Search
Search results
Kim-Joy's Magic Bakery
9.0
Rate It
Tabletop Game
Your favorite British Baker, Kim-Joy, has moved to a magical forest and opened up a small bakery....
We Germans
9.0
Rate It
Book
Winner of the Dayton Literary Peace Prize Shortlisted for the Prix Femina 2022 Shortlisted for...
Historical fiction World War II Eastern Front German Army
Murder at an English Séance
9.0
Rate It
Book
n post–World War I England, foul play at a suspicious séance provokes the delightfully mismatched...
Traitor's Game (Soldier Spy #1)
Book
1808. Captain Will Fraser has just returned from the Front in the Peninsular War. He is disgraced...
Historical Fiction Spies Napoleonic Wars
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Disney knocks it out of the park
It was 1964 when the world was introduced to a practically-perfect British nanny in Walt Disney’s Mary Poppins. Back then, Julie Andrews starred as the eponymous character alongside Dick van Dyke and David Tomlinson. It was an instant hit and became one of Disney’s most-loved feature films.
That is, by everyone apart from the author of Mary Poppins, PL Travers. So incensed by what she felt was Disney’s misunderstanding of her source material, she banned all future work with the studio.
So, 54 years later and with Travers’ estate finally agreeing to a sequel (I wonder how much Disney executives had to pay for that), we get a sequel that no-one was really asking for. Mary Poppins Returns brings the titular character back into the hearts of newcomers and fans alike, but is the film as practically-perfect in every way like its lead? Or is it a bit of a dud?
Now an adult with three children, bank teller Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) learns that his house will be repossessed in five days unless he can pay back a loan. His only hope is to find a missing certificate that shows proof of valuable shares that his father left him years earlier. Just as all seems lost, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) receive the surprise of a lifetime when Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the beloved nanny from their childhood, arrives to save the day and take the Banks family on a magical, fun-filled adventure.
Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins? You’re right to be sceptical. After all, how can an American actress bring to life a character so quintessentially British? Remarkably, she does it, with a cracking British accent to match. Blunt is, as she is in all her films, picture-perfect and oozing charisma. In fact, the entire cast is fabulous with the likes of Colin Firth and Meryl Streep joining the party as a sneaky bank manager and Mary Poppins’ cousin respectively. We’ve also got Julie Walters popping up every now and then as Ellen the housekeeper.
The new Banks children are absolutely wonderful. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh and Joel Dawson show a range of emotions that would make seasoned actors blush, but here they thrive and look like they were having a blast. And that’s a trait clearly shared by the entire cast. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s plucky lamp-lighter, Jack, is obviously having the time of his life and this makes the whimsical nature of Mary Poppins Returns even more apparent.
In its hey-day, Mary Poppins was a technical revolution. Mixing live-action with colourful animation made the screen burst alive with imagination. Of course, special effects have moved on in the 50+ years that Mary has been away from our screens, but you’ll be pleased to know that each sequence feels just as magical.
From under the sea adventures to topsy-turvy houses, the ‘action’ scenes are beautifully filmed by director Rob Marshall. One scene in particular, involving hundreds of lamp-lighters is absolutely astounding and exquisitely choreographed.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be?
The setting of Depression-era London lives and breathes before your very eyes. The CGI and practical effects used to create the capital in 1935 is astonishing, and testament to the teams behind the film. That £130million budget was clearly very well spent.
Then there are the songs. We all know the masterpieces from the original, but will there be any here that children will still be singing along to when they grow older? That’s debatable, but there are three or four that have the potential to be future classics. Look out for Trip the Light Fantastic, which makes up part of the film’s best scenes.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be? The world is filled with such atrocities, it’s nice to sit back, relax with the family and enjoy a film that allows you to escape into your own imagination.
Any downsides? Well, while the pacing is nearly spot on, there’s no denying that Mary Poppins Returns is a long film by family film standards. At 130 minutes, it feels like this sequel is perhaps more for fans of the original than the children that the older film was clearly made for.
But these are small gripes in a sequel that pleasantly surprises on each and every turn. While lacking in the typical Disney poignancy, the film’s message is read loud and clear. There’s no doubt that Mary Poppins Returns is yet another hit for the studio and you’re sure to leave the cinema with a huge smile on your face. Mary is back and she means business.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/23/mary-poppins-returns-review-disney-knocks-it-out-of-the-park/
That is, by everyone apart from the author of Mary Poppins, PL Travers. So incensed by what she felt was Disney’s misunderstanding of her source material, she banned all future work with the studio.
