Search
Search results
Merissa (11950 KP) rated Centaur Rift (Warrior Hearts Academy #1) in Books
Nov 25, 2023
CENTAUR RIFT is the first book in the Warrior Hearts Academy series BUT it appears to be a spin-off of either one or two previous series, so it did feel as though you were dropped into the middle of the action to begin with. On the cover, there is a IV but I only saw that once I had the book on my Paperwhite, as it didn't show up clearly on the book cover online.
That being said, I quickly became invested in Riley, Marcus, Rafael, and Havoc. Riley is awesome. She grew up as a foster kid and has dealt with horrible situations. This allows her to understand when Marcus swings back and forth with his moods, instead of throwing her own temper tantrum - even if she wants to! Marcus - oh, man! This poor male has had so much taken away and given so much sh!t in return, he breaks my heart. Rafael - I could see his storyline a mile away but the fun was in waiting for him to find out. He has been tormented in ways he doesn't even know about yet. I want to get him out of there! And speaking of getting out, poor Havoc! I want to wrap him up in the warm fuzzies, even if he does grumble about it. These four are brilliant and I can't wait for them to meet up.
I was thankful for Riley's ignorance as it meant I got explanations about the world and the different species in it, along with her. I can't wait to find out more about her!
Although I started off wondering what I'd let myself in for, I was in for a thoroughly enjoyable ride through this story, and can't wait to read more. Definitely recommended by me.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Nov 25, 2023
That being said, I quickly became invested in Riley, Marcus, Rafael, and Havoc. Riley is awesome. She grew up as a foster kid and has dealt with horrible situations. This allows her to understand when Marcus swings back and forth with his moods, instead of throwing her own temper tantrum - even if she wants to! Marcus - oh, man! This poor male has had so much taken away and given so much sh!t in return, he breaks my heart. Rafael - I could see his storyline a mile away but the fun was in waiting for him to find out. He has been tormented in ways he doesn't even know about yet. I want to get him out of there! And speaking of getting out, poor Havoc! I want to wrap him up in the warm fuzzies, even if he does grumble about it. These four are brilliant and I can't wait for them to meet up.
I was thankful for Riley's ignorance as it meant I got explanations about the world and the different species in it, along with her. I can't wait to find out more about her!
Although I started off wondering what I'd let myself in for, I was in for a thoroughly enjoyable ride through this story, and can't wait to read more. Definitely recommended by me.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Nov 25, 2023
Merissa (11950 KP) rated She's the One Who Doesn't Say Much (War Stories of the Seven Troublesome Sisters #4) in Books
Sep 13, 2021 (Updated Jul 14, 2023)
SHE'S THE ONE WHO DOESN'T SAY MUCH is the fourth book in the War Stories of the Seven Troublesome Sisters series and we get Olivine's story.
Olivine is the one who has long eyes and is an artist. She isn't bothered about marriage, let alone to a prince. She doesn't face her problems head-on. Instead, she buries her head in the sand and hopes they fade away. When one problem, in particular, doesn't disappear, she makes a false vow of celibacy which you immediately know will come back to bite her in the ass! And it does.
I am loving this series. Each story tells the same story but from a different perspective and, trust me, it really works! The only downside is it makes me want to read all the books at the same time so I can see the different viewpoints as they happen. Instead, I have to contain myself and stick with one story.
Bless her, I did love Olivine. She doesn't want to be involved but, in the end, has no choice. Her life choices are not easy ones, but with her loved ones (including friends) surrounding her, she stands by what she wants.
With each book, I am left wanting to know more... more about after the end of the war, more about the sisters, and, in this case, more about the supporting characters. Of course, I want to know how Olivine and Bohdran are getting on, but I also NEED to know about Magomet!
A brilliant addition to a fantastic series. I really can't recommend these highly enough and can't wait to see who comes next.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Sep 13, 2021
Olivine is the one who has long eyes and is an artist. She isn't bothered about marriage, let alone to a prince. She doesn't face her problems head-on. Instead, she buries her head in the sand and hopes they fade away. When one problem, in particular, doesn't disappear, she makes a false vow of celibacy which you immediately know will come back to bite her in the ass! And it does.
I am loving this series. Each story tells the same story but from a different perspective and, trust me, it really works! The only downside is it makes me want to read all the books at the same time so I can see the different viewpoints as they happen. Instead, I have to contain myself and stick with one story.
