Search
English Audio Books - Librivox
Book and Education
App
English Audiobooks - Librivox Learn English by reading and listening to "Audiobooks". If you know...
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Spelled (The Storymakers, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
Pun intended in that post title.
As the crown princess of Emerald who may be cursed to set the world on fire, Dorthea has been locked in the Emerald Palace since she was born and kept away from anything that could potentially catch fire. When she gets a wishing star, she decides to use it, only to have it completely backfire on her.
<i>Spelled</i> is filled with bits of humor throughout, particularly from the side characters who have quickly become my favorite characters. The main character, on the other hand...
<blockquote>But I really, <i>really</i> don't want to.</blockquote>
Dorthea pretty much annoyed me for a good part of the book. She's snotty, stuck-up, spoiled – gosh, I'm turning that into a tongue twister with so many s-words. She's also whiny – Dorthea spends her time whining and complaining for quite literally a quarter of the book before someone snarks at her and tells her to shut up, grow up, and act like a proper princess (she even had the nerve to say no one else had manners – manners? *flips hair* Ha! Nope!) She's funny at some points, but the majority of her sarcasm seemed more like an attempt at sounding funny rather than actually being as funny as Rexi's use of sarcasm and snark.
<blockquote><b>Bob:</b> No, Priestess. When all his nails are broken, he will die.
<b>Rexi:</b> You can't get a haircut, and he can't get a manicure. Death by salon visit.</blockquote>
I even started wondering if <i>Spelled,</i> as pretty as the cover the book and premise is, would even last. The book isn't strictly a retelling of <i>The Wizard of Oz</i> – there are other fairy tale characters as well. Throwing in other fairy tale characters aren't exactly bothersome in my case, but Schow throws in King Midas and chimeras – both of whom are from <i>Greek mythology</i>, NOT from a fairy tale. Someone please tell me I'm wrong and those two actually appear in a fairy tale, because if they do appear in one, I obviously haven't read enough of the non-gruesome original fairy tales. Or do they actually appear in the gruesome ones? I would love to know.
<i>Spelled</i> could be considered a fun read, if you put aside all of the problems – there's humor, a good premise, and an amazing cast of side characters. But if you don't have the patience to handle a spoiled and stuck-up princess who whines a lot for approximately a quarter of the book, <i>Spelled</i> might not be a book on your radar.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-spelled-by-betsy-schow/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Pun intended in that post title.
As the crown princess of Emerald who may be cursed to set the world on fire, Dorthea has been locked in the Emerald Palace since she was born and kept away from anything that could potentially catch fire. When she gets a wishing star, she decides to use it, only to have it completely backfire on her.
<i>Spelled</i> is filled with bits of humor throughout, particularly from the side characters who have quickly become my favorite characters. The main character, on the other hand...
<blockquote>But I really, <i>really</i> don't want to.</blockquote>
Dorthea pretty much annoyed me for a good part of the book. She's snotty, stuck-up, spoiled – gosh, I'm turning that into a tongue twister with so many s-words. She's also whiny – Dorthea spends her time whining and complaining for quite literally a quarter of the book before someone snarks at her and tells her to shut up, grow up, and act like a proper princess (she even had the nerve to say no one else had manners – manners? *flips hair* Ha! Nope!) She's funny at some points, but the majority of her sarcasm seemed more like an attempt at sounding funny rather than actually being as funny as Rexi's use of sarcasm and snark.
<blockquote><b>Bob:</b> No, Priestess. When all his nails are broken, he will die.
<b>Rexi:</b> You can't get a haircut, and he can't get a manicure. Death by salon visit.</blockquote>
I even started wondering if <i>Spelled,</i> as pretty as the cover the book and premise is, would even last. The book isn't strictly a retelling of <i>The Wizard of Oz</i> – there are other fairy tale characters as well. Throwing in other fairy tale characters aren't exactly bothersome in my case, but Schow throws in King Midas and chimeras – both of whom are from <i>Greek mythology</i>, NOT from a fairy tale. Someone please tell me I'm wrong and those two actually appear in a fairy tale, because if they do appear in one, I obviously haven't read enough of the non-gruesome original fairy tales. Or do they actually appear in the gruesome ones? I would love to know.
<i>Spelled</i> could be considered a fun read, if you put aside all of the problems – there's humor, a good premise, and an amazing cast of side characters. But if you don't have the patience to handle a spoiled and stuck-up princess who whines a lot for approximately a quarter of the book, <i>Spelled</i> might not be a book on your radar.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/arc-review-spelled-by-betsy-schow/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
3D Classic Literature Collection
Book and Entertainment
App
• Featured by Apple in "Back to School" in the App Store (US/UK and many others...) • Featured...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A Wrinkle in Time (2018) in Movies
Mar 25, 2018
Need to iron out this Wrinkle
The target audience for Ava DuVernay's adaptation of the 1962 classic novel A WRINKLE IN TIME are youth ages 10-14.
I am not a youth ages 10-14.
A WRINKLE IN TIME follows the story of Meg, a young girl who's father has gone missing. With the help of mysterious figures Mrs. Which, Mrs. Whatsit and Mrs. Who, Meg goes in searching for her father - through space and time - and ends up helping to save the universe in the process.