So, 54 years later and with Travers’ estate finally agreeing to a sequel (I wonder how much Disney executives had to pay for that), we get a sequel that no-one was really asking for. Mary Poppins Returns brings the titular character back into the hearts of newcomers and fans alike, but is the film as practically-perfect in every way like its lead? Or is it a bit of a dud?
Now an adult with three children, bank teller Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) learns that his house will be repossessed in five days unless he can pay back a loan. His only hope is to find a missing certificate that shows proof of valuable shares that his father left him years earlier. Just as all seems lost, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) receive the surprise of a lifetime when Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the beloved nanny from their childhood, arrives to save the day and take the Banks family on a magical, fun-filled adventure.
Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins? You’re right to be sceptical. After all, how can an American actress bring to life a character so quintessentially British? Remarkably, she does it, with a cracking British accent to match. Blunt is, as she is in all her films, picture-perfect and oozing charisma. In fact, the entire cast is fabulous with the likes of Colin Firth and Meryl Streep joining the party as a sneaky bank manager and Mary Poppins’ cousin respectively. We’ve also got Julie Walters popping up every now and then as Ellen the housekeeper.
The new Banks children are absolutely wonderful. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh and Joel Dawson show a range of emotions that would make seasoned actors blush, but here they thrive and look like they were having a blast. And that’s a trait clearly shared by the entire cast. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s plucky lamp-lighter, Jack, is obviously having the time of his life and this makes the whimsical nature of Mary Poppins Returns even more apparent.
In its hey-day, Mary Poppins was a technical revolution. Mixing live-action with colourful animation made the screen burst alive with imagination. Of course, special effects have moved on in the 50+ years that Mary has been away from our screens, but you’ll be pleased to know that each sequence feels just as magical.
From under the sea adventures to topsy-turvy houses, the ‘action’ scenes are beautifully filmed by director Rob Marshall. One scene in particular, involving hundreds of lamp-lighters is absolutely astounding and exquisitely choreographed.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be?
The setting of Depression-era London lives and breathes before your very eyes. The CGI and practical effects used to create the capital in 1935 is astonishing, and testament to the teams behind the film. That £130million budget was clearly very well spent.
Then there are the songs. We all know the masterpieces from the original, but will there be any here that children will still be singing along to when they grow older? That’s debatable, but there are three or four that have the potential to be future classics. Look out for Trip the Light Fantastic, which makes up part of the film’s best scenes.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be? The world is filled with such atrocities, it’s nice to sit back, relax with the family and enjoy a film that allows you to escape into your own imagination.
Any downsides? Well, while the pacing is nearly spot on, there’s no denying that Mary Poppins Returns is a long film by family film standards. At 130 minutes, it feels like this sequel is perhaps more for fans of the original than the children that the older film was clearly made for.
But these are small gripes in a sequel that pleasantly surprises on each and every turn. While lacking in the typical Disney poignancy, the film’s message is read loud and clear. There’s no doubt that Mary Poppins Returns is yet another hit for the studio and you’re sure to leave the cinema with a huge smile on your face. Mary is back and she means business.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/23/mary-poppins-returns-review-disney-knocks-it-out-of-the-park/
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Gold Manor Ghost House in Books
Jun 6, 2018
(This review can be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
I have to admit that the blurb is what drew me in to this book. While it wasn't really that ghostly, it was still a good book.
Usually any title with the word "ghost" in it captures my attention, and it was no different for this book. The title references the name of the tv show the characters are in. It also reflects real life for them.
I don't like the cover at all. It's not very captivating nor does it tell us anything about the book besides one of the characters is a girl. There's so many different covers this book could've had, so why settle on a boring photo of some girl. I just hope the cover doesn't put others off because this is a good read.
The world building, while believable, was confusing at some points in the book. I don't know if it's because a lot of questions will be revealed in the next book (if there is one) or what. There were times when I had no idea what was going on. I even would go back a few pages and reread them in case I had missed something, but I hadn't. I don't really know how to describe it other than to say the world building was choppy at times. Besides being confused, I found myself drawn to the world which the author created for this book. There were times when I felt like I was even one of the characters.
I enjoyed the pacing. Once you get past the confusing bits of the story, the pacing is done rather well. I was totally immersed in this book, and I could've wait to read the next chapter to find out what the characters would experience next.
The plot was interesting albeit confusing since we don't really know where and what Anna is yet. It's the typical good versus evil story, but written in a very interesting way. We're not sure who to trust yet, and we're left wondering with whether Anna is good or evil. The plot thickens...in the next book. (At least, I hope there's a next boo since so many questions are left unanswered).
