Search
Search results
Lenard (726 KP) rated Dora and the Lost City of Gold (2019) in Movies
Sep 2, 2019 (Updated Sep 2, 2019)
Backpack, backpack, backpack, backpack
In the era of reboots, legacyquels, and reimaginings, films require a balance between innovation and "the original" product. Dora and the Lost City of Gold is such an undertaking as a adaptation of a popular children's show. The filmmakers had an objective to make a feature film while not alienating fans of the original Dora the Explorer. I believe that the team (who also worked on the previous two Muppets movies) did a good job. They found ways to have Dora speak to the audience (like on her show), have Backpack and Map speak, introduce Spanish words and phrases (the point of the show), and Boots and Swiper ("Swiper, no swiping.") were integral characters, all of which would have detracted from the film if done improperly. At the same time, the writers and director had to have a story that would sustain a 90-minute movie and leave little left to, pardon the pun, explore. The search for a lost city of gold and a race between archaelogists and treasure hunters satisfied that objective, a little Young Indiana Jones adventure mixed with National Treasure. The biggest liability in the whole film was Eugenio Derbez and his slapstick comedic style never fit the tone of the film. Luckily, Michael Pena can debilitate him with a styling monologue. Now that Dora has ended her adventure in the jungle, she can study the harshest environment known to man: high school in an anthropological dissertation.
Parcheesi STAR
Games and Entertainment
App
Parcheesi Star is an online multiplayer version of popular classic Parcheesi. Parcheesi is a popular...
Cheats and Deceits: How Animals and Plants Exploit and Mislead
Book
In nature, trickery and deception are widespread. Animals and plants mimic other objects or species...
Future Sustainable Ecosystems: Complexity, Risk and Uncertainty
Book
Future Sustainable Ecosystems: Complexity, Risk, Uncertainty provides an interdisciplinary,...
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated The Miniaturist in Books
May 18, 2020
73 of 200
Book
The Miniaturist
By Jessie Burton
On an autumn day in 1686, eighteen-year-old Nella Oortman knocks at the door of a grand house in the wealthiest quarter of Amsterdam. She has come from the country to begin a new life as the wife of illustrious merchant trader Johannes Brandt, but instead she is met by his sharp-tongued sister, Marin. Only later does Johannes appear and present her with an extraordinary wedding gift: a cabinet-sized replica of their home. It is to be furnished by an elusive miniaturist, whose tiny creations mirror their real-life counterparts in unexpected ways . . .
Nella is at first mystified by the closed world of the Brandt household, but as she uncovers its secrets she realizes the escalating dangers that await them all. Does the miniaturist hold their fate in her hands? And will she be the key to their salvation or the architect of their downfall?
An absolutely beautiful written book! I found it hard to put down! Only thing I found a little disappointing was I needed more about the miniaturist and the mystery surrounding her. I found the friendships formed in this book so endearing, although it also shows as humans we may have become more excepting of race and sexuality but we are still in some countries struggling to accept each other! I went on to watch the Tv adaptation which was absolutely brilliant and so close to the books!
Highly recommend!
Book
The Miniaturist
By Jessie Burton
On an autumn day in 1686, eighteen-year-old Nella Oortman knocks at the door of a grand house in the wealthiest quarter of Amsterdam. She has come from the country to begin a new life as the wife of illustrious merchant trader Johannes Brandt, but instead she is met by his sharp-tongued sister, Marin. Only later does Johannes appear and present her with an extraordinary wedding gift: a cabinet-sized replica of their home. It is to be furnished by an elusive miniaturist, whose tiny creations mirror their real-life counterparts in unexpected ways . . .
Nella is at first mystified by the closed world of the Brandt household, but as she uncovers its secrets she realizes the escalating dangers that await them all. Does the miniaturist hold their fate in her hands? And will she be the key to their salvation or the architect of their downfall?
