Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
“ Yo ho, yo ho, a pirates life for me. We pillage plunder, we rifle a loot. Drink up me ‘earties, yo ho. We kidnap and ravage and don’t give a hoot drink up me ‘earties yo ho”.
Captain Jack Sparrow is at it again with a map in one hand and a bottle of rum in the other. In the fourth installment of Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Captain Jack Sparrow teams up with an old flame Angelica (Penelope Cruz) and her father Blackbeard (Ian McShane) in the hopes of finding the Fountain of Eternal Youth. There are a group of Englishmen captained by Barbossa and a group of Spaniards who are on the quest to find the fountain as well. In order to reap the benefits of said fountain they have to find two chalices that are in the possession of Ponce de Leon and a mermaids tear. With a great storyline from Tedd Elliot and Terry Rossio the summer movie season has started off on the right foot and looks very promising.
Jerry Bruckheimer brings us Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger tides in excellent 3D. Unlike a lot of the other recent 3D movies converted into 3D, POTC is actually shot with a 3D camera providing the audience with better graphics and exciting effects. Unlike the others this new installment is based upon the book On Stranger Tides written by Tim Powers and includes but is not limited to mermaids, Zombie crewmembers, lots of rum, revenge, romance, mystery and a lot of swashbuckling excitement.
Orlando Bloom and Keira Nightly are not missed as Capt. Jack once again steels the show. The 1967 Disney attraction has changed over the years and most recently Capt Jack himself, Capt. Barbossa and coming soon they will be adding Blackbeard to the previous Davy Jones fog projection screen. The future for Jack Sparrow looks very promising as it has been rumored that Johnny Depp is already signed on for more pirate adventures. I loved this movie and is a great kick off to the summer movie season and I plan on seeing it again only this time in “4-D” at the closest D-Box(motion simulation seats) theater.
Captain Jack Sparrow is at it again with a map in one hand and a bottle of rum in the other. In the fourth installment of Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Captain Jack Sparrow teams up with an old flame Angelica (Penelope Cruz) and her father Blackbeard (Ian McShane) in the hopes of finding the Fountain of Eternal Youth. There are a group of Englishmen captained by Barbossa and a group of Spaniards who are on the quest to find the fountain as well. In order to reap the benefits of said fountain they have to find two chalices that are in the possession of Ponce de Leon and a mermaids tear. With a great storyline from Tedd Elliot and Terry Rossio the summer movie season has started off on the right foot and looks very promising.
Jerry Bruckheimer brings us Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger tides in excellent 3D. Unlike a lot of the other recent 3D movies converted into 3D, POTC is actually shot with a 3D camera providing the audience with better graphics and exciting effects. Unlike the others this new installment is based upon the book On Stranger Tides written by Tim Powers and includes but is not limited to mermaids, Zombie crewmembers, lots of rum, revenge, romance, mystery and a lot of swashbuckling excitement.
Orlando Bloom and Keira Nightly are not missed as Capt. Jack once again steels the show. The 1967 Disney attraction has changed over the years and most recently Capt Jack himself, Capt. Barbossa and coming soon they will be adding Blackbeard to the previous Davy Jones fog projection screen. The future for Jack Sparrow looks very promising as it has been rumored that Johnny Depp is already signed on for more pirate adventures. I loved this movie and is a great kick off to the summer movie season and I plan on seeing it again only this time in “4-D” at the closest D-Box(motion simulation seats) theater.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
As an Alice in Wonderland enthusiast, I was more than thrilled when Disney announced they were making Alice Through the Looking Glass, since the first film was visually stunning I went into watching the sequel with the same expectation that it would be rich in color and visuals. Visually it did not disappoint, with lavish costumes, and whimsical set design from beginning to end; the film was entertaining to watch. With returning characters such as Alice (Mia Wasikowska), The Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp), The Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter), and The White Queen (Anne Hathaway); the main story focuses on Alice trying to save the Hatter. With the citizens of Wonderland concerned for the Hatter’s wellbeing they rely on Alice to try to save the Hatter before it is too late, however Alice must race against Time (Sacha Baron Cohen) to try to learn what has happened to the Hatters family. Alice learns you can’t change the past but you can learn from it for the future; but will this knowledge help her save the Hatter or keep her stuck in the past?
Alice Through the Looking Glass mainly focuses on the friendship of Alice and the Hatter but also gives background history into the past of the Hatter, The Red Queen, and The White Queen. I found this really insightful and made it easier to get invested into the films plot points. I also found this film much more fast paced then the first film, literally about 10 minutes into the film Alice is jumping through the looking glass into Wonderland and right into the action. The newest addition to this film however is Time; who at first is given the main antagonist slot of the film, but as the story progresses that is not entirely the case. The film really shows good and evil are subjective in a sense, all while giving a good old fashion Disney happy ending.
Tim Burton’s Alice Through the Looking Glass keeps the accomplished directors personal style while keeping the characters of Lewis Carroll’s novel noticeable. However, I will warn you, if you were wanting to see this and hoping it was just like the novel.
It’s not. It’s actually the furthest from the actual book Through the Looking-Glass. The only reason it should probably have this title is due to Alice walking through the looking glass to get to Wonderland, but story wise it has nothing in common story wise. Burton used heavy creative license in the film, and even added Time as a leading role and main plot point that’s not even in Carroll’s novel. While the film is visually stunning and the beloved characters help the audience get invested, the overall plot is somewhat lacking the whimsy that is known in Carroll’s story. While the first film tells the story of Carroll’s novel, the sequel is definitely a story of Burton’s creation. So overall I would say the film is decent; if you enjoyed the first one you should enjoy this one. However, for those who loved the novel and were hoping for an accurate adaptation, this might not be for you. For me personally as a lover of all things “Alice in Wonderland”; I enjoyed it visually, and the portrayal of characters was great, but I felt the story was lacking.
