Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Tomorrow (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
The film had me at "brief strong sex" on the title card.
Tesla, a war veteran, struggles day to day being in the real world again. His loses weigh heavily on him and he hits rock bottom. A chance encounter with the over-friendly Sky leads him to new friends and new opportunities. Will he be able to see past his inner demons long enough to make a go of everything?
Firstly, someone at BBFC is leading a very sheltered life... moving on.
I had concerns going into this, Tomorrow was written by Stuart Brennan and Sebastian Street, if you're wondering why one of those sounds familiar it's because Stuart Brennan wrote Wolf (and directed, and produced and starred), I gave that 1.5 stars and I was one of the more generous viewers. You'll also spot the name Sebastian Street as he's playing the lead role of Tesla to Brennan's Sky.
I actually thought that Brennan did a great job as Sky. His storyline progressed at a much tougher rate than any of the other characters and his handling of it was surprisingly good.
Sebastian Street was in no way convincing. Tesla had an important point to make about disability and veterans but it felt more like he was acting in a bad soap opera than a film.
Unfortunately the downsides don't stop there, neither Stephanie Leonidas nor Sophie Kennedy Clark gave convincing portrayals, though I'm inclined to think that is more to do with the script. Tesla's love interest Katie, played by Leonidas, was a particularly hateful woman at times. I'm sure they were attempting to bring her on a learning curve about Tesla and his PTSD but there are moments that are entirely unbelievable. No one would be as oblivious as she was and I was genuinely annoyed by the fact he didn't tell her to take a hike then and there.
You'll also see on the cast list we have Stephen Fry, James Cosmo and Paul Kaye... I know! Cosmo gives a good performance but both Fry as Chris and Kaye as Milo felt like a let down. Neither character was well written and the tone really didn't fit the scenarios they were in. I have no idea why they went for the parts, I'm assuming bills.
While I felt there were a lot of issues with the film, many more than I listed, I was able to identify with part of the film and actually felt like they treated the subject with more respect than everything else was afforded. Because of that fact I'm giving Tomorrow a 2 star score, it deserves more than Wolf but I couldn't in good conscience recommend it to anyone. It's currently sitting at a 7 on IMDb which seems rather suspicious to me, the 29% on RT seems like a more accurate rating for this film.
What you should do
While I found something in this to latch onto there's not a lot to gain from seeing this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I've always wanted my own restaurant, so I'd have to go with that or Sky's adorable dog.
Tesla, a war veteran, struggles day to day being in the real world again. His loses weigh heavily on him and he hits rock bottom. A chance encounter with the over-friendly Sky leads him to new friends and new opportunities. Will he be able to see past his inner demons long enough to make a go of everything?
Firstly, someone at BBFC is leading a very sheltered life... moving on.
I had concerns going into this, Tomorrow was written by Stuart Brennan and Sebastian Street, if you're wondering why one of those sounds familiar it's because Stuart Brennan wrote Wolf (and directed, and produced and starred), I gave that 1.5 stars and I was one of the more generous viewers. You'll also spot the name Sebastian Street as he's playing the lead role of Tesla to Brennan's Sky.
I actually thought that Brennan did a great job as Sky. His storyline progressed at a much tougher rate than any of the other characters and his handling of it was surprisingly good.
Sebastian Street was in no way convincing. Tesla had an important point to make about disability and veterans but it felt more like he was acting in a bad soap opera than a film.
Unfortunately the downsides don't stop there, neither Stephanie Leonidas nor Sophie Kennedy Clark gave convincing portrayals, though I'm inclined to think that is more to do with the script. Tesla's love interest Katie, played by Leonidas, was a particularly hateful woman at times. I'm sure they were attempting to bring her on a learning curve about Tesla and his PTSD but there are moments that are entirely unbelievable. No one would be as oblivious as she was and I was genuinely annoyed by the fact he didn't tell her to take a hike then and there.
You'll also see on the cast list we have Stephen Fry, James Cosmo and Paul Kaye... I know! Cosmo gives a good performance but both Fry as Chris and Kaye as Milo felt like a let down. Neither character was well written and the tone really didn't fit the scenarios they were in. I have no idea why they went for the parts, I'm assuming bills.
While I felt there were a lot of issues with the film, many more than I listed, I was able to identify with part of the film and actually felt like they treated the subject with more respect than everything else was afforded. Because of that fact I'm giving Tomorrow a 2 star score, it deserves more than Wolf but I couldn't in good conscience recommend it to anyone. It's currently sitting at a 7 on IMDb which seems rather suspicious to me, the 29% on RT seems like a more accurate rating for this film.
What you should do
While I found something in this to latch onto there's not a lot to gain from seeing this.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I've always wanted my own restaurant, so I'd have to go with that or Sky's adorable dog.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Dark Shadows (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Tim Burton has always been one of my all time favorite directors because of his strange-yet-humorous nature and the frequent use of my favorite actor, Johnny Depp. For the last decade or so we have been plagued with remakes of stories that we are all familiar with and the only thing that makes them different is the addition of the iconic Tim Burton style. Once again Tim Burton brings us yet another remake, only this time of the 70’s cult classic soap opera Dark Shadows.
Frequent collaborator, Johnny Depp, stars as Barnabas Collins in a role previously made famous by Jonathan Frid. Barnabas Collins and his parents leave Liverpool in 1760 for New Hampshire, in an attempt to expand their family business. They succeed and become the wealthiest family in the area, resulting in the town getting named after the family. Barnabas was a ladies’ man and scorned the heart of Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green) by falling in love with Josette DuPres (Bella Heathcote). Unbeknownst to him, Angelique is a witch and out of pure jealousy, she kills his one true love and has cursed Barnabas to be a vampire so that his suffering would be endless. Angelique rallies the townspeople to bury Barnabas alive.
