Search
Search results
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Heat Wave (Nikki Heat, #1) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Minview:
I wish I'd read this closer to when it first came out. I think I would have enjoyed it more had I not gotten to know the characters these characters (oh boy, almost got confused there!) are based on better and found the book's portrayals lacking. :/ Why would Richard Castle write his fictional counterpart as a wimpy idiot? And yes, I know that Castle <spoiler>is fictional himself. I was quite heartbroken to find that out. ;P)</spoiler>.
I wish I'd read this closer to when it first came out. I think I would have enjoyed it more had I not gotten to know the characters these characters (oh boy, almost got confused there!) are based on better and found the book's portrayals lacking. :/ Why would Richard Castle write his fictional counterpart as a wimpy idiot? And yes, I know that Castle <spoiler>is fictional himself. I was quite heartbroken to find that out. ;P)</spoiler>.
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2200 KP) rated Heat Wave (Nikki Heat, #1) in Books
Mar 9, 2018
I love the TV show Castle, so I had to check out the book the main character has been writing. The tie ins to the TV show were very fun for me. As a mystery, it was pretty good, too, although the first half was way over written.
Read my full review at <a href="http://carstairsconsiders.blogspot.com/2013/05/book-review-heat-wave-by-richard-castle.html">Carstairs Considers</a>.
Read my full review at <a href="http://carstairsconsiders.blogspot.com/2013/05/book-review-heat-wave-by-richard-castle.html">Carstairs Considers</a>.
David McK (3425 KP) rated Warlord (The Outlaw Chronicles, #4) in Books
Jan 30, 2019
The fourth book in Angus Donald's <i>Outlaw</i> series, this one is primarily set in and around the last years of Richard I (The Lionheart) reign, leading up to his death on 06/04/1199 after being struck in the shoulder by a crossbow bolt fired from a castle he was besieging in Southern France.
Like the previous three books in the series, this is presented as an elderly Alan Dale recounting the adventures of his youth, with each section (and the epilogue) of the novel as him committing the tale to paper, and his thoughts in so doing.
While the cover of the novel also has "A Robin Hood tale" above the title, I actually found that character to be sidelined more in favour of Alan in this novel than in the previous, where he very much was central to the story but seemingly not so much here. That's not to mean that he's not present, and that he doesn't have a role to play: just that this novel is more about Richard than it is Robin.
The novel also includes elements form that other great Medieval tale/obsession of the Holy Grail, which is worked into the reason why Richard is besieging the castle (at Robin's urgings) at which he receives his fatal wound. That plot strand, however, is also left wide-open for the sequel, already announced as titled <i>Grail Knight</i>, and which I'm already looking forward to!
Like the previous three books in the series, this is presented as an elderly Alan Dale recounting the adventures of his youth, with each section (and the epilogue) of the novel as him committing the tale to paper, and his thoughts in so doing.
While the cover of the novel also has "A Robin Hood tale" above the title, I actually found that character to be sidelined more in favour of Alan in this novel than in the previous, where he very much was central to the story but seemingly not so much here. That's not to mean that he's not present, and that he doesn't have a role to play: just that this novel is more about Richard than it is Robin.
The novel also includes elements form that other great Medieval tale/obsession of the Holy Grail, which is worked into the reason why Richard is besieging the castle (at Robin's urgings) at which he receives his fatal wound. That plot strand, however, is also left wide-open for the sequel, already announced as titled <i>Grail Knight</i>, and which I'm already looking forward to!
David McK (3425 KP) rated Robin Hood and the Castle of Bones in Books
Jan 22, 2021
The newest entry (at the time of reviewing) in Angus Donald's 'Robin Hood' series, set between "Robin Hood and the Caliph's Gold" and "King's Man", which should really be called "Alan Dale and the Castle of Bones" (although I understand why it is not), as it is more concerned with the trials and tribulations of the (here) 17 year old Alan Dale, still travelling home to England from the Holy Land in the company of Robin, Little John, Hanno and other members of Robin's entourage.
And Alan deserves a slap around the head more than once throughout this.