Alice Through the Looking Glass mainly focuses on the friendship of Alice and the Hatter but also gives background history into the past of the Hatter, The Red Queen, and The White Queen. I found this really insightful and made it easier to get invested into the films plot points. I also found this film much more fast paced then the first film, literally about 10 minutes into the film Alice is jumping through the looking glass into Wonderland and right into the action. The newest addition to this film however is Time; who at first is given the main antagonist slot of the film, but as the story progresses that is not entirely the case. The film really shows good and evil are subjective in a sense, all while giving a good old fashion Disney happy ending.
Tim Burton’s Alice Through the Looking Glass keeps the accomplished directors personal style while keeping the characters of Lewis Carroll’s novel noticeable. However, I will warn you, if you were wanting to see this and hoping it was just like the novel.
It’s not. It’s actually the furthest from the actual book Through the Looking-Glass. The only reason it should probably have this title is due to Alice walking through the looking glass to get to Wonderland, but story wise it has nothing in common story wise. Burton used heavy creative license in the film, and even added Time as a leading role and main plot point that’s not even in Carroll’s novel. While the film is visually stunning and the beloved characters help the audience get invested, the overall plot is somewhat lacking the whimsy that is known in Carroll’s story. While the first film tells the story of Carroll’s novel, the sequel is definitely a story of Burton’s creation. So overall I would say the film is decent; if you enjoyed the first one you should enjoy this one. However, for those who loved the novel and were hoping for an accurate adaptation, this might not be for you. For me personally as a lover of all things “Alice in Wonderland”; I enjoyed it visually, and the portrayal of characters was great, but I felt the story was lacking.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Tim Burton and the flying elephant
If you had told me 15 years ago that Tim Burton would be directing a live-action adaptation of Disney’s classic, Dumbo I would’ve been overwhelmed with excitement. The director, famed for his unique sense of gothic style and visual flair has directed some of the best films ever made.
Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow and Beetlejuice are just a few classics on a resume populated by cracking movies. However, over the last decade Burton has become a director that has focused on style over substance. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was a pale imitation of the original and his live-action remake of Alice in Wonderland was successful but hollow.
Therefore, we arrive in 2019 with a slight sense of apprehension. Dumbo is a classic Disney cartoon and there’s a risk of a little too much Burton for the little elephant’s good. But is that fear unfounded?
Struggling circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito) enlists a former star (Colin Farrell) and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction – bringing in huge audiences and revitalising the run-down circus. The elephant’s magical ability also draws the attention of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture.
Updating Dumbo for the modern age was always going to be a difficult task. At just over an hour long and with some shall we say, less than PC story elements, the original needed some serious padding and editing to turn it into a fully-fledged feature film and while there are moments of brilliance here, Dumbo suffers from a disjointed and overthought script, flat characters and you guessed it, too much Burton.
We’ll start with the good. Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work. The cinematography is absolutely astounding with stunning sunsets and vivid colours populating the screen at all points during the 112-minute running time. The opening in particular, a hark back to the original in which a train crosses a map of the US is inspired and nicely filmed.
For the most part though, Dumbo pushes the limits of visual effects to the point where everything feels far too artificial. The baby elephant himself is on the whole very good, and as adorable as you would expect, but there are moments dotted throughout the film that suffer from the limitations of CGI. A scene in which Dumbo gets a bath is terrifying. In fact, there are multiple sequences towards the finale in which the CGI is so poor that it looks like something out of a second generation video game.
Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work
Elsewhere, the cast is by far the film’s weakest element. Colin Farrell is a disappointingly forgettable and miscast lead. Arriving home after losing his arm in the war, Farrell’s Holt is completely flat, not helped by some poor acting from the usually dependable star. Michael Keaton doesn’t get to do much apart from smile menacingly and Danny DeVito hams it up to 11 as struggling circus-owner Max Medici; oh dear.
There are some positives cast-wise however: Nico Parker as Milly Farrier, Holt’s curious science-minded daughter, is very good, even if the script beats you around the head with the fact that she’s an intelligent girl who wants more out of her life, but this is brought right back down to earth by Eva Green’s horrific French accent.
Then there’s Burton himself. While the shots of Dumbo circling the circus tent in the air are breath-taking, and scenes of the pachyderm covered in clown make-up as he’s abused for profit are as heart-breaking as they are in the original, they’re ruined by unusual story-telling choices. As the film steamrolls to its climax set in a theme-park that’s a third Scooby Doo, a third Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory and a third Jurassic Park, Burton piles on his usual tropes far too thick – it just doesn’t fit with the tale of the magical flying elephant.
Some of the more touching elements are handled well however. Dumbo’s separation from his mother is devastating and he feels like a real personality throughout the entire film, but for a film titled Dumbo, it needs more Dumbo!
Overall, Dumbo is a perfectly enjoyable adventure ride that’s spoilt by Burton’s once trademark filming style and a roster of flat and forgettable characters. With the boundaries of CGI being pushed to the max here, some of the film feels a little unfinished and as such, this live-action adaptation is a touch disappointing. One can only wonder what this film would have been like with a different director at the helm.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/30/dumbo-review-tim-burton-and-the-flying-elephant/
Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow and Beetlejuice are just a few classics on a resume populated by cracking movies. However, over the last decade Burton has become a director that has focused on style over substance. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was a pale imitation of the original and his live-action remake of Alice in Wonderland was successful but hollow.
Therefore, we arrive in 2019 with a slight sense of apprehension. Dumbo is a classic Disney cartoon and there’s a risk of a little too much Burton for the little elephant’s good. But is that fear unfounded?