After nearly 200 years, Barnabas is accidently unearthed in the year 1972. He heads to the one place that he can call home and encounters the remaining four dysfunctional members of his family and discovers that his family estate is in jeopardy. Barnabas soon learns that the evil person behind all his families turmoil is none other than Angelique herself.
Though this film does have the quirky Burton-esque feel that we are all familiar with, it lacks his signature energy. The plot itself is long and drawn out and makes the first half of the movie extremely slow and boring. Now don’t get me wrong, Depp did manage to slip in more than a few funny lines but even his best work was a strained attempt at humor. I do, on the other hand, appreciate that Burton brought back the original vampire myths, with all the burning in the sunlight and not being able to see a reflection. Though the script and story itself leaves much to be desired, Johnny Depp is as funny as the story and/or script allows him to be and as Barnabas, he carries the movie. Even Michelle Pfeiffer and Helena Bonham Carter couldn’t help save this movie from the pedantic pace of a very uneven but predictable story. Equally disappointing was the waste of the perfect casting of Chloe Moretz as Michelle’s daughter. Even though she looked and sounded a lot like her movie mom, she wasn’t given much to do but sulk and glare.
Even though you will experience an entertaining blast from the past with the characters, soundtrack and fashions, it is best to say that this film should be left as a rental. Being such a huge fan of Burton’s kooky and imaginative world, it sure pains me to say that this movie is a bit of a train wreck and lacks the enchanting storytelling that we’ve come to expect from him.
Frequent collaborator, Johnny Depp, stars as Barnabas Collins in a role previously made famous by Jonathan Frid. Barnabas Collins and his parents leave Liverpool in 1760 for New Hampshire, in an attempt to expand their family business. They succeed and become the wealthiest family in the area, resulting in the town getting named after the family. Barnabas was a ladies’ man and scorned the heart of Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green) by falling in love with Josette DuPres (Bella Heathcote). Unbeknownst to him, Angelique is a witch and out of pure jealousy, she kills his one true love and has cursed Barnabas to be a vampire so that his suffering would be endless. Angelique rallies the townspeople to bury Barnabas alive.
After nearly 200 years, Barnabas is accidently unearthed in the year 1972. He heads to the one place that he can call home and encounters the remaining four dysfunctional members of his family and discovers that his family estate is in jeopardy. Barnabas soon learns that the evil person behind all his families turmoil is none other than Angelique herself.
Though this film does have the quirky Burton-esque feel that we are all familiar with, it lacks his signature energy. The plot itself is long and drawn out and makes the first half of the movie extremely slow and boring. Now don’t get me wrong, Depp did manage to slip in more than a few funny lines but even his best work was a strained attempt at humor. I do, on the other hand, appreciate that Burton brought back the original vampire myths, with all the burning in the sunlight and not being able to see a reflection. Though the script and story itself leaves much to be desired, Johnny Depp is as funny as the story and/or script allows him to be and as Barnabas, he carries the movie. Even Michelle Pfeiffer and Helena Bonham Carter couldn’t help save this movie from the pedantic pace of a very uneven but predictable story. Equally disappointing was the waste of the perfect casting of Chloe Moretz as Michelle’s daughter. Even though she looked and sounded a lot like her movie mom, she wasn’t given much to do but sulk and glare.
Even though you will experience an entertaining blast from the past with the characters, soundtrack and fashions, it is best to say that this film should be left as a rental. Being such a huge fan of Burton’s kooky and imaginative world, it sure pains me to say that this movie is a bit of a train wreck and lacks the enchanting storytelling that we’ve come to expect from him.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated In the Role of Brie Hutchens... in Books
Jul 2, 2020
Brie Hutchens is an eighth-grader at a Catholic school. She loves soap operas and dreams of being the star of the school play. She wants to go to drama school next year. Brie also has feelings that she's pretty sure are different than the other kids at her school. For instance, she gets a fluttery feeling looking at photos online of her favorite soap opera actress. But when Brie's (very religious) mom walks in on her doing so, Brie freaks out and tells her Mom she's been chosen to crown the Mary statue at her school's ceremony. She hasn't of course, and even worse, she probably stands no chance at earning the gig, since it usually goes to a top student. One like Kennedy, whom Brie usually avoids. But as Brie starts to spend a little more time with Kennedy, she realizes Kennedy gives her the same feeling as that soap actress. And that none of this is going to make her mother happy (or help her crown Mary).
This is a very sweet, heartwarming, and touching story about a young girl finding her way and finding herself. I'm a sucker for coming of age stories, but when they are lesbian coming of age stories? I'm sold. Brie is an interesting character, who even comes across a little ungrateful at times--though perhaps she's just a typical teenager. She's embarrassed her dad works at her school and often seems a bit self-centered and in her own world. Okay, yeah, she's a teenager. But her battle with her sexual identity is certainly one I could identify with and it's presented in a lovely and truthful way. It's exactly the kind of book kids this age need, especially teens being raised in a religious environment.
The book is more religious than I expected, but it's not off-putting. As someone whose first love love came from a religious Catholic family, I saw so much of my past life in this book. I loved the fact that Brie is a soap fan--as kid who grew up loving Dallas, Days of Our Lives, Passions, and Sunset Beach, this part of the book was totally fun. Yet, Melleby worked in the angle in a serious way, too, as Brie uses soaps as a way to realize that maybe she isn't so different after all (thank you, soaps, for having some progressive characters ahead of your time).
"But when Brie and her mom sat in the living room, watching their soaps, Brie forgot they had so little in common."
Brie is fun and sweet and she's decidedly her own person, yet scared of how her religious mom and her Catholic school friends might see her if she reveals she likes girls. Her agonizing over this, her fear of coming out, is raw and realistic. The difficultly of coming out really resonates here, and Melleby does a wonderful job capturing how hard it is, even now.
