Search
Search results
Kayleigh (12 KP) rated George's Marvellous Medicine in Books
Jan 2, 2019
This was always my favourite Roald Dahl book, and I’ve re-remembered why now! It’s deliciously naughty, and everybody can imagine gleefully mixing up a concoction to make a disliked person yell “Oweeeee!”
A couple of years ago, I was an au pair in France for three children: a boy aged 9 and two girls, aged 5 years and 9 months old, respectively. I remember I had a little bit of trouble getting the children to settle down and listen to me reading a book, and alas, with the girls, I wasn’t actually successful. They were really intelligent kids, speaking French and German, with English as their third language. With the boy though – I’ll call him L, as I haven’t asked permission to use his name – he ended up loving this book. While there were some words I thought it necessary to replace so that he’d understand, he got really into it, and every day was asking me to read him another chapter.
It’s all slightly cheeky, and very funny. There have certainly been people over the years I’d love to make a magical medicine for, and I remember L getting more and more excited as he firstly wondered what was going to happen to Grandma, and then was fascinated by all the effects the medicine had.
There’s a real childish logic to how George goes about concocting his marvellous medicine, which I know appeals to many kids. She’s got rotten teeth, so he’ll put toothpaste in, and if that doesn’t work, he’ll paint them red with nail varnish. Genius! Here’s one of his ideas:
<blockquote>“The first one he took down was a large box of SUPERWHITE FOR AUTOMATIC WASHING-MACHINES. DIRT, it said, WILL DISAPPEAR LIKE MAGIC. George didn’t know whether Grandma was automatic or not, but she was certainly a dirty old woman.”</blockquote>
Quentin Blake’s illustrations really add to the story, particularly in the second half of the book, when the child reading it can see just how big the characters are getting.
The imagination is powerful, but even more so when mixed with these visual aids – see the picture to the right. I think the great thing about the detail of these illustrations – particularly Grandma’s face – is that you can project feelings onto them. In the context of the story it’s really easy to see her as a disgusting “old bird”, but if it was slightly different, judging from the front page you could see her as slightly mischievous too. Or is that just me?! However, I’m digressing. For an adult reading the book, the words dance off the tongue just like George, imagining he’s casting a spell over his cauldron. I found that L’s attention was thoroughly captured and he loved hearing the ‘special effects’ of all the whooshes and woweeees. There’s also the magical and triumphant aspects – he’s somehow created this cool concoction that has meant he’s got his own back on his grouchy old Grandma and helped out his dad by enlarging all the animals. I think kids love those feeling of pride and revenge they get on George’s behalf, while at the same time getting vivid images in their head that they’ll remember for a long time – I know I did!
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
A couple of years ago, I was an au pair in France for three children: a boy aged 9 and two girls, aged 5 years and 9 months old, respectively. I remember I had a little bit of trouble getting the children to settle down and listen to me reading a book, and alas, with the girls, I wasn’t actually successful. They were really intelligent kids, speaking French and German, with English as their third language. With the boy though – I’ll call him L, as I haven’t asked permission to use his name – he ended up loving this book. While there were some words I thought it necessary to replace so that he’d understand, he got really into it, and every day was asking me to read him another chapter.
It’s all slightly cheeky, and very funny. There have certainly been people over the years I’d love to make a magical medicine for, and I remember L getting more and more excited as he firstly wondered what was going to happen to Grandma, and then was fascinated by all the effects the medicine had.
There’s a real childish logic to how George goes about concocting his marvellous medicine, which I know appeals to many kids. She’s got rotten teeth, so he’ll put toothpaste in, and if that doesn’t work, he’ll paint them red with nail varnish. Genius! Here’s one of his ideas:
<blockquote>“The first one he took down was a large box of SUPERWHITE FOR AUTOMATIC WASHING-MACHINES. DIRT, it said, WILL DISAPPEAR LIKE MAGIC. George didn’t know whether Grandma was automatic or not, but she was certainly a dirty old woman.”</blockquote>
Quentin Blake’s illustrations really add to the story, particularly in the second half of the book, when the child reading it can see just how big the characters are getting.