Struggling circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito) enlists a former star (Colin Farrell) and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction – bringing in huge audiences and revitalising the run-down circus. The elephant’s magical ability also draws the attention of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture.
Updating Dumbo for the modern age was always going to be a difficult task. At just over an hour long and with some shall we say, less than PC story elements, the original needed some serious padding and editing to turn it into a fully-fledged feature film and while there are moments of brilliance here, Dumbo suffers from a disjointed and overthought script, flat characters and you guessed it, too much Burton.
We’ll start with the good. Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work. The cinematography is absolutely astounding with stunning sunsets and vivid colours populating the screen at all points during the 112-minute running time. The opening in particular, a hark back to the original in which a train crosses a map of the US is inspired and nicely filmed.
For the most part though, Dumbo pushes the limits of visual effects to the point where everything feels far too artificial. The baby elephant himself is on the whole very good, and as adorable as you would expect, but there are moments dotted throughout the film that suffer from the limitations of CGI. A scene in which Dumbo gets a bath is terrifying. In fact, there are multiple sequences towards the finale in which the CGI is so poor that it looks like something out of a second generation video game.
Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work
Elsewhere, the cast is by far the film’s weakest element. Colin Farrell is a disappointingly forgettable and miscast lead. Arriving home after losing his arm in the war, Farrell’s Holt is completely flat, not helped by some poor acting from the usually dependable star. Michael Keaton doesn’t get to do much apart from smile menacingly and Danny DeVito hams it up to 11 as struggling circus-owner Max Medici; oh dear.
There are some positives cast-wise however: Nico Parker as Milly Farrier, Holt’s curious science-minded daughter, is very good, even if the script beats you around the head with the fact that she’s an intelligent girl who wants more out of her life, but this is brought right back down to earth by Eva Green’s horrific French accent.
Then there’s Burton himself. While the shots of Dumbo circling the circus tent in the air are breath-taking, and scenes of the pachyderm covered in clown make-up as he’s abused for profit are as heart-breaking as they are in the original, they’re ruined by unusual story-telling choices. As the film steamrolls to its climax set in a theme-park that’s a third Scooby Doo, a third Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory and a third Jurassic Park, Burton piles on his usual tropes far too thick – it just doesn’t fit with the tale of the magical flying elephant.
Some of the more touching elements are handled well however. Dumbo’s separation from his mother is devastating and he feels like a real personality throughout the entire film, but for a film titled Dumbo, it needs more Dumbo!
Overall, Dumbo is a perfectly enjoyable adventure ride that’s spoilt by Burton’s once trademark filming style and a roster of flat and forgettable characters. With the boundaries of CGI being pushed to the max here, some of the film feels a little unfinished and as such, this live-action adaptation is a touch disappointing. One can only wonder what this film would have been like with a different director at the helm.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/30/dumbo-review-tim-burton-and-the-flying-elephant/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Disney has continued their trend of live-action remakes of their animated classics with “Dumbo”. The film follows the same premise as the 1941 classic in that a baby elephant with giant ears is born into a travelling circus. Like in the animated film he is separated from his mother and soon becomes an unlikely circus act when it is discovered that his giant ears give him the power of flight.
In the new version we are introduced to Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell); who returns from WWI injured and dealing with the fact that his wife has died and he must raise their two children alone. Further complicating matters is the fact that Circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito), has sold the prized horses Holt used in his act in an effort to keep his struggling circus alive.
What has become a tragedy soon becomes a boon when wealthy industrialist V.A. Vandevere (<ichael Keaton) offers to make Max a partner and take him and his troup on at his fabled entertainment park with Dumbo as his featured star.
It is at this point where the film takes some wild deviations and becomes very linear with paper thin characters and an emphasis on effects over story.
Director Tim Burton has once again crafted a film filled with lavish visuals as his take on the entertainment park and circus is amazing; but it as usual comes at a cost. Like most of Burton’s works, the visuals are the star and key element and the development of characters and story are often given little more than lip service.
The same is true fro this film as we learn noting about the motivation of the characters and the villains play out as stock baddies without even a nod as to why they are so inclined to tehir action.s They are being evil just for the sake of being evil. The same can be said for the other characters as we are given very little reasons to care for them. There is a nice subplot with Eva Green but it is never fully developed and the worst part is that the title star almost becomes an afterthought in the final acts so we can be given scene after scene of lavinsh park visuals.
The film may be a bit to dark and intense at times for younger viewers and those who remember the original may have a hard time with this take of the film. It entertains at times but could have been so much better.
http://sknr.net/2019/03/26/dumbo/
In the new version we are introduced to Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell); who returns from WWI injured and dealing with the fact that his wife has died and he must raise their two children alone. Further complicating matters is the fact that Circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito), has sold the prized horses Holt used in his act in an effort to keep his struggling circus alive.
What has become a tragedy soon becomes a boon when wealthy industrialist V.A. Vandevere (<ichael Keaton) offers to make Max a partner and take him and his troup on at his fabled entertainment park with Dumbo as his featured star.
It is at this point where the film takes some wild deviations and becomes very linear with paper thin characters and an emphasis on effects over story.
Director Tim Burton has once again crafted a film filled with lavish visuals as his take on the entertainment park and circus is amazing; but it as usual comes at a cost. Like most of Burton’s works, the visuals are the star and key element and the development of characters and story are often given little more than lip service.
The same is true fro this film as we learn noting about the motivation of the characters and the villains play out as stock baddies without even a nod as to why they are so inclined to tehir action.s They are being evil just for the sake of being evil. The same can be said for the other characters as we are given very little reasons to care for them. There is a nice subplot with Eva Green but it is never fully developed and the worst part is that the title star almost becomes an afterthought in the final acts so we can be given scene after scene of lavinsh park visuals.
