Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated Alone in the Dark (2005) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: I am going to first look at this only as a story, no opinions on the CGI or casting choices. If you were to look at the story as a solo idea you get a solid action horror. Now I hear people going ‘no its just crap’ so let’s look at the details. First off we have an idea of scientific experiment on children to create sleepers, but something goes wrong so we don’t see why it happened until more discoveries in the future. Then we have a search for hidden treasures of a lost ancient people. Add in a paranormal investigator, a secret government paranormal investigating team and the search for a truth. Now looking at those factors we should have a good story not special but enjoyable. Now with terrible casting decisions, awful CGI and a script that could have been written but a child everything goes south fast. As an idea for a story this is good, but as an execution of a story it’s bad. (5/10)
Actor Review
Christian Slater: Edward Carnby a paranormal investigator who has been trying to uncover the truth about his childhood, this puts him in danger as this time he has got closer than ever before. He must team up with his old organisation to final uncover the truth that has lost him the memories of his childhood. Slater strolls for this role without showing any of the skills that made him a star in the early 90s. (5/10)
slater
Tara Reid: Aline Cedrac assistant curator at the museum who also happens to be Edward’s girlfriend, she gets caught up in the middle of the battle after she uncover the location of the door. Going to take a deep breath before going for this one, just no how did this happen? Try your luck in romantic comedies. (2/10)
reid
Stephen Dorff: Commander Burke leader of a military team trying to keep the monsters away from the public, old partner of Edward but after seeing the truth he teams up with them to uncover the truth. Stephen can act and has proven it many times, just need to give him something to work with. (4/10)
dorff
Frank C Turner: Sam an old connection within the organisation that still communicates with Edward, he fills in the science gaps and you can guess what happens to him by the end. Basic supporting performance. (4/10)
fisher
Matthew Walker: Professor Hudgens scientist trying to open the door to the truth about the ancient people, he will do anything to get his answers including sacrificing anybody who gets in his way. As villains go this is generic one that doesn’t need too much to make them special. (4/10)
profes
Director Review: Uwe Boll – He not only managed to mess up a relatively easy story with awful CGI and lack of directing ideas. (2/10)
Action: Plenty of guns being fired, not sure if they ever hit anything as everything is in the pitch black. (3/10)
Horror: Doesn’t give you any scares, frights, well made with the acting. (1/10)
Settings: The settings used for the gun fights are used well, because they would make real settings for such a discover if someone wanted to keep it quiet. (6/10)
Special Effects: Terrible special effects that I only saw one good one and that was a soldier’s head split in two. (1/10)
Suggestion: I think if you are bored one night and this is on it would be acceptable to watch it as it slips close to the line of so bad you have to see. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: The idea
Worst Part: The CGI, Acting and Execution of the idea.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Actually has one sequel
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $10 Million
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Can mankind defeat the army of darkness unleashed by an ancient evil cult?
Overall: Not only did this film destroy the source material, it ruined any chance the video game had of returning.
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/11/09/alone-in-the-dark-2005/
Actor Review
Christian Slater: Edward Carnby a paranormal investigator who has been trying to uncover the truth about his childhood, this puts him in danger as this time he has got closer than ever before. He must team up with his old organisation to final uncover the truth that has lost him the memories of his childhood. Slater strolls for this role without showing any of the skills that made him a star in the early 90s. (5/10)
slater
Tara Reid: Aline Cedrac assistant curator at the museum who also happens to be Edward’s girlfriend, she gets caught up in the middle of the battle after she uncover the location of the door. Going to take a deep breath before going for this one, just no how did this happen? Try your luck in romantic comedies. (2/10)
reid
Stephen Dorff: Commander Burke leader of a military team trying to keep the monsters away from the public, old partner of Edward but after seeing the truth he teams up with them to uncover the truth. Stephen can act and has proven it many times, just need to give him something to work with. (4/10)
dorff
Frank C Turner: Sam an old connection within the organisation that still communicates with Edward, he fills in the science gaps and you can guess what happens to him by the end. Basic supporting performance. (4/10)
fisher
Matthew Walker: Professor Hudgens scientist trying to open the door to the truth about the ancient people, he will do anything to get his answers including sacrificing anybody who gets in his way. As villains go this is generic one that doesn’t need too much to make them special. (4/10)
profes
Director Review: Uwe Boll – He not only managed to mess up a relatively easy story with awful CGI and lack of directing ideas. (2/10)
Action: Plenty of guns being fired, not sure if they ever hit anything as everything is in the pitch black. (3/10)
Horror: Doesn’t give you any scares, frights, well made with the acting. (1/10)
Settings: The settings used for the gun fights are used well, because they would make real settings for such a discover if someone wanted to keep it quiet. (6/10)
Special Effects: Terrible special effects that I only saw one good one and that was a soldier’s head split in two. (1/10)
Suggestion: I think if you are bored one night and this is on it would be acceptable to watch it as it slips close to the line of so bad you have to see. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: The idea
Worst Part: The CGI, Acting and Execution of the idea.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Actually has one sequel
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $10 Million
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Can mankind defeat the army of darkness unleashed by an ancient evil cult?
Overall: Not only did this film destroy the source material, it ruined any chance the video game had of returning.
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/11/09/alone-in-the-dark-2005/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Jumanji: The Next Level (2019) in Movies
Dec 15, 2019
I said this when I reviewed Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, but Jumanji was one of my favorite movies going up. I was extremely reluctant to see the 2017 film. However, I walked out of the theater happy as can be. The movie wasn’t perfect, but it was charming and entertaining, and I felt it was a good modernization of the Jumanji experience.
Then they announced the sequel, and all that fear and panic (not much, but you know… melodrama) kicked back in. Given the state of some sequels these days, I couldn’t imagine how they would be able to do this, and do this well. But I had hopes considering how good the previous entry in the franchise was. Could it be just as good?
The Jumanji: The Next Level releases 2 years after Welcome to the Jungle, and just as much time has passed for our four heroes: Spencer (Alex Wolff), Fridge (Ser’Darius Blain), Bethany (Madison Iseman), and Martha (Morgan Turner). We see the four friends leading their different lives and getting excited to reunite over the holidays.
Everyone, except for Spencer that is. Spencer missed the feeling he had as Doctor Smolder Bravestone (Dwayne Johnson) in Jumanji, so he decides to try and fix the game and re-enter to recapture that feeling. The game was smashed to pieces in the last movie, but Spencer retrieved it and it’s been sitting his basement ever since.
The next day, when the four adventurers are supposed to be meeting for brunch, the remaining three get worried when Spencer doesn’t show. So they head over to Spencer’s place to find Spencer’s Grandfather, Eddie (Danny Devito), and an old friend, Milo (Danny Glover), who also don’t know where he is. Soon they discover the broken remnants of the game and that they’ve been fixed (sorta) and eventually they realize that Spencer has gone into the game again.
They decide to head back in, but somethings a little different this time around, as both Eddie and Milo get pulled into the game as well. All our game characters return: Bravestone, Professor Sheldon “Shelly” Oberon (Jack Black), Franklin “Mouse” Finbar (Kevin Hart), and Ruby Roundhouse (Karen Gillan). But will our young adventurers be controlling the same characters, and what of Eddie and Milo? I can’t say without spoiling so much more.
Now that we have the description out of the way, I will say that I loved this film. Not quite as much as the previous entry, though. I didn’t have high hopes for The Next Level as the trailers and commercials just seemed to be overselling certain aspects of the film, but the film was great.