An absolutely beautiful written book! I found it hard to put down! Only thing I found a little disappointing was I needed more about the miniaturist and the mystery surrounding her. I found the friendships formed in this book so endearing, although it also shows as humans we may have become more excepting of race and sexuality but we are still in some countries struggling to accept each other! I went on to watch the Tv adaptation which was absolutely brilliant and so close to the books!
Highly recommend!
Call of Duty: Black Ops II - Uprising
7.5
Rate It
Video Game
A new era in warfare continues. Call of Duty®: Black Ops II Uprising, the latest downloadable...
ClareR (5854 KP) rated Small Mercies in Books
May 22, 2023
I’ve never read Dennis Lehane before - and what a place to start! This novel is phenomenal, and I ended it thoroughly heartbroken.
1970s Boston, America, and the school districts want to merge the separate schools for black and white children. Except your average white Southie doesn’t want that to happen, and they’ll do anything to ensure that.
There are violent demonstrations, tensions boil over, and amongst all this a young black man is murdered. At the same time, Mary Pat Fennessy’s daughter goes missing. At first, these two events seem unconnected, but as Mary Pat searches for her daughter it starts to look otherwise. And somehow, the Irish mob are involved.
Mary Pat is the ultimate tiger mother. Her daughter Jules, is her only surviving child, and she’ll stop at nothing to find her - dead or alive.
This is brutal, and proves that ultimately revenge profits no one. The heat simmered off the page, as did the threatened and real violence. The writing is gorgeous despite the violence, and is a masterclass in how a writer can make the most ugly things so astonishing.
I’m expecting to see a film adaptation of this at some point - it reads like a screenplay.
This may well be my first novel by Lehane, but I doubt very much that it will be my last. Thanks for introducing me to another new-to-me author, Pigeonhole!
1970s Boston, America, and the school districts want to merge the separate schools for black and white children. Except your average white Southie doesn’t want that to happen, and they’ll do anything to ensure that.
There are violent demonstrations, tensions boil over, and amongst all this a young black man is murdered. At the same time, Mary Pat Fennessy’s daughter goes missing. At first, these two events seem unconnected, but as Mary Pat searches for her daughter it starts to look otherwise. And somehow, the Irish mob are involved.
Mary Pat is the ultimate tiger mother. Her daughter Jules, is her only surviving child, and she’ll stop at nothing to find her - dead or alive.
This is brutal, and proves that ultimately revenge profits no one. The heat simmered off the page, as did the threatened and real violence. The writing is gorgeous despite the violence, and is a masterclass in how a writer can make the most ugly things so astonishing.
I’m expecting to see a film adaptation of this at some point - it reads like a screenplay.
This may well be my first novel by Lehane, but I doubt very much that it will be my last. Thanks for introducing me to another new-to-me author, Pigeonhole!
Sarah (7799 KP) rated The Witches (2020) in Movies
Mar 6, 2021
Not a patch on the original
The Witches is a 2020 retelling of the Roald Dahl children’s story, from director Robert Zemeckis. Remakes and reboots have been commonplace in the movies for quite some time, so it’s no surprise that The Witches has been given a Hollywood makeover, especially as it has been 30 years since the original film adaptation was released in 1990. I will readily admit that the original film is a childhood favourite, so this remake has very big shows to fill.
This time round, the story has been transported to late 1960s Alabama. It follows a unnamed boy (named in the credits as simply ‘Hero Boy’), played by Jahzir Bruno, and his grandma (Octavia Spencer) as they encounter a witch in their home town, prompting her to whisk him away to a seaside resort. Unbeknownst to them, this seaside resort is also where the Grand High Witch (Anne Hathaway) is due to unveil her dastardly plans to transform the world’s children. In his bids to thwart the witches plans, Hero Boy bumps into some familiar names, greedy English boy Bruno Jenkins (Codie-Lei Eastick) and put-upon hotel manager Mr Stringer (Stanley Tucci).