The film may be a bit to dark and intense at times for younger viewers and those who remember the original may have a hard time with this take of the film. It entertains at times but could have been so much better.
http://sknr.net/2019/03/26/dumbo/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
It may have been a mistake to see the original animated version before seeing this live-action offering. It's incorrect to say it's a remake, they've taken a 64-minute movie and stripped out the principle idea and made a completely new film that's near two hours long.
I'm going to start with the moaning, but bear with me because it'll get better, I promise.
Let's address the elephant in the room, no not Dumbo, but the fact that they made something live action when it's almost entirely talking animals. (And yes, I'm already concerned for Lion King.) To actually get some human characters in there they've turned it on its head and made the story about the circus and its family. I don't have a problem with them doing this but everything I saw in the run-up to the film made me believe that it was a remake and not an adaptation. Possibly I just got caught up in all the hype of the other remakes Disney are producing. but it did colour my impression.
It's evident that Disney have tried to account for the fact that people won't be getting what they loved so much from the original, everywhere there are nods to the original. All of this is sadly far from that nostalgic fun, instead it felt like a bit of a slap in the face. "Hey look!! Remember this bit?!!" There's a quick nod to the storks, Dumbo getting drunk, and possibly the creepiest of them all, that happy-go-lucky train... you really should have left that one alone.
We're also severely lacking in those wonderful songs. I had heard the Arcade Fire version of Baby Mine in a trailer and it gave me goosebumps, but while it's a lovely scene in the film the song itself doesn't hold nearly enough weight. Disney to me is as much about the music as it is about the story and in this instance they've dropped the ball.
With Tim Burton at the helm it was going to be bleak... but geez! Mum's dead, Dad's missing an arm from war... and that mad elephant scene? "I want to go bigger than spanking an animated child." "I don't think we can have a scene where we spank a child in this day and age." "No, you're right, first thing we're going to need is a coroner." There were a lot of things in this that cut a very fine line, and I think that it's crossed over into a film that isn't really for kids anymore.
Despite these quibbles they've managed to do something magical with Dumbo. All of that magic from the animated version is still there in this little fella. I don't know how you get that much emotion out of something that isn't there, it was wonderful. Dumbo's reactions to feathers throughout, that eyes wide excitement, and when he sees Colette "flying" up to him... honestly, I don't know how to describe it. Hands down my favourite bit has to be the pink elephants bit, Dumbo watching intently and his head bobbing along was so pure.
I still don't know how I feel about the acting in Dumbo, beyond our little pachyderm I was underwhelmed by the whole thing. I wasn't particularly fond of the child characters. They seemed to decide that Milly should be a role model to other little girls, "you can be a scientist", but I don't know that making a role model out of someone who isn't exactly likeable is the way to go with this. They've also given Milly and her brother, Joe, the appointment of elephant trainers, and that frustrated me no end too, but for completely over thought reasons.
Danny Devito was a treat, his character is obviously intended to be dislikeable but is allowed to get some redemption in the end, which was nice to see. His scenes with the monkey were particularly fun.
This review has taken me so long to write, I think that's mainly because I just don't know about these human characters. Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell), V.A. Vandervere (Michae Keaton) and Colette Marchant (Eva Green) all just don't do anything for me... they seem very much like padding for a film that probably shouldn't have been made.
I don't want to run into any major spoilers, but that ending... it needs mentioning... it's ridiculous and clichéd. There was a perfectly good ending point they could have taken but sadly someone made the choice that the "happy ever after" ending needed to be spelt out for everyone.
I am torn about this film. You couldn't have remade the original exactly as it was, mild racism and a drunk minor just aren't going to cut it in a kids film. Potentially there is a new version in there somewhere, but I'm not sure that this dark human heavy one was the way to go.
What you should do
It's the Easter holidays, those kids need to be entertained somehow, Dumbo would not be the worst choice you could make.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I don't think I have room for a baby elephant, so if someone could just cut all the footage of him together and give me a DVD containing all those good feelings that would be great.
I'm going to start with the moaning, but bear with me because it'll get better, I promise.
Let's address the elephant in the room, no not Dumbo, but the fact that they made something live action when it's almost entirely talking animals. (And yes, I'm already concerned for Lion King.) To actually get some human characters in there they've turned it on its head and made the story about the circus and its family. I don't have a problem with them doing this but everything I saw in the run-up to the film made me believe that it was a remake and not an adaptation. Possibly I just got caught up in all the hype of the other remakes Disney are producing. but it did colour my impression.
It's evident that Disney have tried to account for the fact that people won't be getting what they loved so much from the original, everywhere there are nods to the original. All of this is sadly far from that nostalgic fun, instead it felt like a bit of a slap in the face. "Hey look!! Remember this bit?!!" There's a quick nod to the storks, Dumbo getting drunk, and possibly the creepiest of them all, that happy-go-lucky train... you really should have left that one alone.
We're also severely lacking in those wonderful songs. I had heard the Arcade Fire version of Baby Mine in a trailer and it gave me goosebumps, but while it's a lovely scene in the film the song itself doesn't hold nearly enough weight. Disney to me is as much about the music as it is about the story and in this instance they've dropped the ball.
With Tim Burton at the helm it was going to be bleak... but geez! Mum's dead, Dad's missing an arm from war... and that mad elephant scene? "I want to go bigger than spanking an animated child." "I don't think we can have a scene where we spank a child in this day and age." "No, you're right, first thing we're going to need is a coroner." There were a lot of things in this that cut a very fine line, and I think that it's crossed over into a film that isn't really for kids anymore.