Bless her, I did love Olivine. She doesn't want to be involved but, in the end, has no choice. Her life choices are not easy ones, but with her loved ones (including friends) surrounding her, she stands by what she wants.
With each book, I am left wanting to know more... more about after the end of the war, more about the sisters, and, in this case, more about the supporting characters. Of course, I want to know how Olivine and Bohdran are getting on, but I also NEED to know about Magomet!
A brilliant addition to a fantastic series. I really can't recommend these highly enough and can't wait to see who comes next.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Sep 13, 2021
Merissa (11950 KP) rated Claw of Exile (Exiled #1) in Books
Mar 15, 2021 (Updated Aug 2, 2023)
CLAW OF EXILE is the first book in the Exiled series and tells the story of Ryu and Micah. Ryu is an Omega, captured from a warring clan, and given as a slave. The only person who loves and believes in him is his mistress. Even Micah, the heir apparent Alpha, pretends he doesn't know him when people are around.
The story starts off in the present, returns to the past, comes back to the present, and retreats to the past once more. Not only that, but the tense of the story changes from present to past, sometimes within the same sentence. This makes for a slightly disjointed read. I'm not sure if I read an unedited ARC or not, but there were also quite a few spelling mistakes, words used in error, or missed out completely. Amazingly enough, this did not detract away from the story itself. It's just something I feel should be mentioned.
Of the characters, the story is told from Ryu's perspective, and you never really find out Micah's motives or understandings from times gone by. I would have liked to have known what happened, especially when it had such a major impact on Ryu. Micah was also more difficult to like, which is not surprising, considering the circumstances. There are characters to like and loathe that make up this novel, and I would like to find out more about them.
All in all, this was a great story with some obvious events, and some red-herring twists and turns. It does finish on a cliffhanger so be prepared! This is definitely a series I would like to continue.
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Mar 15, 2021
The story starts off in the present, returns to the past, comes back to the present, and retreats to the past once more. Not only that, but the tense of the story changes from present to past, sometimes within the same sentence. This makes for a slightly disjointed read. I'm not sure if I read an unedited ARC or not, but there were also quite a few spelling mistakes, words used in error, or missed out completely. Amazingly enough, this did not detract away from the story itself. It's just something I feel should be mentioned.
Of the characters, the story is told from Ryu's perspective, and you never really find out Micah's motives or understandings from times gone by. I would have liked to have known what happened, especially when it had such a major impact on Ryu. Micah was also more difficult to like, which is not surprising, considering the circumstances. There are characters to like and loathe that make up this novel, and I would like to find out more about them.
All in all, this was a great story with some obvious events, and some red-herring twists and turns. It does finish on a cliffhanger so be prepared! This is definitely a series I would like to continue.
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Mar 15, 2021
Merissa (11950 KP) rated Mad World (Mystic Beach #5) in Books
Aug 4, 2023
MAD WORLD is the fifth book in the Mystic Beach series and I get to reunite with aMUSEd. It's time for the drummer, Rhys, to find his perfect match, but his path is anything but smooth.
Oh, boy! What a story!!! My heart was split in two for the whole of this book - loving Rhys and his quirks, but also understanding where Lyric was coming from. I loved the comments from Adam and Herself that helped to lighten the mood when needed.
I found this to be such an emotional read. My eyes were leaking on more than one occasion! So much so, I didn't think they'd stop. But they did as the story progressed in ways that made me so happy for them. The connection between them was so deep, it was almost tangible through my Kindle. And, yes, it's sexy too, in a way that was sheer perfection.
The whole cast of characters is simply outstanding, but the supporting ones in Mad World were simply the best. And let's not forget KITT! Yep, I'm that age, and it made me smile! I really hope I see more of Iris, Sheryl, Tommy, and Aria in future books.
And speaking of future books, it seems as though it may be Kieran's turn next. As with every Aislinn Archer book, I adore the one I've just read, but she tempts me with the next one. Oh, dear. Damn shame. It seems as though I'll have to read that one too!
The best in the series so far in my humble opinion and HIGHLY recommended by me. But if you want the best out of this series, start at the beginning! You're welcome. 😁
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Aug 4, 2023
Oh, boy! What a story!!! My heart was split in two for the whole of this book - loving Rhys and his quirks, but also understanding where Lyric was coming from. I loved the comments from Adam and Herself that helped to lighten the mood when needed.