As Directed by DuVernay (SELMA), this WRINKLE is fantastical in all ways, starting with the visuals I don't know how much was spent on this film, but all of it is on the screen as the images - and imagery - are fascinating to look at, the costumes are unique (to say the least) and the story is simple enough for even a young person to follow.
And that might be enough to hold the attention of a 10-14 youth - it wasn't enough for me.
If you start to really follow the plot (what there was of it) and the intentions in the scenes, items start to not add up at all. While I understood Meg's motivations - to find her Dad - well enough, NONE of the other character's motivations - and intentions - were clear, or made sense. At one point, a character turns from good to bad (or was it vica-versa) and it just didn't make any sense.
I think a lot of this issue was the 3 big stars that were cast as the benevolent overseers for Meg's journey. Reese Witherspoon, Mindy Kahling and, yes, Oprah Winfrey as Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who and Mrs. Which (respectively). Their role in this adventure (I guess) is to guide and help Meg on her adventure, so they were supposed to be loving, caring and gentle with just a hint of secretness (so, I guess that Meg can figure things out for herself - kind of like Glinda the Good Witch in the Wizard of Oz). But, instead, they come off as smug, annoying know-it-alls who are purposely keeping key information from this young girl - if I was around, I would have called the police on them. Also...they all seemed to be acting in their own movies, so their styles just didn't mesh, as well as the acting styles of other "stars" like Michael Pena and (especially) Zach Galifinakas - I don't know what they heck he was doing, but Director DuVernay did a poor job of reigning him in or helping him to create any kind of semblance of character.
A fantastical feature with eye-popping visuals and, I'm afraid, poorly written, acted and directed. This might be enough for an enjoyable afternoon in the theater for the target audience.
It wasn't for me - and, I think, my front runner for WORST FILM OF 2018.
Letter Grade C (for the visuals and the always appealing performance of Chris Pine, who - I have to admit - I have a man crush on).
4 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
I am not a youth ages 10-14.
A WRINKLE IN TIME follows the story of Meg, a young girl who's father has gone missing. With the help of mysterious figures Mrs. Which, Mrs. Whatsit and Mrs. Who, Meg goes in searching for her father - through space and time - and ends up helping to save the universe in the process.
As Directed by DuVernay (SELMA), this WRINKLE is fantastical in all ways, starting with the visuals I don't know how much was spent on this film, but all of it is on the screen as the images - and imagery - are fascinating to look at, the costumes are unique (to say the least) and the story is simple enough for even a young person to follow.
And that might be enough to hold the attention of a 10-14 youth - it wasn't enough for me.
If you start to really follow the plot (what there was of it) and the intentions in the scenes, items start to not add up at all. While I understood Meg's motivations - to find her Dad - well enough, NONE of the other character's motivations - and intentions - were clear, or made sense. At one point, a character turns from good to bad (or was it vica-versa) and it just didn't make any sense.
I think a lot of this issue was the 3 big stars that were cast as the benevolent overseers for Meg's journey. Reese Witherspoon, Mindy Kahling and, yes, Oprah Winfrey as Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who and Mrs. Which (respectively). Their role in this adventure (I guess) is to guide and help Meg on her adventure, so they were supposed to be loving, caring and gentle with just a hint of secretness (so, I guess that Meg can figure things out for herself - kind of like Glinda the Good Witch in the Wizard of Oz). But, instead, they come off as smug, annoying know-it-alls who are purposely keeping key information from this young girl - if I was around, I would have called the police on them. Also...they all seemed to be acting in their own movies, so their styles just didn't mesh, as well as the acting styles of other "stars" like Michael Pena and (especially) Zach Galifinakas - I don't know what they heck he was doing, but Director DuVernay did a poor job of reigning him in or helping him to create any kind of semblance of character.
A fantastical feature with eye-popping visuals and, I'm afraid, poorly written, acted and directed. This might be enough for an enjoyable afternoon in the theater for the target audience.
It wasn't for me - and, I think, my front runner for WORST FILM OF 2018.
Letter Grade C (for the visuals and the always appealing performance of Chris Pine, who - I have to admit - I have a man crush on).
4 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Movies Are Prayers in Books
Jun 18, 2017
An Interesting Perspective
This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
Subtitled How Films Voice Our Deepest Longings, film critic and committed Christian, Josh Larsen, writes Movies Are Prayers to explain his perspective that films are one of our ways of communicating with God. Films, or movies as they are oftentimes referred to in this book, can be many things from a form of escapism to historical information and artistic expression, but as Larsen maintains, they can also be prayers.
“Movies are our way of telling God what we think about this world and our place in it.” Apart from those based on Biblical characters or Christian messages, films are not usually a deliberate attempt at speaking to God. What Larsen is suggesting is that God can be found in places you would not expect – the cinema, for instance. Prayer is a human instinct, even for those who have no religious ties. We are forever asking “why am I here?” or “why me?” alongside feelings of gratitude and love for our positive experiences in life.