Despite these quibbles they've managed to do something magical with Dumbo. All of that magic from the animated version is still there in this little fella. I don't know how you get that much emotion out of something that isn't there, it was wonderful. Dumbo's reactions to feathers throughout, that eyes wide excitement, and when he sees Colette "flying" up to him... honestly, I don't know how to describe it. Hands down my favourite bit has to be the pink elephants bit, Dumbo watching intently and his head bobbing along was so pure.
I still don't know how I feel about the acting in Dumbo, beyond our little pachyderm I was underwhelmed by the whole thing. I wasn't particularly fond of the child characters. They seemed to decide that Milly should be a role model to other little girls, "you can be a scientist", but I don't know that making a role model out of someone who isn't exactly likeable is the way to go with this. They've also given Milly and her brother, Joe, the appointment of elephant trainers, and that frustrated me no end too, but for completely over thought reasons.
Danny Devito was a treat, his character is obviously intended to be dislikeable but is allowed to get some redemption in the end, which was nice to see. His scenes with the monkey were particularly fun.
This review has taken me so long to write, I think that's mainly because I just don't know about these human characters. Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell), V.A. Vandervere (Michae Keaton) and Colette Marchant (Eva Green) all just don't do anything for me... they seem very much like padding for a film that probably shouldn't have been made.
I don't want to run into any major spoilers, but that ending... it needs mentioning... it's ridiculous and clichéd. There was a perfectly good ending point they could have taken but sadly someone made the choice that the "happy ever after" ending needed to be spelt out for everyone.
I am torn about this film. You couldn't have remade the original exactly as it was, mild racism and a drunk minor just aren't going to cut it in a kids film. Potentially there is a new version in there somewhere, but I'm not sure that this dark human heavy one was the way to go.
What you should do
It's the Easter holidays, those kids need to be entertained somehow, Dumbo would not be the worst choice you could make.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I don't think I have room for a baby elephant, so if someone could just cut all the footage of him together and give me a DVD containing all those good feelings that would be great.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) in Movies
Jun 5, 2017
The creations of the pirate lore brought to life (3 more)
Original Cast return for the sequel
The addition of new incredible casting choices such as Bill Nighy
It maintains the franchises humour in new ways
Giving Pirate Lore a new image
Since I have reviewed the first, fourth and fifth films of this franchise, I thought it to be necessary for me to review the second and third installments as well.
Disney created something truly entertaining when they brought to us 'The Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl', and I know that i personally could not wait to see what journeys these characters would take us on. Jack Sparrow should probably be, and probably is, the highlight of all the films, because let's face it, Johnny Depp is ridiculously talented and this role helps us see him as something other than a Tim Burton creation. (Not saying I dislike Tim Burton or Johnny's roles in his films, but he is obviously in a lot of Tim Burton films, and he seems very typecasted in my opinion.)
But the later installments brought us talent that drives our attention away from the drunken idiot pirate captain, and draws us in by bringing to life the one name that all pirates fear; Davey Jones!
Davey Jones, to my knowledge, was never really given a true figure in the minds of pirates. He was always just a name to be feared, more so for the fact that the famous Davey Jones' Locker represented the bottom of the sea, and is used as a euphemism for drowning. When ships were wrecked in battle, or a sailor could not be retrieved after being thrown overboard, resulting in drowning, they would say that these sailors were now in Davey Jones' Locker. However, one thing that crossed my mind when I heard that they were bringing Davey Jones is as a villain (of sorts) to the film, was the bewilderment of who might play such a devilish character. Since there was never a figure before now, anyone could be cast. So the choices were almost endless. When the news came that Bill Nighy would be portraying him, I thought back to his role of Victor in the Underworld franchise, and I couldn't have chosen a better actor myself if I'm honest. His voice is different to many others and has a certain threatening spark to it, but one which didn't have to shout or change fully in tone to express anger or disgust. His voice, just is what it is and it's one that sticks in your head, and one you'll not forget anytime soon.
Two other famous lore based aspects, brought to life in this film are the Kraken, and of course the thing that the film is named after, the Dead Man's Chest. The Kraken would have been easier to come up with, because everyone knows the tale of the fearsome Kraken, the giant squid that can drag and entire ship down in one and make many a fierce pirate cower at the warning sign, known as the black spot, most often told to be placed upon the hand of the one it hunts.
However, I was really intrigued at the creators take on the famous Dead Man's Chest, and before I continue, here's a fun fact that'll give you a clue as to why it intrigues me so.
Fun Fact: Dead Man's Chest is actually an island called Dead Chest Island. The reason it is called Dead Chest Island, is because it is uninhabited, has no fresh water or trees and only sparse vegetation. However it is not entirely certain if this is the same island that the original Pirates of the golden age spoke of, but since there is no other island with a name that even closely resembles Dead Man's Chest, then this would seem to be the legendary island where it was told that Blackbeard used as punishment. Leaving his men stranded on the island with nothing but a cutlass and a bottle of rum each. When he returned after a month, there would be less men alive on the island than when he left. This inspired Robert Louis Stevenson's fictional sea shanty "15 Men on the dead man's chest, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum..".
So, the aspect that intrigues me is making this legend, and actual chest and connecting it to Davey Jones himself. In the film the chest contains the still beating heart of Davey Jones, and whoever pierced the heart becomes the next Captain of the Flying Dutchman, Davey Jone's famous ship. The look of Davey Jones himself is incredible, and the choice of giving him a squid face really adds to the fantasy of these films, and actually makes him terrifying, though not as much so if you were to read this. "Squid for a head...sounds silly" some people have said, yet when I show them a picture, they respond with something like "That's actually terrifying but awesome"
Overall, this installment has great casting choices and great visual effects, as well as an entertaining take on Pirate lore and as always, it is brilliantly funny.