The imagination is powerful, but even more so when mixed with these visual aids – see the picture to the right. I think the great thing about the detail of these illustrations – particularly Grandma’s face – is that you can project feelings onto them. In the context of the story it’s really easy to see her as a disgusting “old bird”, but if it was slightly different, judging from the front page you could see her as slightly mischievous too. Or is that just me?! However, I’m digressing. For an adult reading the book, the words dance off the tongue just like George, imagining he’s casting a spell over his cauldron. I found that L’s attention was thoroughly captured and he loved hearing the ‘special effects’ of all the whooshes and woweeees. There’s also the magical and triumphant aspects – he’s somehow created this cool concoction that has meant he’s got his own back on his grouchy old Grandma and helped out his dad by enlarging all the animals. I think kids love those feeling of pride and revenge they get on George’s behalf, while at the same time getting vivid images in their head that they’ll remember for a long time – I know I did!
This review is also on my <a href="http://awowords.wordpress.com">blog</a>; - if you liked it, please check it out!
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Return to the Little Coffee Shop of Kabul (The Little Coffee Shop of Kabul #2) in Books
Dec 14, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
Five years since the publication of her fictional debut, fans of Deoborah Rodriguez will be pleased to know they can finally get their hands on the sequel: Return to the <i>Little Coffee Shop of Kabul</i>. In the first book (<i>The Little Coffee Shop of Kabul</i>) we are introduced to Sunny, a 38-year-old American, who has set up a coffee shop in the heart of Afghanistan. Now she has returned to the US, after the unfortunate death of her boyfriend, to a house on an island she did not really want. Meanwhile, her coffee shop struggles to continue in the hands of her Afghan friends.
The narrative alternates between the USA and Afghanistan, keeping the reader informed of two completely different scenarios. Sunny is dealing with the loss of Jack and her conflicted feelings over whether she should stay and live Jack’s dream lifestyle or return to her beloved Kabul. On the other hand, Yazmina and the others reveal to the reader how difficult and dangerous life is for the Afghanistan natives, especially for the women who have very little rights.
As well as the original characters, there are a number of new names introduced to the story. In Afghanistan a young girl is trying to escape an arranged marriage to an evil, rich man – something that has disastrous consequences for herself and her newfound friends. On the other side of the world, Layla, Yazmina’s sister, is experiencing Western culture living with Sunny, and is shocked at how friendly men and women are with each other.
Another new face to add to the mix is Kat, a young woman who escaped to America as a child and has turned her back on the traditions of Islam and the Afghan culture. Despite her growing friendship with Layla, she refuses to agree with Layla’s beliefs, particularly in regards to the <i>hijab</i>. Neither girl’s opinion is more valid than the other however, as they have both had completely different upbringings. Kat has spent the better part of her life relishing in the freedom of Western culture, whereas Layla finds comfort in her traditions.
<i>Return to the Little Coffee Shop of Kabul </i>contains a couple of powerful messages. Firstly, as Sunny realizes, you need to be thankful for what you have got and not assume that going back to a lifestyle you used to follow would be the same as it once was. On the flip side, the Muslim family in Kabul begins to learn that they do not have to put up with the strict, unfairness in the treatment of women, and can strive to do something about it.
It is not necessary to have read the previous book, as there is enough character description and history mentioned within the narrative for new readers to be able to follow along. It is also suitable for book groups as it contains a series of reading group questions at the end of the novel.
Despite its upsetting scenes,<i> Return to the Little Coffee Shop of Kabul </i>is essentially a happy book. The character Sunny, definitely lives up to her name; there is no over emphasis on any of the negative situations she or her friends find themselves in. In a world where it would be easy to fall into despair, Rodriguez has written a story with a positive outlook on life and hope for the future.
Five years since the publication of her fictional debut, fans of Deoborah Rodriguez will be pleased to know they can finally get their hands on the sequel: Return to the <i>Little Coffee Shop of Kabul</i>. In the first book (<i>The Little Coffee Shop of Kabul</i>) we are introduced to Sunny, a 38-year-old American, who has set up a coffee shop in the heart of Afghanistan. Now she has returned to the US, after the unfortunate death of her boyfriend, to a house on an island she did not really want. Meanwhile, her coffee shop struggles to continue in the hands of her Afghan friends.
The narrative alternates between the USA and Afghanistan, keeping the reader informed of two completely different scenarios. Sunny is dealing with the loss of Jack and her conflicted feelings over whether she should stay and live Jack’s dream lifestyle or return to her beloved Kabul. On the other hand, Yazmina and the others reveal to the reader how difficult and dangerous life is for the Afghanistan natives, especially for the women who have very little rights.