Josh Larsen explores several expressions of prayer, including the tenets of the Lord’s Prayer, to examine numerous films from popular classics to contemporary Disney. Beginning with wonder at the natural world (Avatar, Into The Wild), positive forms of prayer are identified in well-known cinematography, such as reconciliation (Where the Wild Things Are), meditation (Bambi), joy (Top Hat, and most musicals) and confession (Toy Story, Trainwreck). But Larsen does not stop there, he goes on to use examples of emotions that many may not consider forms of prayer: anger (Fight Club, The Piano) and lament (12 Years a Slave, Godzilla).
To back up his theory, Josh Larsen relates film sequences with Bible passages, for example, the prayers of David and Job. He likens the ending of Children of Men with the Christmas story and identifies the worshipping of false gods with Wizard of Oz. Larsen also suggests the obedience of the main character in It’s a Wonderful Life reflects the experiences of Jonah.
As well as Biblical theory, Larsen refers to citations from other respected Christian writers on the matter of prayer, challenging preconceived notions of both the religious and the atheist. Despite the fact Movies Are Prayers is heavily steeped in religious connotations, it may appeal to film buffs who wish to delve deeper into the hidden meanings of films.
Although the examples in this book are mostly well-known titles, it is unlikely that readers will have watched all the films. Helpfully, Josh Larsen provides details and descriptions of the scenes he has chosen to focus on so that even if you are not familiar with the story, it is possible to understand the author’s perspective. Having said that, Movies Are Prayers contains a lot of spoilers.
Everyone has their own personal view on Christian theory and prayer, so Movies Are Prayers can only be treated as an idea rather than gospel. However, Josh Larsen has developed an interesting theory that makes you think more about the ways we can communicate with God, even when we may not have deliberately chosen to. Being easy to read and not overly long (200 pages), Movies Are Prayers is the ideal book for film-loving Christians.
Subtitled How Films Voice Our Deepest Longings, film critic and committed Christian, Josh Larsen, writes Movies Are Prayers to explain his perspective that films are one of our ways of communicating with God. Films, or movies as they are oftentimes referred to in this book, can be many things from a form of escapism to historical information and artistic expression, but as Larsen maintains, they can also be prayers.
“Movies are our way of telling God what we think about this world and our place in it.” Apart from those based on Biblical characters or Christian messages, films are not usually a deliberate attempt at speaking to God. What Larsen is suggesting is that God can be found in places you would not expect – the cinema, for instance. Prayer is a human instinct, even for those who have no religious ties. We are forever asking “why am I here?” or “why me?” alongside feelings of gratitude and love for our positive experiences in life.
Josh Larsen explores several expressions of prayer, including the tenets of the Lord’s Prayer, to examine numerous films from popular classics to contemporary Disney. Beginning with wonder at the natural world (Avatar, Into The Wild), positive forms of prayer are identified in well-known cinematography, such as reconciliation (Where the Wild Things Are), meditation (Bambi), joy (Top Hat, and most musicals) and confession (Toy Story, Trainwreck). But Larsen does not stop there, he goes on to use examples of emotions that many may not consider forms of prayer: anger (Fight Club, The Piano) and lament (12 Years a Slave, Godzilla).
To back up his theory, Josh Larsen relates film sequences with Bible passages, for example, the prayers of David and Job. He likens the ending of Children of Men with the Christmas story and identifies the worshipping of false gods with Wizard of Oz. Larsen also suggests the obedience of the main character in It’s a Wonderful Life reflects the experiences of Jonah.
As well as Biblical theory, Larsen refers to citations from other respected Christian writers on the matter of prayer, challenging preconceived notions of both the religious and the atheist. Despite the fact Movies Are Prayers is heavily steeped in religious connotations, it may appeal to film buffs who wish to delve deeper into the hidden meanings of films.
Although the examples in this book are mostly well-known titles, it is unlikely that readers will have watched all the films. Helpfully, Josh Larsen provides details and descriptions of the scenes he has chosen to focus on so that even if you are not familiar with the story, it is possible to understand the author’s perspective. Having said that, Movies Are Prayers contains a lot of spoilers.
Everyone has their own personal view on Christian theory and prayer, so Movies Are Prayers can only be treated as an idea rather than gospel. However, Josh Larsen has developed an interesting theory that makes you think more about the ways we can communicate with God, even when we may not have deliberately chosen to. Being easy to read and not overly long (200 pages), Movies Are Prayers is the ideal book for film-loving Christians.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
2013 is the year of the fairy-tale and the year of the witch, or so it looks that way from what seems to be a never-ending bombardment of films related to the two age-old topics. This year sees the release of Bryan Singer’s Jack the Giant Slayer as well as Sam Raimi’s Oz: The Great & the Powerful and whilst the latter has opened to mixed reviews, it is Bryan Singer’s effort which really looks like it’ll sparkle.
Sat between these two behemoths is the critical and somewhat commercial failure, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters, but is it as bad as the reviews would have you believe? Let’s find out.
The fairy-tale of Hansel & Gretel is as well-known as Jack & the Beanstalk and to some extent the story in the Wizard of Oz, but films of this classic have been limited to low-budget television movies because finding the audience for such a difficult genre is not to be underestimated.
Here however, Tommy Wirkola directs his first English-language film with some degrees of success, though, a few niggling factors stop it from being the success it could’ve been. In a darker tale than perhaps we’re used to with a story such as this, Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton star as Hansel & Gretel respectively and for the most part, fulfil their roles well as they battle numerous dark witches in a plot which never really gets to grips with the genre it is trying to be.
