Search
Search results
Teaching Shakespeare: The Tempest Teacher's Book
8.0
Rate It
Book
Teaching Shakespeare presents over 50 photocopiable worksheets. Different sections of the book cover...
Teaching Shakespeare: Twelfth Night Teacher's Book
Book
Teaching Shakespeare presents over 50 photocopiable worksheets. Different sections of the book cover...
Speaking the Speech
Book
Why does Shakespeare write in the way he does? And how can actors and directors get the most out of...
Bondarchuk's 'War and Peace': Literary Classic to Soviet Cinematic Epic
Book
Sergei Bondarchuk's War and Peace , one of the world's greatest film epics, originated as a...
Notorious: The Immortal Legend of the Kray Twins
Book
Ever since the Kray twins invited John Pearson to write their 'official' biography more than forty...
Sarah (7798 KP) rated A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2020
Nice enough
A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood follows the story of a friendship between a journalist (Matthew Rhys) and tv presenter/personality Fred Rogers (Tom Hanks). And I’ll start off by saying that going into this film, I didn’t have a clue who Mr Rogers was, so this was all rather unknown for me. The only reason I decided to watch it was because of Tom Hanks, although overall I did find this to be a nice film.
Tom Hanks as Fred Rogers is rather disturbing, but in a good way as he puts in a stellar performance. Matthew Rhys’ Lloyd Vogel starts off with a huge amount of cynicism and wariness of Rogers, and that’s exactly how this film made me feel at the beginning. Hanks as Rogers is rather creepy and comes across as very strange. However throughout the course of the film as Lloyd discovers more about Rogers, so did I and it really helped me enjoy this film more. And whilst I don’t know who Fred Rogers is, Hanks’ performance was spot on as an old school kids tv presenter. Matthew Rhys as well puts in a great turn as the hardened journalist who does have a heart after all, and I think he’s such an underrated actor.
The styling of this film too is very good. The use of the toys and miniature cities and buildings is a genius move, and brings such a fun and magical feel to the entire film. To begin with I worried it would be out of place, but there’s enough whimsical and childlike aspects in this so that it all fits together perfectly.
However, despite the rather fun side and the great performances, for me I found the story a little lacking. It’s almost too cutesy and sweet at times, even considering the serious parts of the family drama. I also found it dragged as well in parts and I got a little bored with the Rogers based show scenes. This is still a good film, I just think I’m not particularly sold on the whole Fred Rogers thing especially as this has only told me a limited amount about who he really is!
Tom Hanks as Fred Rogers is rather disturbing, but in a good way as he puts in a stellar performance. Matthew Rhys’ Lloyd Vogel starts off with a huge amount of cynicism and wariness of Rogers, and that’s exactly how this film made me feel at the beginning. Hanks as Rogers is rather creepy and comes across as very strange. However throughout the course of the film as Lloyd discovers more about Rogers, so did I and it really helped me enjoy this film more. And whilst I don’t know who Fred Rogers is, Hanks’ performance was spot on as an old school kids tv presenter. Matthew Rhys as well puts in a great turn as the hardened journalist who does have a heart after all, and I think he’s such an underrated actor.
The styling of this film too is very good. The use of the toys and miniature cities and buildings is a genius move, and brings such a fun and magical feel to the entire film. To begin with I worried it would be out of place, but there’s enough whimsical and childlike aspects in this so that it all fits together perfectly.
However, despite the rather fun side and the great performances, for me I found the story a little lacking. It’s almost too cutesy and sweet at times, even considering the serious parts of the family drama. I also found it dragged as well in parts and I got a little bored with the Rogers based show scenes. This is still a good film, I just think I’m not particularly sold on the whole Fred Rogers thing especially as this has only told me a limited amount about who he really is!
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated A Quiet Place: Part II (2021) in Movies
Jun 16, 2021
Shh!
Initially, when I saw A Quiet Place 2 for review, I wasn't expecting to enjoy it anywhere near as much as I did because of how disappointing I found the first movie. However, sometimes I am very glad to be proven wrong and this is one of those times.
A Quiet Place 2 does what all good sequels should do, in that it builds upon the foundation laid down by the first movie, whilst upping the stakes and increasing the intensity felt by the audience when watching the film. A parallel that I can't help but draw a comparison to is the change in tone between Alien and its more action-based sequel Aliens.