A good follow up story, excellent acting from our four mains, and enough changeup to allow it to not be essentially the same movie as the first. The acting is great. The plot, while a little predictable, was good as well. The music and score really set the tone and pace of the new Jumanji movies, and in such a good way.
One of the only real criticism I had was that Johnson became a little annoying with his characterization for most of the movie in this film, but that could be intended. A good pallet cleanser, though, was Kevin Hart as he literally played the polar opposite and it was a good balance. The other issue I had was that the finale of the third act seemed a little cheated. It was so rushed, relied heavily on the video game trope and never explained why what happened did happen.
Overall, though, this film is a worthy successor to Welcome to the Jungle and you should definitely check it out. Good for the family, just like the first. I personally cannot wait to see what happens in the next film. There is an obvious set up for third in the reboot, or it could be just left as is. Such is the way of Jumanji.
4 out of 5 stars.
Then they announced the sequel, and all that fear and panic (not much, but you know… melodrama) kicked back in. Given the state of some sequels these days, I couldn’t imagine how they would be able to do this, and do this well. But I had hopes considering how good the previous entry in the franchise was. Could it be just as good?
The Jumanji: The Next Level releases 2 years after Welcome to the Jungle, and just as much time has passed for our four heroes: Spencer (Alex Wolff), Fridge (Ser’Darius Blain), Bethany (Madison Iseman), and Martha (Morgan Turner). We see the four friends leading their different lives and getting excited to reunite over the holidays.
Everyone, except for Spencer that is. Spencer missed the feeling he had as Doctor Smolder Bravestone (Dwayne Johnson) in Jumanji, so he decides to try and fix the game and re-enter to recapture that feeling. The game was smashed to pieces in the last movie, but Spencer retrieved it and it’s been sitting his basement ever since.
The next day, when the four adventurers are supposed to be meeting for brunch, the remaining three get worried when Spencer doesn’t show. So they head over to Spencer’s place to find Spencer’s Grandfather, Eddie (Danny Devito), and an old friend, Milo (Danny Glover), who also don’t know where he is. Soon they discover the broken remnants of the game and that they’ve been fixed (sorta) and eventually they realize that Spencer has gone into the game again.
They decide to head back in, but somethings a little different this time around, as both Eddie and Milo get pulled into the game as well. All our game characters return: Bravestone, Professor Sheldon “Shelly” Oberon (Jack Black), Franklin “Mouse” Finbar (Kevin Hart), and Ruby Roundhouse (Karen Gillan). But will our young adventurers be controlling the same characters, and what of Eddie and Milo? I can’t say without spoiling so much more.
Now that we have the description out of the way, I will say that I loved this film. Not quite as much as the previous entry, though. I didn’t have high hopes for The Next Level as the trailers and commercials just seemed to be overselling certain aspects of the film, but the film was great.
A good follow up story, excellent acting from our four mains, and enough changeup to allow it to not be essentially the same movie as the first. The acting is great. The plot, while a little predictable, was good as well. The music and score really set the tone and pace of the new Jumanji movies, and in such a good way.
One of the only real criticism I had was that Johnson became a little annoying with his characterization for most of the movie in this film, but that could be intended. A good pallet cleanser, though, was Kevin Hart as he literally played the polar opposite and it was a good balance. The other issue I had was that the finale of the third act seemed a little cheated. It was so rushed, relied heavily on the video game trope and never explained why what happened did happen.
Overall, though, this film is a worthy successor to Welcome to the Jungle and you should definitely check it out. Good for the family, just like the first. I personally cannot wait to see what happens in the next film. There is an obvious set up for third in the reboot, or it could be just left as is. Such is the way of Jumanji.
4 out of 5 stars.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Crisis (2021) in Movies
Feb 19, 2021
Worth it just for Oldman
Crisis is a 2021 film from write, director and producer Nicholas Jarecki, who previously brought us 2012's Arbitrage starring Richard Gere. Crisis is a story about drugs, namely opioids, and follows three separate yet related narratives about opioids and their impact on US society. There's an undercover DEA agent posing as a drug trafficker arranging a Fentanyl smuggling operation between Canada and the US (Armie Hammer), a recovering addict architect determined to track down those responsible for her son's involvement in narcotics (Evangeline Lilly), and a university professor (Gary Oldman) who's research laboratory uncovers dangerous revelations about a new drug that they've been paid to research by a very influential drug company and their executives (Luke Evans).
The main purpose of Crisis appears to be highlighting two entirely juxtaposed real life issues with opioids - the illegal smuggling and import of street drugs and the completely legal yet questionable drugs introduced by drug companies with full support of the government. For most, neither of these stories should be particularly surprising as they're fairly common knowledge and have been featured in countless films and documentaries over the years, although I think this may be the first time the two stories have been shown together in a film. And for Crisis this really works - showing the two contrasting issues makes for a more interesting and unique story rather than concentrating solely on one that we've seen many times before, especially as its split into three separate narratives.
However, the problem with Crisis is that not all of the narratives are as engaging as intended. Evangeline Lilly puts in a wonderful and emotional performance as architect and mother Claire, but her narrative becomes a little unrealistic as she becomes bent on revenge at those responsible for involving her son in the drugs underworld. And unfortunately Armie Hammer's narrative as undercover federal agent Jake is nothing original, with a smuggling operation and drugs bust that we've seen in many other films, some of which I'm afraid have done it a lot better. The most interesting narrative though is that of Gary Oldman as Dr Tyrone Brower, whose struggle over whether to tell the truth about a new dangerous drug or take the money from his drug company employers is a surprisingly thrilling morality tale. It's helped by a superb turn from Oldman himself and a wonderful supporting role from Greg Kinnear (who I've adored since 1997's As Good As It Gets), and the verbal sparring scenes between Brower and Kinnear's university Dean are probably the best in the film. It's a shame however that Luke Evans isn't given as much to do with his part in this narrative, even with his questionable American accent.
The biggest problem I had with all of the narratives is that unlike similar films that intertwine related narratives that eventually intersect dramatically (think 2006's Best Picture Oscar winner Crash), the narratives here don't all come together in the way I was expecting, which was rather disappointing.
Cinematography-wise, director and writer Jarecki does a good job as the film looks and feels good, and really highlights the US and Canadian settings. The soundtrack only adds to the overall tense and suspenseful feel of the film, although it does feature the typical pulsing, drum beat style that seems to be standard for a modern thriller. And the script, while possibly a little clichéd especially around the drugs bust and smuggling, is good and with his supporting acting role as Jake's fellow DEA agent Stan, Nicholas Jarecki could be one to watch in future.
Overall, Crisis is a good thriller that tells the story of well-known drug issues in a different way and does well in highlighting real life concerns. For the most part it succeeds in bringing an interesting set of narratives together for a fairly gripping albeit slightly long film, and despite my preconceptions about how its intersecting storylines should play out, it is an enjoyable watch, although for the most part thanks to the talents of Gary Oldman.
The main purpose of Crisis appears to be highlighting two entirely juxtaposed real life issues with opioids - the illegal smuggling and import of street drugs and the completely legal yet questionable drugs introduced by drug companies with full support of the government. For most, neither of these stories should be particularly surprising as they're fairly common knowledge and have been featured in countless films and documentaries over the years, although I think this may be the first time the two stories have been shown together in a film. And for Crisis this really works - showing the two contrasting issues makes for a more interesting and unique story rather than concentrating solely on one that we've seen many times before, especially as its split into three separate narratives.