Herein lays the problem, do you direct the fairy-tale genre as a family comedy or as something a little darker? Clearly director Wirkola has had his work cut out to find the balance between the two and the result is confusing, he has ended up with a 15 certificate which mixes comedy with a bloodbath that wouldn’t look out of place in a Quentin Tarantino picture; it really is that over-the-top. The use of swear-words also feels out of place, like they’re there just to shock rather than add anything to the film’s narrative.
Hansel & Gretel have grown up deciding to kill witches after they were left abandoned in the woods by their father. To cut a long story short, they are captured by a witch and forced to work for her; whilst doing this, Hansel develops ‘sugar sickness’ (diabetes) from all the candy he is forced to consume and must inject himself often. After killing said witch, they flee and the story begins; with them being hired to kill witches who have stolen children from a small town to allow them to become immune to fire; their major weakness.
It’s an interesting take on the story and Famke Janssen plays the wicked grand witch brilliantly, she manages to be both endearing and rightly terrifying in the same scene, though this is helped with the prosthetics used to alter her face. The other actors, including the main two are a little uninspired, especially Arterton who looks positively bored with the work she’s been given. In saying that, Renner isn’t much better and the majority of the film suffers as a result. In fact, you’ll probably be rooting for Janssen’s Muriel to succeed in her evil plot.
Thankfully, the special effects are very good, although I was expecting a little more witch-on-witch action, a la Harry Potter. Atli Orvarsson’s score is excellent and a real highlight of the film. The music in the brilliant opening credits is fantastic.
Overall, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is a solid but uninspiring adaptation of a fairy-tale which was never meant for the big screen. Director Tommy Wirkola has obviously tried very hard to create a film which caters for most palates and whilst the score, special effects and acting from Famke Janssen are all top notch, the confusing mish-mash of genres and hammy acting from Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton stop it being anything more than a forgettable action flick. After all, when your lead characters look like they can’t be bothered, you’ve got a serious problem.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/03/02/hansel-gretel-witch-hunters-review-2013/
Sat between these two behemoths is the critical and somewhat commercial failure, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters, but is it as bad as the reviews would have you believe? Let’s find out.
The fairy-tale of Hansel & Gretel is as well-known as Jack & the Beanstalk and to some extent the story in the Wizard of Oz, but films of this classic have been limited to low-budget television movies because finding the audience for such a difficult genre is not to be underestimated.
Here however, Tommy Wirkola directs his first English-language film with some degrees of success, though, a few niggling factors stop it from being the success it could’ve been. In a darker tale than perhaps we’re used to with a story such as this, Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton star as Hansel & Gretel respectively and for the most part, fulfil their roles well as they battle numerous dark witches in a plot which never really gets to grips with the genre it is trying to be.
Herein lays the problem, do you direct the fairy-tale genre as a family comedy or as something a little darker? Clearly director Wirkola has had his work cut out to find the balance between the two and the result is confusing, he has ended up with a 15 certificate which mixes comedy with a bloodbath that wouldn’t look out of place in a Quentin Tarantino picture; it really is that over-the-top. The use of swear-words also feels out of place, like they’re there just to shock rather than add anything to the film’s narrative.
Hansel & Gretel have grown up deciding to kill witches after they were left abandoned in the woods by their father. To cut a long story short, they are captured by a witch and forced to work for her; whilst doing this, Hansel develops ‘sugar sickness’ (diabetes) from all the candy he is forced to consume and must inject himself often. After killing said witch, they flee and the story begins; with them being hired to kill witches who have stolen children from a small town to allow them to become immune to fire; their major weakness.
It’s an interesting take on the story and Famke Janssen plays the wicked grand witch brilliantly, she manages to be both endearing and rightly terrifying in the same scene, though this is helped with the prosthetics used to alter her face. The other actors, including the main two are a little uninspired, especially Arterton who looks positively bored with the work she’s been given. In saying that, Renner isn’t much better and the majority of the film suffers as a result. In fact, you’ll probably be rooting for Janssen’s Muriel to succeed in her evil plot.
Thankfully, the special effects are very good, although I was expecting a little more witch-on-witch action, a la Harry Potter. Atli Orvarsson’s score is excellent and a real highlight of the film. The music in the brilliant opening credits is fantastic.
Overall, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is a solid but uninspiring adaptation of a fairy-tale which was never meant for the big screen. Director Tommy Wirkola has obviously tried very hard to create a film which caters for most palates and whilst the score, special effects and acting from Famke Janssen are all top notch, the confusing mish-mash of genres and hammy acting from Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton stop it being anything more than a forgettable action flick. After all, when your lead characters look like they can’t be bothered, you’ve got a serious problem.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/03/02/hansel-gretel-witch-hunters-review-2013/
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990) in Movies
Dec 22, 2020
Gremlins Take Over The Big Apple
Gremlins 2: The New Batch- is a good sequel. Its still has its dark humor, comedy, horror and of course many gremlins. And you cant not forgot about Hulk Hogan, yes you read that right Hulk Hogan is in this. And the horror legend and icon Christopher Lee is also in this.
