adult with three children, bank teller Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) learns that his house will be repossessed in five days unless he can pay back a loan. His only hope is to find a missing certificate that shows proof of valuable shares that his father left him years earlier. Just as all seems lost, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) receive the surprise of a lifetime when Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the beloved nanny from their childhood, arrives to save the day and take the Banks family on a magical, fun-filled adventure.
Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins? You’re right to be sceptical. After all, how can an American actress bring to life a character so quintessentially British? Remarkably, she does it, with a cracking British accent to match. Blunt is, as she is in all her films, picture-perfect and oozing charisma. In fact, the entire cast is fabulous with the likes of Colin Firth and Meryl Streep joining the party as a sneaky bank manager and Mary Poppins’ cousin respectively. We’ve also got Julie Walters popping up every now and then as Ellen the housekeeper.
The new Banks children are absolutely wonderful. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh and Joel Dawson show a range of emotions that would make seasoned actors blush, but here they thrive and look like they were having a blast. And that’s a trait clearly shared by the entire cast. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s plucky lamp-lighter, Jack, is obviously having the time of his life and this makes the whimsical nature of Mary Poppins Returns even more apparent.
In its hey-day, Mary Poppins was a technical revolution. Mixing live-action with colourful animation made the screen burst alive with imagination. Of course, special effects have moved on in the 50+ years that Mary has been away from our screens, but you’ll be pleased to know that each sequence feels just as magical.
From under the sea adventures to topsy-turvy houses, the ‘action’ scenes are beautifully filmed by director Rob Marshall. One scene in particular, involving hundreds of lamp-lighters is absolutely astounding and exquisitely choreographed.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be?
The setting of Depression-era London lives and breathes before your very eyes. The CGI and practical effects used to create the capital in 1935 is astonishing, and testament to the teams behind the film. That £130million budget was clearly very well spent.
Then there are the songs. We all know the masterpieces from the original, but will there be any here that children will still be singing along to when they grow older? That’s debatable, but there are three or four that have the potential to be future classics. Look out for Trip the Light Fantastic, which makes up part of the film’s best scenes.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be? The world is filled with such atrocities, it’s nice to sit back, relax with the family and enjoy a film that allows you to escape into your own imagination.
Any downsides? Well, while the pacing is nearly spot on, there’s no denying that Mary Poppins Returns is a long film by family film standards. At 130 minutes, it feels like this sequel is perhaps more for fans of the original than the children that the older film was clearly made for.
But these are small gripes in a sequel that pleasantly surprises on each and every turn. While lacking in the typical Disney poignancy, the film’s message is read loud and clear. There’s no doubt that Mary Poppins Returns is yet another hit for the studio and you’re sure to leave the cinema with a huge smile on your face. Mary is back and she means business.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/23/mary-poppins-returns-review-disney-knocks-it-out-of-the-park/
That is, by everyone apart from the author of Mary Poppins, PL Travers. So incensed by what she felt was Disney’s misunderstanding of her source material, she banned all future work with the studio.
So, 54 years later and with Travers’ estate finally agreeing to a sequel (I wonder how much Disney executives had to pay for that), we get a sequel that no-one was really asking for. Mary Poppins Returns brings the titular character back into the hearts of newcomers and fans alike, but is the film as practically-perfect in every way like its lead? Or is it a bit of a dud?
Now an adult with three children, bank teller Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) learns that his house will be repossessed in five days unless he can pay back a loan. His only hope is to find a missing certificate that shows proof of valuable shares that his father left him years earlier. Just as all seems lost, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) receive the surprise of a lifetime when Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the beloved nanny from their childhood, arrives to save the day and take the Banks family on a magical, fun-filled adventure.
Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins? You’re right to be sceptical. After all, how can an American actress bring to life a character so quintessentially British? Remarkably, she does it, with a cracking British accent to match. Blunt is, as she is in all her films, picture-perfect and oozing charisma. In fact, the entire cast is fabulous with the likes of Colin Firth and Meryl Streep joining the party as a sneaky bank manager and Mary Poppins’ cousin respectively. We’ve also got Julie Walters popping up every now and then as Ellen the housekeeper.
The new Banks children are absolutely wonderful. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh and Joel Dawson show a range of emotions that would make seasoned actors blush, but here they thrive and look like they were having a blast. And that’s a trait clearly shared by the entire cast. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s plucky lamp-lighter, Jack, is obviously having the time of his life and this makes the whimsical nature of Mary Poppins Returns even more apparent.