I found this to be such an emotional read. My eyes were leaking on more than one occasion! So much so, I didn't think they'd stop. But they did as the story progressed in ways that made me so happy for them. The connection between them was so deep, it was almost tangible through my Kindle. And, yes, it's sexy too, in a way that was sheer perfection.
The whole cast of characters is simply outstanding, but the supporting ones in Mad World were simply the best. And let's not forget KITT! Yep, I'm that age, and it made me smile! I really hope I see more of Iris, Sheryl, Tommy, and Aria in future books.
And speaking of future books, it seems as though it may be Kieran's turn next. As with every Aislinn Archer book, I adore the one I've just read, but she tempts me with the next one. Oh, dear. Damn shame. It seems as though I'll have to read that one too!
The best in the series so far in my humble opinion and HIGHLY recommended by me. But if you want the best out of this series, start at the beginning! You're welcome. 😁
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Aug 4, 2023
Debbiereadsbook (1166 KP) rated The Red Dragon of Oxford (Wings over Albion #1) in Books
Jan 26, 2024
Cute and Sweet and fairly low on the angst scale.
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
Mark is in Oxford to get his doctorate. He never expected to find an injured DRAGON on his walk. But the dragon was real, he spoke to Mark. Then, it was gone and Mark couldn't find it. The library provides him with the solitude to do his research. It helps, though, that the librarian, Rufus, is so hawt. But Rufus has a secret, one that might destroy everything.
I have read a couple of Fielding's books, and I think this was my favourite. She writes very easy to read books, and sometimes, that's just what you need.
I enjoyed this, greatly. Lots of descriptions of Oxford, and the university. Having never been, I did like them.
I liked how the relationship between Mark and Rufus developed and once they went in, they went ALL in! Steamy in places and emotional in others. Mark is dealing with his feelings about not being intelligent enough to be in Oxford and Rufus about his being a red dragon. Cos in this world, red dragons are not good.
But then WHITE dragons appear and Rufus' red dragon has a skill he didn't see coming.
I didn't fully get the point of the white dragons appearing, and the problems they were causing til that was all explained. There is also the issue of the cyber attacks on the Mortimer finances that Nate, Rufus' brother, is off dealing with.
It's cute and sweet and fairly low on the angst scale. But steamy and smexy in places!
An easy read that landed in my queue right when I needed it. I'd like to read more of this series as they come out, cos Nate needs a story, given his current job chasing the cyber attacks.
4 good solid stars
*same worded review will appear elsewhere
Mark is in Oxford to get his doctorate. He never expected to find an injured DRAGON on his walk. But the dragon was real, he spoke to Mark. Then, it was gone and Mark couldn't find it. The library provides him with the solitude to do his research. It helps, though, that the librarian, Rufus, is so hawt. But Rufus has a secret, one that might destroy everything.
I have read a couple of Fielding's books, and I think this was my favourite. She writes very easy to read books, and sometimes, that's just what you need.
I enjoyed this, greatly. Lots of descriptions of Oxford, and the university. Having never been, I did like them.
I liked how the relationship between Mark and Rufus developed and once they went in, they went ALL in! Steamy in places and emotional in others. Mark is dealing with his feelings about not being intelligent enough to be in Oxford and Rufus about his being a red dragon. Cos in this world, red dragons are not good.
But then WHITE dragons appear and Rufus' red dragon has a skill he didn't see coming.
I didn't fully get the point of the white dragons appearing, and the problems they were causing til that was all explained. There is also the issue of the cyber attacks on the Mortimer finances that Nate, Rufus' brother, is off dealing with.
It's cute and sweet and fairly low on the angst scale. But steamy and smexy in places!
An easy read that landed in my queue right when I needed it. I'd like to read more of this series as they come out, cos Nate needs a story, given his current job chasing the cyber attacks.
4 good solid stars
*same worded review will appear elsewhere
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Go Extinct!: Stardust Catches the Carnivores in Tabletop Games
Mar 26, 2020
“Yo, uhh, got any sevens?” “Naw, go fish.” “Dag, yo.” “Hmm, got any Queens?” “Nope, go fish.” “*&%#@!!” While this may be many of us during the social distancing or self-isolation using meager playing cards, there is now another option – Go Extinct!: Stardust Catches the Carnivores. The title is long, but the playtime isn’t, and the Go Fish is there, but it is masked by an educational skin. Does this one make a case for our collection?