However, the problem with Crisis is that not all of the narratives are as engaging as intended. Evangeline Lilly puts in a wonderful and emotional performance as architect and mother Claire, but her narrative becomes a little unrealistic as she becomes bent on revenge at those responsible for involving her son in the drugs underworld. And unfortunately Armie Hammer's narrative as undercover federal agent Jake is nothing original, with a smuggling operation and drugs bust that we've seen in many other films, some of which I'm afraid have done it a lot better. The most interesting narrative though is that of Gary Oldman as Dr Tyrone Brower, whose struggle over whether to tell the truth about a new dangerous drug or take the money from his drug company employers is a surprisingly thrilling morality tale. It's helped by a superb turn from Oldman himself and a wonderful supporting role from Greg Kinnear (who I've adored since 1997's As Good As It Gets), and the verbal sparring scenes between Brower and Kinnear's university Dean are probably the best in the film. It's a shame however that Luke Evans isn't given as much to do with his part in this narrative, even with his questionable American accent.
The biggest problem I had with all of the narratives is that unlike similar films that intertwine related narratives that eventually intersect dramatically (think 2006's Best Picture Oscar winner Crash), the narratives here don't all come together in the way I was expecting, which was rather disappointing.
Cinematography-wise, director and writer Jarecki does a good job as the film looks and feels good, and really highlights the US and Canadian settings. The soundtrack only adds to the overall tense and suspenseful feel of the film, although it does feature the typical pulsing, drum beat style that seems to be standard for a modern thriller. And the script, while possibly a little clichéd especially around the drugs bust and smuggling, is good and with his supporting acting role as Jake's fellow DEA agent Stan, Nicholas Jarecki could be one to watch in future.
Overall, Crisis is a good thriller that tells the story of well-known drug issues in a different way and does well in highlighting real life concerns. For the most part it succeeds in bringing an interesting set of narratives together for a fairly gripping albeit slightly long film, and despite my preconceptions about how its intersecting storylines should play out, it is an enjoyable watch, although for the most part thanks to the talents of Gary Oldman.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Roe v. Wade (2021) in Movies
Mar 24, 2021
Tough subject matter taken head on (1 more)
'Old-pros' Voight, Davi and Guttenberg turn up
The script is clunky and unconvincing (1 more)
Some of the supporting acting roles are ropey
A controversial look at the Supreme Court legalisation of abortion in 1973
Roe v Wade was a controversial vote by the US Supreme Court in 1973 over whether abortion should be legalized across the US, following its earlier legalization in New York state.
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Crazy Rich Asians (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Singapore Bling.
I’ve been catching up on films that I missed at the cinema during 2018. And this is one of the ones I most wanted to see but missed due to work commitments.
The Plot.
Rachel (Constance Wu) and Nick (Henry Golding) are young New Yorker professionals in love: Rachel is a successful economics professor and Nick… well, I’m not sure we ever find out what Nick ever does for a job, but his dress and confidence imply he’s doing well. Nick has an announcement: that his best friend Colin (Chris Pang) is getting married in Singapore and he invites Rachel to join him and meet his parents.
The trip discloses something previously hidden to Rachel: that Nick is actually heir to one of the richest families in Singapore. Indeed, as they got their money from property, the family effectively BUILT Singapore! But once in Singapore, life becomes hard for Rachel. She has to deal with the “not good enough for my Nick” disapproval of Nick’s family (led by Nick’s mother, the imperious Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh). Not only that, but thanks to Nick’s eligible-batchelor status and the pervasive nature of social media, everyone in Singapore knows about Nick and Rachel. As such, many of the ‘hens’ of Colin’s fiancee Araminta have it in for Rachel. (Araminta is played by Sonoya Mizuno, so memorable in “Ex Machina“).
Layers of rich characters.
This is not your average rom-com. Because here there’s a depth of characters within Nick’s broader family to entertain, each with their own set of quirks and issues. The dynamic of the family matriarch, grandmother (Lisa Lu), with the rest of the family is also fascinating; Friend or foe for Rachel? – it’s often difficult to tell.
Also entertaining is the introduction of Rachel’s old college room-mate Peil Lin Goh (a superbly over-the-top bonkers performance by Awkwafina) and her ‘nouveau-riche’ family. Her father (Ken Jeong) is simply hilarious in a bat-shit crazy sort of way.
But it’s the two engaging leads that impress most, particularly Henry Golding. Prior to this – his debut movie role – he was a Malaysian TV travel reporter! (He of course followed this performance up a month later with his equally impressive role as Blake Lively’s husband in “A Simple Favour“).
As sponsored by the Singapore tourist board.
Much of the action could be lifted from “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, “Meet the Parents” or “Mean Girls”. But it’s all given a refreshing asian facelift with its Singapore setting.
Singapore is one of my favourite cities: safe, clean and vibrant and with drop-dead gorgeous architecture. And I actually saw this movie while flying back out of Singapore itself. As such, I reflected on just what a great promotional flick for the tourist industry it was. From the wedding party at the Gardens by the Bay to the utterly jaw-dropping infinity pool at the “ship-hotel” (the Marina Bay Sands hotel, featured through a stunning fireworks-infused drone shot), all convey the excitement of the place.
A fun feel-good classic.
What’s impressive about the sharp writing is that this is the movie screenplay debut for co-writers Peter Chiarelli and Adele Lim. It’s a movie that makes you occasionally sit up and go ‘wow’. As an example, there’s a quirky ‘social media tsunami’ scene in the first 10 minutes. But the movie then builds with character-development stories that, while not particularly novel, are engagingly well-written and well delivered by the enthusiastic ensemble cast.
The director is John M Chu, whose less-than-stellar CV includes “GI: Joe” and “Now You See Me 2”, but here delivers a breathless momentum that lasts to the final scene.
The perfect wife and the perfect husband? Michael (Pierre Png), the boy who married well (which feels a plot borrowed from “Lost”), with the lovely Astrid (Gemma Chan). (Source: Warner Brothers).
And it’s that denouement that got to me. I don’t tend to get slushy about these sort of romantic comedies. But there’s a “reveal” in the final few minutes of the movie that completely surprised me (even though it should have been obvious!). It actually made me well-up!
It didn’t make a big dent in the awards nominations. But for fans of quirky romantic comedies it’s a recommended watch. It’s really difficult to dislike!
The Plot.
Rachel (Constance Wu) and Nick (Henry Golding) are young New Yorker professionals in love: Rachel is a successful economics professor and Nick… well, I’m not sure we ever find out what Nick ever does for a job, but his dress and confidence imply he’s doing well. Nick has an announcement: that his best friend Colin (Chris Pang) is getting married in Singapore and he invites Rachel to join him and meet his parents.
The trip discloses something previously hidden to Rachel: that Nick is actually heir to one of the richest families in Singapore. Indeed, as they got their money from property, the family effectively BUILT Singapore! But once in Singapore, life becomes hard for Rachel. She has to deal with the “not good enough for my Nick” disapproval of Nick’s family (led by Nick’s mother, the imperious Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh). Not only that, but thanks to Nick’s eligible-batchelor status and the pervasive nature of social media, everyone in Singapore knows about Nick and Rachel. As such, many of the ‘hens’ of Colin’s fiancee Araminta have it in for Rachel. (Araminta is played by Sonoya Mizuno, so memorable in “Ex Machina“).
Layers of rich characters.