I was very sceptical about this in general, and while I think my scepticism was most definitely warranted, I was at least pleasantly surprised that moving the action from England to 60s America worked. It gives the film a different vibe with a new setting (with some very good costume and set design too), yet still keeping the same base story. However I’m afraid that’s the only good change that they’ve made in this entire remake. The 60s setting works, but the hotel itself lacks the beauty and grandeur of the hotel in the original. Gone are the imposing shots of a beautiful old hotel set on top of a cliff with its gorgeous landscapes (which incidentally is a real life hotel called The Headland which is on my travel wish list), and instead replaced with something that looks good on the surface, but is sadly lacking in realism and has obviously been entirely computer generated.
And this is the major problem with The Witches (2020), it’s over reliance and overuse of CGI. Everything in this, from the mice to the hotel exteriors to the witches true appearance, are all computer generated, and not particularly well at that. The mice look pretty bad and unrealistic, but the worst of all is what they’ve done to the witches. The changes themselves may have worked had this used practical effects, but sadly the CGI only serves to highlight how ridiculous the changes are. From the missing two fingers on each hand to the elongated mouths with demon like tongues, the witches to begin with seem creepy but after this initial shock, you see how absurd and laughable they really are.
Unfortunately even the performances can’t save this adaptation. Octavia Spencer is as reliable as always and Jazhir Bruno and Codie-Lei Eastick are quite adorable, but the rest of the fairly decent cast are sadly misplaced. The usually loveable Stanley Tucci is given absolutely nothing to work with, not even giving him a chance to try and match up to Rowan Atkinson’s original Mr Stringer, and Chris Rock is sadly out of place as the voice of older Hero Mouse. However the worst offender here is Anne Hathaway. Admittedly she isn’t helped much by the poor transformations to the witches appearance, but all the CGI in the world couldn’t fix her questionable Eastern European accent and hammy performance. The fact that Angelica Huston put in a more sinister and believable performance with 90s facial prosthetics and practical effects is a credit to her and only highlights how bad a choice Hathaway was for this role.
While parts of this remake aren’t entirely condemnable, as some aspects do stick closer to Dahl’s original source material, overall it is a far inferior adaptation that loses everything that made the 1990 film such a classic. Gone are the sinister witches and the dark stories of missing children (the girl stuck in the picture is an image that has always stuck with me), instead replaced with a far too lighthearted story with an over reliance on CGI. The most worrying thing of all is that even Robert Zemeckis and Guillermo Del Toro being involved couldn’t save this.
This time round, the story has been transported to late 1960s Alabama. It follows a unnamed boy (named in the credits as simply ‘Hero Boy’), played by Jahzir Bruno, and his grandma (Octavia Spencer) as they encounter a witch in their home town, prompting her to whisk him away to a seaside resort. Unbeknownst to them, this seaside resort is also where the Grand High Witch (Anne Hathaway) is due to unveil her dastardly plans to transform the world’s children. In his bids to thwart the witches plans, Hero Boy bumps into some familiar names, greedy English boy Bruno Jenkins (Codie-Lei Eastick) and put-upon hotel manager Mr Stringer (Stanley Tucci).
I was very sceptical about this in general, and while I think my scepticism was most definitely warranted, I was at least pleasantly surprised that moving the action from England to 60s America worked. It gives the film a different vibe with a new setting (with some very good costume and set design too), yet still keeping the same base story. However I’m afraid that’s the only good change that they’ve made in this entire remake. The 60s setting works, but the hotel itself lacks the beauty and grandeur of the hotel in the original. Gone are the imposing shots of a beautiful old hotel set on top of a cliff with its gorgeous landscapes (which incidentally is a real life hotel called The Headland which is on my travel wish list), and instead replaced with something that looks good on the surface, but is sadly lacking in realism and has obviously been entirely computer generated.
And this is the major problem with The Witches (2020), it’s over reliance and overuse of CGI. Everything in this, from the mice to the hotel exteriors to the witches true appearance, are all computer generated, and not particularly well at that. The mice look pretty bad and unrealistic, but the worst of all is what they’ve done to the witches. The changes themselves may have worked had this used practical effects, but sadly the CGI only serves to highlight how ridiculous the changes are. From the missing two fingers on each hand to the elongated mouths with demon like tongues, the witches to begin with seem creepy but after this initial shock, you see how absurd and laughable they really are.