Robin, of course, has his own agenda, sowing chaos and seeking opportunity in Burgundy on behalf of (or so he says) King Richard.
And Alan deserves a slap around the head more than once throughout this.
Robin, of course, has his own agenda, sowing chaos and seeking opportunity in Burgundy on behalf of (or so he says) King Richard.
Deborah (162 KP) rated The Mythology of Richard III in Books
Dec 21, 2018
As usual, Ashdown-Hill has given us a well-written and accessible book with an extensive index and bibliography and reasoning well backed up with factual evidence; I find his books are always worth reading an a refreshing change from a lot of the nonsense there is out there. In this particular book he looks at myths and legends, both old and rather worryingly modern, that surround one or our best known monarchs.
Early chapters deal with the mythology perpetuated by Tudor propagandists and blinkered 'traditionalists' despite lack of evidence in many cases and even explicit evidence to the contrary in others! He looks at how some stories, such as the 'body in the river' became perpetuated over time so that they eventually become accepted as 'truth' by the uninformed. Even I had taken rather at face value the story of the White/Blue Boar Inn, but as Ashdown-Hill points out, it would be much more logical for Richard III to have stayed at Leicester Castle, as he had on a previous occasion, and also there is no evidence that an inn with a boar in its name existed at all in Leicester at this time!
The latter part of the book deals with more modern myths and I was really rather saddened and disappointed that it was necessary to have to set the record straight on many aspect of the rediscovery of the king's grave. I completely understand Ashdown-Hill's need to do so. After reading his earlier book 'The Last Days of Richard III' I was thoroughly convinced by his well reasoned arguments and never for a moment did I seriously doubt that that is where Richard III's resting place was. I was almost ready to go and dig the car park up myself! Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, I did find all the arguments over a final resting place to be somewhat distasteful, with some people sinking very low in voicing their opinions. It is disheartening that a British University PR department is less interested in truth than in trying to keep all the kudos for itself and I hope that people will read this and know the truth. With all its apparent misinformation I doubt I will be bothering with the visitor centre in Leicester any more than I have bothered to visit the putative site of Bosworth.
Early chapters deal with the mythology perpetuated by Tudor propagandists and blinkered 'traditionalists' despite lack of evidence in many cases and even explicit evidence to the contrary in others! He looks at how some stories, such as the 'body in the river' became perpetuated over time so that they eventually become accepted as 'truth' by the uninformed. Even I had taken rather at face value the story of the White/Blue Boar Inn, but as Ashdown-Hill points out, it would be much more logical for Richard III to have stayed at Leicester Castle, as he had on a previous occasion, and also there is no evidence that an inn with a boar in its name existed at all in Leicester at this time!
The latter part of the book deals with more modern myths and I was really rather saddened and disappointed that it was necessary to have to set the record straight on many aspect of the rediscovery of the king's grave. I completely understand Ashdown-Hill's need to do so. After reading his earlier book 'The Last Days of Richard III' I was thoroughly convinced by his well reasoned arguments and never for a moment did I seriously doubt that that is where Richard III's resting place was. I was almost ready to go and dig the car park up myself! Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, I did find all the arguments over a final resting place to be somewhat distasteful, with some people sinking very low in voicing their opinions. It is disheartening that a British University PR department is less interested in truth than in trying to keep all the kudos for itself and I hope that people will read this and know the truth. With all its apparent misinformation I doubt I will be bothering with the visitor centre in Leicester any more than I have bothered to visit the putative site of Bosworth.
ClareR (5726 KP) rated The Fool’s Folly in Books
Jun 9, 2020
The Fool’s Folly is set in 1485 in Yorkshire, England, when King Richard III has been on the throne for two years. It must have been a very unsettling time to live in: not knowing whether your King has murdered his nephews, not knowing how much longer the King will actually keep the throne (Henry Tudor was a very real threat at this time), and not knowing what your fate will be if you chose the wrong side!
