Search
Search results
iWritingPad Keyboard Mouse Handwriting Pad for Mac Window Linux
Utilities and Business
App
iWritingPad is able to deliver the same iPad user experience to users on computer PC including...
DisneyLife
Entertainment and Lifestyle
8.0
Rate It
App
Experience the Disney magic together with one easy monthly subscription and no contract. Start...
pheebs (3 KP) rated Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda in Books
Nov 23, 2017
The plot is progressive and thoroughly entertaining. (1 more)
The main character is a big fan of musical theatre, stars in Oliver (a play that I love)
Hands down the best biscuit is an oreo
Synopsis:Simon Spier is sixteen and trying to work out who he is – and what hes looking for. But when one of his emails to the very distracting blue falls into the wrong hands, things get all kinds of complicated. Because for Simon, falling for Blue is a big deal.
‘The love child of John Green and Rainbow Rowell’ – Teen Vogue
“The best kind of love story.”—Alex Sanchez, Lambda Award-winning author of Rainbow Boys and Boyfriends with Girlfriends
This book is a whirlwind of emotions, as soon as I finished scouring its pages I felt as if I had to read the book all over again, I did then abruptly lent it to a friend who found it just as amazing as I did. It’s a heartfelt story which really seems to capture the essence of being a teen in modern-day society, dealing with our problems, our worries, our trials and tribulations.
The main character is Simon, a boy who is finding life hard, with an overly happy family who like to be very involved and love to talk openly about their feelings, something that Simon is finding increasingly hard more specifically with his sexual preferences. The protagonist of the story is an unlikely fellow who creates dilemmas in Simon’s mind as he wishes to save his previous ‘Blue’. Simon is surrounded by bountiful characters that link smoothly into to his life an thoughts in a normal manner. We learn about his family through his fond memories and thoughts as well as the conversations they exchange in the book, the same can be said for his closest friends. He has three friends that stand out as more prominent characters, the book also focuses on how his relations with them change and how it affects them.
The book is written in a subjective narrative, it tells us only the information that Simon knows so that we know no more or less than him, equating to us having a possibly bias view towards certain characters, thus once again making it more realistic. It deals with problems that teens struggling with their sexuality in day-to-day life face both in the real world and the cyber one. It reveals to us just how hard it is to control information that gets leaked out onto the internet, how fast it can spread and change your life in the ‘real’ world. Your life can be drastically altered by a few words and a persons malicious intentions and this book helps prove just how down heartening it can be as well as focusing on the light at the other end of the tunnel.
All of the characters play great roles in Simon’s life, he lives in a very open family so he feels as if he is keeping something terrible from them especially with of hand comments that his fathers sometimes makes. We read about different things in his life that he loves such as drama, as he attends school play rehearsals often.he deals with the struggles of maintaining friendships under pressure.
I would recommend this book to anyone no matter their age, race, gender or sexual preference. It’s a romantic coming of age comedy that warms me to my toes making me wanting to keep reading over and over again (as I have done many a time). If you liked ‘Will Grayson, Will Grayson’ by John Green and David Levithan then you will most definitely enjoy this book.
‘The love child of John Green and Rainbow Rowell’ – Teen Vogue
“The best kind of love story.”—Alex Sanchez, Lambda Award-winning author of Rainbow Boys and Boyfriends with Girlfriends
This book is a whirlwind of emotions, as soon as I finished scouring its pages I felt as if I had to read the book all over again, I did then abruptly lent it to a friend who found it just as amazing as I did. It’s a heartfelt story which really seems to capture the essence of being a teen in modern-day society, dealing with our problems, our worries, our trials and tribulations.
The main character is Simon, a boy who is finding life hard, with an overly happy family who like to be very involved and love to talk openly about their feelings, something that Simon is finding increasingly hard more specifically with his sexual preferences. The protagonist of the story is an unlikely fellow who creates dilemmas in Simon’s mind as he wishes to save his previous ‘Blue’. Simon is surrounded by bountiful characters that link smoothly into to his life an thoughts in a normal manner. We learn about his family through his fond memories and thoughts as well as the conversations they exchange in the book, the same can be said for his closest friends. He has three friends that stand out as more prominent characters, the book also focuses on how his relations with them change and how it affects them.
The book is written in a subjective narrative, it tells us only the information that Simon knows so that we know no more or less than him, equating to us having a possibly bias view towards certain characters, thus once again making it more realistic. It deals with problems that teens struggling with their sexuality in day-to-day life face both in the real world and the cyber one. It reveals to us just how hard it is to control information that gets leaked out onto the internet, how fast it can spread and change your life in the ‘real’ world. Your life can be drastically altered by a few words and a persons malicious intentions and this book helps prove just how down heartening it can be as well as focusing on the light at the other end of the tunnel.