I liked the character of Anna. She's been through a traumatizing experience, yet she's a strong person. I felt bad for her with what she was going through, and I loved her feelings for Adam! I enjoyed Adam. He's still a very mysterious character, not because he wasn't written well, but because I think the author wants to save what he's really about for another book (hopefully) and because she wants her audience to make up their own mind about him. I love how protective he is and how sexy he sounds! He's British (like my husband) so he instantly scored points with that one! I felt bad for Corey when it came to his unrequited love from Anna. He's her best friend, yet he yearns for more. I was Team Corey all the way even though I liked Adam. I wanted Anna and Corey to become a couple all throughout the book! He comes across as being a tad more sweet than Adam, and I don't know what it is about Corey, but I just loved him a lot. To me, he was better boyfriend material.
The dialogue didn't really sound like it was teenage like. It sounded more like the way adults would talk, not a bunch of teenagers. However, I did enjoy the dialogue but kept forgetting that Anna was meant to be only sixteen. It annoyed me how Adam kept saying "love" though. I found it to be too stereotypical. Yes, some British people do say "love," but Adam seemed to say it an awful lot. Having lived in England for 6 years, I can tell you that British people do not say "love" all the time. However that's just a me thing and shouldn't affect the book for others. I enjoyed the scenes Corey was in the most though as his dialogue was the most enjoyable in my opinion. I didn't notice any swearing in this book.
Overall, Gold Manor Ghost House by Merry Brown is an enjoyable book despite some of its confusing scenes and minor faults. I really hope there's a second book in the works because I enjoyed the first one and am wanting my questions to be answered. The way the first book is written, it seems like there will be a second book which I will most definitely read!
I'd recommend this book for those aged 14+ who are fans of the paranormal that are also looking for a bit of romance.
I'd give Gold Manor Ghost House by Merry Brown a 3.75 out of 5.
(I received a free ecopy of this book from the tour host in exchange for a fair and honest review).
I have to admit that the blurb is what drew me in to this book. While it wasn't really that ghostly, it was still a good book.
Usually any title with the word "ghost" in it captures my attention, and it was no different for this book. The title references the name of the tv show the characters are in. It also reflects real life for them.
I don't like the cover at all. It's not very captivating nor does it tell us anything about the book besides one of the characters is a girl. There's so many different covers this book could've had, so why settle on a boring photo of some girl. I just hope the cover doesn't put others off because this is a good read.
The world building, while believable, was confusing at some points in the book. I don't know if it's because a lot of questions will be revealed in the next book (if there is one) or what. There were times when I had no idea what was going on. I even would go back a few pages and reread them in case I had missed something, but I hadn't. I don't really know how to describe it other than to say the world building was choppy at times. Besides being confused, I found myself drawn to the world which the author created for this book. There were times when I felt like I was even one of the characters.
I enjoyed the pacing. Once you get past the confusing bits of the story, the pacing is done rather well. I was totally immersed in this book, and I could've wait to read the next chapter to find out what the characters would experience next.
The plot was interesting albeit confusing since we don't really know where and what Anna is yet. It's the typical good versus evil story, but written in a very interesting way. We're not sure who to trust yet, and we're left wondering with whether Anna is good or evil. The plot thickens...in the next book. (At least, I hope there's a next boo since so many questions are left unanswered).
I liked the character of Anna. She's been through a traumatizing experience, yet she's a strong person. I felt bad for her with what she was going through, and I loved her feelings for Adam! I enjoyed Adam. He's still a very mysterious character, not because he wasn't written well, but because I think the author wants to save what he's really about for another book (hopefully) and because she wants her audience to make up their own mind about him. I love how protective he is and how sexy he sounds! He's British (like my husband) so he instantly scored points with that one! I felt bad for Corey when it came to his unrequited love from Anna. He's her best friend, yet he yearns for more. I was Team Corey all the way even though I liked Adam. I wanted Anna and Corey to become a couple all throughout the book! He comes across as being a tad more sweet than Adam, and I don't know what it is about Corey, but I just loved him a lot. To me, he was better boyfriend material.
The dialogue didn't really sound like it was teenage like. It sounded more like the way adults would talk, not a bunch of teenagers. However, I did enjoy the dialogue but kept forgetting that Anna was meant to be only sixteen. It annoyed me how Adam kept saying "love" though. I found it to be too stereotypical. Yes, some British people do say "love," but Adam seemed to say it an awful lot. Having lived in England for 6 years, I can tell you that British people do not say "love" all the time. However that's just a me thing and shouldn't affect the book for others. I enjoyed the scenes Corey was in the most though as his dialogue was the most enjoyable in my opinion. I didn't notice any swearing in this book.