Overall, this is a lovely and tender book--funny and sweet--and a great children's/YA read. If you love coming of age stories, YA novels, or any LQBTIA youth fiction, I think this novel will tug at your heartstrings.
This is a very sweet, heartwarming, and touching story about a young girl finding her way and finding herself. I'm a sucker for coming of age stories, but when they are lesbian coming of age stories? I'm sold. Brie is an interesting character, who even comes across a little ungrateful at times--though perhaps she's just a typical teenager. She's embarrassed her dad works at her school and often seems a bit self-centered and in her own world. Okay, yeah, she's a teenager. But her battle with her sexual identity is certainly one I could identify with and it's presented in a lovely and truthful way. It's exactly the kind of book kids this age need, especially teens being raised in a religious environment.
The book is more religious than I expected, but it's not off-putting. As someone whose first love love came from a religious Catholic family, I saw so much of my past life in this book. I loved the fact that Brie is a soap fan--as kid who grew up loving Dallas, Days of Our Lives, Passions, and Sunset Beach, this part of the book was totally fun. Yet, Melleby worked in the angle in a serious way, too, as Brie uses soaps as a way to realize that maybe she isn't so different after all (thank you, soaps, for having some progressive characters ahead of your time).
"But when Brie and her mom sat in the living room, watching their soaps, Brie forgot they had so little in common."
Brie is fun and sweet and she's decidedly her own person, yet scared of how her religious mom and her Catholic school friends might see her if she reveals she likes girls. Her agonizing over this, her fear of coming out, is raw and realistic. The difficultly of coming out really resonates here, and Melleby does a wonderful job capturing how hard it is, even now.
Overall, this is a lovely and tender book--funny and sweet--and a great children's/YA read. If you love coming of age stories, YA novels, or any LQBTIA youth fiction, I think this novel will tug at your heartstrings.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
The Marvel touch
The first thing I’m going to tell you about Spider-Man: Homecoming is that it has been gloriously undersold in its uninspiring trailers and promotional posters. In fact, most of the marketing materials shown made it look like this would be Iron Man 4 ft. Peter Parker. Thankfully that’s not the case.
The second thing I’ll tell you is that Tom Holland’s turn as Peter Parker is very good indeed. But is he better than Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield? Well, for that you’ll have to read on.
Still buzzing from his experiences with the Avengers in Captain America: Civil War, young Peter Parker (Tom Holland) returns home to live with his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei). Under the watchful eye of Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr), Peter starts to embrace Spider-Man. He also tries to return to his normal life — distracted by thoughts of proving himself to be more than just a bargain basement superhero. However, when danger emerges in the shape of the Vulture (Michael Keaton), Peter must soon put his powers to the test.
Jon Watts directs not only the best Spider-Man film to date, but probably the best film to come out of the Marvel Cinematic Universe since Guardians of the Galaxy. That is by no means and easy thing to achieve, but by golly he’s done it.
The best Marvel films don’t shout about their superhero roots. By that I mean Captain America: the Winter Soldier was first and foremost a heist movie and Guardians of the Galaxy was an epic space opera. Here, Watts and his two writers turn Spider-Man: Homecoming into a cheesy, fun high-school romance and it succeeds at that beautifully.
But is it a good superhero flick? In a word, yes. The action is shot exceptionally well with very little nonsensical shaky cam, the pacing is spot on; in fact it may be one of the best films I have ever seen for pacing and the characters are all utterly believable.
Tom Holland is, without a doubt the best iteration of Peter Parker ever put to the big screen. He is the school geek that the character always should have been. Gone are Tobey Maguire’s ridiculous facial expressions and Andrew Garfield’s unrealistic ‘high school nerd’ persona.
Elsewhere, Michael Keaton avoids the Marvel villain trap and becomes the universe’s best antagonist since Loki. It would be easy for Vulture to come across ridiculous rather than menacing and Keaton gets the latter absolutely spot on. In particular, a pivotal turning point in the film’s third act is exquisitely written and truly intimidating.
It’s not all good news unfortunately. Like a broken record, I have to mention the obligatory CGI-heavy finale. Thankfully though, the story is nicely twisted to give the scenes emotional gravitas. I’m also not sold on Marisa Tomei as Aunt May, but this may come with time. And if I’m really nit-picking, there’s a little too much obvious product placement for Audi.
So, I’ve managed to get through a full review with only a small paragraph of negative points, that doesn’t happen very often. Something else that doesn’t happen very often is for me to award a film a full five stars. On this occasion however, the Marvel touch has well and truly created a corker.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/06/spider-man-homecoming-review/
The second thing I’ll tell you is that Tom Holland’s turn as Peter Parker is very good indeed. But is he better than Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield? Well, for that you’ll have to read on.
Still buzzing from his experiences with the Avengers in Captain America: Civil War, young Peter Parker (Tom Holland) returns home to live with his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei). Under the watchful eye of Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr), Peter starts to embrace Spider-Man. He also tries to return to his normal life — distracted by thoughts of proving himself to be more than just a bargain basement superhero. However, when danger emerges in the shape of the Vulture (Michael Keaton), Peter must soon put his powers to the test.
Jon Watts directs not only the best Spider-Man film to date, but probably the best film to come out of the Marvel Cinematic Universe since Guardians of the Galaxy. That is by no means and easy thing to achieve, but by golly he’s done it.
The best Marvel films don’t shout about their superhero roots. By that I mean Captain America: the Winter Soldier was first and foremost a heist movie and Guardians of the Galaxy was an epic space opera. Here, Watts and his two writers turn Spider-Man: Homecoming into a cheesy, fun high-school romance and it succeeds at that beautifully.