In Go Extinct!: Stardust Catches the Carnivores (which I will shorten to Go Extinct from here on out) players are attempting to score the most points at the end of the game by collecting runs(?) of animals within the same biological family, called “clades.” More points are gained by collecting families with more members, and the game has a known end timeline – when the players’ cards run out.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but to give a feel for how the game generally plays. You are invited to back the game through the Kickstarter campaign running until April 16, 2020, purchase from your FLGS upon release, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, place the large board on the table for all to see. Follow the setup rules per player count listed in the rule book (because it’s different for three players and for 4+). Shuffle the cards and deal each player six cards. The rest of the deck becomes the central draw deck. You are now ready to begin!
A game of Go Extinct is played over several rounds where players are trying to collect and play complete clades of animals. Only clades played to the players’ personal score piles can be scored at the end of the game, and once in the score pile, can no longer be stolen (asked for) by other players – just like in Go Fish.
Go Extinct becomes a bit more distinct when asking for cards. A player can ask a specific player for a specific animal (Wolverine, Polar Bear, etc) or can ask for cards within the same family (a cub of Delicate Dog or Ancestor of Ursidae). If a player is given a specific animal species, the asking player may take another turn to ask for more animals or clade members. If the ask is unsuccessful, the asked player announces, “Go Extinct” to indicate that the asking player must hunt for animals elsewhere, namely, the draw pile. Redraw at the end of a turn to a hand size of six and the game continues with the next player.
Again, the game ends once all the cards are played, but when the draw deck runs out, a new rule enters play. When asked for a clade, the asked player must give up to three of their cards, if they have that many of that clade. Once a player runs out of cards in their hand, they are finished, and the game ends when every player is out of cards. Tally up the points per clade size, and determine who is the best at collecting animal clades!
Components. Again, we were provided a prototype copy of this game, which is on Kickstarter now, so the components may be different from what will be produced via a successful KS campaign. That said, the components we received are great! The cards are good quality with excellent card art depicting extinct and current animals. The graphic layout is good, and once you can read the cards, the board is no longer really necessary for play. That board. It is absolutely beautiful, though not overly ornate, and is also completely unnecessary for play. We did enjoy having it on the table while we played, but players never actually interact with it or use for anything other than reference. It is a nice touch, though.
Being a family man, myself, and having young children, this will be great for when my kids learn to read. Learning the names of ancestral animals and scientific nomenclature of current animals is something I cannot wait to teach my kids. I really see no reason for me to ever teach them Go Fish while I have Go Extinct in my collection, and I do believe I will keep it there for a long time. If you enjoy light games with a heavy dose of education and direct player interaction without conflict, then Go Extinct is for you. It may be too light for hardcore gamers, but those gamers are not the intended audience. If you are looking for games to bond with your kids over, then you simply must check out Go Extinct. Or if you just want to learn a little something yourself, go ahead and pick up a copy or three. I recommend it. Visit the Kickstarter campaign here and tell them Purple Phoenix Games sent you!
In Go Extinct!: Stardust Catches the Carnivores (which I will shorten to Go Extinct from here on out) players are attempting to score the most points at the end of the game by collecting runs(?) of animals within the same biological family, called “clades.” More points are gained by collecting families with more members, and the game has a known end timeline – when the players’ cards run out.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, but to give a feel for how the game generally plays. You are invited to back the game through the Kickstarter campaign running until April 16, 2020, purchase from your FLGS upon release, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup, place the large board on the table for all to see. Follow the setup rules per player count listed in the rule book (because it’s different for three players and for 4+). Shuffle the cards and deal each player six cards. The rest of the deck becomes the central draw deck. You are now ready to begin!
A game of Go Extinct is played over several rounds where players are trying to collect and play complete clades of animals. Only clades played to the players’ personal score piles can be scored at the end of the game, and once in the score pile, can no longer be stolen (asked for) by other players – just like in Go Fish.