Overall, Gold Manor Ghost House by Merry Brown is an enjoyable book despite some of its confusing scenes and minor faults. I really hope there's a second book in the works because I enjoyed the first one and am wanting my questions to be answered. The way the first book is written, it seems like there will be a second book which I will most definitely read!
I'd recommend this book for those aged 14+ who are fans of the paranormal that are also looking for a bit of romance.
I'd give Gold Manor Ghost House by Merry Brown a 3.75 out of 5.
(I received a free ecopy of this book from the tour host in exchange for a fair and honest review).
Louise (64 KP) rated Me Before You in Books
Jul 2, 2018
This book has all the feels and is just all round fantastic, in my eyes this book was faultless!
Lou Clark has recently just lost her job and is in desperate need to find an alternative to be able to pay rent and help support her sister, nephew and grandfather. Lou hasn’t got many skills listed on her CV after working at the ‘Buttered Bun’ so it’s difficult to find a job in the small village with decent pay. When her job seeker advises her a position has just come up for a carer/assistant for a paraplegic, Lou is hesitant, she hasn’t the faintest idea if she could do this job and concerned about having to help people to the toilet. Incredibly Lou manages to get the job, and is introduced to Will Traynor. Will is paralysed from the waist down with limited use of his hands and Lou’s job is to help him eat, drink and to just keep him company. With Will grieving for the life he used to have and Lou being a happy-go-lucky sort of gal, they begin to change each others lives in ways they did not expect.
I will start off with the characters, they were great, equally complex and just all round enjoyable to read about. Lou was just brilliant with her quirky dress code and very British humour. She made me laugh quite a lot during this book especially when she felt awkward and would say stupid things. I loved Will, yeah he was brooding and foreboding but who wouldn’t be if they were put in that situation. Will was very humourous, he was very witty and sarcastic and matched Lou, between them they had some amazing banter that just made me smile throughout this book. The one character who I didn’t particularly like was Patrick, Patrick is Lou’s boyfriend, they have been together for years and it seems they have settled into a somewhat comfortable relationship, maybe too comfortable. Patrick is obsessed with doing a triathlon/marathon, he is constantly training, Lou is always working so they don’t see much each other but what makes him unlikable is his jealousy and that he takes Lou for granted.
This book has one of the best family dynamics I have ever read and I really really loved it. Lou lives with her mum, Dad,Sister, Nephew and Grandad. The interactions between them all were so realistic and relatable and the reasons for them living the way they were is how a lot of families live nowadays. I will keep saying this but everything about the family was so British and I loved it.It made me feel proud to be British….. I dunno why but it just did.
The book is told mainly from Lou’s perspective, however you do get a chapter or two from alternative POV’s such as Camilla (Will’s mother) and I really appreciated it, however I enjoyed Lou so much that I didn’t want the other perspective. If Jojo hadn’t of done this I would probably be writing how much I would have liked an alternative POV. (Sometimes you just can’t win).
Jojo Moyes certainly opened my eyes to how people with spinal cord injuries live and how inadequate they must feel, especially as Will had such a fulfilling job and enjoyed life to the full before his accident.
The book is packed full of emotions, you had the whole awkwardness, the sarcasm and laughs. Banter between the characters and also there were sad moments and I never NEVER! cry at books. But Jojo Moyes broke me and she did the impossible…. she made me cry! It’s all down to her fantastic storytelling, character development and great writing. The book is quite big (pagewise) but due to Moyes writing style it’s a really fun, quick and easy read.
The Movie! Will I be seeing it? I am not sure! I don’t want it to be really crap and let me down. I watched the trailer and I am just not sure about the cast! When I look at Lou I will always be thinking Daenerys and I pictured Will being more attractive…..more like Patrick Dempsey (even though he is probably too old for the role) The other question that needs to be answered is, Will I be reading the sequel ‘After you’? Again I don’t know! I have heard that it’s not as good and also I don’t want anything to spoil my view of this book. Let me know if any of you have read after you and if it’s worth it. I will be looking into Jojo Moyes other books. I would give this book all the stars in the world I absolutely loved it.
I recommend this to anyone.