But is it a good superhero flick? In a word, yes. The action is shot exceptionally well with very little nonsensical shaky cam, the pacing is spot on; in fact it may be one of the best films I have ever seen for pacing and the characters are all utterly believable.
Tom Holland is, without a doubt the best iteration of Peter Parker ever put to the big screen. He is the school geek that the character always should have been. Gone are Tobey Maguire’s ridiculous facial expressions and Andrew Garfield’s unrealistic ‘high school nerd’ persona.
Elsewhere, Michael Keaton avoids the Marvel villain trap and becomes the universe’s best antagonist since Loki. It would be easy for Vulture to come across ridiculous rather than menacing and Keaton gets the latter absolutely spot on. In particular, a pivotal turning point in the film’s third act is exquisitely written and truly intimidating.
It’s not all good news unfortunately. Like a broken record, I have to mention the obligatory CGI-heavy finale. Thankfully though, the story is nicely twisted to give the scenes emotional gravitas. I’m also not sold on Marisa Tomei as Aunt May, but this may come with time. And if I’m really nit-picking, there’s a little too much obvious product placement for Audi.
So, I’ve managed to get through a full review with only a small paragraph of negative points, that doesn’t happen very often. Something else that doesn’t happen very often is for me to award a film a full five stars. On this occasion however, the Marvel touch has well and truly created a corker.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/06/spider-man-homecoming-review/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Bel Canto (2018) in Movies
Jun 11, 2020
The novel of Bel Canto is one of my favourites, and though I haven't read it for years I still recommend it to people. When I saw that they'd made a film of it I was ecstatic. But of course my luck wasn't working well! No mainstream release in the UK and seemingly not available in any way to see, then on a whim I searched Amazon and there it was, available as a digital release... GIMME!!
Roxanne has been hired to play at a private function in South America. It should be a simple performance, but when the residence is taken hostage the evening goes on a little longer than expected. The demands are seemingly simple, but no one wants to succumb to the, so the hostages must settle in for an extended stay with their captors.
The basis for the novel and film is the 1996 Japanese embassy hostage crisis where 14 members of the MRIA took hundreds of high level diplomats and officials hostage. With just a cursory look at the details of that incident it appears that several key points have been kept in some way but artistic licence has been used to give us a snapshot inside during the event.
I love Julianne Moore, so having her name attached was a definite bonus, especially alongside Ken Watanabe. The pair have a good dynamic and the language barrier imposed by the script (for all the characters) adds a different dynamic to the film. Watching them trying to communicate with each other and seeing the little touches it brought was very interesting.
When it came to the acting I thought the cast was incredibly well balanced, the standard was good and having such a variety of people meant that there was a lot to pick up on.
This does however come with a slight drawback, there are a lot of characters and they all have something about them to make them interesting... there's have been no point in having them if that wasn't the case. At no time do you have a chance to learn about any of them properly though, as soon as there's an opportunity we have to cut to a different scene and we're left with snippets. While that wasn't a negative for me overall it could have been an interesting addition, and at an hour and forty in length I think there was room for some more character pieces without making it too long.
Here's my one major negative about Bel Canto. Roxanne is a world-renowned opera singer, Julianne Moore is not... so they taught her to lipsync to the pieces that Renee Fleming would be voicing. Quite simply put, on screen it looks terrible. In some films you see people singing and don't realise it isn't them, there might be tricksy camera angles or decent lipsyncing, in those instances you don't notice and it all flows well. Without knowing this going into Bel Canto it was still very obvious. I'd be tempted to say close your eyes when she starts singing, you will miss some reaction shots of other characters but Fleming's vocals are wonderful but Moore's rendition is lacking the gravitas to go with it.
The bond that is created between the hostages and with their captors is shown extremely well and that makes the way the film plays out even more affecting. There's certainly room for improvement, but what comes to the screen is a very interesting twist on the original event and the novel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/bel-canto-movie-review.html
Roxanne has been hired to play at a private function in South America. It should be a simple performance, but when the residence is taken hostage the evening goes on a little longer than expected. The demands are seemingly simple, but no one wants to succumb to the, so the hostages must settle in for an extended stay with their captors.
The basis for the novel and film is the 1996 Japanese embassy hostage crisis where 14 members of the MRIA took hundreds of high level diplomats and officials hostage. With just a cursory look at the details of that incident it appears that several key points have been kept in some way but artistic licence has been used to give us a snapshot inside during the event.
I love Julianne Moore, so having her name attached was a definite bonus, especially alongside Ken Watanabe. The pair have a good dynamic and the language barrier imposed by the script (for all the characters) adds a different dynamic to the film. Watching them trying to communicate with each other and seeing the little touches it brought was very interesting.
When it came to the acting I thought the cast was incredibly well balanced, the standard was good and having such a variety of people meant that there was a lot to pick up on.
This does however come with a slight drawback, there are a lot of characters and they all have something about them to make them interesting... there's have been no point in having them if that wasn't the case. At no time do you have a chance to learn about any of them properly though, as soon as there's an opportunity we have to cut to a different scene and we're left with snippets. While that wasn't a negative for me overall it could have been an interesting addition, and at an hour and forty in length I think there was room for some more character pieces without making it too long.
Here's my one major negative about Bel Canto. Roxanne is a world-renowned opera singer, Julianne Moore is not... so they taught her to lipsync to the pieces that Renee Fleming would be voicing. Quite simply put, on screen it looks terrible. In some films you see people singing and don't realise it isn't them, there might be tricksy camera angles or decent lipsyncing, in those instances you don't notice and it all flows well. Without knowing this going into Bel Canto it was still very obvious. I'd be tempted to say close your eyes when she starts singing, you will miss some reaction shots of other characters but Fleming's vocals are wonderful but Moore's rendition is lacking the gravitas to go with it.