As well as the original characters, there are a number of new names introduced to the story. In Afghanistan a young girl is trying to escape an arranged marriage to an evil, rich man – something that has disastrous consequences for herself and her newfound friends. On the other side of the world, Layla, Yazmina’s sister, is experiencing Western culture living with Sunny, and is shocked at how friendly men and women are with each other.
Another new face to add to the mix is Kat, a young woman who escaped to America as a child and has turned her back on the traditions of Islam and the Afghan culture. Despite her growing friendship with Layla, she refuses to agree with Layla’s beliefs, particularly in regards to the <i>hijab</i>. Neither girl’s opinion is more valid than the other however, as they have both had completely different upbringings. Kat has spent the better part of her life relishing in the freedom of Western culture, whereas Layla finds comfort in her traditions.
<i>Return to the Little Coffee Shop of Kabul </i>contains a couple of powerful messages. Firstly, as Sunny realizes, you need to be thankful for what you have got and not assume that going back to a lifestyle you used to follow would be the same as it once was. On the flip side, the Muslim family in Kabul begins to learn that they do not have to put up with the strict, unfairness in the treatment of women, and can strive to do something about it.
It is not necessary to have read the previous book, as there is enough character description and history mentioned within the narrative for new readers to be able to follow along. It is also suitable for book groups as it contains a series of reading group questions at the end of the novel.
Despite its upsetting scenes,<i> Return to the Little Coffee Shop of Kabul </i>is essentially a happy book. The character Sunny, definitely lives up to her name; there is no over emphasis on any of the negative situations she or her friends find themselves in. In a world where it would be easy to fall into despair, Rodriguez has written a story with a positive outlook on life and hope for the future.
Pumpka (57 KP) rated Cards Against Humanity in Tabletop Games
Aug 15, 2019
Humour (2 more)
player count is high
a game specifically tailored to party people
creativity is limited (2 more)
often a popularity contest
multiple plays decreases the enjoyment of play
Here comes an unpopular opinion - hear me out
now - don't get me wrong, my first time playing Card against Humanity was hilarious! I loved it, I was in. The concept is very simple, you're presented with a silly, funny or rude situation and you have to fill in the blanks using the inappropriate cards from your hand to make the others laugh.
NOW
On MANY plays later, I see the flaw in this design. I've realised this is more of an activity than a game as such. Again, don't go pointing fingers too fast, I did enjoy the game at the start remember? Now, theres an AI built into the game called 'Rando' he can play too for various reasons and he can often win. As suggested, random cards are drawn, and because it usually doesn't make sense, its funny, and therefore wins! This made me realise that I'm not funny. Damn, I've been caught in this web of lies cards against humanity had me caught in. I have very limited choice and often my choices are a result of a card "dump" where really nothing was funny nor fit. A well thought out game might have a mechanic that allows me to do something else with these cards that maybe I don't see use for. So I'm not the one being funny, the predisposed topics and cards are just used as a shock factor -
which promptly brings me to my next point, these things and statements are often funny because you're shocked! THAT is in a card game, woaaah I'm such an adult, wow. No. sadly this may be funny the first time but there's only so many times I can see the "chunks of a dead hooker" card before it looses it's humorous effect. I've played with all of the expansions (which were available before I quit on this game) which was a fair few, and even then it wasn't enough.
The buzz was gone, and I no longer enjoy this game, I've not grown out of it, I'm not a humour buzzkill. There are many other similar style games that provide ample creativity. Now before one of you thinks it, yes, there are blank cards to write on, but it's often not enough to change and sustain the games core.
One more thing before I sign off on this one, it's often a popularity contest. I'm not the most popular in our gaming group, there are certainly people who will favour others and thats normal and fine. BUT when games like this swing around and the winner is essentially cast on a vote of the other players choosing. The winner can often be the same person again, and again and again. Because them putting cards down that were drawn out of a stack randomly and they had no input into the outcome of what those cards says was totally hilarious. They win again.
To summerise, creativity is so limited, it's not YOU being funny, it's the cards. It's not really that re-playable and it's often a popularity contest,
there are many other games of this genre that do it better.