Unfortunately even the performances can’t save this adaptation. Octavia Spencer is as reliable as always and Jazhir Bruno and Codie-Lei Eastick are quite adorable, but the rest of the fairly decent cast are sadly misplaced. The usually loveable Stanley Tucci is given absolutely nothing to work with, not even giving him a chance to try and match up to Rowan Atkinson’s original Mr Stringer, and Chris Rock is sadly out of place as the voice of older Hero Mouse. However the worst offender here is Anne Hathaway. Admittedly she isn’t helped much by the poor transformations to the witches appearance, but all the CGI in the world couldn’t fix her questionable Eastern European accent and hammy performance. The fact that Angelica Huston put in a more sinister and believable performance with 90s facial prosthetics and practical effects is a credit to her and only highlights how bad a choice Hathaway was for this role.
While parts of this remake aren’t entirely condemnable, as some aspects do stick closer to Dahl’s original source material, overall it is a far inferior adaptation that loses everything that made the 1990 film such a classic. Gone are the sinister witches and the dark stories of missing children (the girl stuck in the picture is an image that has always stuck with me), instead replaced with a far too lighthearted story with an over reliance on CGI. The most worrying thing of all is that even Robert Zemeckis and Guillermo Del Toro being involved couldn’t save this.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pete's Dragon (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Lovely in every sense of the word
2016 really does belong to Disney. The House of Mouse has been churning out some incredible films this year with the live-action remake of The Jungle Book proving sceptical audiences (and critics) completely wrong.
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
Leah (3 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Dec 31, 2017 (Updated Dec 31, 2017)
Humor (2 more)
Very beautiful
Loveably quirky lead character
More like "Murder on the BORE-ient Express" am I right?
I'm about to be THAT girl and tell you that the book is better. I mean, no contest there. But for those of you who don't give a ? about that, the movie does have some redeeming qualities.
Not a total snooze-fest. More like a yawn-fest. While it is beautifully shot, it had a very monotonous, dragging-on sort of cadence to it. Nothing happened, besides all the things that happened... But just nothing to pique your interest throughout the whole thing.
The lead character's personality and charm is to die for in this adaptation, compared to the book. He's just so wonderful and I love the play-up of his quirks. Some of the other characters shine as well. Daisy Ridley is brilliant. Surprisingly, Willem Dafoe does an awesome job and a very convincing German accent, despite his small part. Michelle Pfeiffer on the other hand, her "ok, THIS is why everyone loves her" moment never happened... until the end. Oh, that ending! So much more dramatic and enticing than what the book delivers. The "whodunit" part of the book was so nonchalant and not the climatic ending I had wanted. So be happy the movie pulled through in that department.
Overall, still entertaining, just don't expect a ton of action or fast-paced dialogue to keep your attention. Maybe skip the late-night showing and go to a matinee after getting some coffee ?
Not a total snooze-fest. More like a yawn-fest. While it is beautifully shot, it had a very monotonous, dragging-on sort of cadence to it. Nothing happened, besides all the things that happened... But just nothing to pique your interest throughout the whole thing.
The lead character's personality and charm is to die for in this adaptation, compared to the book. He's just so wonderful and I love the play-up of his quirks. Some of the other characters shine as well. Daisy Ridley is brilliant. Surprisingly, Willem Dafoe does an awesome job and a very convincing German accent, despite his small part. Michelle Pfeiffer on the other hand, her "ok, THIS is why everyone loves her" moment never happened... until the end. Oh, that ending! So much more dramatic and enticing than what the book delivers. The "whodunit" part of the book was so nonchalant and not the climatic ending I had wanted. So be happy the movie pulled through in that department.
Overall, still entertaining, just don't expect a ton of action or fast-paced dialogue to keep your attention. Maybe skip the late-night showing and go to a matinee after getting some coffee ?