The bond that is created between the hostages and with their captors is shown extremely well and that makes the way the film plays out even more affecting. There's certainly room for improvement, but what comes to the screen is a very interesting twist on the original event and the novel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/bel-canto-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
This IS the Greatest Show!
I sometimes wonder how “proper” UK film critics view films early for review. Is there a ‘special screening’ which all the film critics attend in London? The point I’m getting at is whether the collective critical opinion of a movie can be swayed by a critic leaping to their feet and wildly applauding a film like “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” or, alternatively, snorting in derision at a film like “The Greatest Showman”. For sometimes the critics seem to get it massively wrong across the board, panning a film that the general public will adore. Unfortunately, this has the effect of putting the general public off seeing it, especially in the lethargic post-Christmas period. I think here is a case in point. It’s not the best little film in the world, but as a musical crowd-pleaser it delivers in spades.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.
Annie Chanse (15 KP) rated Deadly Curiosities in Books
Dec 19, 2017
I received an ARC copy of this book in exchange for my open and honest opinion. This in no way has influenced my opinion of the book.
***may contain spoilers***
This book by Martin is the first in a new series that centers around Cassidy, the owner of an antique shop called Trifles and Folly. At least, that is what she does on the surface. Her true purpose is much less mundane. She, along with her "silent partner" Sorren -- an ancient vampire -- and her employee and friend Teag, work for a group called the Alliance.
The Alliance has been around for centuries, and they do many things. However, one of the most important things they do is to rid the world of powerful and dangerous paranormal artifacts. Cassidy, a powerful psychometric -- someone who "reads" an item's energy and history -- uses her antique shop to help the Alliance with their endeavor. When people bring items into her shop, she holds them and sees the history that happened around those objects. If something in the object's history gives off warning signals that Cassidy thinks might make the item dangerous and/or susceptible to hauntings, possessions, etc., she buys the item and presents it to Sorren to take to the Alliance, where they dispose of it safely. (At least that is what they are SUPPOSEDLY DOING... since this is the beginning of a series, I'm wondering if eventually Cassidy will find out that the Alliance's motives aren't as pure as they claim them to be... but that is simply my speculation and neither here nor there concerning this book. :-p)
The fun in THIS book really begins when a lady brings in a pair of antique opera glasses to sell to Cassidy. Shortly after, Cassidy receives a phone call from a buyer saying that items she purchased from Cassidy's shop are causing a lot of ghostly-type problems. Cassidy and Teag realize that several items which should not have been causing negative effects are, in fact, creating all kinds of havoc. They decide to investigate the phenomena, and this investigation leads to all kinds of craziness, including voudon practitioners, dark sorcerers who should have been dead centuries before, a nasty demon, and a man who surrounds himself with hundreds of clocks everywhere he goes... And this is just a taste of what a reader finds in the pages of Martin's new book.
The storyline is interesting and unique. The characters are very likeable. The setting is lovely and perfect. The writing style is solid. And the action is well-paced, after the first thirty or so pages, which are a bit slow.
The only complaint I have with this novel is that at times it is a bit repetitive. For instance, one line might mention something about the blood-caked clothes she's wearing, and the next line will say the same thing, only with differently arranged words.
I wish I had marked an actual specific example of what I was talking about, but I didn't, so I can't provide an example, but I will give my own made up example to illustrate my point.
*Note: This is NOT a line from the actual book. Just something I made up to, again, illustrate the point.*
"She stepped into the room and shivered as the feeling of something watching her from the darkness crept over her. It seemed as though there was something she couldn't see in the darkness, but it could see her, and it was watching her. The thought made her shiver as it crept down her spine."
This didn't happen VERY often in the book, but it did happen enough times that I mentally made a note of it, and it irritated me. I'm a smart girl. You only have to tell me once, and I usually get the picture. Ha.
But overall, I really did enjoy the book, and I look forward to reading the next one when it comes out.
***may contain spoilers***
This book by Martin is the first in a new series that centers around Cassidy, the owner of an antique shop called Trifles and Folly. At least, that is what she does on the surface. Her true purpose is much less mundane. She, along with her "silent partner" Sorren -- an ancient vampire -- and her employee and friend Teag, work for a group called the Alliance.
The Alliance has been around for centuries, and they do many things. However, one of the most important things they do is to rid the world of powerful and dangerous paranormal artifacts. Cassidy, a powerful psychometric -- someone who "reads" an item's energy and history -- uses her antique shop to help the Alliance with their endeavor. When people bring items into her shop, she holds them and sees the history that happened around those objects. If something in the object's history gives off warning signals that Cassidy thinks might make the item dangerous and/or susceptible to hauntings, possessions, etc., she buys the item and presents it to Sorren to take to the Alliance, where they dispose of it safely. (At least that is what they are SUPPOSEDLY DOING... since this is the beginning of a series, I'm wondering if eventually Cassidy will find out that the Alliance's motives aren't as pure as they claim them to be... but that is simply my speculation and neither here nor there concerning this book. :-p)
The fun in THIS book really begins when a lady brings in a pair of antique opera glasses to sell to Cassidy. Shortly after, Cassidy receives a phone call from a buyer saying that items she purchased from Cassidy's shop are causing a lot of ghostly-type problems. Cassidy and Teag realize that several items which should not have been causing negative effects are, in fact, creating all kinds of havoc. They decide to investigate the phenomena, and this investigation leads to all kinds of craziness, including voudon practitioners, dark sorcerers who should have been dead centuries before, a nasty demon, and a man who surrounds himself with hundreds of clocks everywhere he goes... And this is just a taste of what a reader finds in the pages of Martin's new book.
The storyline is interesting and unique. The characters are very likeable. The setting is lovely and perfect. The writing style is solid. And the action is well-paced, after the first thirty or so pages, which are a bit slow.