NOW
On MANY plays later, I see the flaw in this design. I've realised this is more of an activity than a game as such. Again, don't go pointing fingers too fast, I did enjoy the game at the start remember? Now, theres an AI built into the game called 'Rando' he can play too for various reasons and he can often win. As suggested, random cards are drawn, and because it usually doesn't make sense, its funny, and therefore wins! This made me realise that I'm not funny. Damn, I've been caught in this web of lies cards against humanity had me caught in. I have very limited choice and often my choices are a result of a card "dump" where really nothing was funny nor fit. A well thought out game might have a mechanic that allows me to do something else with these cards that maybe I don't see use for. So I'm not the one being funny, the predisposed topics and cards are just used as a shock factor -
which promptly brings me to my next point, these things and statements are often funny because you're shocked! THAT is in a card game, woaaah I'm such an adult, wow. No. sadly this may be funny the first time but there's only so many times I can see the "chunks of a dead hooker" card before it looses it's humorous effect. I've played with all of the expansions (which were available before I quit on this game) which was a fair few, and even then it wasn't enough.
The buzz was gone, and I no longer enjoy this game, I've not grown out of it, I'm not a humour buzzkill. There are many other similar style games that provide ample creativity. Now before one of you thinks it, yes, there are blank cards to write on, but it's often not enough to change and sustain the games core.
One more thing before I sign off on this one, it's often a popularity contest. I'm not the most popular in our gaming group, there are certainly people who will favour others and thats normal and fine. BUT when games like this swing around and the winner is essentially cast on a vote of the other players choosing. The winner can often be the same person again, and again and again. Because them putting cards down that were drawn out of a stack randomly and they had no input into the outcome of what those cards says was totally hilarious. They win again.
To summerise, creativity is so limited, it's not YOU being funny, it's the cards. It's not really that re-playable and it's often a popularity contest,
there are many other games of this genre that do it better.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
When his small paper is bought out but a large media conglomerate the free-spirited journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogen) quits rather write for a company he believes has a low moral compass. His best friend Lance (O’Shea Jackson Jr.) takes him out on the town to drown his sorrows. They decide to go to a charity function to get free drinks and watch Boyz II Men. As chance would have it Fred’s babysitter from high school, Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron), is also there. Charlotte happens to be one of the most powerful women in the world. She is currently the Secretary of State and has her eyes set on the on the White House. But she recognizes Fred and they connect for a few moments. This chance meeting seems fortuitous for both. Fred needs a job and Charlotte is in need of a writer to help punch up her speeches. Fred also gets the chance to travel the world with his high school crush. Even though Fred isn’t your normal member of a government official’s entourage, dresses like a child, has a scraggly beard and looks high even when not, he can write. So he gets the chance to write entire speeches. As his role increases he needs to get to know this version of Charlotte a little better, rather than the girl he know in high school. They begin to spend more and more time together getting to know each other. Then a near death experience in Manilla leads to a wild night between the odd couple. But rather than a onetime thing the two begin sneaking away together. But as Charlotte heads toward a Presidential Campaign it seem inevitable that this secret relationship needs to end or go public.
This Jonathan Levine (The Night Before, Snatched) directed romantic comedy is predictable with flares of originality. The cast is great. Rogen and Theron have good chemistry and do well. The supporting cast, O’Shea (Straight Outta Compton) as well as June Diane Raphael (Blockers, The Disaster Artist), Ravi Patel (T.V. series Wrecked, Grandfathered), Andy Serkis (Black Panther, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy) and others, all have fun moments. Bob Odenkirk (T.V.’s Better Call Saul) is very funny in his role as President Chambers. The comedy is fun, but raunchy at times. There were definitely laugh out loud moments. But some of the jokes were predictable and other good jokes were spoiled by the trailers, so avoid if possible. The story was also pretty predictable with the outcome never really in doubt but the ride was fun and had both really good moments and some that fell flat. It blended what could be believable politics with some things you know would not be, or you really hope couldn’t be, done by someone in a powerful government position.
I thought the film was good but it did run a little long, 125 minutes. I think it would be a good date movie but definitely leave the kids at home due to prevalent drug use and raunchy moments. I went in with low expectations and that could also help. But if you need a laugh or non-super hero movie to see this is worth the ticket price.