Overall I rated this 5 out of 5 stars
Lou Clark has recently just lost her job and is in desperate need to find an alternative to be able to pay rent and help support her sister, nephew and grandfather. Lou hasn’t got many skills listed on her CV after working at the ‘Buttered Bun’ so it’s difficult to find a job in the small village with decent pay. When her job seeker advises her a position has just come up for a carer/assistant for a paraplegic, Lou is hesitant, she hasn’t the faintest idea if she could do this job and concerned about having to help people to the toilet. Incredibly Lou manages to get the job, and is introduced to Will Traynor. Will is paralysed from the waist down with limited use of his hands and Lou’s job is to help him eat, drink and to just keep him company. With Will grieving for the life he used to have and Lou being a happy-go-lucky sort of gal, they begin to change each others lives in ways they did not expect.
I will start off with the characters, they were great, equally complex and just all round enjoyable to read about. Lou was just brilliant with her quirky dress code and very British humour. She made me laugh quite a lot during this book especially when she felt awkward and would say stupid things. I loved Will, yeah he was brooding and foreboding but who wouldn’t be if they were put in that situation. Will was very humourous, he was very witty and sarcastic and matched Lou, between them they had some amazing banter that just made me smile throughout this book. The one character who I didn’t particularly like was Patrick, Patrick is Lou’s boyfriend, they have been together for years and it seems they have settled into a somewhat comfortable relationship, maybe too comfortable. Patrick is obsessed with doing a triathlon/marathon, he is constantly training, Lou is always working so they don’t see much each other but what makes him unlikable is his jealousy and that he takes Lou for granted.
This book has one of the best family dynamics I have ever read and I really really loved it. Lou lives with her mum, Dad,Sister, Nephew and Grandad. The interactions between them all were so realistic and relatable and the reasons for them living the way they were is how a lot of families live nowadays. I will keep saying this but everything about the family was so British and I loved it.It made me feel proud to be British….. I dunno why but it just did.
The book is told mainly from Lou’s perspective, however you do get a chapter or two from alternative POV’s such as Camilla (Will’s mother) and I really appreciated it, however I enjoyed Lou so much that I didn’t want the other perspective. If Jojo hadn’t of done this I would probably be writing how much I would have liked an alternative POV. (Sometimes you just can’t win).
Jojo Moyes certainly opened my eyes to how people with spinal cord injuries live and how inadequate they must feel, especially as Will had such a fulfilling job and enjoyed life to the full before his accident.
The book is packed full of emotions, you had the whole awkwardness, the sarcasm and laughs. Banter between the characters and also there were sad moments and I never NEVER! cry at books. But Jojo Moyes broke me and she did the impossible…. she made me cry! It’s all down to her fantastic storytelling, character development and great writing. The book is quite big (pagewise) but due to Moyes writing style it’s a really fun, quick and easy read.
The Movie! Will I be seeing it? I am not sure! I don’t want it to be really crap and let me down. I watched the trailer and I am just not sure about the cast! When I look at Lou I will always be thinking Daenerys and I pictured Will being more attractive…..more like Patrick Dempsey (even though he is probably too old for the role) The other question that needs to be answered is, Will I be reading the sequel ‘After you’? Again I don’t know! I have heard that it’s not as good and also I don’t want anything to spoil my view of this book. Let me know if any of you have read after you and if it’s worth it. I will be looking into Jojo Moyes other books. I would give this book all the stars in the world I absolutely loved it.
I recommend this to anyone.
Overall I rated this 5 out of 5 stars
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Jimmy's Hall (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
It’s not to often that we folks in America have the opportunity to catch any movies from Ireland.
The few that do come along almost certainly rate high on the scale of exceptional movies that one would want to see. I myself can’t remember a ‘bad’ Irish film. Perhaps one of the reasons for that is the fact that this country has a solid history of countless Irish immigrants coming here and helping to build the foundations for America. Well, today’s film for your consideration doesn’t go back THAT far. It doesn’t even take place in America. However, the history of Irish immigrants (specifically one immigrant) does play a role. Only it involves an Irish immigrant how came to America and then several years later returned to Ireland only to be forcibly deported back to America. I know I know. That explanation makes it sound like a comedy and although the film has many lighthearted moments, I can assure you it’s NOT a comedy. In fact, it deals with an influential figure in one of the more politically turbulent periods in Ireland’s history just before the beginning of the Second World War.
‘Jimmy’s Hall’ is a 2014 Irish-British drama directed by English television and film director Kenneth ‘Ken’ Loach. The film focuses on the events leading up to the deportation from Ireland of Jimmy Gralton, who led a precursor to Ireland’s communist party in the county Leitrim.
Starring Barry Ward, Simone Kirby, and Irish character actor Jim Norton, the film opens in 1932. Jimmy (Ward) has just returned to his home to help his mother tend the family farm after spending 10 years in the United States in the midst of the Great Depression coinciding with the establishment of a new government in the aftermath of the Civil War between pro-British and anti-British forces.