The plot: The magical collectibles store that Gizmo calls home has just been destroyed, and the tiny monster finds his way into a newly erected skyscraper. Billy Peltzer (Zach Galligan) and his bride-to-be, Kate (Phoebe Cates), who have previously dealt with Gremlins run amok, discover that Gizmo and an impish legion of reptilian pals are inhabiting the downtown building. The couple tries to stop the creatures from escaping into New York City, but this new batch of beasts might be uncontrollable.
Like the first film, Gremlins 2: The New Batch is a live-action horror comedy film; however, Dante put effort into taking the sequel in new anarchistic directions. The film is meant to be more cartoon-like and less dark than the original, with slapstick violence, so the film received a PG-13 rating by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). There are also a number of parodies of other films and stories, including Gremlins itself, the Rambo films, The Wizard of Oz, Marathon Man and The Phantom of the Opera.
Along with the main plot, there is animation by Chuck Jones in the film featuring the Looney Tunes characters Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and Porky Pig. Jones had actually quit animation before returning to work on Gremlins 2: The New Batch.Dante explained the animation at the beginning of the film was meant to "set the anarchic tone."
The first scene appears at the very beginning of the movie, and features the classic Looney Tunes opening card, causing people to assume it is the short cartoon that usually plays before a movie begins; however, when Bugs appears through the rings on top of the Warner Bros. shield, Daffy interrupts the intro, and steals the shield from Bugs. Daffy attempts to recreate the opening with himself in Bugs' place, but the shield overshoots, causing the entire title card to fall apart. Daffy surrenders the stardom, claiming that since he will not star in the cartoon, they might as well just skip straight to the movie. Bugs is willing to do so, and spins Daffy off screen like a spinning top for the movie title to appear.
The DVD and Blu-ray include a longer version of the cartoon short. In it, Daffy is informed by Bugs that he has been promoted to executive and is subsequently put in charge writing the title of the movie. When Daffy mistakenly writes the title Gremlins 2 as "Gremlin Stew", Bugs corrects the error. Daffy then attempts to rename the film The Return of Super-Daffy Meets Gremlins 2 Part 6: The Movie, but Bugs rejects this for being too long, changing it back to Gremlins 2 (rendered in the font of the official logo). Daffy then quits his new job and Bugs decides to add in the subtitle, saying it looks "a little skimpy". This material was removed from the film because early audiences expected a live-action film and were bewildered by the lengthy animated sequence.
Throughout the film's closing credits, Daffy pops into frame sporadically and spouts off sarcastic comments. The last scene appears after the credits, and again features the Looney Tunes rings. This time, Porky comes out of the rings and tries to say his usual "Th-th-th-that's all, folks!" However, Daffy interrupts again and takes over. After Daffy says the slogan, the back of the Warner Bros. shield, with the words, "Title Animation Written & Directed by Chuck Jones (with Chuck Jones' signature)", smashes him. He peeks his head out to the left side and says, "Fade out," and the segment ends.
Its a good film.
The plot: The magical collectibles store that Gizmo calls home has just been destroyed, and the tiny monster finds his way into a newly erected skyscraper. Billy Peltzer (Zach Galligan) and his bride-to-be, Kate (Phoebe Cates), who have previously dealt with Gremlins run amok, discover that Gizmo and an impish legion of reptilian pals are inhabiting the downtown building. The couple tries to stop the creatures from escaping into New York City, but this new batch of beasts might be uncontrollable.
Like the first film, Gremlins 2: The New Batch is a live-action horror comedy film; however, Dante put effort into taking the sequel in new anarchistic directions. The film is meant to be more cartoon-like and less dark than the original, with slapstick violence, so the film received a PG-13 rating by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). There are also a number of parodies of other films and stories, including Gremlins itself, the Rambo films, The Wizard of Oz, Marathon Man and The Phantom of the Opera.
Along with the main plot, there is animation by Chuck Jones in the film featuring the Looney Tunes characters Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and Porky Pig. Jones had actually quit animation before returning to work on Gremlins 2: The New Batch.Dante explained the animation at the beginning of the film was meant to "set the anarchic tone."
The first scene appears at the very beginning of the movie, and features the classic Looney Tunes opening card, causing people to assume it is the short cartoon that usually plays before a movie begins; however, when Bugs appears through the rings on top of the Warner Bros. shield, Daffy interrupts the intro, and steals the shield from Bugs. Daffy attempts to recreate the opening with himself in Bugs' place, but the shield overshoots, causing the entire title card to fall apart. Daffy surrenders the stardom, claiming that since he will not star in the cartoon, they might as well just skip straight to the movie. Bugs is willing to do so, and spins Daffy off screen like a spinning top for the movie title to appear.
The DVD and Blu-ray include a longer version of the cartoon short. In it, Daffy is informed by Bugs that he has been promoted to executive and is subsequently put in charge writing the title of the movie. When Daffy mistakenly writes the title Gremlins 2 as "Gremlin Stew", Bugs corrects the error. Daffy then attempts to rename the film The Return of Super-Daffy Meets Gremlins 2 Part 6: The Movie, but Bugs rejects this for being too long, changing it back to Gremlins 2 (rendered in the font of the official logo). Daffy then quits his new job and Bugs decides to add in the subtitle, saying it looks "a little skimpy". This material was removed from the film because early audiences expected a live-action film and were bewildered by the lengthy animated sequence.