This Jonathan Levine (The Night Before, Snatched) directed romantic comedy is predictable with flares of originality. The cast is great. Rogen and Theron have good chemistry and do well. The supporting cast, O’Shea (Straight Outta Compton) as well as June Diane Raphael (Blockers, The Disaster Artist), Ravi Patel (T.V. series Wrecked, Grandfathered), Andy Serkis (Black Panther, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy) and others, all have fun moments. Bob Odenkirk (T.V.’s Better Call Saul) is very funny in his role as President Chambers. The comedy is fun, but raunchy at times. There were definitely laugh out loud moments. But some of the jokes were predictable and other good jokes were spoiled by the trailers, so avoid if possible. The story was also pretty predictable with the outcome never really in doubt but the ride was fun and had both really good moments and some that fell flat. It blended what could be believable politics with some things you know would not be, or you really hope couldn’t be, done by someone in a powerful government position.
I thought the film was good but it did run a little long, 125 minutes. I think it would be a good date movie but definitely leave the kids at home due to prevalent drug use and raunchy moments. I went in with low expectations and that could also help. But if you need a laugh or non-super hero movie to see this is worth the ticket price.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated A Faerie's Revenge in Books
Jan 23, 2020
ARC provided by the author.
Original Rating: 4.5 out of 5
This review and more can be found at <a href="http://www.bookwyrmingthoughts.com/2015/11/arc-review-a-faeries-revenge-by-rachel-morgan.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
All formatting is lost.
The fifth book in Rachel Morgan's Creepy Hollow series just further proves books four and beyond (however long this one will last) are so much better than the first three books. After the daytime drama-like ending Morgan leaves us back in A Faerie's Secret, we're brought straight back to Creepy Hollow to find Calla Larkenwood in a pretty miserable and "I don't give a care but I'm going to act like I do" state.
My mother watches too much Days of Our Lives (and Dateline). Lupe and I say it just makes her more overprotective because she thinks it's based off of real events. (Dateline is. Days of Our Lives probably is, but it's most likely exaggerated.)
However, by the end of the book, I find I like Calla as a character far more than I ever liked Violet. Calla is like Violet in a lot of ways (have I mentioned this when I reviewed the fourth book?) she's ambitious and kicks faerie butt, but I feel she's more well-rounded than Violet (not that Violet wasn't well-rounded). Calla's afraid of a little thing like claustrophobia, while Violet is completely fearless. To be honest, I don't think I even remember Violet ever being afraid of anything (aside from losing her loved ones), and here's Calla, squeaking over narrow spaces. More things, bad things, happen to Calla, and I absolutely love it.
I know. You must be worried about me now. You'll have to line up behind my mom and Lupe and a few other people who know me very well, which turns out to be very few.
I also find that I miss Oryn so much from the first three books because he just goes straight to the point (and he made things entertaining).
<blockquote>The awkward moment in which I discover that both my wife and my sister have made out with the same guy.</blockquote>
Of course, by books four and five, most of the characters from the first three are pretty much just starting their future with sparkling baby faeries (I imagine them to be much more adorable). Meanwhile, Calla is still getting treated poorly by her trainer (who is really just playing favoritism possibly due to jealousy) and getting flashbacks/nightmares in the midst of dreams from Gaius trying to tell her something.
And murder. Lovely, lovely murder where Calla gets framed and accused for it. It's also by this point where Calla is confronted with the question, as Oryn so fabulously points out, "Why did you really want to join the guild? The guild, or the representation?" (See? He gets straight to the point.)
But in a nutshell, A Faerie's Revenge is really just revenge of the past something that happened ten years ago and that person wants everyone to pay. How that person will do it (and how Calla is connected) is currently unknown, but it's official: you'll definitely want to read the first three books or you'll be spoiled and possibly lost.
<blockquote>Maybe theres no such thing as good guys and bad guys after all. Not when the good guys fail to see whats wrong, and the bad guys are the ones who end up helping you.</blockquote>
Original Rating: 4.5 out of 5
This review and more can be found at <a href="http://www.bookwyrmingthoughts.com/2015/11/arc-review-a-faeries-revenge-by-rachel-morgan.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
All formatting is lost.
The fifth book in Rachel Morgan's Creepy Hollow series just further proves books four and beyond (however long this one will last) are so much better than the first three books. After the daytime drama-like ending Morgan leaves us back in A Faerie's Secret, we're brought straight back to Creepy Hollow to find Calla Larkenwood in a pretty miserable and "I don't give a care but I'm going to act like I do" state.