Disney created something truly entertaining when they brought to us 'The Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl', and I know that i personally could not wait to see what journeys these characters would take us on. Jack Sparrow should probably be, and probably is, the highlight of all the films, because let's face it, Johnny Depp is ridiculously talented and this role helps us see him as something other than a Tim Burton creation. (Not saying I dislike Tim Burton or Johnny's roles in his films, but he is obviously in a lot of Tim Burton films, and he seems very typecasted in my opinion.)
But the later installments brought us talent that drives our attention away from the drunken idiot pirate captain, and draws us in by bringing to life the one name that all pirates fear; Davey Jones!
Davey Jones, to my knowledge, was never really given a true figure in the minds of pirates. He was always just a name to be feared, more so for the fact that the famous Davey Jones' Locker represented the bottom of the sea, and is used as a euphemism for drowning. When ships were wrecked in battle, or a sailor could not be retrieved after being thrown overboard, resulting in drowning, they would say that these sailors were now in Davey Jones' Locker. However, one thing that crossed my mind when I heard that they were bringing Davey Jones is as a villain (of sorts) to the film, was the bewilderment of who might play such a devilish character. Since there was never a figure before now, anyone could be cast. So the choices were almost endless. When the news came that Bill Nighy would be portraying him, I thought back to his role of Victor in the Underworld franchise, and I couldn't have chosen a better actor myself if I'm honest. His voice is different to many others and has a certain threatening spark to it, but one which didn't have to shout or change fully in tone to express anger or disgust. His voice, just is what it is and it's one that sticks in your head, and one you'll not forget anytime soon.
Two other famous lore based aspects, brought to life in this film are the Kraken, and of course the thing that the film is named after, the Dead Man's Chest. The Kraken would have been easier to come up with, because everyone knows the tale of the fearsome Kraken, the giant squid that can drag and entire ship down in one and make many a fierce pirate cower at the warning sign, known as the black spot, most often told to be placed upon the hand of the one it hunts.
However, I was really intrigued at the creators take on the famous Dead Man's Chest, and before I continue, here's a fun fact that'll give you a clue as to why it intrigues me so.
Fun Fact: Dead Man's Chest is actually an island called Dead Chest Island. The reason it is called Dead Chest Island, is because it is uninhabited, has no fresh water or trees and only sparse vegetation. However it is not entirely certain if this is the same island that the original Pirates of the golden age spoke of, but since there is no other island with a name that even closely resembles Dead Man's Chest, then this would seem to be the legendary island where it was told that Blackbeard used as punishment. Leaving his men stranded on the island with nothing but a cutlass and a bottle of rum each. When he returned after a month, there would be less men alive on the island than when he left. This inspired Robert Louis Stevenson's fictional sea shanty "15 Men on the dead man's chest, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum..".
So, the aspect that intrigues me is making this legend, and actual chest and connecting it to Davey Jones himself. In the film the chest contains the still beating heart of Davey Jones, and whoever pierced the heart becomes the next Captain of the Flying Dutchman, Davey Jone's famous ship. The look of Davey Jones himself is incredible, and the choice of giving him a squid face really adds to the fantasy of these films, and actually makes him terrifying, though not as much so if you were to read this. "Squid for a head...sounds silly" some people have said, yet when I show them a picture, they respond with something like "That's actually terrifying but awesome"
Overall, this installment has great casting choices and great visual effects, as well as an entertaining take on Pirate lore and as always, it is brilliantly funny.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019 (Updated Jul 20, 2019)
Disney's 1994 animated version of The Lion King was a huge hit. Not only did it win Academy Awards for original score (courtesy of the amazing Hans Zimmer) but also for original song "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" by Elton John & Tim Rice. It also won a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy and went on to become a huge Broadway stage show in 1997, winning further awards and proving to be one of the most popular shows ever. Some movie sequels quietly came and went, along with a couple of TV series, but it's the original movie which is still loved by millions to this day. While Disney currently feels the need to rework their animated back catalogue, and with considerable advances in photorealistic computer animation technology, it was only a matter of time before The Lion King had it's turn in landing a remake.
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Lee (2222 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Mar 31, 2019
It's set to be a busy year for live action Disney remakes, with Aladdin and The Lion King already lined up for release this year. Kicking things off though, is this reimagining of the 1941 classic Dumbo, with Tim Burton directing.
It's 1919 and Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) has returned from World War I, arriving by train to join the Medici Brothers Circus, where he worked before the war as a performer. But Holt has a number of issues to contend with on his return, the least of which being the loss one of his arms while in service. He's greeted at the station by his two young children, Milly and Joe, who lost their mother, Holt's wife, to influenza while he was away. On top of that, he learns that while he was away, the cash strapped circus owner, Max Medici (Danny DeVito) decided to sell the horses that were part of Holt's star act. Holt is put in charge of pregnant elephant Jumbo, with Max hoping that the arrival of a cute baby elephant will bring in the much needed crowds. It's a lot for Holt to come to terms with and adjust to.
Soon after, the baby elephant is born. But with clumsy, oversized ears, he's not quite the cute crowd pleaser they had all hoped for. Attempts to hide his ears only end in disaster, and ridicule from the circus crowds. Milly and Joe fall in love with the new arrival, and when they discover that he has the ability to use those big ears for flying, interest in him is quickly renewed.
The flying elephant not only draws in the crowds, but also the attentions of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), who offers Max a deal for him and his circus troupe to join his huge fancy theme park. It's at this point that the movie should really begin to soar, having introduced the circus family and their new arrival. Unfortunately, the arrival of Vandevere signals a sharp downward spiral in terms of story telling. The circus cast are all but forgotten, with the story focusing instead on the tired, familiar tale of sleazy, greedy businessman who is only interested in money and success, at the expense of the poor, trusting people who believed him.