Throughout the film's closing credits, Daffy pops into frame sporadically and spouts off sarcastic comments. The last scene appears after the credits, and again features the Looney Tunes rings. This time, Porky comes out of the rings and tries to say his usual "Th-th-th-that's all, folks!" However, Daffy interrupts again and takes over. After Daffy says the slogan, the back of the Warner Bros. shield, with the words, "Title Animation Written & Directed by Chuck Jones (with Chuck Jones' signature)", smashes him. He peeks his head out to the left side and says, "Fade out," and the segment ends.
Its a good film.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A fantasy that’s glossy and beautiful to look at.
Before the heavyweight juggernaut of “Mary Poppins Returns” arrives at Christmas, here’s another Disney live action feature to get everyone in the festive spirit.
The Plot.
It’s Victorian London and Young Clara (Mackenzie Foy) lives with her father (Matthew Macfadyen), her older sister Louise (Ellie Bamber) and her younger brother Fritz (Tom Sweet). It’s Christmas and the family are having a hard time as they are grieving the recent death of wife and mother Marie (Anna Madeley). Like her mother, Clara has an astute mind with an engineering bias and is encouraged in this pursuit by her quirky inventor godfather, Drosselmeyer (Morgan Freeman). At his fabled Christmas ball, Clara asks for his help in accessing a gift Clara’s mother has bequeathed to her. This leads Clara on a magical adventure to a parallel world with four realms, where everything is not quite peace and harmony.
The Review.
This is a film that visually delights from the word go. The film opens with a swooping tour of Victorian London (who knew the Disney castle was in the capital’s suburbs?!) via Westminster bridge and into the Stahlbaum’s attic. It’s a spectacular tour-de-force of special-effects wizardry and sets up the expectation of what’s to come. For every scene that follows is a richly decorated feast for the eyes. Drosselmeyer’s party is a glorious event, full of extras, strong on costume design and with a rich colour palette as filmed by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“). When we are pitched into the Four Realms – no wardrobe required – the magical visions continue.
The film represents a Narnia-esque take on the four compass-point lands of Oz, and on that basis it’s a bit formulaic. But the good vs evil angles are more subtley portrayed. Of the Four Realms leaders, Keira Knightley as Sugar Plum rather steals the show from the others (played by Richard E. Grant, Eugenio Derbez and Helen Mirren). Mirren in particular is given little to do.
What age kids would this be suitable for? Well, probably a good judge would be the Wizard of Oz. If your kids are not completely freaked out by the Wicked Witch of the West and the flying monkeys, then they will probably cope OK with the scary bits of the “Realm of Entertainment”. Although those who suffer from either musophobia or (especially) coulrophobia might want to give it a miss! All kids are different though, and the “loss of the mother” is also an angle to consider: that might worry and upset young children. It is definitely a “PG” certificate rather than a “U” certificate.
Young people who also enjoy ballet (I nearly fell into a sexist trap there!) will also get a kick out of some of the dance sequences, which are “Fantasia-esque” in their presentation and feature Misty Copeland, famously the first African American Female Principal Dancer with the American Ballet Theatre. (I have no appreciation at all for ballet, but I’m sure it was brilliant!)
As for the moral tone of the film, the female empowerment message is rather ladled on with a trowel, but as it’s a good message I have no great problem with that. I am often appalled at how lacking in confidence young people are in their own abilities. Here is a young lady (an engineer!) learning self-resilience and the confidence to be able to do anything in life she puts her mind to. Well said.
The story is rather generic – child visits a magical other world – but the screenplay is impressive given its the first-feature screenplay for Ashleigh Powell: there is an article on her approach to screenwriting that you might find interesting here.
The film is credited with two directors. This – particularly if there is also an army of screenwriters – is normally a warning sign on a film. (As a case in point, the chaotic 1967 version of “Casino Royale” had six different directors, and it shows!). Here, there clearly were issues with the filming since Disney insisted on reshoots for which the original director, Lasse Hallström, was not available. This is where the “Captain America” director Joe Johnston stepped in.
The turns.
I really enjoyed Mackenzie Foy‘s performance as Clara. Now 18, she is a feisty and believable Disney princess for the modern age. (If, like me, you are struggling to place where you’ve heard her name before, she was the young Murph in Nolan’s “Interstellar“).
Another name I was struggling with was Ellie Bamber as her sister. Ellie was excellent in the traumatic role of the daughter in the brilliant “Nocturnal Animals“, one of my favourite films of 2016. (Hopefully the therapy has worked and Ellie can sleep at night again!).
A newcomer with a big role is Jayden Fowora-Knight as the Nutcracker soldier: Jayden had a bit part in “Ready Player One” but does a great job here in a substantial role in the film. He stands out as a black actor in a Disney feature: notwithstanding the Finn character in “Star Wars”, this is a long-overdue and welcome approach from Disney.