This is not your average rom-com. Because here there’s a depth of characters within Nick’s broader family to entertain, each with their own set of quirks and issues. The dynamic of the family matriarch, grandmother (Lisa Lu), with the rest of the family is also fascinating; Friend or foe for Rachel? – it’s often difficult to tell.
Also entertaining is the introduction of Rachel’s old college room-mate Peil Lin Goh (a superbly over-the-top bonkers performance by Awkwafina) and her ‘nouveau-riche’ family. Her father (Ken Jeong) is simply hilarious in a bat-shit crazy sort of way.
But it’s the two engaging leads that impress most, particularly Henry Golding. Prior to this – his debut movie role – he was a Malaysian TV travel reporter! (He of course followed this performance up a month later with his equally impressive role as Blake Lively’s husband in “A Simple Favour“).
As sponsored by the Singapore tourist board.
Much of the action could be lifted from “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, “Meet the Parents” or “Mean Girls”. But it’s all given a refreshing asian facelift with its Singapore setting.
Singapore is one of my favourite cities: safe, clean and vibrant and with drop-dead gorgeous architecture. And I actually saw this movie while flying back out of Singapore itself. As such, I reflected on just what a great promotional flick for the tourist industry it was. From the wedding party at the Gardens by the Bay to the utterly jaw-dropping infinity pool at the “ship-hotel” (the Marina Bay Sands hotel, featured through a stunning fireworks-infused drone shot), all convey the excitement of the place.
A fun feel-good classic.
What’s impressive about the sharp writing is that this is the movie screenplay debut for co-writers Peter Chiarelli and Adele Lim. It’s a movie that makes you occasionally sit up and go ‘wow’. As an example, there’s a quirky ‘social media tsunami’ scene in the first 10 minutes. But the movie then builds with character-development stories that, while not particularly novel, are engagingly well-written and well delivered by the enthusiastic ensemble cast.
The director is John M Chu, whose less-than-stellar CV includes “GI: Joe” and “Now You See Me 2”, but here delivers a breathless momentum that lasts to the final scene.
The perfect wife and the perfect husband? Michael (Pierre Png), the boy who married well (which feels a plot borrowed from “Lost”), with the lovely Astrid (Gemma Chan). (Source: Warner Brothers).
And it’s that denouement that got to me. I don’t tend to get slushy about these sort of romantic comedies. But there’s a “reveal” in the final few minutes of the movie that completely surprised me (even though it should have been obvious!). It actually made me well-up!
It didn’t make a big dent in the awards nominations. But for fans of quirky romantic comedies it’s a recommended watch. It’s really difficult to dislike!
Beckie Shelton (40 KP) rated The End (The Stained Duet #2) in Books
Oct 6, 2017
What the hell did I just read and how did Blaine Jacobs make me fall hook line and sinker for his cruelly sadistic Arse when in real-time I would be running screaming for the hills.
Five Stars and more if I could give more, sooo fantastically addictive reading was this.
Charlotte Hart has achieved the impossible, actually crafting a story that shows this unapologetic sadist in an actual sympathetic warm light, don't ask me how she has achieved this I just know my feelings towards Blaine were akin to puppies and rainbows approaching the end of this story. I really wanted him to get his HEA with his little Dove like so so badly.
So this is the second part in The stained duet it is ironically and appropriately named "The End"
my review for the first novel "Once Upon A" is here
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
I'm assuming that you've read Part 1 and as such should have a fairly good idea of the kind of content to expect from this as Despite me previously mentioning puppies and rainbows, well let's just say I wouldn't bank on anything remotely fluffy in this tale.
its More akin to whips, Blood and Pain with a side order of degradation and humiliation thrown in just for shit and giggles.
So "The End" begins where "Once Upon A" left off with Alana thinking she is ready to handle a relationship with Blaine, That she can provide what he needs while still not realising that it is something that she herself also finds necessary to quiet the noise inside.
So the next chapter for Blaine and Alana's unique love story begins and for every step forward Alana takes Blaine seems to take ten backward, so scared of the feelings emerging from the barren expanse that is his usually cold heart and his past heavily impacting on there future, Blaine desperately tries to lock down his emotions scared of the past repeating itself when this time around he has something of importance and value to lose, an irreplaceable, breakable and vulnerable Toy, irresistible to his monster
We are also introduced to Blaine's inner psyche's, he sees each mask as a separate persona all functioning as individuals, all identities performing a purpose he needs in what he explains as his madness and self-diagnosed insanity.
The Professor, The Magician and The monster.
one to adore and teach, one to manipulate and manoeuvre/Blaine's puppet master if you will and one to annihilate, play and devastate, unapologetic in its savagery and mercilessness
Can Alana his little Dove accept all of these faces leaving Blaine grounded in Alana's love and acceptance of his true nature.
Alana herself grows so much also, accepting her inner masochistic nature seems to give her a strength and also a peace she has struggled to find in her busy demanding life, surrendering to Blaine silences the noise if just for a little while.
It was interesting to see the dynamics between these two evolve as both slowly realise that they had found there soul in each other.
"The end" was such a deeply intense and emotional tale, exploring and dissecting the dynamics of the unconventional.
Though this was a hot read, for me it was more the emotion and obvious adoration here that drew me in, captivating and hooking me completely, there was a scene towards the end of the book where Blaine openly shows his love for Alana and to me, it was stunning in its intention and brutality, showcasing Blaine's commitment and intentions and cementing their relationship.
Oh, I could just go on and on exploring the blurred grey lines of this very unique love story it's just such delicious reading.
but all good things must come to an end sigh. So just to conclude this is a very dark love story with a sadist that only follows his own rules, Please do avoid if the darkness is a trigger for you, myself I love that Alana and Blaine stay true to there natures even in love, Sadist and Masachist a match made in heaven or maybe hell, there's no childhood trauma or rhyme or reason to this it just is what it is. Alana and Blaine laid bare. I raced through this in record time and loved every second of the experience. I adored "Once Upon A" but "The End" is in a league all of its own beguiling and thought-provoking in its originality.
Thank you so much, Charlotte E Hart for providing me with an arc of The End (The Stained Duet #2) This is my own honest unbiased opinion
Arc Reviewed By Beckie Bookworm
https://www.beckiebookworm.com/
https://www.facebook.com/beckiebookworm/
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/9460945-bex-beckie-bookworm
Five Stars and more if I could give more, sooo fantastically addictive reading was this.
Charlotte Hart has achieved the impossible, actually crafting a story that shows this unapologetic sadist in an actual sympathetic warm light, don't ask me how she has achieved this I just know my feelings towards Blaine were akin to puppies and rainbows approaching the end of this story. I really wanted him to get his HEA with his little Dove like so so badly.
So this is the second part in The stained duet it is ironically and appropriately named "The End"
my review for the first novel "Once Upon A" is here
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
I'm assuming that you've read Part 1 and as such should have a fairly good idea of the kind of content to expect from this as Despite me previously mentioning puppies and rainbows, well let's just say I wouldn't bank on anything remotely fluffy in this tale.
its More akin to whips, Blood and Pain with a side order of degradation and humiliation thrown in just for shit and giggles.
So "The End" begins where "Once Upon A" left off with Alana thinking she is ready to handle a relationship with Blaine, That she can provide what he needs while still not realising that it is something that she herself also finds necessary to quiet the noise inside.