Go Extinct becomes a bit more distinct when asking for cards. A player can ask a specific player for a specific animal (Wolverine, Polar Bear, etc) or can ask for cards within the same family (a cub of Delicate Dog or Ancestor of Ursidae). If a player is given a specific animal species, the asking player may take another turn to ask for more animals or clade members. If the ask is unsuccessful, the asked player announces, “Go Extinct” to indicate that the asking player must hunt for animals elsewhere, namely, the draw pile. Redraw at the end of a turn to a hand size of six and the game continues with the next player.
Again, the game ends once all the cards are played, but when the draw deck runs out, a new rule enters play. When asked for a clade, the asked player must give up to three of their cards, if they have that many of that clade. Once a player runs out of cards in their hand, they are finished, and the game ends when every player is out of cards. Tally up the points per clade size, and determine who is the best at collecting animal clades!
Components. Again, we were provided a prototype copy of this game, which is on Kickstarter now, so the components may be different from what will be produced via a successful KS campaign. That said, the components we received are great! The cards are good quality with excellent card art depicting extinct and current animals. The graphic layout is good, and once you can read the cards, the board is no longer really necessary for play. That board. It is absolutely beautiful, though not overly ornate, and is also completely unnecessary for play. We did enjoy having it on the table while we played, but players never actually interact with it or use for anything other than reference. It is a nice touch, though.
Being a family man, myself, and having young children, this will be great for when my kids learn to read. Learning the names of ancestral animals and scientific nomenclature of current animals is something I cannot wait to teach my kids. I really see no reason for me to ever teach them Go Fish while I have Go Extinct in my collection, and I do believe I will keep it there for a long time. If you enjoy light games with a heavy dose of education and direct player interaction without conflict, then Go Extinct is for you. It may be too light for hardcore gamers, but those gamers are not the intended audience. If you are looking for games to bond with your kids over, then you simply must check out Go Extinct. Or if you just want to learn a little something yourself, go ahead and pick up a copy or three. I recommend it. Visit the Kickstarter campaign here and tell them Purple Phoenix Games sent you!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A valiant attempt to recreate a masterpiece.
How do you repaint a masterpiece: the Mona Lisa of children’s fantasy cinema? Some would say “You shouldn’t try”.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Philadelphia Story (1940) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
It's as good (maybe better) than you've heard
We all know of movies that you hear are considered a "classic", but you've never seen, and the few clips of the film you've seen does not, exactly, motivate you to check out the entire film. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY was one such film for me. This 1940 George Cukor production is lauded for it's dialogue, direction and the stellar performances of the cast - particularly the 3 leads, Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart.
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Parasite (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
Hello there! It’s been six weeks since my last post – Covid 19 related restriction issues sent me to a very odd place mentally and it has taken me a while to snap out of it enough to have the energy and will to keep writing these reviews. But what better way to recomense than with the history making Best Picture film from earlier in this strange year of 2020, before all the things that changed our way of thinking began?
The hype surrounding this movie in January was immense, for a film coming from Korea out of the blue, with an image and plot that didn’t fit into any of the normal marketing boxes. Every review ranged from this is incredible to… just see it for yourself. Nothing could have been more intriguing. I was certainly hooked on the idea, although by the time the Oscars came around I still hadn’t managed to see it at the cinema.
I found it fascinating that the academy had chosen 2020 as the year to change the dodgy sounding “Best Foreign Language film” to “Best International film”. It was about time, really, to acknowledge the us and them philosophy of world cinema didn’t really wash. And as the sublime Roma had paved the way for non English films to be considered again in all the main categories as serious contenders, I just had a feeling this was the year Oscar would make a statement with this film.
And so it turned out to be. It was a strong year. At the time I was a huge Joker advocate, having not yet seen 1917 either. Looking back now, I think, although not as perfect as Roma the year before, Parasite certainly deserves the praise and accolades it garnered from all around the world. Although any of those 3 films (Parasite, 1917 and Joker) would have been obvious winners in any other less competitive year.
So what is it about Parasite that raises it above the masses? Well, for a start it looks both beautiful and awe inspiring in every shot. Each image is designed and framed expertly to create a montage of mood and form that holds the multi-layered storytelling in place. Rarely have I seen such a well balanced and crisp visual design for a film, of any kind. Even with the subtitles off there is plenty to engage the eye and mind here. But it’s real secret is how it draws you in to believing you are watching one kind of satirical drama for about 40 minutes and then punches you in the solar plexus with the revelation that it has mutated into something darker, weirder and more entertaining on every level.