My mother watches too much Days of Our Lives (and Dateline). Lupe and I say it just makes her more overprotective because she thinks it's based off of real events. (Dateline is. Days of Our Lives probably is, but it's most likely exaggerated.)
However, by the end of the book, I find I like Calla as a character far more than I ever liked Violet. Calla is like Violet in a lot of ways (have I mentioned this when I reviewed the fourth book?) she's ambitious and kicks faerie butt, but I feel she's more well-rounded than Violet (not that Violet wasn't well-rounded). Calla's afraid of a little thing like claustrophobia, while Violet is completely fearless. To be honest, I don't think I even remember Violet ever being afraid of anything (aside from losing her loved ones), and here's Calla, squeaking over narrow spaces. More things, bad things, happen to Calla, and I absolutely love it.
I know. You must be worried about me now. You'll have to line up behind my mom and Lupe and a few other people who know me very well, which turns out to be very few.
I also find that I miss Oryn so much from the first three books because he just goes straight to the point (and he made things entertaining).
<blockquote>The awkward moment in which I discover that both my wife and my sister have made out with the same guy.</blockquote>
Of course, by books four and five, most of the characters from the first three are pretty much just starting their future with sparkling baby faeries (I imagine them to be much more adorable). Meanwhile, Calla is still getting treated poorly by her trainer (who is really just playing favoritism possibly due to jealousy) and getting flashbacks/nightmares in the midst of dreams from Gaius trying to tell her something.
And murder. Lovely, lovely murder where Calla gets framed and accused for it. It's also by this point where Calla is confronted with the question, as Oryn so fabulously points out, "Why did you really want to join the guild? The guild, or the representation?" (See? He gets straight to the point.)
But in a nutshell, A Faerie's Revenge is really just revenge of the past something that happened ten years ago and that person wants everyone to pay. How that person will do it (and how Calla is connected) is currently unknown, but it's official: you'll definitely want to read the first three books or you'll be spoiled and possibly lost.
<blockquote>Maybe theres no such thing as good guys and bad guys after all. Not when the good guys fail to see whats wrong, and the bad guys are the ones who end up helping you.</blockquote>
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Sonic the Hedgehog (2020) in Movies
Mar 1, 2020
Growing up I wasn't a Sonic gamer but even I was majorly sceptical when they released the first trailer, that wasn't a look that worked for me.
Sonic is an excitable little fellow and he can't help but zip around his planet constantly against orders, when his speedy secret is uncovered he's sent to Earth and told to find a safe place to hide. He eventually finds a town to settle in and makes himself at home in the woods away from the people, but it's lonely watching the locals without being able to make friends with them.
When Sonic accidentally exposes his existence he enlists the help of the local sheriff so he might have a chance of evading a government scientist sent to track him down.
Simply said, this is an enjoyable film and it certainly went down well with the kids in the audience... but I'm not sure it would hold up to repeated viewings.
For all the moments I enjoyed there were moments that made my eyes roll. You remember in X-Men where Quicksilver runs fast and moves everything around in an action sequence? Well, you'll be wondering if Sonic happened to watch that one movie night. Sure it's cute, but I don't think it's cute enough to see it more than once in the same film.
Despite that, the effects themselves aren't bad, there are a few moments where real life and animation look a little off together but on the whole it works.
Sonic is an adorable hyperactive kid and he manages to experience a lot of things in the space of the film, they play out well and not at all like he's been stalking an entire town for years.
James Marsden plays Sheriff Tom. Watching him in any film after X-Men is extremely strange to me, and none of the roles seem quite right, potentially I just don't appreciate his comedic value. Tom's character is and a little average, it wasn't bad but at no point did I make a note about something that stood out.
And so to Jim Carrey... I enjoy Carrey as an actor but I'd like to seem him in more things that weren't "90s him". Every scene with Robotnik is classic Carrey, the character is that crazed scientist stereotype but it just never seemed to let up. It feels like they just brought him in to do what everyone expects him to do, and for a while I was okay with that... until that one point. As Robotnik searches for Sonic he waits for some analysis from the computer and he puts on his playlist. Then, for an inexplicably long time, he dances for absolutely no reason. It's not funny, it's just completely irrelevant and excessive. Rather than a subtle bit of nostalgia for the adults and some funny physical comedy for the kids every scene was taken just that step too far and turned into an awkward slapstick moment.