In its hey-day, Mary Poppins was a technical revolution. Mixing live-action with colourful animation made the screen burst alive with imagination. Of course, special effects have moved on in the 50+ years that Mary has been away from our screens, but you’ll be pleased to know that each sequence feels just as magical.
From under the sea adventures to topsy-turvy houses, the ‘action’ scenes are beautifully filmed by director Rob Marshall. One scene in particular, involving hundreds of lamp-lighters is absolutely astounding and exquisitely choreographed.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be?
The setting of Depression-era London lives and breathes before your very eyes. The CGI and practical effects used to create the capital in 1935 is astonishing, and testament to the teams behind the film. That £130million budget was clearly very well spent.
Then there are the songs. We all know the masterpieces from the original, but will there be any here that children will still be singing along to when they grow older? That’s debatable, but there are three or four that have the potential to be future classics. Look out for Trip the Light Fantastic, which makes up part of the film’s best scenes.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be? The world is filled with such atrocities, it’s nice to sit back, relax with the family and enjoy a film that allows you to escape into your own imagination.
Any downsides? Well, while the pacing is nearly spot on, there’s no denying that Mary Poppins Returns is a long film by family film standards. At 130 minutes, it feels like this sequel is perhaps more for fans of the original than the children that the older film was clearly made for.
But these are small gripes in a sequel that pleasantly surprises on each and every turn. While lacking in the typical Disney poignancy, the film’s message is read loud and clear. There’s no doubt that Mary Poppins Returns is yet another hit for the studio and you’re sure to leave the cinema with a huge smile on your face. Mary is back and she means business.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/23/mary-poppins-returns-review-disney-knocks-it-out-of-the-park/
MaryAnn (14 KP) rated A Tale of Two Hearts (Once Upon a Dickens Christmas, #2) in Books
Mar 5, 2019
Innkeeper’s daughter Mina Scott will do anything to escape the drudgery of her life. She saves every penny to attend a finishing school, dreaming of the day she’ll become a real lady—and catch the eye of William Barlow, a frequent guest at the inn. William is a gentleman’s son, a charming rogue but penniless. However, his bachelor uncle will soon name an heir—either him or his puritanical cousin. In an effort to secure the inheritance, William gives his uncle the impression he’s married, which works until he’s invited to bring his wife for a visit. William asks Mina to be his pretend bride, only until his uncle names an heir on Christmas Day. Mina is flattered and frustrated by the offer, for she wants a true relationship with William. Yet, she agrees. . .then wishes she hadn’t as she comes to love the old man. And when the truth is finally discovered, more than just money is lost. Can two hearts survive such a deception?
My Thoughts: Mina has had her eye on Will since the first time she served him at her father's inn; so when Will asks her to help him by pretending to be his bride, she jumps at the chance. But as Mina and Will find out, deception brings on worries and more deception. They soon learn that as the Bible says that truth will set you free. There are many lessons in this novel. One is to not lie, to be truthful in all things. It's never good to keep secrets. It's never a good thing to play with another's affections. It is also a story of forgiveness and second chances.
This was a fun book to read. This is the second book in the series "Once Upon a Dickens Christmas" and even though I haven't read the first one, it was easy to read and follow along. The characters were fun, Mina being the main character is a sweet young woman who loves to read. The readers are instantly drawn to her. Then there are Will's cousins, which I found to be very comical and in some ways true to life.
Michelle Griep is a wonderful writer, who holds the reader's attention and adds a little whimsy to the characters and story-line.
I truly enjoyed this book and will be looking forward to reading more from Michelle Griep.
My Thoughts: Mina has had her eye on Will since the first time she served him at her father's inn; so when Will asks her to help him by pretending to be his bride, she jumps at the chance. But as Mina and Will find out, deception brings on worries and more deception. They soon learn that as the Bible says that truth will set you free. There are many lessons in this novel. One is to not lie, to be truthful in all things. It's never good to keep secrets. It's never a good thing to play with another's affections. It is also a story of forgiveness and second chances.
This was a fun book to read. This is the second book in the series "Once Upon a Dickens Christmas" and even though I haven't read the first one, it was easy to read and follow along. The characters were fun, Mina being the main character is a sweet young woman who loves to read. The readers are instantly drawn to her. Then there are Will's cousins, which I found to be very comical and in some ways true to life.
Michelle Griep is a wonderful writer, who holds the reader's attention and adds a little whimsy to the characters and story-line.
I truly enjoyed this book and will be looking forward to reading more from Michelle Griep.