Reluctant to anger his old enemies, the church and the landowners who forced him to leave Ireland, but eager to meet the needs of the people of Leitrim, Jimmy (Ward) decides to reopen the ‘Hall’, a center for young people where they can meet to study, talk, dance, play music, learn to read, debate issues of the day. Free to all and open to anyone who wishes to learn while respecting the views and opinions of others, the ‘Hall’ is an immediate success. Not everyone is pleased to see Jimmy resuming his old activities. In particular the church and local priest (Norton) who see Gralton as not only a ‘bad influence’, but also as a follower of Stalin who as history knows sent countless millions (including religious leaders) to their deaths.
Despite the complaints and at times violent reactions on the part of the supporters of the church and the landowners, Gralton tries desperately to make them realize he has absolutely no connection to Stalin and has no desire to bring down the church. Only to better the situation for everyone. Jimmy even invites the local priest to take a leadership role in the Hall’s committee. In the end though, the fears of the church and the state go unchanged. Jimmy is a communist and although he has no connection Stalin the church and the government see them as one in the same. The police take Jimmy into custody at his family’s farm and forcibly deport him back to America even so much as denying him on last chance to see his ailing mother.
In education systems there are books and films which are considered ‘required reading’ or in this case ‘required viewing’. This film should be required viewing. It is not just an excellent film about a historical Irish political figure or as I mentioned earlier a film about a turbulent point in Irish history. It’s an example of the greater ‘world conflict’ between what became the western bloc and the eastern bloc. Both sides in that grater conflict saw each other the same way the two sides in the Irish countryside of the 1930s saw each other. The ones that meant well and only wanted to better the situation for everyone including themselves inspired fear in those who had power and those who had the power inspired fear in those who meant well. This movie showed that not all political figures are evil … nor are all religious figures. It’s the individual or several individuals within those groups that are reluctant to change.
I would highly recommend this film. Regardless of the content it’s an excellent film. If this film is as good as most films made in Ireland, they definitely need to start exporting them on a grander scale. I’d give this film 4 out of 5 stars.
This is your friendly neighborhood photographer ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ I’d like to say thanks for reading and we’ll see you at the movies
The few that do come along almost certainly rate high on the scale of exceptional movies that one would want to see. I myself can’t remember a ‘bad’ Irish film. Perhaps one of the reasons for that is the fact that this country has a solid history of countless Irish immigrants coming here and helping to build the foundations for America. Well, today’s film for your consideration doesn’t go back THAT far. It doesn’t even take place in America. However, the history of Irish immigrants (specifically one immigrant) does play a role. Only it involves an Irish immigrant how came to America and then several years later returned to Ireland only to be forcibly deported back to America. I know I know. That explanation makes it sound like a comedy and although the film has many lighthearted moments, I can assure you it’s NOT a comedy. In fact, it deals with an influential figure in one of the more politically turbulent periods in Ireland’s history just before the beginning of the Second World War.
‘Jimmy’s Hall’ is a 2014 Irish-British drama directed by English television and film director Kenneth ‘Ken’ Loach. The film focuses on the events leading up to the deportation from Ireland of Jimmy Gralton, who led a precursor to Ireland’s communist party in the county Leitrim.
Starring Barry Ward, Simone Kirby, and Irish character actor Jim Norton, the film opens in 1932. Jimmy (Ward) has just returned to his home to help his mother tend the family farm after spending 10 years in the United States in the midst of the Great Depression coinciding with the establishment of a new government in the aftermath of the Civil War between pro-British and anti-British forces.
Reluctant to anger his old enemies, the church and the landowners who forced him to leave Ireland, but eager to meet the needs of the people of Leitrim, Jimmy (Ward) decides to reopen the ‘Hall’, a center for young people where they can meet to study, talk, dance, play music, learn to read, debate issues of the day. Free to all and open to anyone who wishes to learn while respecting the views and opinions of others, the ‘Hall’ is an immediate success. Not everyone is pleased to see Jimmy resuming his old activities. In particular the church and local priest (Norton) who see Gralton as not only a ‘bad influence’, but also as a follower of Stalin who as history knows sent countless millions (including religious leaders) to their deaths.
Despite the complaints and at times violent reactions on the part of the supporters of the church and the landowners, Gralton tries desperately to make them realize he has absolutely no connection to Stalin and has no desire to bring down the church. Only to better the situation for everyone. Jimmy even invites the local priest to take a leadership role in the Hall’s committee. In the end though, the fears of the church and the state go unchanged. Jimmy is a communist and although he has no connection Stalin the church and the government see them as one in the same. The police take Jimmy into custody at his family’s farm and forcibly deport him back to America even so much as denying him on last chance to see his ailing mother.