The story isn't bad, but perhaps it would have been slightly more interesting if Sonic had to rescue Tom from Robotnik or something similar. The middle of the film could have had some sort of purpose instead of a road trip... which, no matter how you look at it, was not necessary and could have been replaced with a minute of footage of Sonic running.
But... as I said at the beginning, this IS enjoyable, but once you start thinking about things it starts to unravel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/sonic-hedgehog-movie-review.html
Sonic is an excitable little fellow and he can't help but zip around his planet constantly against orders, when his speedy secret is uncovered he's sent to Earth and told to find a safe place to hide. He eventually finds a town to settle in and makes himself at home in the woods away from the people, but it's lonely watching the locals without being able to make friends with them.
When Sonic accidentally exposes his existence he enlists the help of the local sheriff so he might have a chance of evading a government scientist sent to track him down.
Simply said, this is an enjoyable film and it certainly went down well with the kids in the audience... but I'm not sure it would hold up to repeated viewings.
For all the moments I enjoyed there were moments that made my eyes roll. You remember in X-Men where Quicksilver runs fast and moves everything around in an action sequence? Well, you'll be wondering if Sonic happened to watch that one movie night. Sure it's cute, but I don't think it's cute enough to see it more than once in the same film.
Despite that, the effects themselves aren't bad, there are a few moments where real life and animation look a little off together but on the whole it works.
Sonic is an adorable hyperactive kid and he manages to experience a lot of things in the space of the film, they play out well and not at all like he's been stalking an entire town for years.
James Marsden plays Sheriff Tom. Watching him in any film after X-Men is extremely strange to me, and none of the roles seem quite right, potentially I just don't appreciate his comedic value. Tom's character is and a little average, it wasn't bad but at no point did I make a note about something that stood out.
And so to Jim Carrey... I enjoy Carrey as an actor but I'd like to seem him in more things that weren't "90s him". Every scene with Robotnik is classic Carrey, the character is that crazed scientist stereotype but it just never seemed to let up. It feels like they just brought him in to do what everyone expects him to do, and for a while I was okay with that... until that one point. As Robotnik searches for Sonic he waits for some analysis from the computer and he puts on his playlist. Then, for an inexplicably long time, he dances for absolutely no reason. It's not funny, it's just completely irrelevant and excessive. Rather than a subtle bit of nostalgia for the adults and some funny physical comedy for the kids every scene was taken just that step too far and turned into an awkward slapstick moment.
The story isn't bad, but perhaps it would have been slightly more interesting if Sonic had to rescue Tom from Robotnik or something similar. The middle of the film could have had some sort of purpose instead of a road trip... which, no matter how you look at it, was not necessary and could have been replaced with a minute of footage of Sonic running.
But... as I said at the beginning, this IS enjoyable, but once you start thinking about things it starts to unravel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/sonic-hedgehog-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Emma (2020) in Movies
Mar 1, 2020
Another classic novel that I have no knowledge of, I even own the BBC version on DVD, I'm really not sure how I haven't watched it.
In old English society what was a girl to do with her spare time to stay entertained? Read, learn the piano, paint... act as matchmaker to her friends. When Emma Woodhouse sees a flicker of promise or flirtation she jumps at the chance to fan the flames of romance between her friends and acquaintances, but when wires get crossed and misunderstandings occur, things begin to crack.
I always had the impression that Emma was a light comedy drama from hearing people talk about it, and while that did come across, I was surprised to come out feeling negatively towards my namesake. I had assumed that Emma was a delightful and whimsical character [as most Emmas are] and when I spent a lot of the film feeling like she was, frankly, a bit of a bitch, I wanted to banish her from the exclusive "Emma Club". Apart from besmirching the good name the attitude didn't seem to fit with the humour of the film.
Emma. is charming, but it didn't quite get me over the line. There seemed little reason for it to be over 2 hours long, while most of the film was engaging you could have taken out 15 minutes or so and tightened it up, I genuinely think that would have added a star to my rating.
Actually, hold off on that star for a moment, let's talk about the casting first.
Rupert Graves, yeeeeeeeeeeees. That's it for him, he's a delight, put him in everything.
Bill Night and Miranda Hart both gave great comedic performances, with Hart also getting an agonising scene that got me right in the feels. Their talent for humour added a great lightness to the film and was perfectly aligned to the period setting.