This story is set at Sandal Castle, the seat of John de la Pole, King Richard’s heir (and now it becomes clear why Henry VIII wanted to get rid of the de la Pole family!). De la Pole’s jester is murdered, and the newly appointed judge, Sir Giles Beaton, is asked to get to the bottom of the mystery. What starts out as a seemingly open and shut case, ends up being the start of a killing spree. Giles has to wonder if the deaths are connected, and whether this has something to do with a plot against the King and his heir.
It’s a bit gruesome at points - I liked this, I will admit. Medieval postmortems wouldn’t have been for the more sensitive observer (or reader!), I’m sure. I do have a bit of a thing for historical fiction, and a newly developed respect for crime and mysteries. I appreciate the attention to detail, and the research that must have occurred in writing this book, it feels very authentic.
I haven’t read the first book in this series, but it didn’t affect my reading enjoyment at all. In fact it has made me want to read the first in the series as well!
Many thanks to Sapere Books for sending me a copy of this book to read and review!
This story is set at Sandal Castle, the seat of John de la Pole, King Richard’s heir (and now it becomes clear why Henry VIII wanted to get rid of the de la Pole family!). De la Pole’s jester is murdered, and the newly appointed judge, Sir Giles Beaton, is asked to get to the bottom of the mystery. What starts out as a seemingly open and shut case, ends up being the start of a killing spree. Giles has to wonder if the deaths are connected, and whether this has something to do with a plot against the King and his heir.
It’s a bit gruesome at points - I liked this, I will admit. Medieval postmortems wouldn’t have been for the more sensitive observer (or reader!), I’m sure. I do have a bit of a thing for historical fiction, and a newly developed respect for crime and mysteries. I appreciate the attention to detail, and the research that must have occurred in writing this book, it feels very authentic.
I haven’t read the first book in this series, but it didn’t affect my reading enjoyment at all. In fact it has made me want to read the first in the series as well!
Many thanks to Sapere Books for sending me a copy of this book to read and review!
Deborah (162 KP) rated Richard III: The King in the Car Park in Books
Dec 21, 2018
I quote from the final page of this publication: "The writer of this book will face similar virulent criticism. It will be savaged in the book reviews on Amazon, mainly by non-readers, to take its ratings and thus popularity down." In fact, this is the last, but by no means the only rant by the author who appears to have a definite chip on his shoulder for some reason. Since he subjects Thomas Penn's work, 'The Winter King' to such virulent criticism, one can only suspect that he was turned down by Penn's publisher. One can hardly be surprised. I have read this book, despite wanting on a number of occasions to give up in disgust. It is full of errors of spelling (e.g. youngest for younger, now instead of not), so has evidently not had either a proof reader or an editor. There are also many factual errors with names and titles becoming hopelessly confused. On one page we're told that Sir James Tyrell was hanged and a couple of pages later we're told that Henry Tudor was so kind as to merely condescend to cut his head off!
I will admit that with pro-Ricardian sympathies I was probably never going to like this book, but it is a bit of a mess and feels like another case of jumping on the bandwagon. There is no index, no footnotes/endnotes and only a partial list of sources, which is enough to raise questions about academic rigour. If you are going to publish opinions, particular in The Great Debate, these really should be backed up by factual evidence. I think I am most irked by the hypocrisy of Mr Breverton telling us at one point that he is going to take a fresh impartial look at the subject and then immediately showing us exactly which colour he prefers his roses.
His list, near the back of the volume, of all the 'crimes' he thinks Richard III was guilty of really does teeter on the brink of blindness and absurdity. Apparently he is guilty in the case of the Earl of Warwick, son of Richard's older brother, George of Clarence, but whose claim to the throne was barred by his father's attainder (always reversible, but Warwick was then only a child of about 8 years). I'm pretty sure this Warwick was sent to Sheriff Hutton Castle to be brought up with other young persons, as befitted his status by Richard. Of course, as soon as Henry Tudor usurped the throne, this boy was locked up in the Tower only to be executed later on a trumped up charge. I think I know who the guilty party is in that case.
That is my frank opinion on this volume; I will now expect said author to savage me as he has everyone else on Amazon who has pointed out the self-evident shortcomings in this work.