So the next chapter for Blaine and Alana's unique love story begins and for every step forward Alana takes Blaine seems to take ten backward, so scared of the feelings emerging from the barren expanse that is his usually cold heart and his past heavily impacting on there future, Blaine desperately tries to lock down his emotions scared of the past repeating itself when this time around he has something of importance and value to lose, an irreplaceable, breakable and vulnerable Toy, irresistible to his monster
We are also introduced to Blaine's inner psyche's, he sees each mask as a separate persona all functioning as individuals, all identities performing a purpose he needs in what he explains as his madness and self-diagnosed insanity.
The Professor, The Magician and The monster.
one to adore and teach, one to manipulate and manoeuvre/Blaine's puppet master if you will and one to annihilate, play and devastate, unapologetic in its savagery and mercilessness
Can Alana his little Dove accept all of these faces leaving Blaine grounded in Alana's love and acceptance of his true nature.
Alana herself grows so much also, accepting her inner masochistic nature seems to give her a strength and also a peace she has struggled to find in her busy demanding life, surrendering to Blaine silences the noise if just for a little while.
It was interesting to see the dynamics between these two evolve as both slowly realise that they had found there soul in each other.
"The end" was such a deeply intense and emotional tale, exploring and dissecting the dynamics of the unconventional.
Though this was a hot read, for me it was more the emotion and obvious adoration here that drew me in, captivating and hooking me completely, there was a scene towards the end of the book where Blaine openly shows his love for Alana and to me, it was stunning in its intention and brutality, showcasing Blaine's commitment and intentions and cementing their relationship.
Oh, I could just go on and on exploring the blurred grey lines of this very unique love story it's just such delicious reading.
but all good things must come to an end sigh. So just to conclude this is a very dark love story with a sadist that only follows his own rules, Please do avoid if the darkness is a trigger for you, myself I love that Alana and Blaine stay true to there natures even in love, Sadist and Masachist a match made in heaven or maybe hell, there's no childhood trauma or rhyme or reason to this it just is what it is. Alana and Blaine laid bare. I raced through this in record time and loved every second of the experience. I adored "Once Upon A" but "The End" is in a league all of its own beguiling and thought-provoking in its originality.
Thank you so much, Charlotte E Hart for providing me with an arc of The End (The Stained Duet #2) This is my own honest unbiased opinion
Arc Reviewed By Beckie Bookworm
https://www.beckiebookworm.com/
https://www.facebook.com/beckiebookworm/
https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/9460945-bex-beckie-bookworm
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Water Babies in Books
Oct 9, 2017
Worryingly Controversial
This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
This year (2017), Calla Editions are printing a new hardback version of the original 1863 children’s classic The Water Babies written by the Anglican clergyman, Charles Kingsley (1819-75). Subtitled “A Fairytale for a land-baby” the book was intended for Kingsley’s youngest son and therefore was targeted at a juvenile demographic. However, as a result of the 1800’s vernacular and particularly deep themes, it has become more appropriate for older readers. With full-colour illustrations by Jessie Wilcox Smith (1863-1935) from the height of the golden age of illustration, this edition promises to be a collector’s item.
Charles Kingsley, the founder of England’s Christian Socialist movement, was exceedingly interested in the plight of the working class, particularly of the abuse and protection of children. This is reflected in his story about Tom, the ten-year-old London chimney sweep, who suffers ill-treatment at the hands of his employer. Tom, who has known nothing but the sooty streets of London, is embarrassed after scaring a beautiful young girl with his grimy appearance. Running away through a countryside he is unfamiliar with, Tom dives into a river to wash, however, falls asleep in the water.
On awakening, Tom discovers he has been transformed into a water baby; he can live and breathe amongst all the fishes and other mystical water creatures. Forgetting his horrible past, Tom is soon frolicking with the characters he meets, teasing and provoking unsuspecting individuals. But the fairies in charge of water babies are determined to teach him many lessons about truth, mercy, justice and courage.
The Water Babies is a morality fable with fairy-tale-like qualities. It educates young readers about the consequences of their actions but also enlightens them about the cruelty of some adults. Kingsley often talks to the reader (in this instance his son), drawing them into the story and making the scenarios as relatable as possible. The magical underwater setting is merely a veil to hide the lessons Kingsley is attempting to preach.
For the adult reader, Kingsley has a much more political message. Written at the time of political and scientific advancement, particularly in respect to the concept of natural selection, Kingsley attempts to ridicule the ideas of thinkers such as Charles Darwin by producing a satirical narrative. He suggests that scientists are fools who use unnecessarily long and foreign terms, evidenced by his use of the made-up subject of Necrobioneopalæonthydrochthonanthropopithekology. He also goes as far as to mock the majority of adults and appears to be completely anti-Irish people.
In some instances, Charles Kingsley goes too far in his satire, resulting in something that would not be accepted by publishers today. In order for Tom to be the hero of the story, adults need to be viewed as less than good – people who need to be punished for their discourteous treatment of children, which in this instance, they are, and quite graphically. But the most controversial theme explored is death. The more naïve may not cotton on to the fact that Tom falling asleep in the river equates to drowning, yet that is exactly what happened. Only through death can one become a water baby. To make matters slightly more alarming, Kingsley does not see this death as a bad thing; he describes Tom’s new life as something far better than life on earth – coming from a clergyman this is understandable – which suggests that death is better than living for an abused child.
Despite these controversies, Kingsley’s prose is humorous and entertaining - far more mind-boggling than you may initially expect. With characters named Mrs Bedonebyasyoudid and Professor Ptthmllnsprts, there is plenty to make readers laugh. Some of the hilarities may go above the heads of children since the jargon is no longer used in today’s society, however, adults will be able to appreciate the comical aspect.
Over 150 years old, The Water Babies has remained a classic. It reveals the political, scientific and social situations of the mid-1800s, yet it contains wisdom that is still relevant today. As Kingsley’s daughter Rose says in the introduction, “What a fine thing it is to love truth, mercy, justice, courage, and all things noble and of good report.” No matter how peculiar this novel is, it says a lot about the virtues of our character.
This year (2017), Calla Editions are printing a new hardback version of the original 1863 children’s classic The Water Babies written by the Anglican clergyman, Charles Kingsley (1819-75). Subtitled “A Fairytale for a land-baby” the book was intended for Kingsley’s youngest son and therefore was targeted at a juvenile demographic. However, as a result of the 1800’s vernacular and particularly deep themes, it has become more appropriate for older readers. With full-colour illustrations by Jessie Wilcox Smith (1863-1935) from the height of the golden age of illustration, this edition promises to be a collector’s item.
Charles Kingsley, the founder of England’s Christian Socialist movement, was exceedingly interested in the plight of the working class, particularly of the abuse and protection of children. This is reflected in his story about Tom, the ten-year-old London chimney sweep, who suffers ill-treatment at the hands of his employer. Tom, who has known nothing but the sooty streets of London, is embarrassed after scaring a beautiful young girl with his grimy appearance. Running away through a countryside he is unfamiliar with, Tom dives into a river to wash, however, falls asleep in the water.
On awakening, Tom discovers he has been transformed into a water baby; he can live and breathe amongst all the fishes and other mystical water creatures. Forgetting his horrible past, Tom is soon frolicking with the characters he meets, teasing and provoking unsuspecting individuals. But the fairies in charge of water babies are determined to teach him many lessons about truth, mercy, justice and courage.