All of the characters play great roles in Simon’s life, he lives in a very open family so he feels as if he is keeping something terrible from them especially with of hand comments that his fathers sometimes makes. We read about different things in his life that he loves such as drama, as he attends school play rehearsals often.he deals with the struggles of maintaining friendships under pressure.
I would recommend this book to anyone no matter their age, race, gender or sexual preference. It’s a romantic coming of age comedy that warms me to my toes making me wanting to keep reading over and over again (as I have done many a time). If you liked ‘Will Grayson, Will Grayson’ by John Green and David Levithan then you will most definitely enjoy this book.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Apr 9, 2019 (Updated Apr 9, 2019)
Good Fun
Being the big ol' geek that I am, I usually know the source material of the superhero movie I am going to see pretty well. Shazam is an exception to this, - other than the infamous Captain Marvel/Shazam copyright battle between Marvel and DC's lawyers over the years and the fact that he is a teenage boy who transforms into a grown man who looks like Superman with a similar power set, - I don't know much about the character. Watching Shazam, I was more so reminded of a Mark Millar comic called Superior, which bears multiple plot similarities to Shazam, to the point that I am surprised that DC have never attempted to sue Millar for blatant plagiarism.
In a word, Shazam is fun. I enjoyed my time with it and I would see it again. I enjoyed seeing Mark Strong hamming it up as the movie's villain and Zachary Levi did a great job in the titular role. Also, his chemistry with Jack Dylan Grazer's character was a huge highlight of the film for me. The SFX were on point for the most part other than the fairly cartoony representations of the 7 deadly sins monsters. There was also a charming, dumb, pure, innocence to the movie that really shone through the entire thing.
My biggest issue with the movie was Asher Angel as Billy Batson when he's not Shazam. Not necessarily because he is a bad actor or anything, but more because of how he chose to play the role. He came across as broody and introspective, almost the total opposite of how Zachary Levi came across as Shazam with his over the top playfulness and silly puns. This discrepancy was prevalent to the point where the illusion that these two actors were playing the same character was entirely broken and it was as if they were just playing two totally different characters with entirely opposite personalities that were just never in the same room. I feel like a bit of smoothing out could have been done between the actors to come to a compromise where they could both deliver their respective lines while believably playing the same character.
Also, something that you should probably know going in is that this is a comedy with lessons about family and responsibility before it is a Superhero/Action movie. It does make sense within the context of the film that there are no epic action scenes as Billy is just an untrained everyday kid that has been given a bunch of amazing powers that he is still getting to grips with, but don't expect any mind-blowing action scenes on par with MCU movies etc. Even though I guess it makes sense that there wasn't anything too impressive in terms of action scenes, I was left a little bit unfulfilled as I left the theatre that the film felt more insistent on showing us tender family moments rather than huge scale superhero battles.
Overall, Shazam is dumb fun. Don't think too hard about it and you will almost certainly have a great time watching it. I am glad that the fun factor of DC films seems to be on the up and they have dropped the dour tone of their Batman/Superman stories set up by Zack Snyder and they seem to have almost totally abandoned the idea of following in Marvel's footsteps of tying movies together in order to lead up to a team up blockbuster. This move seems to be for the best and is what they should have been doing from the start rather than trying to win a losing battle and play catch up with a franchise that has been building for an entire decade at this point.
In a word, Shazam is fun. I enjoyed my time with it and I would see it again. I enjoyed seeing Mark Strong hamming it up as the movie's villain and Zachary Levi did a great job in the titular role. Also, his chemistry with Jack Dylan Grazer's character was a huge highlight of the film for me. The SFX were on point for the most part other than the fairly cartoony representations of the 7 deadly sins monsters. There was also a charming, dumb, pure, innocence to the movie that really shone through the entire thing.
My biggest issue with the movie was Asher Angel as Billy Batson when he's not Shazam. Not necessarily because he is a bad actor or anything, but more because of how he chose to play the role. He came across as broody and introspective, almost the total opposite of how Zachary Levi came across as Shazam with his over the top playfulness and silly puns. This discrepancy was prevalent to the point where the illusion that these two actors were playing the same character was entirely broken and it was as if they were just playing two totally different characters with entirely opposite personalities that were just never in the same room. I feel like a bit of smoothing out could have been done between the actors to come to a compromise where they could both deliver their respective lines while believably playing the same character.
Also, something that you should probably know going in is that this is a comedy with lessons about family and responsibility before it is a Superhero/Action movie. It does make sense within the context of the film that there are no epic action scenes as Billy is just an untrained everyday kid that has been given a bunch of amazing powers that he is still getting to grips with, but don't expect any mind-blowing action scenes on par with MCU movies etc. Even though I guess it makes sense that there wasn't anything too impressive in terms of action scenes, I was left a little bit unfulfilled as I left the theatre that the film felt more insistent on showing us tender family moments rather than huge scale superhero battles.