I will admit that with pro-Ricardian sympathies I was probably never going to like this book, but it is a bit of a mess and feels like another case of jumping on the bandwagon. There is no index, no footnotes/endnotes and only a partial list of sources, which is enough to raise questions about academic rigour. If you are going to publish opinions, particular in The Great Debate, these really should be backed up by factual evidence. I think I am most irked by the hypocrisy of Mr Breverton telling us at one point that he is going to take a fresh impartial look at the subject and then immediately showing us exactly which colour he prefers his roses.
His list, near the back of the volume, of all the 'crimes' he thinks Richard III was guilty of really does teeter on the brink of blindness and absurdity. Apparently he is guilty in the case of the Earl of Warwick, son of Richard's older brother, George of Clarence, but whose claim to the throne was barred by his father's attainder (always reversible, but Warwick was then only a child of about 8 years). I'm pretty sure this Warwick was sent to Sheriff Hutton Castle to be brought up with other young persons, as befitted his status by Richard. Of course, as soon as Henry Tudor usurped the throne, this boy was locked up in the Tower only to be executed later on a trumped up charge. I think I know who the guilty party is in that case.
That is my frank opinion on this volume; I will now expect said author to savage me as he has everyone else on Amazon who has pointed out the self-evident shortcomings in this work.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) in Movies
Nov 25, 2020
Gloriously kitsch
Film #4 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: The Rocky Horror Picture Show
The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a bonafide cult classic and I doubt there is anyone who would disagree with this. It flopped on first release at the cinema but soon after gained a massive cult following and became a hugely interactive musical experience. For me, I became part of this cult following at university and have attended a fair few parties and shows over the years (in fancy dress of course). However it’s been quite some time since I watched this and seeing it again now makes for a rather interesting watch.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a 1975 musical directed by Jim Sharman, spanning a multitude of genres. It follows newly engaged (and rather wholesome) couple Brad (Barry Bostwick) and Janet (Susan Sarandon) as a flat tyre leaves them stranded and they’re left to seek shelter in a nearby castle owned by Dr Frank-N-Furter (Tim Curry).
This film is undoubtedly bats**t crazy. The plot is absolutely bonkers – a group of aliens from the planet Transexual led by a mad scientist in his quest to make the perfect man. It spans so many genres from comic horror to glam-rock musical and everything in between. It’s aim to spoof old school science fiction films is spot on, and there isn’t many films that can pull off cannibalism, murder and erotic sexual experimentation in the same 2 hour run time.
Admittedly there are some aspects of the plot that haven’t quite stood the test of time. 45 years ago the freedom exhibited around gender and sexuality was unlike anything anyone had ever seen and is still a rather wonderful thing to watch. However, there are other sides to this (such as lack of consent) which have become more apparent as society evolves and maybe aren’t quite acceptable now as they were back then. Fortunately this doesn’t spoil the overall feel of the film and it’s still as camp and cheesy and kitsch as it ever was.
One of the reasons for this films success is Richard O Brien’s script and music, and his performance as Riff Raff is pretty creepy and fun too. It’s clever and smart, and the music is top notch. The songs are some of the most catchy I’ve ever heard and they make you forget how crazy the plot is as soon as the music starts. From the legendary Time Warp to the wonderful Meat Loaf cameo on Hot Patootie, to the incredibly moving and inspirational Don’t Dream It, Be It, the songs are hugely memorable.
And then you have Tim Curry as Frank-N-Furter, in an absolute standout performance. He is perfect in Frank (I’ve yet to see anyone do it better) and it’s probably the best role he’s ever had. He looks like he’s having so much fun and steals every scene, you can’t take your eyes off him and that’s not just because he’s in stockings and suspenders. He makes you feel fascinated by Frank, disgusted and then ultimately sorry for him and this is no mean feat. No disrespect to the rest of the cast, but when Curry isn’t on screen the film does suffer ever so slightly.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a wacky, campy riot of a musical with a message that is heartwarming and inclusive. It may have aged a little over the years and certain topics don’t scrub up quite as well, but it’s still a hugely entertaining and unique musical experience.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a bonafide cult classic and I doubt there is anyone who would disagree with this. It flopped on first release at the cinema but soon after gained a massive cult following and became a hugely interactive musical experience. For me, I became part of this cult following at university and have attended a fair few parties and shows over the years (in fancy dress of course). However it’s been quite some time since I watched this and seeing it again now makes for a rather interesting watch.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a 1975 musical directed by Jim Sharman, spanning a multitude of genres. It follows newly engaged (and rather wholesome) couple Brad (Barry Bostwick) and Janet (Susan Sarandon) as a flat tyre leaves them stranded and they’re left to seek shelter in a nearby castle owned by Dr Frank-N-Furter (Tim Curry).