The “twist” when it comes along is so well placed and unexpected, even if you are told to expect one, that it entirely transforms your experience. You have been engaging with social issues and a basic satire on the rich vs the poor, where true power is a good wifi signal, and then, blam, you are watching a modern horror story with truly disturbing ramifications. I found this gear shift riveting and striking in a way that I can’t remember from a film in a long time.
But, looking back on it after several months, is that tonal shift really a strength? Some criticism, however minor in the scheme of things, did point this out, that what we get with Parasite is an unfocused and confused mix of genres that doesn’t entirely cohere. I mean, I see that, but have to disagree, simply because the writing at every point is too intelligent and sharp to give a damn about staying still and balanced on just one idea. Parasite is an exercise in energetic chaos that juggles many balls, all as interesting as one another, without dropping any of them.
Poverty, class, elitism, generational gaps, vanity, work ethics and morality, roles within a family unit, loyalty, weakness, revenge and bitterness are all themes here, and many more. Start going down the alley of one conversation that Parasite starts and end up somewhere entirely different in just a few sentences. And that is why it is worth seeing, several times. And that is why it works and was rewarded.
Is it a film I will be keen to see over again as the years pass? Yes and no. I’d probably be most interested to see it with someone who hasn’t seen it, to see their reaction. But I’m much less likely to give it multiple watches than the previous mentioned Joker and 1917, or indeed Roma, which I just can’t help comparing it to, even though they have virtually nothing in common, as I wish it had been Roma that made history at the awards rather than this. Of course, it is personal taste at that level of quality, but I believe Roma to be the better film.
If nothing else, however, Parasite marks the graduation of Bong Joon Ho, from a quirky filmmaker, whose interesting but not quite great near misses include The Host, Snowpiercer and Okja – all entertaining but flawed – to an auteur of considerable skill. Will the elements of his mind and vision ever align this well again. I hope so. I’ll be looking out for it, as will the rest of the world now.
The hype surrounding this movie in January was immense, for a film coming from Korea out of the blue, with an image and plot that didn’t fit into any of the normal marketing boxes. Every review ranged from this is incredible to… just see it for yourself. Nothing could have been more intriguing. I was certainly hooked on the idea, although by the time the Oscars came around I still hadn’t managed to see it at the cinema.
I found it fascinating that the academy had chosen 2020 as the year to change the dodgy sounding “Best Foreign Language film” to “Best International film”. It was about time, really, to acknowledge the us and them philosophy of world cinema didn’t really wash. And as the sublime Roma had paved the way for non English films to be considered again in all the main categories as serious contenders, I just had a feeling this was the year Oscar would make a statement with this film.
And so it turned out to be. It was a strong year. At the time I was a huge Joker advocate, having not yet seen 1917 either. Looking back now, I think, although not as perfect as Roma the year before, Parasite certainly deserves the praise and accolades it garnered from all around the world. Although any of those 3 films (Parasite, 1917 and Joker) would have been obvious winners in any other less competitive year.
So what is it about Parasite that raises it above the masses? Well, for a start it looks both beautiful and awe inspiring in every shot. Each image is designed and framed expertly to create a montage of mood and form that holds the multi-layered storytelling in place. Rarely have I seen such a well balanced and crisp visual design for a film, of any kind. Even with the subtitles off there is plenty to engage the eye and mind here. But it’s real secret is how it draws you in to believing you are watching one kind of satirical drama for about 40 minutes and then punches you in the solar plexus with the revelation that it has mutated into something darker, weirder and more entertaining on every level.
The “twist” when it comes along is so well placed and unexpected, even if you are told to expect one, that it entirely transforms your experience. You have been engaging with social issues and a basic satire on the rich vs the poor, where true power is a good wifi signal, and then, blam, you are watching a modern horror story with truly disturbing ramifications. I found this gear shift riveting and striking in a way that I can’t remember from a film in a long time.
But, looking back on it after several months, is that tonal shift really a strength? Some criticism, however minor in the scheme of things, did point this out, that what we get with Parasite is an unfocused and confused mix of genres that doesn’t entirely cohere. I mean, I see that, but have to disagree, simply because the writing at every point is too intelligent and sharp to give a damn about staying still and balanced on just one idea. Parasite is an exercise in energetic chaos that juggles many balls, all as interesting as one another, without dropping any of them.