The computerised Dumbo is simply oozing cuteness and technical wizardry. The eyes and the facial expressions are wonderful and he manages to steal every scene he is in. Every time he takes flight, it is a joy to watch. Unfortunately though, this version of Dumbo is trying to add a lot more to the original story and ends up becoming bit of a drag at times. The human characters are poorly written and mostly forgettable, and the movie really only soars when Dumbo himself does. While trying to steer clear of being a straight up remake, opting instead for the addition of plot and characters, it ultimately loses a lot of the charm. As with the recent remake of Beauty and the Beast, it's another case of style over substance.
It's 1919 and Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell) has returned from World War I, arriving by train to join the Medici Brothers Circus, where he worked before the war as a performer. But Holt has a number of issues to contend with on his return, the least of which being the loss one of his arms while in service. He's greeted at the station by his two young children, Milly and Joe, who lost their mother, Holt's wife, to influenza while he was away. On top of that, he learns that while he was away, the cash strapped circus owner, Max Medici (Danny DeVito) decided to sell the horses that were part of Holt's star act. Holt is put in charge of pregnant elephant Jumbo, with Max hoping that the arrival of a cute baby elephant will bring in the much needed crowds. It's a lot for Holt to come to terms with and adjust to.
Soon after, the baby elephant is born. But with clumsy, oversized ears, he's not quite the cute crowd pleaser they had all hoped for. Attempts to hide his ears only end in disaster, and ridicule from the circus crowds. Milly and Joe fall in love with the new arrival, and when they discover that he has the ability to use those big ears for flying, interest in him is quickly renewed.
The flying elephant not only draws in the crowds, but also the attentions of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), who offers Max a deal for him and his circus troupe to join his huge fancy theme park. It's at this point that the movie should really begin to soar, having introduced the circus family and their new arrival. Unfortunately, the arrival of Vandevere signals a sharp downward spiral in terms of story telling. The circus cast are all but forgotten, with the story focusing instead on the tired, familiar tale of sleazy, greedy businessman who is only interested in money and success, at the expense of the poor, trusting people who believed him.
The computerised Dumbo is simply oozing cuteness and technical wizardry. The eyes and the facial expressions are wonderful and he manages to steal every scene he is in. Every time he takes flight, it is a joy to watch. Unfortunately though, this version of Dumbo is trying to add a lot more to the original story and ends up becoming bit of a drag at times. The human characters are poorly written and mostly forgettable, and the movie really only soars when Dumbo himself does. While trying to steer clear of being a straight up remake, opting instead for the addition of plot and characters, it ultimately loses a lot of the charm. As with the recent remake of Beauty and the Beast, it's another case of style over substance.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Frankenweenie (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Before he hit the big time, director Tim Burton made a live-action short film named “Frankenweenie” which was a loving tribute to the classic horror films of old, in particular “Frankenstein”. Due to various issues, the 30-minute film never got the attention it deserved and was relegated to a video release after Burton’s stock had risen thanks to hits such as “Beetlejuice”, “Batman”, and “Edward Scissorhands”.
Disney has given Burton a chance to complete his vision for “Frankenweenie”, and Burton has done so by combining the visual themes of classic black and white with modern 3D and stop-motion animation.
The film centers around the town of New Holland, where young Victor Frankenstein (Charlie Tahan) lives in suburbia and spends his days, when not in school, on his love of science, and his beloved dog Sparky. His father, wants Victor to diversify his skills and agrees to allow Victor to take part in a local science fair if he agrees to play baseball as well. Victor agrees, but sadly tragedy strikes when Victor loses his beloved Sparky in an accident.
Devastated, Victor loses his will and his way until he is inspired by his science teacher, Mr. Rzykruski (Martin Landau) who explains how anything can be reanimated via electricity. Since their town is famous for its nightly lightening storms, Victor sets about to revive Sparky, and is able to do so much to his delight. While he is thrilled to have his beloved dog back, Victor must keep Sparky’s return a secret which proves to be a very difficult challenge.
In time, the secret gets out and chaos ensues, especially when Victor’s classmates decide to reanimate other dead objects so that they can compete at the science fair. Things quickly go amok, and Victor and Sparky must find a way to save New Holland and each other.
The film has the trademark Burton visuals which are indeed very lavish. The nature of stop-motion and 3D does at times have some jerkiness to the film, but all in all it is a rich visual experience. I am a fan of Burton, but I have always said he far to often puts substance over style as his visuals have often overshadowed plot and characters in his movies. This time out, Burton has kept the film basic and does not go overboard trying to over-complicate his plot and characters. The film is, at the core, a story about a boy and his dog and their enduring love for one another.
The film is loaded with quirky characters and visuals and several references to the classic horror films of old which inspired it. I was not sure that many of the younger viewers in the audience would be able to get several of the jokes in the film, but they, along with their parents, laughed and cheered throughout the film.
While it will not break any new ground in visuals and story, “Frankenweenie” is a pleasantly fun film that the family will enjoy and is well worth checking out.
Disney has given Burton a chance to complete his vision for “Frankenweenie”, and Burton has done so by combining the visual themes of classic black and white with modern 3D and stop-motion animation.
The film centers around the town of New Holland, where young Victor Frankenstein (Charlie Tahan) lives in suburbia and spends his days, when not in school, on his love of science, and his beloved dog Sparky. His father, wants Victor to diversify his skills and agrees to allow Victor to take part in a local science fair if he agrees to play baseball as well. Victor agrees, but sadly tragedy strikes when Victor loses his beloved Sparky in an accident.
Devastated, Victor loses his will and his way until he is inspired by his science teacher, Mr. Rzykruski (Martin Landau) who explains how anything can be reanimated via electricity. Since their town is famous for its nightly lightening storms, Victor sets about to revive Sparky, and is able to do so much to his delight. While he is thrilled to have his beloved dog back, Victor must keep Sparky’s return a secret which proves to be a very difficult challenge.