Overall, Shazam is dumb fun. Don't think too hard about it and you will almost certainly have a great time watching it. I am glad that the fun factor of DC films seems to be on the up and they have dropped the dour tone of their Batman/Superman stories set up by Zack Snyder and they seem to have almost totally abandoned the idea of following in Marvel's footsteps of tying movies together in order to lead up to a team up blockbuster. This move seems to be for the best and is what they should have been doing from the start rather than trying to win a losing battle and play catch up with a franchise that has been building for an entire decade at this point.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Leatherheads (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The movie opens with John Krasinski’s character, “Carter Rutherford”, playing college-level football for Princeton at a bleacher-groaning, over-packed game chock full of screaming patrons and die-hard fans. The kid is a golden-child, a war hero, and the nation’s most promising young athlete in the good old year of 1925. Carter is dynamic, attractive, and exactly what the country needs at a time of World War I. It is little wonder his face plasters billboards across town, that his name is uttered with awe and adoration. In truth, how could you not? The kid had, after all, single-handedly forced a contingent of German soldiers to surrender without even shooting one bullet.
Cut to George Clooney’s character, the aging “Dodge Connelly”, playing pro-football in mire-like conditions; his audience a tangle of bored fans and uninspired locals. It is a far cry from the opulent circumstance of college-level football. Men, bedraggled and sweating under the promise of returning to work at the mines and fields if their football dreams go under, play with reckless abandon and forgotten morals in hopes of winning that next game. Yet, as fate will go, the Bulldogs lose their sponsorship and the team goes under, forcing men to return to their day-jobs and leaving Dodge without a future. The man has no marketable skills, no trade. He is a football player and is determined to see his team back in the game.
Of course, that isn’t the only bit of chaos. There has to be a girl; there is always a girl involved in stories like these. Enter Renée Zellweger’s character, the vivacious and equally tenacious “Lexie Littleton” – a news reporter for the Tribune. Lexie is on a mission to expose Carter Rutherford and get to the bottom of his infamous war story. It comes to no surprise that when Lexie and Dodge meet in a hotel lobby awaiting the arrival of Carter Rutherford and his manager, “CC Frazier” (played by Jonathan Pryce), that sparks immediately fly between them. Dodge has a proposal for CC and Carter: have Carter take a leave of absence from Princeton to play pro-football for the Bulldogs, thus saving pro-football and paying Carter for his efforts. Naturally, CC wants a cut from the profits and finds a way to do so to accommodate his own needs. Dodge, without any other alternative, agrees.
Meanwhile, Lexie is working her magic on Carter to try and weasel the true story out of him as best she can. Try as she might she cannot ignore Dodge, no matter how acid her tongue wags in his direction. In the end, Lexie gets her story yet realizes she must decide between exposing the truth or letting America bask in the glory of its self-proclaimed war-hero.
In review, there is a true chemistry between all of the main characters and both Zellweger and Clooney do a good job of conveying the vehement (and callous) emotion between Lexie and Dodge. However, no matter how funny the banter becomes between these three main characters or how well the scene plugs along, in the end the movie comes off as a passable but by no means memorable. Betimes it seems to stretch on and on and more then once I found myself looking at my clock. In truth, the movie didn’t need to be nearly two hours long. It felt two hours long which is never a good thing, especially when we’re talking about theatre seats.
That said, I thought the movie was a cute and enjoyable comedy. It won’t crack your funny bone but it will certainly tickle it more then once. All in all I give it 3.5 out of 5. It succeeded in making me laugh and did keep me entertained. Above all, I’m sure many will find it enjoyable to some extent.
Cut to George Clooney’s character, the aging “Dodge Connelly”, playing pro-football in mire-like conditions; his audience a tangle of bored fans and uninspired locals. It is a far cry from the opulent circumstance of college-level football. Men, bedraggled and sweating under the promise of returning to work at the mines and fields if their football dreams go under, play with reckless abandon and forgotten morals in hopes of winning that next game. Yet, as fate will go, the Bulldogs lose their sponsorship and the team goes under, forcing men to return to their day-jobs and leaving Dodge without a future. The man has no marketable skills, no trade. He is a football player and is determined to see his team back in the game.
Of course, that isn’t the only bit of chaos. There has to be a girl; there is always a girl involved in stories like these. Enter Renée Zellweger’s character, the vivacious and equally tenacious “Lexie Littleton” – a news reporter for the Tribune. Lexie is on a mission to expose Carter Rutherford and get to the bottom of his infamous war story. It comes to no surprise that when Lexie and Dodge meet in a hotel lobby awaiting the arrival of Carter Rutherford and his manager, “CC Frazier” (played by Jonathan Pryce), that sparks immediately fly between them. Dodge has a proposal for CC and Carter: have Carter take a leave of absence from Princeton to play pro-football for the Bulldogs, thus saving pro-football and paying Carter for his efforts. Naturally, CC wants a cut from the profits and finds a way to do so to accommodate his own needs. Dodge, without any other alternative, agrees.