Poverty, class, elitism, generational gaps, vanity, work ethics and morality, roles within a family unit, loyalty, weakness, revenge and bitterness are all themes here, and many more. Start going down the alley of one conversation that Parasite starts and end up somewhere entirely different in just a few sentences. And that is why it is worth seeing, several times. And that is why it works and was rewarded.
Is it a film I will be keen to see over again as the years pass? Yes and no. I’d probably be most interested to see it with someone who hasn’t seen it, to see their reaction. But I’m much less likely to give it multiple watches than the previous mentioned Joker and 1917, or indeed Roma, which I just can’t help comparing it to, even though they have virtually nothing in common, as I wish it had been Roma that made history at the awards rather than this. Of course, it is personal taste at that level of quality, but I believe Roma to be the better film.
If nothing else, however, Parasite marks the graduation of Bong Joon Ho, from a quirky filmmaker, whose interesting but not quite great near misses include The Host, Snowpiercer and Okja – all entertaining but flawed – to an auteur of considerable skill. Will the elements of his mind and vision ever align this well again. I hope so. I’ll be looking out for it, as will the rest of the world now.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Monster Calls (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“I’ll. Be. Right. Here.”
The worst thing about this movie is its title. The second worst thing about this movie is its trailer. Both will either a) put people off seeing it (it succeeded in that with my wife for example) or b) make people conclude it is a ‘nice holiday film to take the kids to’, which is also an horrendous mistake!
This is a crying shame because it is a riveting drama and a superb piece of film-making by the Spaniard J. A. Bayona (“The Impossible”) that may well catapult it already into my top 10 films of 2017. But it is not, I would suggest, a film that is remotely suitable for kids under 10 to see, dealing as it does with terminal illness, bullying and impending doom. For this is a dark (read pitch black) but hauntingly beautiful film.
Lewis MacDougall, in only his second film (after last year’s “Peter Pan”) plays Conor – a young but talented and sensitive artist growing up as a 12 year old in the North of England with his single mum (Felicity Jones). She is suffering from an aggressive form of cancer and is forever medically grasping for a new hope (D’ya see what I did there?). Young Conor believes fervently that each new treatment will be ‘the one’ but the building tension, the lack of sleep and his recurrent nightmares are destroying him mentally and physically. As if this wasn’t enough, his distracted nature is leading to him being seriously bullied at school and there is the added stress of having to live in his grandmother’s pristine and teen-unfriendly house when his mother is hospitalised.
Towering over the nearby graveyard on the hill is an ancient yew tree and Conor is visited after midnight by this “monster” (voiced by Liam Neeson). Is he dreaming, or is it real? The tree dispatches wisdom in the form of three ‘tales’, with the proviso that Conor tell the tree the fourth tale which “must be the truth”.
A tale of grief, guilt and a search for closure, this is a harrowing but rewarding journey for the viewer.
The film is technically outstanding on so many levels:
the art design is superb, with the gorgeous ‘tale animations’ being highly reminiscent of the beautiful ones in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1”;
the use of sound is brilliant, with sudden silence being used as a weapon with which to assault the senses in one key sequence;
the cinematography by Oscar Faura (“The Imitation Game”) is faultless, capturing both the dreary reality in a Northern winter with the comparative warmth of the strange dream-like sequences;
the music by Fernando Velázquez is used effectively and intelligently to reflect the sombre mood;
the special effects team led by Pau Costa (“The Revenant”, “The Impossible”) shines not just with Neesen’s monster, but with the incorporation of the root and branch effects into the ‘normal’ surroundings.
As the BFG illustrated, having a whole film carried by a young actor is a bit of an ask, but here Lewis MacDougall achieves just that like a seasoned pro. His performance is nothing short of staggering and – although a brave move by the Academy – it would be great to see him nominated for a BAFTA acting award for this.
Confirming her position in the acting top-flight is Felicity Jones, heart-wrenching in her role of the declining mum, and Sigourney Weaver is also excellent as the po-faced but grief-stricken grandmother. Liam Neeson probably didn’t add much by getting dressed up in the mo-cap suit for the tree scenes, but his voice is just perfect as the wise old sage.
The only criticism of what is an absorbing and intelligent script (by Patrick Ness, who also wrote the graphical novel) is the introduction of Conor’s Dad, played by Toby Kebbell (Dr Doom from “The Fantastic 4”), who is literally flown in from LA on a flying visit but whose role is a little superfluous to the plot.