British comedians Omid Djalili and Jack Whitehouse turn up to add some light relief, but the humour seems rather forced and not particularly fitting.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one much, but I did. Prinicipally because it is such a visual feast and worth going to see just for that alone: I have a prediction that this film will be nominated for production design, costume design and possible special effects.
I think kids of the right age – I would have thought 6 to 10 sort of range – will enjoy this a lot, particularly if they like dance. Young girls in particular will most relate to the lead character. For such kids, I’d rate this a 4*. The rating below reflects my rating as an adult: so I don’t think ‘drag-a-long’ parents in the Christmas holidays (if it is still on by then) will not be totally bored.
The Plot.
It’s Victorian London and Young Clara (Mackenzie Foy) lives with her father (Matthew Macfadyen), her older sister Louise (Ellie Bamber) and her younger brother Fritz (Tom Sweet). It’s Christmas and the family are having a hard time as they are grieving the recent death of wife and mother Marie (Anna Madeley). Like her mother, Clara has an astute mind with an engineering bias and is encouraged in this pursuit by her quirky inventor godfather, Drosselmeyer (Morgan Freeman). At his fabled Christmas ball, Clara asks for his help in accessing a gift Clara’s mother has bequeathed to her. This leads Clara on a magical adventure to a parallel world with four realms, where everything is not quite peace and harmony.
The Review.
This is a film that visually delights from the word go. The film opens with a swooping tour of Victorian London (who knew the Disney castle was in the capital’s suburbs?!) via Westminster bridge and into the Stahlbaum’s attic. It’s a spectacular tour-de-force of special-effects wizardry and sets up the expectation of what’s to come. For every scene that follows is a richly decorated feast for the eyes. Drosselmeyer’s party is a glorious event, full of extras, strong on costume design and with a rich colour palette as filmed by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“). When we are pitched into the Four Realms – no wardrobe required – the magical visions continue.
The film represents a Narnia-esque take on the four compass-point lands of Oz, and on that basis it’s a bit formulaic. But the good vs evil angles are more subtley portrayed. Of the Four Realms leaders, Keira Knightley as Sugar Plum rather steals the show from the others (played by Richard E. Grant, Eugenio Derbez and Helen Mirren). Mirren in particular is given little to do.
What age kids would this be suitable for? Well, probably a good judge would be the Wizard of Oz. If your kids are not completely freaked out by the Wicked Witch of the West and the flying monkeys, then they will probably cope OK with the scary bits of the “Realm of Entertainment”. Although those who suffer from either musophobia or (especially) coulrophobia might want to give it a miss! All kids are different though, and the “loss of the mother” is also an angle to consider: that might worry and upset young children. It is definitely a “PG” certificate rather than a “U” certificate.
Young people who also enjoy ballet (I nearly fell into a sexist trap there!) will also get a kick out of some of the dance sequences, which are “Fantasia-esque” in their presentation and feature Misty Copeland, famously the first African American Female Principal Dancer with the American Ballet Theatre. (I have no appreciation at all for ballet, but I’m sure it was brilliant!)
As for the moral tone of the film, the female empowerment message is rather ladled on with a trowel, but as it’s a good message I have no great problem with that. I am often appalled at how lacking in confidence young people are in their own abilities. Here is a young lady (an engineer!) learning self-resilience and the confidence to be able to do anything in life she puts her mind to. Well said.
The story is rather generic – child visits a magical other world – but the screenplay is impressive given its the first-feature screenplay for Ashleigh Powell: there is an article on her approach to screenwriting that you might find interesting here.
The film is credited with two directors. This – particularly if there is also an army of screenwriters – is normally a warning sign on a film. (As a case in point, the chaotic 1967 version of “Casino Royale” had six different directors, and it shows!). Here, there clearly were issues with the filming since Disney insisted on reshoots for which the original director, Lasse Hallström, was not available. This is where the “Captain America” director Joe Johnston stepped in.
The turns.
I really enjoyed Mackenzie Foy‘s performance as Clara. Now 18, she is a feisty and believable Disney princess for the modern age. (If, like me, you are struggling to place where you’ve heard her name before, she was the young Murph in Nolan’s “Interstellar“).
Another name I was struggling with was Ellie Bamber as her sister. Ellie was excellent in the traumatic role of the daughter in the brilliant “Nocturnal Animals“, one of my favourite films of 2016. (Hopefully the therapy has worked and Ellie can sleep at night again!).
A newcomer with a big role is Jayden Fowora-Knight as the Nutcracker soldier: Jayden had a bit part in “Ready Player One” but does a great job here in a substantial role in the film. He stands out as a black actor in a Disney feature: notwithstanding the Finn character in “Star Wars”, this is a long-overdue and welcome approach from Disney.
British comedians Omid Djalili and Jack Whitehouse turn up to add some light relief, but the humour seems rather forced and not particularly fitting.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one much, but I did. Prinicipally because it is such a visual feast and worth going to see just for that alone: I have a prediction that this film will be nominated for production design, costume design and possible special effects.
I think kids of the right age – I would have thought 6 to 10 sort of range – will enjoy this a lot, particularly if they like dance. Young girls in particular will most relate to the lead character. For such kids, I’d rate this a 4*. The rating below reflects my rating as an adult: so I don’t think ‘drag-a-long’ parents in the Christmas holidays (if it is still on by then) will not be totally bored.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The People Vs. Larry Flynt (1996) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
The tragedy. The comedy. The pornography.