Meanwhile, Lexie is working her magic on Carter to try and weasel the true story out of him as best she can. Try as she might she cannot ignore Dodge, no matter how acid her tongue wags in his direction. In the end, Lexie gets her story yet realizes she must decide between exposing the truth or letting America bask in the glory of its self-proclaimed war-hero.
In review, there is a true chemistry between all of the main characters and both Zellweger and Clooney do a good job of conveying the vehement (and callous) emotion between Lexie and Dodge. However, no matter how funny the banter becomes between these three main characters or how well the scene plugs along, in the end the movie comes off as a passable but by no means memorable. Betimes it seems to stretch on and on and more then once I found myself looking at my clock. In truth, the movie didn’t need to be nearly two hours long. It felt two hours long which is never a good thing, especially when we’re talking about theatre seats.
That said, I thought the movie was a cute and enjoyable comedy. It won’t crack your funny bone but it will certainly tickle it more then once. All in all I give it 3.5 out of 5. It succeeded in making me laugh and did keep me entertained. Above all, I’m sure many will find it enjoyable to some extent.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Blair Witch Project (1999) in Movies
Oct 18, 2019
While this film is credited as being the first "found footage" film ever made, it is not true. I found several websites even saying the same thing. Not true. That award goes to Cannibal Holocaust (I am pretty sure) which was release almost two decades earlier (1980 vs. 1999).
The film begins with sort of standard documentary fare showing interviews with the Maryland locals discussing if they have heard of the legend of the Blair Witch. For those that had, they recalled their own memories of the stories they had heard from others or from their childhood. Eventually, the documentary filmmakers meet the odd-looking Mary Brown who details her first hand experience with the demon recalling its weird hairy appearance.
Heather, Josh and Michael then decide to go for an outdoor wooded adventure in an attempt to locate and document evidence of the existence of the local legend themselves, not knowing what lies ahead for them. The journey starts out pretty normal with Heather doing most of the onscreen explanations, the other two mostly relegated to replying to her whims or arguing with her about various topics.
Eventually, a few bad thing start to happen including the loss of their woodland map and hearing strange sounds during the blackness of night. They now wander the woods becoming increasingly agitated with each other and their situation when it is revealed they may be walking in circles and are no closer to completing their quest or finding their way out. They see various various stick and rock formations which are not naturally occurring which means someone else is out there with them.
I remember sitting in a darkened theatre in 1999 hearing about this film briefly before its release. Not much was known at the time, and I recall this being one of the first films to have significant internet buzz beforehand. The internet was only a few years old at the time, so this was also a relatively new concept. Modern audiences are spoiled with so much content for every film available online, that everyone almost loses the feeling of being completely surprised by a film you knew virtually nothing about going in.
For Blair Witch, the added element of the "found footage" style was foreign to pretty much everyone which added to the hype and box office success of the film. Virtually the entire viewing public were not completely sure if what they were watching actually happened or this was fiction. It helped that writer/directors Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez used an unknown cast so seeing someone they recognized onscreen would not ruin the experience of believing its authenticity.
I am down on sloppy modern moviemakers most of the time these days relying so heavily on CGI and making movies look like pretty perfection rather than focusing on the most important thing for a horror film (or any film) a good screenplay and implied tension. For Blair Witch, it has been said some scenes were improvised or given a general direction but not a full script; however, that doesn't detract from the authentic nature of the situation.
The 2nd half of the film has some truly terrifying moments which happen in the background or off-screen showing you don't need to spend all your money on a CGI monster, just make it scary. The scene and keyart for the film showing the top half of Heather's head which she speaks into the camera explaining her terror and anguish is so believable and mesmerizing it send chills down my spine every time I watch it.
The film also get bagged for the ending which might be considered too short or anti-climactic; however, I think it's perfect and really the only way the movie could have gone.
The film begins with sort of standard documentary fare showing interviews with the Maryland locals discussing if they have heard of the legend of the Blair Witch. For those that had, they recalled their own memories of the stories they had heard from others or from their childhood. Eventually, the documentary filmmakers meet the odd-looking Mary Brown who details her first hand experience with the demon recalling its weird hairy appearance.
Heather, Josh and Michael then decide to go for an outdoor wooded adventure in an attempt to locate and document evidence of the existence of the local legend themselves, not knowing what lies ahead for them. The journey starts out pretty normal with Heather doing most of the onscreen explanations, the other two mostly relegated to replying to her whims or arguing with her about various topics.