If the first Quiet Place movie strives to capture the suspense and slow burn slasher-inspired horror of Ridley Scott's Alien, then A Quiet Place 2 nails the faster, more ferocious tone of James Cameron's Alien's. Whether this was intentional or not, I do not know, but the difference in tone is evident from very early on in John Krasinski's sequel.
While the film does star John Krasinski and Emily Blunt as their characters from the first film, Cillian Murphy's Emmett and Millicent Simmonds' Regan are arguably the main characters of the sequel. Whilst Krasinski appears as Lee via flashback, (SPOILER, because he died pretty unceremoniously in the first movie,) and Blunt features as Evelyn in what is pretty much a glorified side-quest, they definitely aren't the main characters in part 2.
The choice to focus on two different characters in the sequel is a welcome one as it help the film feel more fresh and when you have stellar performances from Murphy and Simmonds to wrap your movie around, that also helps. I really felt that Millicent Simmonds upped her game greatly from the first movie and although CIllian Murphy's character was added for the sequel, he is a good enough actor to fit naturally into the plot without feeling shoehorned in.
You can read the rest of my review right here:
https://www.bigglasgowcomicpage.com/review-a-quiet-place-2/
A Quiet Place 2 does what all good sequels should do, in that it builds upon the foundation laid down by the first movie, whilst upping the stakes and increasing the intensity felt by the audience when watching the film. A parallel that I can't help but draw a comparison to is the change in tone between Alien and its more action-based sequel Aliens.
If the first Quiet Place movie strives to capture the suspense and slow burn slasher-inspired horror of Ridley Scott's Alien, then A Quiet Place 2 nails the faster, more ferocious tone of James Cameron's Alien's. Whether this was intentional or not, I do not know, but the difference in tone is evident from very early on in John Krasinski's sequel.
While the film does star John Krasinski and Emily Blunt as their characters from the first film, Cillian Murphy's Emmett and Millicent Simmonds' Regan are arguably the main characters of the sequel. Whilst Krasinski appears as Lee via flashback, (SPOILER, because he died pretty unceremoniously in the first movie,) and Blunt features as Evelyn in what is pretty much a glorified side-quest, they definitely aren't the main characters in part 2.
The choice to focus on two different characters in the sequel is a welcome one as it help the film feel more fresh and when you have stellar performances from Murphy and Simmonds to wrap your movie around, that also helps. I really felt that Millicent Simmonds upped her game greatly from the first movie and although CIllian Murphy's character was added for the sequel, he is a good enough actor to fit naturally into the plot without feeling shoehorned in.
You can read the rest of my review right here:
https://www.bigglasgowcomicpage.com/review-a-quiet-place-2/
BookInspector (124 KP) rated The Girlfriend in Books
Sep 24, 2020
This whole story was told from three different perspectives, and I think Laura and Cherry shared the spotlight as the main characters, and Daniel was kind of supporting actor. I really enjoyed reading these different perspectives, I like to see what different characters think and how they analyze the situations. One thing was very obvious to me, that no one would be excepted into the “rich circle” with the name like Cherry. It just sounds trashy to me. I really enjoyed the unique personalities, which characters brought to this novel, as well as the complex relationships between each other. If I would have to pick my favourite in this book, I think it would be Daniel, I liked his personality and was feeling pity, that he was stuck in this crossfire.
Even though the narrative was sometimes quite repetitive to me, I enjoyed it. I liked the twists and turns which author incorporated in this novel, they made me more curious about what else the author has up her sleeve. I can easily see authors personal experience in this book. This book felt like some of the movies I saw, I think that’s where author’s knowledge of scripts and film industry comes in, as well as details of the TV serials which Laura was creating. I think that the daughter-in-law – mother-in-law relationship was quite realistic and relatable to some of the readers, I heard plenty of stories about evil mother-in-laws/ daughter-in-law.
I really enjoyed the easy flowing writing style of this novel, as well as great knowledge of London and rich people’s lifestyle. I loved the short chapters of this book, which kept me interested of what will happen next, till the last page. Even though the ending was quite predictable, I think it rounded up the story nicely and left me very satisfied with it. So, to conclude, it is a chilling thriller filled with unique characters and interesting story, which really hooked me, as I really wanted to see how this mother-in-law – daughter-in-law relationship will evolve. I really enjoyed it and I do recommend to give this book a try.
