Search
Search results
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Alice Takes Back Wonderland in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Review copy provided by the publisher via Netgalley
This review and more can be found at <a href="http://www.inwonderlandbookblog.com/2016/01/alice-takes-back-wonderland-review.html">In Wonderland</a>
Alice Takes Back Wonderland is one peculiar book – it took awhile for me to get into the story, but not bad overall (I've read worse).
The main character, Alice, is a little similar to Alyssa from Splintered – she talks to bugs and flowers, and they talk to her as well. And unlike Alyssa, who keeps her "ability" a secret, those around Alice assume she's a nutcase – she's been assumed to have schizophrenia along with ADHD. Alice also isn't related to Wonderland Alice – she just ended up going down the rabbit hole at seven and came back a completely different person.
Years later, just when Alice thinks everything in Wonderland was an imagination, the White Rabbit appears again to bring Alice back to save Wonderland. There, Ace of Spades has taken over the land and has been trying to "humanize" the creatures by taking the wonder out of them, thus taking Alice back down the rabbit hole once more.
When Hammons introduces us to Wonderland and Alice tries to reunite with the creatures she met when she was seven, it's really hard to get into the story (and at the beginning too – no fun). There's a lot of nonsense going on in Wonderland with very little sense – I haven't read Alice In Wonderland by Lewis Carroll myself, but I personally think Hammons did a pretty good job trying to capture the nonsensical aspect Carroll uses in the original story.
Now, in the case of getting me to read the story, however, I'm starting to think I should just call it off (much to Ella's dismay).
As soon as Alice leaves Wonderland to recruit other kingdoms (fairy tales), on the other hand, the story becomes less nonsensical and more of something that I could fully comprehend and wrap my head around. (I got the gist of Wonderland – I did not understand what all the creatures were saying.) Hammons introduces us Peter Pan and the Lost Boys, Pinocchio, Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty – all recognizable in some way. But that's not all the fairy tales involved.
Hammons also throws in heroes of myth and legend as well – people such as Joan the Ark, Hercules, King Arthur, Loki, etc. At that point, I pretty much took a step back (or almost) from the book. There are way too many tales involved in this battle to take back Wonderland and stop the Ace of Spades from taking the wonder out of everyone. Those characters don't play a major role like Peter Pan, Pinocchio, Snow White, and all the ones mentioned earlier, so it's less confusing. I just think Hammons should have kept it strictly at fairy tales rather than all of them.
(I'll give him this: all of them are individual kingdoms instead of mushed together into one. Less confusing.)
To make it worse, most of the characters also play multiple roles, which I won't say because I might spoil something. But still – too much myth and legend is mentioned in this vast world Hammons creates.
Overall, not bad for a book that takes far too many tales into its plot. It takes some time to get used to the story, but once you get past Wonderland's bit of remaining nonsense and enter Neverland and the Grimm Kingdom, the story has an adventure or two as Alice learns that maybe fairy tales aren't as literal as they seem.
This review and more can be found at <a href="http://www.inwonderlandbookblog.com/2016/01/alice-takes-back-wonderland-review.html">In Wonderland</a>
Alice Takes Back Wonderland is one peculiar book – it took awhile for me to get into the story, but not bad overall (I've read worse).
The main character, Alice, is a little similar to Alyssa from Splintered – she talks to bugs and flowers, and they talk to her as well. And unlike Alyssa, who keeps her "ability" a secret, those around Alice assume she's a nutcase – she's been assumed to have schizophrenia along with ADHD. Alice also isn't related to Wonderland Alice – she just ended up going down the rabbit hole at seven and came back a completely different person.
Years later, just when Alice thinks everything in Wonderland was an imagination, the White Rabbit appears again to bring Alice back to save Wonderland. There, Ace of Spades has taken over the land and has been trying to "humanize" the creatures by taking the wonder out of them, thus taking Alice back down the rabbit hole once more.
When Hammons introduces us to Wonderland and Alice tries to reunite with the creatures she met when she was seven, it's really hard to get into the story (and at the beginning too – no fun). There's a lot of nonsense going on in Wonderland with very little sense – I haven't read Alice In Wonderland by Lewis Carroll myself, but I personally think Hammons did a pretty good job trying to capture the nonsensical aspect Carroll uses in the original story.
Now, in the case of getting me to read the story, however, I'm starting to think I should just call it off (much to Ella's dismay).
As soon as Alice leaves Wonderland to recruit other kingdoms (fairy tales), on the other hand, the story becomes less nonsensical and more of something that I could fully comprehend and wrap my head around. (I got the gist of Wonderland – I did not understand what all the creatures were saying.) Hammons introduces us Peter Pan and the Lost Boys, Pinocchio, Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty – all recognizable in some way. But that's not all the fairy tales involved.
Hammons also throws in heroes of myth and legend as well – people such as Joan the Ark, Hercules, King Arthur, Loki, etc. At that point, I pretty much took a step back (or almost) from the book. There are way too many tales involved in this battle to take back Wonderland and stop the Ace of Spades from taking the wonder out of everyone. Those characters don't play a major role like Peter Pan, Pinocchio, Snow White, and all the ones mentioned earlier, so it's less confusing. I just think Hammons should have kept it strictly at fairy tales rather than all of them.
(I'll give him this: all of them are individual kingdoms instead of mushed together into one. Less confusing.)
To make it worse, most of the characters also play multiple roles, which I won't say because I might spoil something. But still – too much myth and legend is mentioned in this vast world Hammons creates.
Overall, not bad for a book that takes far too many tales into its plot. It takes some time to get used to the story, but once you get past Wonderland's bit of remaining nonsense and enter Neverland and the Grimm Kingdom, the story has an adventure or two as Alice learns that maybe fairy tales aren't as literal as they seem.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Damon, Bale and fast cars (1 more)
Epic technical film making - cinematography, editing and sound - Oscar bait
A linear story on a circular track - but beautifully done.
Despite the love affair cinema has had with cars over the years, the sport of motor racing on film has been patchy. Too often the drama on the track has been deluged with melodrama off the track, as in John Frankenheimer's "Grand Prix" from 1966. While recent efforts such as Ron Howard's "Rush" have brought modern filming techniques to better convey the speed and excitement, it is Steve McQueen's "Le Mans" from 1971 that had previously set the bar for realism in the sport. But even there, there were a few off-track love stories to interweave into the action.
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