Eventually, a few bad thing start to happen including the loss of their woodland map and hearing strange sounds during the blackness of night. They now wander the woods becoming increasingly agitated with each other and their situation when it is revealed they may be walking in circles and are no closer to completing their quest or finding their way out. They see various various stick and rock formations which are not naturally occurring which means someone else is out there with them.
I remember sitting in a darkened theatre in 1999 hearing about this film briefly before its release. Not much was known at the time, and I recall this being one of the first films to have significant internet buzz beforehand. The internet was only a few years old at the time, so this was also a relatively new concept. Modern audiences are spoiled with so much content for every film available online, that everyone almost loses the feeling of being completely surprised by a film you knew virtually nothing about going in.
For Blair Witch, the added element of the "found footage" style was foreign to pretty much everyone which added to the hype and box office success of the film. Virtually the entire viewing public were not completely sure if what they were watching actually happened or this was fiction. It helped that writer/directors Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez used an unknown cast so seeing someone they recognized onscreen would not ruin the experience of believing its authenticity.
I am down on sloppy modern moviemakers most of the time these days relying so heavily on CGI and making movies look like pretty perfection rather than focusing on the most important thing for a horror film (or any film) a good screenplay and implied tension. For Blair Witch, it has been said some scenes were improvised or given a general direction but not a full script; however, that doesn't detract from the authentic nature of the situation.
The 2nd half of the film has some truly terrifying moments which happen in the background or off-screen showing you don't need to spend all your money on a CGI monster, just make it scary. The scene and keyart for the film showing the top half of Heather's head which she speaks into the camera explaining her terror and anguish is so believable and mesmerizing it send chills down my spine every time I watch it.
The film also get bagged for the ending which might be considered too short or anti-climactic; however, I think it's perfect and really the only way the movie could have gone.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Cats (2019) in Movies
Dec 27, 2019
[Nostalgia enters the room looking cheery. A cat lurks in the background. Nostalgia starts tapdancing. Suddenly a red dot appears on Nostalgia's back and the cat savagely attacks it, leaving it bloody and beaten on the ground.]
As I've been saying to people... this film isn't good, but it's also not entirely bad, it has its moments.
Let's talk about the CGI first. You know what? It's not all that bad. Take out whatever you think about the concept of the human cats the fur in the second trailer looked much better than its first outing. During the film, Old Deuteronomy looked so fluffy I just wanted to pet her. The ear movements were pretty good, if a little consistent, it felt a little like they'd looked up cat actions in a book and taken the textbook description to animate rather than watching an actual cat. The cats as a whole could probably been a little larger compared to the "life-sized" staging around them because the ratio did feel a little off, but it wasn't really enough to make it off-putting.
Ever since I saw Cats at the cinema I've been singing the songs, but that's off the back of me listening to the stage recordings on Spotify and not the film versions. They don't quite have the same pep of the originals, watching them wasn't the wondrous experience I was hoping for. There are small exceptions. Taylor Swift was excellent and set a perfect tone for her number. Jason Derulo is a showman in this and after his Red Dwarf Cat-like clip in the trailer I was excited for his full numbers, they didn't disappoint.
Memory has to be my favourite song since seeing it on the stage and I was keen to see the talented Jennifer Hudson perform it. When it surfaced briefly I was worried, there was no impact, no heart... potential disaster. Finally the full number happened at the end and I was convinced. I listened to Hudson sing with such emotion that I cried, streams of tears and a quivering lip. It was beautiful.
The rest of the cast, while chockful of talent, didn't have quite the same buzz about it.
Francesca Hayward is a massively talented ballerina but the acting portion of the performance didn't quite hit the spot. This wasn't helped by the advert that has been running with her and Jennifer Hudson before the trailer was running before every film I watched for about two weeks.
I love Dame Judi and Sir Ian, and it was fun seeing them in this, but both had their issues. I wasn't a fan of Dench's moments of singing and the melancholy role of Gus for McKellen was a little unsettling. Who doesn't love seeing an Idris Elba film? He does the bad "guy" well but there was something wrong here too, I think that was partly to do with that fur torso.
It would be entirely possible to go on and on about this and all its ins and outs, but I don't think either of us have the time for that. I do feel that having the previous knowledge of Cats on the stage will help immensely when seeing this. That does also have some drawbacks though, when we saw it at the theatre it was a very interactive experience with the cats in the aisles with the audience and that's something the film can't compete with. I'm tempted to say that they should have forgone CGI aspects for the most part and had costumed cast. Making something more realistic when everything around it is unrealistic (in that it's not quite what we're used to as regular-sized humans) makes everything more confusing, perhaps the low tech angle would have made it a little less scary to some.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/cats-movie-review.html
As I've been saying to people... this film isn't good, but it's also not entirely bad, it has its moments.