The Water Babies is a morality fable with fairy-tale-like qualities. It educates young readers about the consequences of their actions but also enlightens them about the cruelty of some adults. Kingsley often talks to the reader (in this instance his son), drawing them into the story and making the scenarios as relatable as possible. The magical underwater setting is merely a veil to hide the lessons Kingsley is attempting to preach.
For the adult reader, Kingsley has a much more political message. Written at the time of political and scientific advancement, particularly in respect to the concept of natural selection, Kingsley attempts to ridicule the ideas of thinkers such as Charles Darwin by producing a satirical narrative. He suggests that scientists are fools who use unnecessarily long and foreign terms, evidenced by his use of the made-up subject of Necrobioneopalæonthydrochthonanthropopithekology. He also goes as far as to mock the majority of adults and appears to be completely anti-Irish people.
In some instances, Charles Kingsley goes too far in his satire, resulting in something that would not be accepted by publishers today. In order for Tom to be the hero of the story, adults need to be viewed as less than good – people who need to be punished for their discourteous treatment of children, which in this instance, they are, and quite graphically. But the most controversial theme explored is death. The more naïve may not cotton on to the fact that Tom falling asleep in the river equates to drowning, yet that is exactly what happened. Only through death can one become a water baby. To make matters slightly more alarming, Kingsley does not see this death as a bad thing; he describes Tom’s new life as something far better than life on earth – coming from a clergyman this is understandable – which suggests that death is better than living for an abused child.
Despite these controversies, Kingsley’s prose is humorous and entertaining - far more mind-boggling than you may initially expect. With characters named Mrs Bedonebyasyoudid and Professor Ptthmllnsprts, there is plenty to make readers laugh. Some of the hilarities may go above the heads of children since the jargon is no longer used in today’s society, however, adults will be able to appreciate the comical aspect.
Over 150 years old, The Water Babies has remained a classic. It reveals the political, scientific and social situations of the mid-1800s, yet it contains wisdom that is still relevant today. As Kingsley’s daughter Rose says in the introduction, “What a fine thing it is to love truth, mercy, justice, courage, and all things noble and of good report.” No matter how peculiar this novel is, it says a lot about the virtues of our character.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Water Babies in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
This year (2017), Calla Editions are printing a new hardback version of the original 1863 children’s classic <i>The Water Babies</i> written by the Anglican clergyman, Charles Kingsley (1819-75). Subtitled “<i>A Fairytale for a land-baby</i>” the book was intended for Kingsley’s youngest son and therefore was targeted at a juvenile demographic. However, as a result of the 1800’s vernacular and particularly deep themes, it has become more appropriate for older readers. With full-colour illustrations by Jessie Wilcox Smith (1863-1935) from the height of the golden age of illustration, this edition promises to be a collector’s item.
Charles Kingsley, the founder of England’s Christian Socialist movement, was exceedingly interested in the plight of the working class, particularly of the abuse and protection of children. This is reflected in his story about Tom, the ten-year-old London chimney sweep, who suffers ill-treatment at the hands of his employer. Tom, who has known nothing but the sooty streets of London, is embarrassed after scaring a beautiful young girl with his grimy appearance. Running away through a countryside he is unfamiliar with, Tom dives into a river to wash, however, falls asleep in the water.
On awakening, Tom discovers he has been transformed into a water baby; he can live and breathe amongst all the fishes and other mystical water creatures. Forgetting his horrible past, Tom is soon frolicking with the characters he meets, teasing and provoking unsuspecting individuals. But the fairies in charge of water babies are determined to teach him many lessons about truth, mercy, justice and courage.
<i>The Water Babies</i> is a morality fable with fairy-tale-like qualities. It educates young readers about the consequences of their actions but also enlightens them about the cruelty of some adults. Kingsley often talks to the reader (in this instance his son), drawing them into the story and making the scenarios as relatable as possible. The magical underwater setting is merely a veil to hide the lessons Kingsley is attempting to preach.
For the adult reader, Kingsley has a much more political message. Written at the time of political and scientific advancement, particularly in respect to the concept of natural selection, Kingsley attempts to ridicule the ideas of thinkers such as Charles Darwin by producing a satirical narrative. He suggests that scientists are fools who use unnecessarily long and foreign terms, evidenced by his use of the made-up subject of <i>Necrobioneopalæonthydrochthonanthropopithekology</i>. He also goes as far as to mock the majority of adults and appears to be completely anti-Irish people.
In some instances, Charles Kingsley goes too far in his satire, resulting in something that would not be accepted by publishers today. In order for Tom to be the hero of the story, adults need to be viewed as less than good – people who need to be punished for their discourteous treatment of children, which in this instance, they are, and quite graphically. But the most controversial theme explored is death. The more naïve may not cotton on to the fact that Tom falling asleep in the river equates to drowning, yet that is exactly what happened. Only through death can one become a water baby. To make matters slightly more alarming, Kingsley does not see this death as a bad thing; he describes Tom’s new life as something far better than life on earth – coming from a clergyman this is understandable – which suggests that death is better than living for an abused child.
Despite these controversies, Kingsley’s prose is humorous and entertaining - far more mind-boggling than you may initially expect. With characters named Mrs Bedonebyasyoudid and Professor Ptthmllnsprts, there is plenty to make readers laugh. Some of the hilarities may go above the heads of children since the jargon is no longer used in today’s society, however, adults will be able to appreciate the comical aspect.
Over 150 years old, <i>The Water Babies</i> has remained a classic. It reveals the political, scientific and social situations of the mid-1800s, yet it contains wisdom that is still relevant today. As Kingsley’s daughter Rose says in the introduction, “What a fine thing it is to love truth, mercy, justice, courage, and all things noble and of good report.” No matter how peculiar this novel is, it says a lot about the virtues of our character.
This year (2017), Calla Editions are printing a new hardback version of the original 1863 children’s classic <i>The Water Babies</i> written by the Anglican clergyman, Charles Kingsley (1819-75). Subtitled “<i>A Fairytale for a land-baby</i>” the book was intended for Kingsley’s youngest son and therefore was targeted at a juvenile demographic. However, as a result of the 1800’s vernacular and particularly deep themes, it has become more appropriate for older readers. With full-colour illustrations by Jessie Wilcox Smith (1863-1935) from the height of the golden age of illustration, this edition promises to be a collector’s item.
Charles Kingsley, the founder of England’s Christian Socialist movement, was exceedingly interested in the plight of the working class, particularly of the abuse and protection of children. This is reflected in his story about Tom, the ten-year-old London chimney sweep, who suffers ill-treatment at the hands of his employer. Tom, who has known nothing but the sooty streets of London, is embarrassed after scaring a beautiful young girl with his grimy appearance. Running away through a countryside he is unfamiliar with, Tom dives into a river to wash, however, falls asleep in the water.
On awakening, Tom discovers he has been transformed into a water baby; he can live and breathe amongst all the fishes and other mystical water creatures. Forgetting his horrible past, Tom is soon frolicking with the characters he meets, teasing and provoking unsuspecting individuals. But the fairies in charge of water babies are determined to teach him many lessons about truth, mercy, justice and courage.
<i>The Water Babies</i> is a morality fable with fairy-tale-like qualities. It educates young readers about the consequences of their actions but also enlightens them about the cruelty of some adults. Kingsley often talks to the reader (in this instance his son), drawing them into the story and making the scenarios as relatable as possible. The magical underwater setting is merely a veil to hide the lessons Kingsley is attempting to preach.