The only complaint I have with this novel is that at times it is a bit repetitive. For instance, one line might mention something about the blood-caked clothes she's wearing, and the next line will say the same thing, only with differently arranged words.
I wish I had marked an actual specific example of what I was talking about, but I didn't, so I can't provide an example, but I will give my own made up example to illustrate my point.
*Note: This is NOT a line from the actual book. Just something I made up to, again, illustrate the point.*
"She stepped into the room and shivered as the feeling of something watching her from the darkness crept over her. It seemed as though there was something she couldn't see in the darkness, but it could see her, and it was watching her. The thought made her shiver as it crept down her spine."
This didn't happen VERY often in the book, but it did happen enough times that I mentally made a note of it, and it irritated me. I'm a smart girl. You only have to tell me once, and I usually get the picture. Ha.
But overall, I really did enjoy the book, and I look forward to reading the next one when it comes out.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) in Movies
May 10, 2019
“You said it yourself bitch, we’re the Guardians of the Galaxy”
The Marvel marathon continues. We started with the story of a soldier out of time. Now we move on to the tale of a group of losers having to learn not to kill each other and maybe, just maybe, becoming friends along the way. Guardians of the Galaxy I view as the movie that fully cemented Marvel Studios as the powerhouse we know today. The popularity of Iron Man and Thor spiked after their respective films, but I'm gonna guess if you pulled someone random off the street and asked them who either character was before their movies were released, they could probably at least tell you who they are. Now, not too far separated from the humongous success of The Avengers, here comes Marvel with a film about characters next to no one, not even some avid fans of comics, knew existed. And wouldn't you know, five years after Guardians came out and made Groot a household word, it's still one of their best films Marvel has made.
Guardians of the Galaxy almost off the bat confronts two major complaints I hear about Marvel flicks. First, that they don't look cinematic. Call it the "TV show aesthetic." Moderately flat shots, muted colors, forgettable music, etc. Second, that they're too heavy on witty banter and don't leave enough room for genuinely meaty substance. In regards to the first point, this film looks gorgeous. The color palette and cinematography are both creative and have an absolute blast with the concept of creating a grandiose space opera with equal parts charm and toilet humor. Each planet has its own distinct decor and aliens. Gunn managed to create a fleshed-out, lively, and unique galaxy. In regards to the second point, while there is all sorts of banter to be found throughout, including a Jackson Pollock cum joke, Guardians of the Galaxy has to have the biggest heart out of any film in the MCU. The movie is a full measured ton of fun, but it tugs at the heartstrings in a way few modern blockbusters have been able to achieve.
Four of the five Guardians have something in their life that lead to great tragedy. Peter and Drax lost family very close to them. Gamora and Rocket were tortured and bred to be bloodthirsty warriors. But then, there's Groot. Sweet, unassuming Groot. A beast in battle, but a gentle giant otherwise. His existence seems simple. He eats a leaf off of his shoulder, he drinks water straight from a fountain, and he's more than willing to grow and give a flower to a small girl. He's perhaps the closest we have to a lead character who is wholly happy. The Guardians all start off as renegades, loners, folks reasonably hardened by lives that have enjoyed fucking them over. We get to see them by the end of the film not just grow into heroes, but friends and good people. I am Groot. You are Groot. We are Groot.
Marvel took a big gamble with this movie, but it payed off so absurdly well. The humor is great, the characters even better, and the atmosphere equal parts fun and emotional. Guardians of the Galaxy stands out in the sea of superhero films as a movie that wears its heart on its sleeve. It's weird, but it's damn proud of the fact that it is. Maybe it's alright to be a loser. The world could use a few more losers to help us along the way of life. I think what I'm trying to get down to is this: It was polite of James Gunn to make a movie to go along with his sick mixtape.
Guardians of the Galaxy almost off the bat confronts two major complaints I hear about Marvel flicks. First, that they don't look cinematic. Call it the "TV show aesthetic." Moderately flat shots, muted colors, forgettable music, etc. Second, that they're too heavy on witty banter and don't leave enough room for genuinely meaty substance. In regards to the first point, this film looks gorgeous. The color palette and cinematography are both creative and have an absolute blast with the concept of creating a grandiose space opera with equal parts charm and toilet humor. Each planet has its own distinct decor and aliens. Gunn managed to create a fleshed-out, lively, and unique galaxy. In regards to the second point, while there is all sorts of banter to be found throughout, including a Jackson Pollock cum joke, Guardians of the Galaxy has to have the biggest heart out of any film in the MCU. The movie is a full measured ton of fun, but it tugs at the heartstrings in a way few modern blockbusters have been able to achieve.
Four of the five Guardians have something in their life that lead to great tragedy. Peter and Drax lost family very close to them. Gamora and Rocket were tortured and bred to be bloodthirsty warriors. But then, there's Groot. Sweet, unassuming Groot. A beast in battle, but a gentle giant otherwise. His existence seems simple. He eats a leaf off of his shoulder, he drinks water straight from a fountain, and he's more than willing to grow and give a flower to a small girl. He's perhaps the closest we have to a lead character who is wholly happy. The Guardians all start off as renegades, loners, folks reasonably hardened by lives that have enjoyed fucking them over. We get to see them by the end of the film not just grow into heroes, but friends and good people. I am Groot. You are Groot. We are Groot.