In time, the secret gets out and chaos ensues, especially when Victor’s classmates decide to reanimate other dead objects so that they can compete at the science fair. Things quickly go amok, and Victor and Sparky must find a way to save New Holland and each other.
The film has the trademark Burton visuals which are indeed very lavish. The nature of stop-motion and 3D does at times have some jerkiness to the film, but all in all it is a rich visual experience. I am a fan of Burton, but I have always said he far to often puts substance over style as his visuals have often overshadowed plot and characters in his movies. This time out, Burton has kept the film basic and does not go overboard trying to over-complicate his plot and characters. The film is, at the core, a story about a boy and his dog and their enduring love for one another.
The film is loaded with quirky characters and visuals and several references to the classic horror films of old which inspired it. I was not sure that many of the younger viewers in the audience would be able to get several of the jokes in the film, but they, along with their parents, laughed and cheered throughout the film.
While it will not break any new ground in visuals and story, “Frankenweenie” is a pleasantly fun film that the family will enjoy and is well worth checking out.
Amanda (96 KP) rated Wandering in Wonderland (Book #1) in Books
Apr 1, 2019
Lewis Carroll didn’t get it right?
A GIANT thank you and gratitude to The Parliament House publishing and the author for giving me this opportunity to read this book. I did a cover reveal and I knew right off the bat that I was going to love this book. I was right.
We follow Jessica whom eats a bit of cookie and winds up forgetting her past life. Once she is told that she has died and is now in Wonderland, Jessica struggles with the acclimation of this unique land that is only read in a book. She’s escorted by a White Rabbit named Horace (Not a genuine rabbit, but in this story, White Rabbits is Wonderland’s term for queen’s guards). She comes across Rion, the Caterpillar (but disguised as a man at the time) and he gives her a journal that belonged to a Hatter named Rorie (quite a few R names here.)
Anyway, she is taken to the Queen of Hearts, whom happens to be Alice. As a new comer to Wonderland, the new comers are to look through the Looking Glass to show where they are meant to be in Wonderland. You could be a Crafter or a part of the court, the Looking Glass shows you who you are. When Jessica looks through the glass, she is struck as are the other members of the palace that she is shown to be a Spade.
Spades declared ware on the palace before Alice took the throne. Wonderland is a magical place, but it can choose who it likes and doesn’t like, and who gets to leave and stay.
I don’t want to give away too much, so I’ll stop there for time being.
I’m going to be the first to say that Alice in Wonderland is not my favorite story. I don’t like the Disney cartoon (though I did as a child, what was I thinking?) I do love Tim Burton’s spin on it (IT’S NOT A REMAKE!) but the original story I just couldn’t get into it. The summary and the excerpt to this story was just too good to pass up. I had a feeling I would enjoy the story, I just didn’t realize how much I would.
I read this in days (would have been less if I didn’t have a full time job). It’s a unique spin on the story. This isn’t so much as a retelling as it is a what if or an addition to it if Alice became the queen of hearts. So don’t go into this story and think it’s a retelling, because it is not.
I adored the characters including Alice and Jessica. There are some dark moments, but me being a highly sensitive person, it wasn’t as triggering, but I will say there are some there. I loved the twists in the story and how Jessica really does come to terms with her new found role in Wonderland.
This is a first in a series. That’s my only complaint! Why must have the (im)patience for the next book and the wonder (lol) as to what is going to happen with Jessica? Can’t tell you the ending, Wonderland wants you to know it from beginning to end.
We follow Jessica whom eats a bit of cookie and winds up forgetting her past life. Once she is told that she has died and is now in Wonderland, Jessica struggles with the acclimation of this unique land that is only read in a book. She’s escorted by a White Rabbit named Horace (Not a genuine rabbit, but in this story, White Rabbits is Wonderland’s term for queen’s guards). She comes across Rion, the Caterpillar (but disguised as a man at the time) and he gives her a journal that belonged to a Hatter named Rorie (quite a few R names here.)
Anyway, she is taken to the Queen of Hearts, whom happens to be Alice. As a new comer to Wonderland, the new comers are to look through the Looking Glass to show where they are meant to be in Wonderland. You could be a Crafter or a part of the court, the Looking Glass shows you who you are. When Jessica looks through the glass, she is struck as are the other members of the palace that she is shown to be a Spade.
Spades declared ware on the palace before Alice took the throne. Wonderland is a magical place, but it can choose who it likes and doesn’t like, and who gets to leave and stay.
I don’t want to give away too much, so I’ll stop there for time being.
I’m going to be the first to say that Alice in Wonderland is not my favorite story. I don’t like the Disney cartoon (though I did as a child, what was I thinking?) I do love Tim Burton’s spin on it (IT’S NOT A REMAKE!) but the original story I just couldn’t get into it. The summary and the excerpt to this story was just too good to pass up. I had a feeling I would enjoy the story, I just didn’t realize how much I would.
I read this in days (would have been less if I didn’t have a full time job). It’s a unique spin on the story. This isn’t so much as a retelling as it is a what if or an addition to it if Alice became the queen of hearts. So don’t go into this story and think it’s a retelling, because it is not.
I adored the characters including Alice and Jessica. There are some dark moments, but me being a highly sensitive person, it wasn’t as triggering, but I will say there are some there. I loved the twists in the story and how Jessica really does come to terms with her new found role in Wonderland.
This is a first in a series. That’s my only complaint! Why must have the (im)patience for the next book and the wonder (lol) as to what is going to happen with Jessica? Can’t tell you the ending, Wonderland wants you to know it from beginning to end.