Not many filmmakers can say they won two Oscars and for Best Director in two different decades and were nominated a third time in a different decade. The recently deceased movie maestro Milos Forman is one that could.
This time he decides to take on a subject he is passionate about through the lens of someone he doesn't particularly like. It is hard to believe the real Larry Flynt became a poster child for free speech and freedom of expression just so he could peddle Hustler magazine which showed every variety of "smut", "vile" and immoral behavior and imagery which makes most people disgusted. They even featured a cartoon depicting the characters from "The Wizard of Oz" getting it on with each other!
Larry Flynt started with his brother managing a strip club, but dreaming for something more. Larry decided he would publish a "newsletter" to increase awareness of the club. Upon publication, people became interested in viewing and subscribing to its controversial content, thus an empire was born.
From this club Larry also met his latest dancer soon to be wife, Althea.
The hits started coming almost immediately with different groups causing trouble for Larry and having him arrested. His legal battles soon began as well. His lawyer is not able to control his increasingly belligerent client who shows no respect for the court and openly mocked and disrespected it. Unfortunately, after one of his court appearances, he and his lawyer were shot by a sniper leaving Larry paralyzed from the waist down.
Larry didn't let up; however, deciding instead to take on Reverend Jerry Falwell in Hustler which would ultimately end up with his case being seen at the US Supreme Court.
No stranger to telling a keen biography (Amadeus ranks among the greatest biopics in movie history), director Forman manages to fashion a true tale with such fervor and passion, you get drawn in almost immediately. Even if you hate Larry's message and attitude, you must ultimately completely agree with his right to express it.
Woody Harrelson began getting noticed as a dramatic actor in 1994 with Natural Born Killers and continues to this day including blockbusters like Solo and The Hunger Games franchise as well as meaningful dramatic roles in recent films like Three Billboards and Game Change, Hard to believe the numskull from Cheers has blossomed into a full fledged movie star. His Academy Award nominated performance in this film is so well deserved. He is able to make Larry Flynt repulsive and sympathetic, rude and adorable as well as repugnant and charming all at the same time.
Courtney Love comes form nowhere and plays Larry's wife Althea with energy and really give it her all showing herself as the woman who would stand by her husband no matter what and up against the system. An early performance from Edward Norton is also welcome coming right on the heels of his breakout role in Primal Fear.
The courtroom scenes and not revolutionary, however, the drama and intensity are there broken up by Larry's quips and infant like behavior.
A very entertaining watch from a true master filmmaker highly recommended.
This time he decides to take on a subject he is passionate about through the lens of someone he doesn't particularly like. It is hard to believe the real Larry Flynt became a poster child for free speech and freedom of expression just so he could peddle Hustler magazine which showed every variety of "smut", "vile" and immoral behavior and imagery which makes most people disgusted. They even featured a cartoon depicting the characters from "The Wizard of Oz" getting it on with each other!
Larry Flynt started with his brother managing a strip club, but dreaming for something more. Larry decided he would publish a "newsletter" to increase awareness of the club. Upon publication, people became interested in viewing and subscribing to its controversial content, thus an empire was born.
From this club Larry also met his latest dancer soon to be wife, Althea.
The hits started coming almost immediately with different groups causing trouble for Larry and having him arrested. His legal battles soon began as well. His lawyer is not able to control his increasingly belligerent client who shows no respect for the court and openly mocked and disrespected it. Unfortunately, after one of his court appearances, he and his lawyer were shot by a sniper leaving Larry paralyzed from the waist down.
Larry didn't let up; however, deciding instead to take on Reverend Jerry Falwell in Hustler which would ultimately end up with his case being seen at the US Supreme Court.
No stranger to telling a keen biography (Amadeus ranks among the greatest biopics in movie history), director Forman manages to fashion a true tale with such fervor and passion, you get drawn in almost immediately. Even if you hate Larry's message and attitude, you must ultimately completely agree with his right to express it.
Woody Harrelson began getting noticed as a dramatic actor in 1994 with Natural Born Killers and continues to this day including blockbusters like Solo and The Hunger Games franchise as well as meaningful dramatic roles in recent films like Three Billboards and Game Change, Hard to believe the numskull from Cheers has blossomed into a full fledged movie star. His Academy Award nominated performance in this film is so well deserved. He is able to make Larry Flynt repulsive and sympathetic, rude and adorable as well as repugnant and charming all at the same time.
Courtney Love comes form nowhere and plays Larry's wife Althea with energy and really give it her all showing herself as the woman who would stand by her husband no matter what and up against the system. An early performance from Edward Norton is also welcome coming right on the heels of his breakout role in Primal Fear.
The courtroom scenes and not revolutionary, however, the drama and intensity are there broken up by Larry's quips and infant like behavior.
A very entertaining watch from a true master filmmaker highly recommended.
Baby Care & Dress Up - Love & Have Fun with Babies
Games and Education
App
~~> Dress, Feed & Bathe your Baby - Have a Tea Party & Put your Baby to Bed! ~~> Play Mommy & Care...