Marvel took a big gamble with this movie, but it payed off so absurdly well. The humor is great, the characters even better, and the atmosphere equal parts fun and emotional. Guardians of the Galaxy stands out in the sea of superhero films as a movie that wears its heart on its sleeve. It's weird, but it's damn proud of the fact that it is. Maybe it's alright to be a loser. The world could use a few more losers to help us along the way of life. I think what I'm trying to get down to is this: It was polite of James Gunn to make a movie to go along with his sick mixtape.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Part of Your World in Books
Aug 16, 2019
Review by Disney Bookworm
Contains spoilers, click to show
Part of Your World is based five years after Ursula defeats Ariel, yes you heard me right! The whole miraculous, shiny magic being released from the shell, the little mermaid regaining her voice, the whole harpoon, giant octopus, child scarring scene…never happened!
In this twisted tale Ursula succeeded in tricking Eric into marrying Vanessa; she now rules the Kingdom, with Eric remaining under Ursula’s spell and pretty much clueless to his wife’s evil tendencies. Conversely Ariel is Queen of the Sea, ruling Atlantica in her father’s absence. Oh yeah! Spoiler! Ursula still has Triton in her slimy grasp as well.
NB: Just for clarification this isn’t really a spoiler as you find this out on page 20- please don’t send in complaints.
The book includes all of your favourite characters from the classic 1989 movie: Scuttle, Sebastian, Flounder and even Grimsby and Carlotta! Liz Braswell does such a good job in rejuvenating these characters and reminding us why we loved them in the first place. There wasn’t enough Flounder for my liking but a lot of the story takes place above ground so I can’t really complain- maybe he needs his own tale?
The star of the book has to be Ariel though, she is the Little Mermaid after all…or is she? Braswell’s character is much more mature and tougher than the Little Mermaid we remember. After living as a mute Queen for 5 years Ariel has lost the naïve, childish part of her personality and has become a ruler consumed by guilt and melancholy. Nevertheless, this withdrawal into herself has not dampened her courage and when she learns King Triton may still be alive, she immediately begins her quest to save her father. I’m also relieved to say that I got a very sassy and sarcastic vibe from Ariel at points in the book- a woman after my own heart!
Eric too is not the suave, smouldering-before-it-was-cool character he was back in the day. Instead, overpowered by Ursula’s magic, he is distant and confused: still loved by his people but now labelled as “mad”. He loses himself in music, with his latest opera telling a familiar tale that the reader will surely recognise. Can he regain his memory in time to rescue his kingdom from his wife? Will he and Ariel meet again? Can the new Queen of the Sea rescue Triton or is Ursula just too powerful now?
The original characters of The Little Mermaid are welcomed with open arms into this story and, despite the notable differences in our two protagonists, the remaining characters are comforting and familiar. Braswell also takes the opportunity to introduce us to new characters: Jona the gull, provides quite a modern outlook for a “Disney” character, questioning the world around her with a critical eye. Even background characters such as an hilarious old apple vendor and Vareet, a mute servant girl (whom I was sure was going to have a bigger role than she did) do not fade into the pages. Quite the opposite, thanks to the book’s detail, humour and intrigue, these characters will stay with us for just as long as the story itself.
In summary, Liz Braswell’s novel draws us in hook, line and sinker. Part of Your World is impossible to put down. You will find yourself disparaging Ariel’s former lovestruck personality along with her, experiencing the tension and danger associated with Flotsam and Jetsam and exploring Eric’s kingdom through Braswell’s detailed storytelling.
There’s probably a google-defined order to read the twisted tales in but frankly I don’t care. Try this one first- you won’t regret it!
Written by The Disney Bookworm:
https://disneybookworm.home.blog/2019/04/28/part-of-your-world-a-twisted-tale-by-liz-braswell/
In this twisted tale Ursula succeeded in tricking Eric into marrying Vanessa; she now rules the Kingdom, with Eric remaining under Ursula’s spell and pretty much clueless to his wife’s evil tendencies. Conversely Ariel is Queen of the Sea, ruling Atlantica in her father’s absence. Oh yeah! Spoiler! Ursula still has Triton in her slimy grasp as well.
NB: Just for clarification this isn’t really a spoiler as you find this out on page 20- please don’t send in complaints.
The book includes all of your favourite characters from the classic 1989 movie: Scuttle, Sebastian, Flounder and even Grimsby and Carlotta! Liz Braswell does such a good job in rejuvenating these characters and reminding us why we loved them in the first place. There wasn’t enough Flounder for my liking but a lot of the story takes place above ground so I can’t really complain- maybe he needs his own tale?
The star of the book has to be Ariel though, she is the Little Mermaid after all…or is she? Braswell’s character is much more mature and tougher than the Little Mermaid we remember. After living as a mute Queen for 5 years Ariel has lost the naïve, childish part of her personality and has become a ruler consumed by guilt and melancholy. Nevertheless, this withdrawal into herself has not dampened her courage and when she learns King Triton may still be alive, she immediately begins her quest to save her father. I’m also relieved to say that I got a very sassy and sarcastic vibe from Ariel at points in the book- a woman after my own heart!
Eric too is not the suave, smouldering-before-it-was-cool character he was back in the day. Instead, overpowered by Ursula’s magic, he is distant and confused: still loved by his people but now labelled as “mad”. He loses himself in music, with his latest opera telling a familiar tale that the reader will surely recognise. Can he regain his memory in time to rescue his kingdom from his wife? Will he and Ariel meet again? Can the new Queen of the Sea rescue Triton or is Ursula just too powerful now?
The original characters of The Little Mermaid are welcomed with open arms into this story and, despite the notable differences in our two protagonists, the remaining characters are comforting and familiar. Braswell also takes the opportunity to introduce us to new characters: Jona the gull, provides quite a modern outlook for a “Disney” character, questioning the world around her with a critical eye. Even background characters such as an hilarious old apple vendor and Vareet, a mute servant girl (whom I was sure was going to have a bigger role than she did) do not fade into the pages. Quite the opposite, thanks to the book’s detail, humour and intrigue, these characters will stay with us for just as long as the story itself.