Let's talk about the CGI first. You know what? It's not all that bad. Take out whatever you think about the concept of the human cats the fur in the second trailer looked much better than its first outing. During the film, Old Deuteronomy looked so fluffy I just wanted to pet her. The ear movements were pretty good, if a little consistent, it felt a little like they'd looked up cat actions in a book and taken the textbook description to animate rather than watching an actual cat. The cats as a whole could probably been a little larger compared to the "life-sized" staging around them because the ratio did feel a little off, but it wasn't really enough to make it off-putting.
Ever since I saw Cats at the cinema I've been singing the songs, but that's off the back of me listening to the stage recordings on Spotify and not the film versions. They don't quite have the same pep of the originals, watching them wasn't the wondrous experience I was hoping for. There are small exceptions. Taylor Swift was excellent and set a perfect tone for her number. Jason Derulo is a showman in this and after his Red Dwarf Cat-like clip in the trailer I was excited for his full numbers, they didn't disappoint.
Memory has to be my favourite song since seeing it on the stage and I was keen to see the talented Jennifer Hudson perform it. When it surfaced briefly I was worried, there was no impact, no heart... potential disaster. Finally the full number happened at the end and I was convinced. I listened to Hudson sing with such emotion that I cried, streams of tears and a quivering lip. It was beautiful.
The rest of the cast, while chockful of talent, didn't have quite the same buzz about it.
Francesca Hayward is a massively talented ballerina but the acting portion of the performance didn't quite hit the spot. This wasn't helped by the advert that has been running with her and Jennifer Hudson before the trailer was running before every film I watched for about two weeks.
I love Dame Judi and Sir Ian, and it was fun seeing them in this, but both had their issues. I wasn't a fan of Dench's moments of singing and the melancholy role of Gus for McKellen was a little unsettling. Who doesn't love seeing an Idris Elba film? He does the bad "guy" well but there was something wrong here too, I think that was partly to do with that fur torso.
It would be entirely possible to go on and on about this and all its ins and outs, but I don't think either of us have the time for that. I do feel that having the previous knowledge of Cats on the stage will help immensely when seeing this. That does also have some drawbacks though, when we saw it at the theatre it was a very interactive experience with the cats in the aisles with the audience and that's something the film can't compete with. I'm tempted to say that they should have forgone CGI aspects for the most part and had costumed cast. Making something more realistic when everything around it is unrealistic (in that it's not quite what we're used to as regular-sized humans) makes everything more confusing, perhaps the low tech angle would have made it a little less scary to some.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/cats-movie-review.html
Samantha Hemsley (2 KP) rated The Reader on the 6.27 in Books
Jun 30, 2019
Feel-good (4 more)
Simple easy-to read style
A celebration of the power of reading
Lovable characters
Brilliant translation from French
I'm so glad to have come across this little hidden gem.
The unfortunately named (apparently -- I think you have to be a French speaker to really understand the reasoning) Guylain Vignolles is 36, lives alone with his beloved goldfish and works in a job he detests -- operating a book-pulping machine in a publishing factory. Guylain alleviates his resultant mental anguish by rescuing the occasional surviving pages at the end of each shift and reading them aloud to his fellow commuters on the 6.27 train each morning much to their mingled bewilderment and joy. Featuring some wonderful larger-than-life characters such as the classical theatre loving security guard who only speaks in Verse and the reformed alcoholic engaged in a quest to be reunited with his missing limbs and the toilet attendant with a secret talent for writing, this book is quirky and a bit ridiculous in the very best way.
As a fellow book lover, I empathised with Guylain's heartbreak over destroying so many books day in and day out. I can't even bear to write in a book or fold the corner of a page never mind reduce them to a pulp! I absolutely loved the way he attempted to do the books justice by giving what pages he could save an audience. This book is a real testament to the power and pleasure of reading aloud which is something I'm hugely passionate about -- I even wrote one of my university dissertations about the benefits of reading aloud with children.
I also loved its message of how reading can unite people, despite it being seen as a generally quite solitary or even introverted activity. Through his reading, Guylain finds himself being invited to do regular readings at a care home, much to the delight of the residents and when he finds a USB stick on his usual train seat containing over 70 diary entries, the lonely Guylain might just find that it leads to true love.
As well as being very charming and quaint, the novel manages to avoid becoming trite with its very astute observations and brilliant humour -- often laugh-out-loud funny. The prose is simple but very skillful -- especially the verses concocted by Yvon the security guard. Huge credit must also be given to the translator here. (The book was originally written in French) To translate rhyme into a different language so that it still rhymes and still makes perfect sense in the context can't be an easy feat!