Even though the narrative was sometimes quite repetitive to me, I enjoyed it. I liked the twists and turns which author incorporated in this novel, they made me more curious about what else the author has up her sleeve. I can easily see authors personal experience in this book. This book felt like some of the movies I saw, I think that’s where author’s knowledge of scripts and film industry comes in, as well as details of the TV serials which Laura was creating. I think that the daughter-in-law – mother-in-law relationship was quite realistic and relatable to some of the readers, I heard plenty of stories about evil mother-in-laws/ daughter-in-law.
I really enjoyed the easy flowing writing style of this novel, as well as great knowledge of London and rich people’s lifestyle. I loved the short chapters of this book, which kept me interested of what will happen next, till the last page. Even though the ending was quite predictable, I think it rounded up the story nicely and left me very satisfied with it. So, to conclude, it is a chilling thriller filled with unique characters and interesting story, which really hooked me, as I really wanted to see how this mother-in-law – daughter-in-law relationship will evolve. I really enjoyed it and I do recommend to give this book a try.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Hudsucker Proxy (1994) in Movies
Sep 25, 2020
Terrific, under-rated gem
Coen Brother's films fall into 3 categories for me:
Terrific, well-known films: FARGO, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, THE BIG LEBOWSKI
Terrible, overly-indulgent films: HAIL CAESAR, A SERIOUS MAN, BURN AFTER READING
Under-rated gems: BARTON FINK, MILLER'S CROSSING, THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS
And this film, the 1994 homage to 1940's fast-talking comedies THE HUDSUCKER PROXY.
Set in the business world, THE HUDSUCKER PROXY tells the tale of a young, ambitious corporate ladder climber who is taken under the thumb of a conniving business exec who wants to use the young man as a patsy for the business.
Tim Robbins stars as the young, ambitious Norville Barnes who's "gee shucks" demeanor and the faithful belief in those around him anchors this film in a common decency that Robbins exudes in spades. Countering Robbins is a crafty film veteran - Paul Newman as evil, corrupt Corporate Executive Sidney J. Mussburger. Newman was winding down his career at this point, so must have seen something in the script that caught his eye, for Newman has a spark and a spring in his step that shows that the old man "still has it". He plays off of Robbins well and it is a joy to watch this veteran actor work. Equally interesting in this film is Jennifer Jason Leigh who channels her inner Rosalind Russell as fast-talking, hard-pushing reporter (and erstwhile girlfriend of Barnes), Amy Archer.
But this being a Coen Brothers film, this movie is just as strongly about the atmosphere and the dialogue as it is the characters - and what an atmosphere they create. Delivering a strong "1940's Art Deco meets Techno-Punk" theme, the Coens deliver a visually interesting world that is incorporated with intriguing characters.
In other words - it's a Coen Brothers comedy - and one that is well done.
To tell more about the story is to spoil the picture, but realize that this film is well made, well scripted and well acted (if a little slight on story). It is a very entertaining way to spend a few hours.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Terrific, well-known films: FARGO, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, THE BIG LEBOWSKI
Terrible, overly-indulgent films: HAIL CAESAR, A SERIOUS MAN, BURN AFTER READING
Under-rated gems: BARTON FINK, MILLER'S CROSSING, THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS
And this film, the 1994 homage to 1940's fast-talking comedies THE HUDSUCKER PROXY.
Set in the business world, THE HUDSUCKER PROXY tells the tale of a young, ambitious corporate ladder climber who is taken under the thumb of a conniving business exec who wants to use the young man as a patsy for the business.
Tim Robbins stars as the young, ambitious Norville Barnes who's "gee shucks" demeanor and the faithful belief in those around him anchors this film in a common decency that Robbins exudes in spades. Countering Robbins is a crafty film veteran - Paul Newman as evil, corrupt Corporate Executive Sidney J. Mussburger. Newman was winding down his career at this point, so must have seen something in the script that caught his eye, for Newman has a spark and a spring in his step that shows that the old man "still has it". He plays off of Robbins well and it is a joy to watch this veteran actor work. Equally interesting in this film is Jennifer Jason Leigh who channels her inner Rosalind Russell as fast-talking, hard-pushing reporter (and erstwhile girlfriend of Barnes), Amy Archer.