In summary, Liz Braswell’s novel draws us in hook, line and sinker. Part of Your World is impossible to put down. You will find yourself disparaging Ariel’s former lovestruck personality along with her, experiencing the tension and danger associated with Flotsam and Jetsam and exploring Eric’s kingdom through Braswell’s detailed storytelling.
There’s probably a google-defined order to read the twisted tales in but frankly I don’t care. Try this one first- you won’t regret it!
Written by The Disney Bookworm:
https://disneybookworm.home.blog/2019/04/28/part-of-your-world-a-twisted-tale-by-liz-braswell/
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated The Secret Garden in Books
Nov 7, 2019
Written and published in 1911 the secret garden started its life as a serialization ten issues of in The American magazine (November 1910-August 1911), before being published by the American publishers Fredrick A. Stokes in August 1911 and by British publishers Heinemann later that year. However Copyright expired in the states in 1987 and inmost other parts of the world by 1995 placing the book in public domain and resulting in several abridged and unabridged editions being published. The book has the theme of Rejuvenation and regeneration, showing that if something is neglected it dies and if its worked on and cared for it thrives (Like Mary, Colin and the garden do).
The story starts at the turn of the 20th century and follows Mary Lennox, a sickly and unloved child born abroad and brought back to her wealthy uncles house after a Cholera outbreak leaves her an orphan. As Mary gets used to her new isolated home she learns of a private walled garden once owned by her aunt forever locked by her uncle and hears crying which eventually leads to her cousin Colin. With Mary telling Colin stories about the moor, her friend Dickon and the secret garden she has access to, Colin is inspired to join her outside and as such both children improve beyond belief.
The books working title was Mistress Mary in reference to the English Nursery Rhyme Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary. Parts of the book was written during Burnett's visits to Buile Hill park, Maytham Hall in Kent, England. She'd lived there for a number of years and the garden was cited as influence for the book. Burnett herself kept an extensive garden however its noted besides the garden Maytham hall and Misslethwaite Manor are physically very different.
Having been marketed to both adults and children the reception may have been affected. The book was not as celebrated as Burnett's other books during her lifetime and paled in comparison to the popularity of her other books. The books revival could be traced by an almost complete eclipse at the time of Burnett's death in1924. With the rise of scholarly work in the past twenty five years the book has risen in popularity and prominence. Its often noted as amongst the best books of the 20th century. It ranked 51 in the Big Read (BBC Survey), was named amongst the Teachers top 100 books for children in 2007 and in 2012 ranked 15th in the all time children's novels in a survey published by School Library Journal.
There have been Six movies (1919, 1949, 1987, 1993 and 1994), a TV show (1975), a Musical (1989), an Anime TV series (1991), an Opera (2013), Even a colouring book published (2013) from the book each one with various degrees of popularity and success. There will be a new 'The Secret Garden' movie which is being produced by David Heyman and Rosie Alison with the Production company Heydey films and Studiocanal. Both Colin firth and Julie Walters are set to star as Mrs Medlock and Archibald Craven and the release date will be the 17th April 2020....I am very excited to go see it.
The Author is Francis Hodgson Burnett and her bio segment is in last Tuesdays book club on The Little Princess if you would like to read it.
MY OPINIONS
I came across the book after seeing the 1993 movie when I was 9/10 years old. I went looking for the book bought it and started reading. I really really like the book and I agree that the theme of rejuvenation and regeneration definitely runs through the book. I love this book and definitely will be reading it to my future children. I give this book 8/10.
The story starts at the turn of the 20th century and follows Mary Lennox, a sickly and unloved child born abroad and brought back to her wealthy uncles house after a Cholera outbreak leaves her an orphan. As Mary gets used to her new isolated home she learns of a private walled garden once owned by her aunt forever locked by her uncle and hears crying which eventually leads to her cousin Colin. With Mary telling Colin stories about the moor, her friend Dickon and the secret garden she has access to, Colin is inspired to join her outside and as such both children improve beyond belief.
The books working title was Mistress Mary in reference to the English Nursery Rhyme Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary. Parts of the book was written during Burnett's visits to Buile Hill park, Maytham Hall in Kent, England. She'd lived there for a number of years and the garden was cited as influence for the book. Burnett herself kept an extensive garden however its noted besides the garden Maytham hall and Misslethwaite Manor are physically very different.
Having been marketed to both adults and children the reception may have been affected. The book was not as celebrated as Burnett's other books during her lifetime and paled in comparison to the popularity of her other books. The books revival could be traced by an almost complete eclipse at the time of Burnett's death in1924. With the rise of scholarly work in the past twenty five years the book has risen in popularity and prominence. Its often noted as amongst the best books of the 20th century. It ranked 51 in the Big Read (BBC Survey), was named amongst the Teachers top 100 books for children in 2007 and in 2012 ranked 15th in the all time children's novels in a survey published by School Library Journal.
There have been Six movies (1919, 1949, 1987, 1993 and 1994), a TV show (1975), a Musical (1989), an Anime TV series (1991), an Opera (2013), Even a colouring book published (2013) from the book each one with various degrees of popularity and success. There will be a new 'The Secret Garden' movie which is being produced by David Heyman and Rosie Alison with the Production company Heydey films and Studiocanal. Both Colin firth and Julie Walters are set to star as Mrs Medlock and Archibald Craven and the release date will be the 17th April 2020....I am very excited to go see it.
The Author is Francis Hodgson Burnett and her bio segment is in last Tuesdays book club on The Little Princess if you would like to read it.
MY OPINIONS
I came across the book after seeing the 1993 movie when I was 9/10 years old. I went looking for the book bought it and started reading. I really really like the book and I agree that the theme of rejuvenation and regeneration definitely runs through the book. I love this book and definitely will be reading it to my future children. I give this book 8/10.