Johnny Flynn, or Mr Tasty Debrief for the Cineworld-goers out there. He was tastefully de-briefed, and the reason for the card warning: "Brief natural nudity". Flynn had some good moments, particularly around the picnic scene but for me this strong character becomes too sappy as we roll downhill to the ending.
Emma herself, Anya Taylor-Joy... I have already said that I found Emma to be a bit of a bitch, for the light-hearted nature of the film I really felt the time was off. I know there isn't a lot that would be different in this setting to modern day but I found the sly nature to feel far more modern than everything else. I think that is mainly down to the casting, Taylor-Joy's acting frequently has that vibe too it and it doesn't always endear me to her films, this makes me slightly nervous to see her in Radioactive and The New Mutants over the next couple of months.
The setting is of course as delightful as you would expect, grand houses and rolling hills. Paired with the costumes you have a wonderful overall feel of the era, though I would say that the costumes do have an almost modern touch to them that makes them very noticeable.
The charming base for Austen's novel has to battle with Emma's Mean Girl performance and the slightly overlong runtime, while it does give a mildly entertaining watch it's cowering in the shadow of Little Women and I don't think I'd need to see it again.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/emma-movie-review.html
In old English society what was a girl to do with her spare time to stay entertained? Read, learn the piano, paint... act as matchmaker to her friends. When Emma Woodhouse sees a flicker of promise or flirtation she jumps at the chance to fan the flames of romance between her friends and acquaintances, but when wires get crossed and misunderstandings occur, things begin to crack.
I always had the impression that Emma was a light comedy drama from hearing people talk about it, and while that did come across, I was surprised to come out feeling negatively towards my namesake. I had assumed that Emma was a delightful and whimsical character [as most Emmas are] and when I spent a lot of the film feeling like she was, frankly, a bit of a bitch, I wanted to banish her from the exclusive "Emma Club". Apart from besmirching the good name the attitude didn't seem to fit with the humour of the film.
Emma. is charming, but it didn't quite get me over the line. There seemed little reason for it to be over 2 hours long, while most of the film was engaging you could have taken out 15 minutes or so and tightened it up, I genuinely think that would have added a star to my rating.
Actually, hold off on that star for a moment, let's talk about the casting first.
Rupert Graves, yeeeeeeeeeeees. That's it for him, he's a delight, put him in everything.
Bill Night and Miranda Hart both gave great comedic performances, with Hart also getting an agonising scene that got me right in the feels. Their talent for humour added a great lightness to the film and was perfectly aligned to the period setting.
Johnny Flynn, or Mr Tasty Debrief for the Cineworld-goers out there. He was tastefully de-briefed, and the reason for the card warning: "Brief natural nudity". Flynn had some good moments, particularly around the picnic scene but for me this strong character becomes too sappy as we roll downhill to the ending.
Emma herself, Anya Taylor-Joy... I have already said that I found Emma to be a bit of a bitch, for the light-hearted nature of the film I really felt the time was off. I know there isn't a lot that would be different in this setting to modern day but I found the sly nature to feel far more modern than everything else. I think that is mainly down to the casting, Taylor-Joy's acting frequently has that vibe too it and it doesn't always endear me to her films, this makes me slightly nervous to see her in Radioactive and The New Mutants over the next couple of months.
The setting is of course as delightful as you would expect, grand houses and rolling hills. Paired with the costumes you have a wonderful overall feel of the era, though I would say that the costumes do have an almost modern touch to them that makes them very noticeable.
The charming base for Austen's novel has to battle with Emma's Mean Girl performance and the slightly overlong runtime, while it does give a mildly entertaining watch it's cowering in the shadow of Little Women and I don't think I'd need to see it again.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/emma-movie-review.html
WB
Whisperin' Bill Anderson: An Unprecedented Life in Country Music
Bill Anderson and Peter Cooper
Book
Whisperin' Bill: An Unprecedented Life in Country Music presents a revealing portrait of Bill...
In My Room: The Human Journey as Encountered by a Psychiatrist
Book
'The room is a space for the mind, and a metaphor for the mind at the same time. Most of us will...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hamilton (2020) in Movies
Jul 5, 2020
Captures the power of being in "the room where it happens"
I'll just cut to the chase, the filmed version of the mega-hit stage musical HAMILTON (now streaming on Disney+) is terrific. If you are one of the few that have not seen this, check it out - you'll be glad you did.
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?