This is exactly what “The BFG” should have been but wasn’t. It draws on a number of potential influences including “Mary Poppins”/”Saving Mr Banks” and “ET”. Wise, clever and a thing of beauty from beginning to end, this is a treat for movie-goers and a highly recommended watch. However, if you have lost someone to “the Big C” be aware that this film could be highly traumatic for you….. or highly cathartic: as I’m not a psychiatrist, I’m really not that sure! Also, if you are of the blubbing kind, take LOTS of tissues: the film features the best use of a digital clock since “Groundhog Day” and if you are not reduced to tears by that scene you are certifiably not human.
This is a crying shame because it is a riveting drama and a superb piece of film-making by the Spaniard J. A. Bayona (“The Impossible”) that may well catapult it already into my top 10 films of 2017. But it is not, I would suggest, a film that is remotely suitable for kids under 10 to see, dealing as it does with terminal illness, bullying and impending doom. For this is a dark (read pitch black) but hauntingly beautiful film.
Lewis MacDougall, in only his second film (after last year’s “Peter Pan”) plays Conor – a young but talented and sensitive artist growing up as a 12 year old in the North of England with his single mum (Felicity Jones). She is suffering from an aggressive form of cancer and is forever medically grasping for a new hope (D’ya see what I did there?). Young Conor believes fervently that each new treatment will be ‘the one’ but the building tension, the lack of sleep and his recurrent nightmares are destroying him mentally and physically. As if this wasn’t enough, his distracted nature is leading to him being seriously bullied at school and there is the added stress of having to live in his grandmother’s pristine and teen-unfriendly house when his mother is hospitalised.
Towering over the nearby graveyard on the hill is an ancient yew tree and Conor is visited after midnight by this “monster” (voiced by Liam Neeson). Is he dreaming, or is it real? The tree dispatches wisdom in the form of three ‘tales’, with the proviso that Conor tell the tree the fourth tale which “must be the truth”.
A tale of grief, guilt and a search for closure, this is a harrowing but rewarding journey for the viewer.
The film is technically outstanding on so many levels:
the art design is superb, with the gorgeous ‘tale animations’ being highly reminiscent of the beautiful ones in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1”;
the use of sound is brilliant, with sudden silence being used as a weapon with which to assault the senses in one key sequence;
the cinematography by Oscar Faura (“The Imitation Game”) is faultless, capturing both the dreary reality in a Northern winter with the comparative warmth of the strange dream-like sequences;
the music by Fernando Velázquez is used effectively and intelligently to reflect the sombre mood;
the special effects team led by Pau Costa (“The Revenant”, “The Impossible”) shines not just with Neesen’s monster, but with the incorporation of the root and branch effects into the ‘normal’ surroundings.
As the BFG illustrated, having a whole film carried by a young actor is a bit of an ask, but here Lewis MacDougall achieves just that like a seasoned pro. His performance is nothing short of staggering and – although a brave move by the Academy – it would be great to see him nominated for a BAFTA acting award for this.
Confirming her position in the acting top-flight is Felicity Jones, heart-wrenching in her role of the declining mum, and Sigourney Weaver is also excellent as the po-faced but grief-stricken grandmother. Liam Neeson probably didn’t add much by getting dressed up in the mo-cap suit for the tree scenes, but his voice is just perfect as the wise old sage.
The only criticism of what is an absorbing and intelligent script (by Patrick Ness, who also wrote the graphical novel) is the introduction of Conor’s Dad, played by Toby Kebbell (Dr Doom from “The Fantastic 4”), who is literally flown in from LA on a flying visit but whose role is a little superfluous to the plot.
This is exactly what “The BFG” should have been but wasn’t. It draws on a number of potential influences including “Mary Poppins”/”Saving Mr Banks” and “ET”. Wise, clever and a thing of beauty from beginning to end, this is a treat for movie-goers and a highly recommended watch. However, if you have lost someone to “the Big C” be aware that this film could be highly traumatic for you….. or highly cathartic: as I’m not a psychiatrist, I’m really not that sure! Also, if you are of the blubbing kind, take LOTS of tissues: the film features the best use of a digital clock since “Groundhog Day” and if you are not reduced to tears by that scene you are certifiably not human.