This film is undoubtedly bats**t crazy. The plot is absolutely bonkers – a group of aliens from the planet Transexual led by a mad scientist in his quest to make the perfect man. It spans so many genres from comic horror to glam-rock musical and everything in between. It’s aim to spoof old school science fiction films is spot on, and there isn’t many films that can pull off cannibalism, murder and erotic sexual experimentation in the same 2 hour run time.
Admittedly there are some aspects of the plot that haven’t quite stood the test of time. 45 years ago the freedom exhibited around gender and sexuality was unlike anything anyone had ever seen and is still a rather wonderful thing to watch. However, there are other sides to this (such as lack of consent) which have become more apparent as society evolves and maybe aren’t quite acceptable now as they were back then. Fortunately this doesn’t spoil the overall feel of the film and it’s still as camp and cheesy and kitsch as it ever was.
One of the reasons for this films success is Richard O Brien’s script and music, and his performance as Riff Raff is pretty creepy and fun too. It’s clever and smart, and the music is top notch. The songs are some of the most catchy I’ve ever heard and they make you forget how crazy the plot is as soon as the music starts. From the legendary Time Warp to the wonderful Meat Loaf cameo on Hot Patootie, to the incredibly moving and inspirational Don’t Dream It, Be It, the songs are hugely memorable.
And then you have Tim Curry as Frank-N-Furter, in an absolute standout performance. He is perfect in Frank (I’ve yet to see anyone do it better) and it’s probably the best role he’s ever had. He looks like he’s having so much fun and steals every scene, you can’t take your eyes off him and that’s not just because he’s in stockings and suspenders. He makes you feel fascinated by Frank, disgusted and then ultimately sorry for him and this is no mean feat. No disrespect to the rest of the cast, but when Curry isn’t on screen the film does suffer ever so slightly.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show is a wacky, campy riot of a musical with a message that is heartwarming and inclusive. It may have aged a little over the years and certain topics don’t scrub up quite as well, but it’s still a hugely entertaining and unique musical experience.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A fantasy that’s glossy and beautiful to look at.
Before the heavyweight juggernaut of “Mary Poppins Returns” arrives at Christmas, here’s another Disney live action feature to get everyone in the festive spirit.
The Plot.
It’s Victorian London and Young Clara (Mackenzie Foy) lives with her father (Matthew Macfadyen), her older sister Louise (Ellie Bamber) and her younger brother Fritz (Tom Sweet). It’s Christmas and the family are having a hard time as they are grieving the recent death of wife and mother Marie (Anna Madeley). Like her mother, Clara has an astute mind with an engineering bias and is encouraged in this pursuit by her quirky inventor godfather, Drosselmeyer (Morgan Freeman). At his fabled Christmas ball, Clara asks for his help in accessing a gift Clara’s mother has bequeathed to her. This leads Clara on a magical adventure to a parallel world with four realms, where everything is not quite peace and harmony.
The Review.
This is a film that visually delights from the word go. The film opens with a swooping tour of Victorian London (who knew the Disney castle was in the capital’s suburbs?!) via Westminster bridge and into the Stahlbaum’s attic. It’s a spectacular tour-de-force of special-effects wizardry and sets up the expectation of what’s to come. For every scene that follows is a richly decorated feast for the eyes. Drosselmeyer’s party is a glorious event, full of extras, strong on costume design and with a rich colour palette as filmed by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“). When we are pitched into the Four Realms – no wardrobe required – the magical visions continue.