For the adult reader, Kingsley has a much more political message. Written at the time of political and scientific advancement, particularly in respect to the concept of natural selection, Kingsley attempts to ridicule the ideas of thinkers such as Charles Darwin by producing a satirical narrative. He suggests that scientists are fools who use unnecessarily long and foreign terms, evidenced by his use of the made-up subject of <i>Necrobioneopalæonthydrochthonanthropopithekology</i>. He also goes as far as to mock the majority of adults and appears to be completely anti-Irish people.
In some instances, Charles Kingsley goes too far in his satire, resulting in something that would not be accepted by publishers today. In order for Tom to be the hero of the story, adults need to be viewed as less than good – people who need to be punished for their discourteous treatment of children, which in this instance, they are, and quite graphically. But the most controversial theme explored is death. The more naïve may not cotton on to the fact that Tom falling asleep in the river equates to drowning, yet that is exactly what happened. Only through death can one become a water baby. To make matters slightly more alarming, Kingsley does not see this death as a bad thing; he describes Tom’s new life as something far better than life on earth – coming from a clergyman this is understandable – which suggests that death is better than living for an abused child.
Despite these controversies, Kingsley’s prose is humorous and entertaining - far more mind-boggling than you may initially expect. With characters named Mrs Bedonebyasyoudid and Professor Ptthmllnsprts, there is plenty to make readers laugh. Some of the hilarities may go above the heads of children since the jargon is no longer used in today’s society, however, adults will be able to appreciate the comical aspect.
Over 150 years old, <i>The Water Babies</i> has remained a classic. It reveals the political, scientific and social situations of the mid-1800s, yet it contains wisdom that is still relevant today. As Kingsley’s daughter Rose says in the introduction, “What a fine thing it is to love truth, mercy, justice, courage, and all things noble and of good report.” No matter how peculiar this novel is, it says a lot about the virtues of our character.
Andy Meakin (5 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2018
Welcome back to Jumanji
How dare they make a sequel/remake/reboot of Jumanji? I mean that film was a classic. Admittedly a very average classic that doesn’t really live up to your childhood memory of it, but still. And, yeah, Zathura was a kind of remake given it was adapted from a book by the same writer and explored the same themes, but nobody watched that, so how dare they do a new Jumanji film? I mean it’s only 22 years since the original came out!
Do you find yourself agreeing with any of that little rant? If you do, then I have a few things to say. First, accept that for thousands of years similar tales have been retold to new generations to keep the spirit of a story alive. Second, why not actually wait to see what the new film has to offer before casting judgement as Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle actually serves well as a sequel to the first film, whilst doing something new with the idea.
Starting in the mid-90s, and the board game is unearthed on a beach. Given to a teenage kid by his father, the kid isn’t impressed as ‘nobody plays board games these days’, and he gets back to playing on his console. Overnight, reacting to the changes in gaming culture the box works some magic, and the next day the game has morphed to a video game format, to entice a new generation. Jump forward to present day and a group of unlikely teenagers are cast together in detention when they happen upon the abandoned game console. Taking a break from their junk-room sorting, they fire up the game and find themselves pulled into the game -world, each taking on the avatar of the character template they chose on load up. Presented with a quest in true video-game fashion, they set off to find a way to escape, whilst learning something about themselves in the process.
By transitioning to a video-game setting, the story allows for a great deal of fun to be had poking at the contrivances and conventions of the format, especially for games of the era in which the game was inspired. The characters all have strengths and weaknesses, the spawning of lives by dropping from the sky is so reminiscent of many a side-scrolling platform shooter of yesteryear. Even the behaviour of the NPC – I mean support cast – is perfectly drawn upon the mannerisms that game characters act, being there to spout random exposition to move you on your quest. As for the quests – yep, they are pointlessly complicated, filled with traps and red herrings.
But such pokes at video game culture would be wasted if the casting was wrong, but in the four main stars they have cast the perfect personae for each archetype. The heroic, strong and smouldering hero, who is being played by a soft heated geek – The Rock of course. You want a ‘Lara Croft’ style action heroine, albeit played by a socially awkward teen girl – enter Karen Gillan. Weak sidekick who is only there to carry equipment, but being played by a high school jock who thinks he can do anything – Kevin Hart is your man. Round that off with a studious professor type, being played by a female – that kind of comic role works well for Jack Black. Each of the stars cast has a lot of fun playing with there archetypes, and the film does them all justice to allow them to each have their moments to shine. Gillan, in particular, does a great job at looking entirely awkward yet confident at the same time, and her nerdy seduction scene showcases a comic timing ability equal to her action talents showcased in the GotG films.
The action is thrilling, the humour well placed, and the direction solid enough to bring this video game movie to life. In fact, this is one of the best video game movies to date, even though it isn’t even adapted from a real video game. A few nods to the original Jumanji are present, but without awkwardly placed. The end result is a fun family adventure with some great action set pieces and a wry humour, much like the original was. Don’t let nostalgia for the original put you off exploring the world of Jumanji once more.
Do you find yourself agreeing with any of that little rant? If you do, then I have a few things to say. First, accept that for thousands of years similar tales have been retold to new generations to keep the spirit of a story alive. Second, why not actually wait to see what the new film has to offer before casting judgement as Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle actually serves well as a sequel to the first film, whilst doing something new with the idea.
Starting in the mid-90s, and the board game is unearthed on a beach. Given to a teenage kid by his father, the kid isn’t impressed as ‘nobody plays board games these days’, and he gets back to playing on his console. Overnight, reacting to the changes in gaming culture the box works some magic, and the next day the game has morphed to a video game format, to entice a new generation. Jump forward to present day and a group of unlikely teenagers are cast together in detention when they happen upon the abandoned game console. Taking a break from their junk-room sorting, they fire up the game and find themselves pulled into the game -world, each taking on the avatar of the character template they chose on load up. Presented with a quest in true video-game fashion, they set off to find a way to escape, whilst learning something about themselves in the process.
By transitioning to a video-game setting, the story allows for a great deal of fun to be had poking at the contrivances and conventions of the format, especially for games of the era in which the game was inspired. The characters all have strengths and weaknesses, the spawning of lives by dropping from the sky is so reminiscent of many a side-scrolling platform shooter of yesteryear. Even the behaviour of the NPC – I mean support cast – is perfectly drawn upon the mannerisms that game characters act, being there to spout random exposition to move you on your quest. As for the quests – yep, they are pointlessly complicated, filled with traps and red herrings.
But such pokes at video game culture would be wasted if the casting was wrong, but in the four main stars they have cast the perfect personae for each archetype. The heroic, strong and smouldering hero, who is being played by a soft heated geek – The Rock of course. You want a ‘Lara Croft’ style action heroine, albeit played by a socially awkward teen girl – enter Karen Gillan. Weak sidekick who is only there to carry equipment, but being played by a high school jock who thinks he can do anything – Kevin Hart is your man. Round that off with a studious professor type, being played by a female – that kind of comic role works well for Jack Black. Each of the stars cast has a lot of fun playing with there archetypes, and the film does them all justice to allow them to each have their moments to shine. Gillan, in particular, does a great job at looking entirely awkward yet confident at the same time, and her nerdy seduction scene showcases a comic timing ability equal to her action talents showcased in the GotG films.
The action is thrilling, the humour well placed, and the direction solid enough to bring this video game movie to life. In fact, this is one of the best video game movies to date, even though it isn’t even adapted from a real video game. A few nods to the original Jumanji are present, but without awkwardly placed. The end result is a fun family adventure with some great action set pieces and a wry humour, much like the original was. Don’t let nostalgia for the original put you off exploring the world of Jumanji once more.