My only criticism is that the book is very short -- fewer than 200 pages. Apparently the author is usually a writer of short stories and this is his first novel. This definitely shows as the ending feels very abrupt and definitely as if it could have done with another 50 pages or so; perhaps even more. I wasn't ready to say goodbye yet! Having said that, the ending was very sweet and it was only its abruptness that prevented it from being 100% satisfactory. I wouldn't quite say that there are any loose ends but it would have been nice to find out a little more about some of the characters and their stories.
Overall though this was a really lovely feel-good read that will appeal to anyone who loves literature and zany but endearing characters. I read one review that said the plot was "outlandish" and the characters "unbelievable" but I believe this reviewer was missing the point. This book champions the escapist qualities of reading and to have a story and characters who perhaps just slightly transcend reality can only elevate the escapism just that bit more. Feasibility be damned, I loved Guylain and his supporting cast members and I think I could easily read this short but sweet little story again and again!
The unfortunately named (apparently -- I think you have to be a French speaker to really understand the reasoning) Guylain Vignolles is 36, lives alone with his beloved goldfish and works in a job he detests -- operating a book-pulping machine in a publishing factory. Guylain alleviates his resultant mental anguish by rescuing the occasional surviving pages at the end of each shift and reading them aloud to his fellow commuters on the 6.27 train each morning much to their mingled bewilderment and joy. Featuring some wonderful larger-than-life characters such as the classical theatre loving security guard who only speaks in Verse and the reformed alcoholic engaged in a quest to be reunited with his missing limbs and the toilet attendant with a secret talent for writing, this book is quirky and a bit ridiculous in the very best way.
As a fellow book lover, I empathised with Guylain's heartbreak over destroying so many books day in and day out. I can't even bear to write in a book or fold the corner of a page never mind reduce them to a pulp! I absolutely loved the way he attempted to do the books justice by giving what pages he could save an audience. This book is a real testament to the power and pleasure of reading aloud which is something I'm hugely passionate about -- I even wrote one of my university dissertations about the benefits of reading aloud with children.
I also loved its message of how reading can unite people, despite it being seen as a generally quite solitary or even introverted activity. Through his reading, Guylain finds himself being invited to do regular readings at a care home, much to the delight of the residents and when he finds a USB stick on his usual train seat containing over 70 diary entries, the lonely Guylain might just find that it leads to true love.
As well as being very charming and quaint, the novel manages to avoid becoming trite with its very astute observations and brilliant humour -- often laugh-out-loud funny. The prose is simple but very skillful -- especially the verses concocted by Yvon the security guard. Huge credit must also be given to the translator here. (The book was originally written in French) To translate rhyme into a different language so that it still rhymes and still makes perfect sense in the context can't be an easy feat!
My only criticism is that the book is very short -- fewer than 200 pages. Apparently the author is usually a writer of short stories and this is his first novel. This definitely shows as the ending feels very abrupt and definitely as if it could have done with another 50 pages or so; perhaps even more. I wasn't ready to say goodbye yet! Having said that, the ending was very sweet and it was only its abruptness that prevented it from being 100% satisfactory. I wouldn't quite say that there are any loose ends but it would have been nice to find out a little more about some of the characters and their stories.
Overall though this was a really lovely feel-good read that will appeal to anyone who loves literature and zany but endearing characters. I read one review that said the plot was "outlandish" and the characters "unbelievable" but I believe this reviewer was missing the point. This book champions the escapist qualities of reading and to have a story and characters who perhaps just slightly transcend reality can only elevate the escapism just that bit more. Feasibility be damned, I loved Guylain and his supporting cast members and I think I could easily read this short but sweet little story again and again!
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Smallfoot (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
The movie features Channing Tatum as Migo, James Corden as Percy,
Zendaya as Meechee, Common as Stonekeeper, LeBron James and Gwangi and
Danny DeVito and Dorgie, Migos father.
The movie is centered around a group of characters (the Yeti) and the
rules that surround their existence and are literally “set in stone” ,
carried around by (and, one surmises, enforced by) the Stonekeeper.
If it isn’t in the Stones, it just isn’t so.
Conversely, if it IS in the stones, it MUST be so, even if your eyes and
experiences tell you differently.
Each member of the village has a job, and even though the jobs are
monotonously repetitive, and even though at the bottom of it all, they
don’t really know the “why” behind what they are doing, all the Yeti
happily go about their days and participate to make the village run
smoothly.
Until, that is, Migo sees and chases down an airplane that crash lands
into their mountaintop sanctuary. There are legends of Smallfoot in the
Yeti’s folklore, but the stones emphatically state that Smallfoot do NOT
exist.
Migo brings his exciting news of the Smallfoot sighting back to the
village, only to be met by the Stonekeeper questioning whether Migo
could have ACTUALLY seen a Smallfoot, since the stones say they do not
exist. Migo does not let go of his story of seeing the Smallfoot, and is
subsequently banished from the village until he can “see the truth”.