The film represents a Narnia-esque take on the four compass-point lands of Oz, and on that basis it’s a bit formulaic. But the good vs evil angles are more subtley portrayed. Of the Four Realms leaders, Keira Knightley as Sugar Plum rather steals the show from the others (played by Richard E. Grant, Eugenio Derbez and Helen Mirren). Mirren in particular is given little to do.
What age kids would this be suitable for? Well, probably a good judge would be the Wizard of Oz. If your kids are not completely freaked out by the Wicked Witch of the West and the flying monkeys, then they will probably cope OK with the scary bits of the “Realm of Entertainment”. Although those who suffer from either musophobia or (especially) coulrophobia might want to give it a miss! All kids are different though, and the “loss of the mother” is also an angle to consider: that might worry and upset young children. It is definitely a “PG” certificate rather than a “U” certificate.
Young people who also enjoy ballet (I nearly fell into a sexist trap there!) will also get a kick out of some of the dance sequences, which are “Fantasia-esque” in their presentation and feature Misty Copeland, famously the first African American Female Principal Dancer with the American Ballet Theatre. (I have no appreciation at all for ballet, but I’m sure it was brilliant!)
As for the moral tone of the film, the female empowerment message is rather ladled on with a trowel, but as it’s a good message I have no great problem with that. I am often appalled at how lacking in confidence young people are in their own abilities. Here is a young lady (an engineer!) learning self-resilience and the confidence to be able to do anything in life she puts her mind to. Well said.
The story is rather generic – child visits a magical other world – but the screenplay is impressive given its the first-feature screenplay for Ashleigh Powell: there is an article on her approach to screenwriting that you might find interesting here.
The film is credited with two directors. This – particularly if there is also an army of screenwriters – is normally a warning sign on a film. (As a case in point, the chaotic 1967 version of “Casino Royale” had six different directors, and it shows!). Here, there clearly were issues with the filming since Disney insisted on reshoots for which the original director, Lasse Hallström, was not available. This is where the “Captain America” director Joe Johnston stepped in.
The turns.
I really enjoyed Mackenzie Foy‘s performance as Clara. Now 18, she is a feisty and believable Disney princess for the modern age. (If, like me, you are struggling to place where you’ve heard her name before, she was the young Murph in Nolan’s “Interstellar“).
Another name I was struggling with was Ellie Bamber as her sister. Ellie was excellent in the traumatic role of the daughter in the brilliant “Nocturnal Animals“, one of my favourite films of 2016. (Hopefully the therapy has worked and Ellie can sleep at night again!).
A newcomer with a big role is Jayden Fowora-Knight as the Nutcracker soldier: Jayden had a bit part in “Ready Player One” but does a great job here in a substantial role in the film. He stands out as a black actor in a Disney feature: notwithstanding the Finn character in “Star Wars”, this is a long-overdue and welcome approach from Disney.
British comedians Omid Djalili and Jack Whitehouse turn up to add some light relief, but the humour seems rather forced and not particularly fitting.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one much, but I did. Prinicipally because it is such a visual feast and worth going to see just for that alone: I have a prediction that this film will be nominated for production design, costume design and possible special effects.
I think kids of the right age – I would have thought 6 to 10 sort of range – will enjoy this a lot, particularly if they like dance. Young girls in particular will most relate to the lead character. For such kids, I’d rate this a 4*. The rating below reflects my rating as an adult: so I don’t think ‘drag-a-long’ parents in the Christmas holidays (if it is still on by then) will not be totally bored.
The Plot.
It’s Victorian London and Young Clara (Mackenzie Foy) lives with her father (Matthew Macfadyen), her older sister Louise (Ellie Bamber) and her younger brother Fritz (Tom Sweet). It’s Christmas and the family are having a hard time as they are grieving the recent death of wife and mother Marie (Anna Madeley). Like her mother, Clara has an astute mind with an engineering bias and is encouraged in this pursuit by her quirky inventor godfather, Drosselmeyer (Morgan Freeman). At his fabled Christmas ball, Clara asks for his help in accessing a gift Clara’s mother has bequeathed to her. This leads Clara on a magical adventure to a parallel world with four realms, where everything is not quite peace and harmony.