Mayhawke (97 KP) rated I am No One in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Intriguing but ultimately disappointing
Written in the first person I Am No One is the account of recent events in the life of the fictional NY academic, Jeremy O'Keefe. O'Keefe, ironically an expert in surveillance, finds himself the subject of apparent scrutiny by unknown observers, a discovery that propels him into paranoia and pushes him to the boundaries of sanity. As the story is unpacked, page by page, it becomes clear that O'Keefe's paranoia is not unfounded, and that his initial confusion as to why anyone would want to bother observing the behaviour of a mundane and only moderately successful Professor actually belies a deeper understanding of the cause and his actions that precipitated it.
O'Keefe is a difficult character to really sympathise with. Whilst his ideology is admirably egalitarian he falls into that bracket of slightly stuffy, middle-class liberals who take themselves too seriously and fail to practise what they preach. In fairness to O'Keefe he largely has the grace and self-awareness to question the rationality of his fears and accidental moments of prejudice (though he is of the very typical male Liberal variety that doesn't seem to recognise the contradiction of professing himself feminist whilst watching porn): slightly pompous, slightly too much self-regard slightly too much sense of victimhood, he is not unlikeable just a bit of a non-entity. Whilst this is clearly intentional it makes his narrative stodgy. Not unreadable, but at the same time easy to put down for a week whilst a more engaging book is read. This is either a spectacularly adept piece of characterisation or an unfortunate reflection of the author, Patrick Flanery. I do hope it is the writing because if not then all the peculiar, inaccurate and unlikely observations made by O'Keefe onbehalf of his character regarding differences between the British and Americans are likely also Flanery's:. For example the breath-taking assertion that socio-economic failure is treated more harshly in the UK than in the US, when any basic knowledge of sociology in the two countries shows that the criteria for failure is a) much broader in the US and b) responded to far more harshly, e.g.: "if you don't earn enough from your three jobs to afford medical insurance to pay for your cancer treatment, you clearly haven't worked hard enough. The fault is yours , you are a failure and the punishment is premature death.". It is also difficult to accept that Flanery is regularly treated with distrust and dislike by bank cashiers for his Irish name. Quite aside from anything else most bank cashiers in this country now aren't old enough to remember the Irish troubles, and the bigots-for-bigotry's-sake have long since transferred their angst from the Irish to the Poles and the Muslims.
Flanery is also an academic, something that is abundantly obvious from the highly structured writing method he employs in this book. The reader is left with the impression that where other novelists write books to be read as stories Flanery has written a text with an eye to future deconstruction by English Lit students. That is not necessarily a bad thing, of course, but occasionally one wishes he could have been a little less concerned with construction in the minutiae and more concerned with crafting a story with a complete beginning, middle and end. And therein lies one of the greatest failings of this book: it has no real conclusion. Questions are raised that go unanswered. In particular, there are issues with characters, whose true identity may never be elaborated upon or, in the case of his girlfriend who makes a sudden, poorly explained behavioural volte-face that is entirely out of character but provides Flanery with a device to enable his protagonist take the critical closing step to the tale.
It seems that Flanery has written this book as a parable on the dangers of unfettered digital surveillance: how easy it is for those who wish to to access all our personal data and how very quickly and efficiently lives can be subverted. Whilst this may be a revelation to a few it has to be said that there is nothing revealed in this book about the scope and methods of data collection that anyone who has even a small amount of technical savvy won't already know, which rather undermines it as an expose. The book also attempts to portray how easy it is to suddenly and unintentionally find oneself on the wrong side of the law. Unfortunately in this story the actions which purport to have landed O'Keefe in possible criminality are so ridiculous and far-fetched that only the most paranoid would ever see an offence in them. Contrary to highlighting the ease with which the well intentioned can unwittingly find themselves in need of lawyers it suggests that all the peripheral characters are actually far more paranoid and delusional than O'Keefe will ever be.
All that aside this was an intriguing and mildly engaging story. Largely well-written but let down by a an unsatisfactory conclusion and a failure to induce the kind of fear that was intended.
O'Keefe is a difficult character to really sympathise with. Whilst his ideology is admirably egalitarian he falls into that bracket of slightly stuffy, middle-class liberals who take themselves too seriously and fail to practise what they preach. In fairness to O'Keefe he largely has the grace and self-awareness to question the rationality of his fears and accidental moments of prejudice (though he is of the very typical male Liberal variety that doesn't seem to recognise the contradiction of professing himself feminist whilst watching porn): slightly pompous, slightly too much self-regard slightly too much sense of victimhood, he is not unlikeable just a bit of a non-entity. Whilst this is clearly intentional it makes his narrative stodgy. Not unreadable, but at the same time easy to put down for a week whilst a more engaging book is read. This is either a spectacularly adept piece of characterisation or an unfortunate reflection of the author, Patrick Flanery. I do hope it is the writing because if not then all the peculiar, inaccurate and unlikely observations made by O'Keefe onbehalf of his character regarding differences between the British and Americans are likely also Flanery's:. For example the breath-taking assertion that socio-economic failure is treated more harshly in the UK than in the US, when any basic knowledge of sociology in the two countries shows that the criteria for failure is a) much broader in the US and b) responded to far more harshly, e.g.: "if you don't earn enough from your three jobs to afford medical insurance to pay for your cancer treatment, you clearly haven't worked hard enough. The fault is yours , you are a failure and the punishment is premature death.". It is also difficult to accept that Flanery is regularly treated with distrust and dislike by bank cashiers for his Irish name. Quite aside from anything else most bank cashiers in this country now aren't old enough to remember the Irish troubles, and the bigots-for-bigotry's-sake have long since transferred their angst from the Irish to the Poles and the Muslims.
Flanery is also an academic, something that is abundantly obvious from the highly structured writing method he employs in this book. The reader is left with the impression that where other novelists write books to be read as stories Flanery has written a text with an eye to future deconstruction by English Lit students. That is not necessarily a bad thing, of course, but occasionally one wishes he could have been a little less concerned with construction in the minutiae and more concerned with crafting a story with a complete beginning, middle and end. And therein lies one of the greatest failings of this book: it has no real conclusion. Questions are raised that go unanswered. In particular, there are issues with characters, whose true identity may never be elaborated upon or, in the case of his girlfriend who makes a sudden, poorly explained behavioural volte-face that is entirely out of character but provides Flanery with a device to enable his protagonist take the critical closing step to the tale.
It seems that Flanery has written this book as a parable on the dangers of unfettered digital surveillance: how easy it is for those who wish to to access all our personal data and how very quickly and efficiently lives can be subverted. Whilst this may be a revelation to a few it has to be said that there is nothing revealed in this book about the scope and methods of data collection that anyone who has even a small amount of technical savvy won't already know, which rather undermines it as an expose. The book also attempts to portray how easy it is to suddenly and unintentionally find oneself on the wrong side of the law. Unfortunately in this story the actions which purport to have landed O'Keefe in possible criminality are so ridiculous and far-fetched that only the most paranoid would ever see an offence in them. Contrary to highlighting the ease with which the well intentioned can unwittingly find themselves in need of lawyers it suggests that all the peripheral characters are actually far more paranoid and delusional than O'Keefe will ever be.
All that aside this was an intriguing and mildly engaging story. Largely well-written but let down by a an unsatisfactory conclusion and a failure to induce the kind of fear that was intended.