But this being a Coen Brothers film, this movie is just as strongly about the atmosphere and the dialogue as it is the characters - and what an atmosphere they create. Delivering a strong "1940's Art Deco meets Techno-Punk" theme, the Coens deliver a visually interesting world that is incorporated with intriguing characters.
In other words - it's a Coen Brothers comedy - and one that is well done.
To tell more about the story is to spoil the picture, but realize that this film is well made, well scripted and well acted (if a little slight on story). It is a very entertaining way to spend a few hours.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lee KM Pallatina (951 KP) rated Die Hard (1988) in Movies
Jan 16, 2021 (Updated Jan 17, 2021)
The casting (3 more)
Plot
SFX
Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman in general
Welcome to the party pal!
In 1988 Hollywood Gambled on a lesser known tv star for it's high budget action thriller.
Laughed at when hearing their choice of actor, it was the 80's and when you heard action movie you'd immediately think "Schwarzenegger or stallone, maybe even Kurt Russel" Hollywood wanted obe of the bigger stars and reached out to them, but they all turned it down so average Joe became their Vacationing NYPD hero, so they stuck with the man known as Bruce Willis!
Whilst Visiting his estranged wife at the (fictional) Nakatomi plaza (Fox plaza) the building and it's workforce are quickly taken hostage.
Enter John McClain (willis) a rough looking, smooth talking (the guy literally has a smooth/relaxed voice) witty, sarcastic NYPD cop who just can't seem to catch a break.
Armed with everything I wrote above, aswell as bare feet, air-vents, and a fire hose, McClain pursues the terrorists in an action packed attempt at proving his wife wrong and maybe saving a few people in the process.
Die Hard is a classic 80's action epic that spawned many terrible sequels (excluding 'with a vengeance') that we still paid to watch aswell as countless knockoffs.
Did you know?
. The team behind die hard was laughed at because of their lead choice (you should do I just told you)
. The movie was almost shut down because they used a real life helicopter around the building whilst local residents tried to sleep causing an outrage and filed complaints.
. miniature explosions were set of atop the building for affect.
. Alan Rickman was lied to about when he'd be dropped from the "building" the capture a natural look of fear (about a 30ft drop).
. It was Alan Rickmans first movie ( what a way to hit the ground and keep running)
. A replica model of the building was built to film the remaining explosions on the building.
. The original Vest (tank top) is on display in the Smithsonian.
.the movie was filmed during official construction of the fox plaza aka nakatomi plaza.
Laughed at when hearing their choice of actor, it was the 80's and when you heard action movie you'd immediately think "Schwarzenegger or stallone, maybe even Kurt Russel" Hollywood wanted obe of the bigger stars and reached out to them, but they all turned it down so average Joe became their Vacationing NYPD hero, so they stuck with the man known as Bruce Willis!
Whilst Visiting his estranged wife at the (fictional) Nakatomi plaza (Fox plaza) the building and it's workforce are quickly taken hostage.
Enter John McClain (willis) a rough looking, smooth talking (the guy literally has a smooth/relaxed voice) witty, sarcastic NYPD cop who just can't seem to catch a break.
Armed with everything I wrote above, aswell as bare feet, air-vents, and a fire hose, McClain pursues the terrorists in an action packed attempt at proving his wife wrong and maybe saving a few people in the process.
Die Hard is a classic 80's action epic that spawned many terrible sequels (excluding 'with a vengeance') that we still paid to watch aswell as countless knockoffs.
Did you know?
. The team behind die hard was laughed at because of their lead choice (you should do I just told you)
. The movie was almost shut down because they used a real life helicopter around the building whilst local residents tried to sleep causing an outrage and filed complaints.
. miniature explosions were set of atop the building for affect.
. Alan Rickman was lied to about when he'd be dropped from the "building" the capture a natural look of fear (about a 30ft drop).
. It was Alan Rickmans first movie ( what a way to hit the ground and keep running)
. A replica model of the building was built to film the remaining explosions on the building.
. The original Vest (tank top) is on display in the Smithsonian.
.the movie was filmed during official construction of the fox plaza aka nakatomi plaza.