The Review.
This is a film that visually delights from the word go. The film opens with a swooping tour of Victorian London (who knew the Disney castle was in the capital’s suburbs?!) via Westminster bridge and into the Stahlbaum’s attic. It’s a spectacular tour-de-force of special-effects wizardry and sets up the expectation of what’s to come. For every scene that follows is a richly decorated feast for the eyes. Drosselmeyer’s party is a glorious event, full of extras, strong on costume design and with a rich colour palette as filmed by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“). When we are pitched into the Four Realms – no wardrobe required – the magical visions continue.
The film represents a Narnia-esque take on the four compass-point lands of Oz, and on that basis it’s a bit formulaic. But the good vs evil angles are more subtley portrayed. Of the Four Realms leaders, Keira Knightley as Sugar Plum rather steals the show from the others (played by Richard E. Grant, Eugenio Derbez and Helen Mirren). Mirren in particular is given little to do.
What age kids would this be suitable for? Well, probably a good judge would be the Wizard of Oz. If your kids are not completely freaked out by the Wicked Witch of the West and the flying monkeys, then they will probably cope OK with the scary bits of the “Realm of Entertainment”. Although those who suffer from either musophobia or (especially) coulrophobia might want to give it a miss! All kids are different though, and the “loss of the mother” is also an angle to consider: that might worry and upset young children. It is definitely a “PG” certificate rather than a “U” certificate.
Young people who also enjoy ballet (I nearly fell into a sexist trap there!) will also get a kick out of some of the dance sequences, which are “Fantasia-esque” in their presentation and feature Misty Copeland, famously the first African American Female Principal Dancer with the American Ballet Theatre. (I have no appreciation at all for ballet, but I’m sure it was brilliant!)
As for the moral tone of the film, the female empowerment message is rather ladled on with a trowel, but as it’s a good message I have no great problem with that. I am often appalled at how lacking in confidence young people are in their own abilities. Here is a young lady (an engineer!) learning self-resilience and the confidence to be able to do anything in life she puts her mind to. Well said.
The story is rather generic – child visits a magical other world – but the screenplay is impressive given its the first-feature screenplay for Ashleigh Powell: there is an article on her approach to screenwriting that you might find interesting here.
The film is credited with two directors. This – particularly if there is also an army of screenwriters – is normally a warning sign on a film. (As a case in point, the chaotic 1967 version of “Casino Royale” had six different directors, and it shows!). Here, there clearly were issues with the filming since Disney insisted on reshoots for which the original director, Lasse Hallström, was not available. This is where the “Captain America” director Joe Johnston stepped in.
The turns.
I really enjoyed Mackenzie Foy‘s performance as Clara. Now 18, she is a feisty and believable Disney princess for the modern age. (If, like me, you are struggling to place where you’ve heard her name before, she was the young Murph in Nolan’s “Interstellar“).
Another name I was struggling with was Ellie Bamber as her sister. Ellie was excellent in the traumatic role of the daughter in the brilliant “Nocturnal Animals“, one of my favourite films of 2016. (Hopefully the therapy has worked and Ellie can sleep at night again!).
A newcomer with a big role is Jayden Fowora-Knight as the Nutcracker soldier: Jayden had a bit part in “Ready Player One” but does a great job here in a substantial role in the film. He stands out as a black actor in a Disney feature: notwithstanding the Finn character in “Star Wars”, this is a long-overdue and welcome approach from Disney.
British comedians Omid Djalili and Jack Whitehouse turn up to add some light relief, but the humour seems rather forced and not particularly fitting.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one much, but I did. Prinicipally because it is such a visual feast and worth going to see just for that alone: I have a prediction that this film will be nominated for production design, costume design and possible special effects.
I think kids of the right age – I would have thought 6 to 10 sort of range – will enjoy this a lot, particularly if they like dance. Young girls in particular will most relate to the lead character. For such kids, I’d rate this a 4*. The rating below reflects my rating as an adult: so I don’t think ‘drag-a-long’ parents in the Christmas holidays (if it is still on by then) will not be totally bored.