(Maybe he REALLY saw a new breed of Yak!)
Migo leaves the village not knowing where his path should take him now,
and is intercepted by the members of the SES (Smallfoot Evidentiary
Society) who tell him that they believe him and show him the reasons
why, as backed by evidence that they have found over the years.
The three members of the SES are Meechee (Zendaya), who happens to be
the Stonekeepers daughter (!!), Kolka (Gina Rodriguez), Gwangi (LeBron
James), and Fleem (Ely Henry). The four encourage Migo to follow his
curiosity to find the Smallfoot and see what he can find out about them.
With trepidation, Migo heads down the mountain to see what he can find.
Once he has made his way down the mountain, Migo meets a videographer
named Percy, who has been lamenting his recent dismal ratings and lack
of viewers. Percy was going to go so far as to fabricate a story to get
“hits” online and to make a story go viral. Meeting Migo changes all
that and what follows is a heartwarming story about overcoming
differences, learning how to communicate, friendship & sacrifice.
The movie is colorful, and has great, catchy songs. The characters are
funny, there are lots of jokes, and I didn’t feel like there was any
“dead space” in the movie. The story was easy to follow but not boring.
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear about some sort of outcry raised by a
certain segment of the population, saying that the movie is
“anti-religious”, but I found it entirely refreshing for a kids movie to
send the message of not believing something someone tells you just
because “they say so” or just because “that’s the way its always been”,
or even “we do it this way for your own good (because you can’t be
trusted to think for yourself)” . Critical thinking skills are highly
lacking in today’s society, and I think that this movie is a great
example of finding out the truth by asking questions and not just
blindly following where you are told to.
My 10 year old son loved the movie, and I would go see it again in the
theatre, just to watch it again!
Zendaya as Meechee, Common as Stonekeeper, LeBron James and Gwangi and
Danny DeVito and Dorgie, Migos father.
The movie is centered around a group of characters (the Yeti) and the
rules that surround their existence and are literally “set in stone” ,
carried around by (and, one surmises, enforced by) the Stonekeeper.
If it isn’t in the Stones, it just isn’t so.
Conversely, if it IS in the stones, it MUST be so, even if your eyes and
experiences tell you differently.
Each member of the village has a job, and even though the jobs are
monotonously repetitive, and even though at the bottom of it all, they
don’t really know the “why” behind what they are doing, all the Yeti
happily go about their days and participate to make the village run
smoothly.
Until, that is, Migo sees and chases down an airplane that crash lands
into their mountaintop sanctuary. There are legends of Smallfoot in the
Yeti’s folklore, but the stones emphatically state that Smallfoot do NOT
exist.
Migo brings his exciting news of the Smallfoot sighting back to the
village, only to be met by the Stonekeeper questioning whether Migo
could have ACTUALLY seen a Smallfoot, since the stones say they do not
exist. Migo does not let go of his story of seeing the Smallfoot, and is
subsequently banished from the village until he can “see the truth”.
(Maybe he REALLY saw a new breed of Yak!)
Migo leaves the village not knowing where his path should take him now,
and is intercepted by the members of the SES (Smallfoot Evidentiary
Society) who tell him that they believe him and show him the reasons
why, as backed by evidence that they have found over the years.
The three members of the SES are Meechee (Zendaya), who happens to be
the Stonekeepers daughter (!!), Kolka (Gina Rodriguez), Gwangi (LeBron
James), and Fleem (Ely Henry). The four encourage Migo to follow his
curiosity to find the Smallfoot and see what he can find out about them.
With trepidation, Migo heads down the mountain to see what he can find.
Once he has made his way down the mountain, Migo meets a videographer
named Percy, who has been lamenting his recent dismal ratings and lack
of viewers. Percy was going to go so far as to fabricate a story to get
“hits” online and to make a story go viral. Meeting Migo changes all
that and what follows is a heartwarming story about overcoming
differences, learning how to communicate, friendship & sacrifice.
The movie is colorful, and has great, catchy songs. The characters are
funny, there are lots of jokes, and I didn’t feel like there was any
“dead space” in the movie. The story was easy to follow but not boring.
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear about some sort of outcry raised by a
certain segment of the population, saying that the movie is
“anti-religious”, but I found it entirely refreshing for a kids movie to
send the message of not believing something someone tells you just
because “they say so” or just because “that’s the way its always been”,
or even “we do it this way for your own good (because you can’t be
trusted to think for yourself)” . Critical thinking skills are highly
lacking in today’s society, and I think that this movie is a great
example of finding out the truth by asking questions and not just
blindly following where you are told to.
My 10 year old son loved the movie, and I would go see it again in the
theatre, just to watch it again!
Capital First - Instant Loans
Business and Finance
App
Dear User, to retrieve your username & password to log into the app, please send the below SMS to...