In education systems there are books and films which are considered ‘required reading’ or in this case ‘required viewing’. This film should be required viewing. It is not just an excellent film about a historical Irish political figure or as I mentioned earlier a film about a turbulent point in Irish history. It’s an example of the greater ‘world conflict’ between what became the western bloc and the eastern bloc. Both sides in that grater conflict saw each other the same way the two sides in the Irish countryside of the 1930s saw each other. The ones that meant well and only wanted to better the situation for everyone including themselves inspired fear in those who had power and those who had the power inspired fear in those who meant well. This movie showed that not all political figures are evil … nor are all religious figures. It’s the individual or several individuals within those groups that are reluctant to change.
I would highly recommend this film. Regardless of the content it’s an excellent film. If this film is as good as most films made in Ireland, they definitely need to start exporting them on a grander scale. I’d give this film 4 out of 5 stars.
This is your friendly neighborhood photographer ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ I’d like to say thanks for reading and we’ll see you at the movies
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Triumph
Brutal. Spectacular. Emotional. These are just some of the adjectives you could use to describe Christopher Nolan’s latest film, Dunkirk. The director of Inception, The Dark Knight, Memento and Interstellar is one of the greatest film-makers working today and he raises the bar once again with this bleak tale from World War II.
With war, you have to respect the past whilst allowing modern-day film-goers to truly understand the brutality that ordinary people like you and I went through on a daily basis.
In May 1940, Germany had advanced into France, trapping Allied troops on the beaches of Dunkirk. Under air and ground cover from British and French forces, troops were slowly and methodically evacuated from the beach using not only military ships but civilian boats too. At the end of this incredible story of courage, 330,000 French, British, Belgian and Dutch soldiers were safely evacuated.
I found a quote the other day that said “Christopher Nolan is like Michael Bay for people who have ever read a book” and in Dunkirk that seems more apt than ever. Of course there are explosions, many of them, but they are interweaved with some incredible storytelling.
Split into three separate timelines, Dunkirk follows fisherman Mark Rylance as he sails to the beaches as part of the civilian rescue effort. On land we shadow a group of young soldiers desperately trying to get back home. Finally, the film flies alongside Tom Hardy’s brave Spitfire pilot as he tries his best to keep the beaches safe.
Each of the stories has something to offer but Mark Rylance’s performance is definitely the best, making his timeline the most interesting and often the most emotional. Addressing the elephant in the room, Harry Styles, is probably best at this part of the review – he’s excellent and in a much larger part than I had imagined.
In fact, all the performances are excellent, helped in part by Christopher Nolan’s incredible use of close-ups. This is a living, breathing war and as the audience, you feel as claustrophobic as the 400,000 men did waiting on that beach in 1940.
Moreover, the sound is just astonishing. I have never known a film use sound to such an extent to convey sheer terror. The score by Hans Zimmer, coupled with the deafening aircraft flying overhead and the rapid gunfire is incredibly harrowing and makes Dunkirk very hard to watch at times – despite its 12A certification.
Dunkirk is also a masterclass in practical effects. Nearly everything you see on screen was shot without the use of CGI and my goodness you can tell. We’re so used to seeing blockbusters filled to the brim with computer generated imagery that it’s easy to forget just how good practical effects can be.
Overall, Christopher Nolan has created a tasteful homage to a day that has been etched into the minds of generations of people. It would’ve been easy to create a film that focused on the action rather than the human details of this incredible story, but Nolan has managed to craft an absolute triumph. It’s one of the best films of the year and an absolute must-watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/23/dunkirk-review-a-triumph/
With war, you have to respect the past whilst allowing modern-day film-goers to truly understand the brutality that ordinary people like you and I went through on a daily basis.
In May 1940, Germany had advanced into France, trapping Allied troops on the beaches of Dunkirk. Under air and ground cover from British and French forces, troops were slowly and methodically evacuated from the beach using not only military ships but civilian boats too. At the end of this incredible story of courage, 330,000 French, British, Belgian and Dutch soldiers were safely evacuated.
I found a quote the other day that said “Christopher Nolan is like Michael Bay for people who have ever read a book” and in Dunkirk that seems more apt than ever. Of course there are explosions, many of them, but they are interweaved with some incredible storytelling.
Split into three separate timelines, Dunkirk follows fisherman Mark Rylance as he sails to the beaches as part of the civilian rescue effort. On land we shadow a group of young soldiers desperately trying to get back home. Finally, the film flies alongside Tom Hardy’s brave Spitfire pilot as he tries his best to keep the beaches safe.
Each of the stories has something to offer but Mark Rylance’s performance is definitely the best, making his timeline the most interesting and often the most emotional. Addressing the elephant in the room, Harry Styles, is probably best at this part of the review – he’s excellent and in a much larger part than I had imagined.
In fact, all the performances are excellent, helped in part by Christopher Nolan’s incredible use of close-ups. This is a living, breathing war and as the audience, you feel as claustrophobic as the 400,000 men did waiting on that beach in 1940.
Moreover, the sound is just astonishing. I have never known a film use sound to such an extent to convey sheer terror. The score by Hans Zimmer, coupled with the deafening aircraft flying overhead and the rapid gunfire is incredibly harrowing and makes Dunkirk very hard to watch at times – despite its 12A certification.
Dunkirk is also a masterclass in practical effects. Nearly everything you see on screen was shot without the use of CGI and my goodness you can tell. We’re so used to seeing blockbusters filled to the brim with computer generated imagery that it’s easy to forget just how good practical effects can be.
Overall, Christopher Nolan has created a tasteful homage to a day that has been etched into the minds of generations of people. It would’ve been easy to create a film that focused on the action rather than the human details of this incredible story, but Nolan has managed to craft an absolute triumph. It’s one of the best films of the year and an absolute must-watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/23/dunkirk-review-a-triumph/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Bridget Jones's Baby (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
No Big Bloomers?
Bridget Jones’s Diary is a classic example of the perfect British rom-com. Upon its release in 2001, yes 15 years ago, it catapulted Renée Zellweger into the public eye and made household names of its other stars.
Its sequel, The Edge of Reason, on the other hand was a dramatic fall from grace, with a lowly 27% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Since then, the series has fallen into a dormant state with talks of another sequel doing the rounds since as early as 2004.
Fast-forward 12 years and the prayers of fans the world over have finally been answered. However, the comedy genre has moved on from the warm, fuzzy rom-coms of the past and in its place are the foul-mouthed female-led films of the present. But does Bridget Jones’s Baby get the balance right? Or is it a good decade too late?
Breaking up with Mark Darcy (Colin Firth) leaves Bridget Jones (Renée Zellweger) over 40 and single again. Feeling that she has everything under control, Jones decides to focus on her career as a top news producer. Suddenly, her love life comes back from the dead when she meets a handsome American named Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Things couldn’t be better, until Bridget discovers that she is pregnant. From then on, the befuddled mum-to-be must figure out if the proud dad is Mark or Jack.
The casting choices throughout the film are spot on and it’s a pleasure to see Colin Firth back on the big screen. His quintessentially British persona has been a highlight of both previous films and it’s no exception here. Patrick Dempsey’s turn as the dashing American stallion is sheer perfection and both he and Firth remain intensely likeable as the movie progresses, despite their obvious flaws.
Of course, praise must go to Renée Zellweger who, despite 12 years in between filming, manages to channel that iconic character like it was yesterday. She may look different to how we all remember her, but as soon as she speaks, it’s impossible not to feel at home.
Elsewhere, Emma Thompson, Jim Broadbent and Celia Imrie all pop up from time to time with the former providing Bridget Jones’s Baby with some of its best comedic moments. Her character is sharp and very well written indeed.
It would be very easy to go picking around the plot; criticising its blatant lack of originality, but that’s not what director Sharon Maguire was aiming for. Instead, she cleverly crafts a film that remains faithful to its predecessors, all the while introducing a new generation of comedy fans to the titular character.
What does this mean? Well, it toes the line quite well between the heart-warming qualities of the original and the over-the-top hilarity of films like Bridesmaids and Spy. This may not sit well with some die-hard fans of the series, but it’s sure to be a winner for the more modern movie-goer.
Overall, Bridget Jones’s Baby is better than it ever had the right to be. It’s nostalgic, beautifully sweet, ridiculous, over-the-top and quite frankly, absolutely hilarious. I haven’t laughed that much in years, it’s a must see for fans and newcomers alike.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/17/no-big-bloomers-bridget-joness-baby-review/
Its sequel, The Edge of Reason, on the other hand was a dramatic fall from grace, with a lowly 27% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Since then, the series has fallen into a dormant state with talks of another sequel doing the rounds since as early as 2004.
Fast-forward 12 years and the prayers of fans the world over have finally been answered. However, the comedy genre has moved on from the warm, fuzzy rom-coms of the past and in its place are the foul-mouthed female-led films of the present. But does Bridget Jones’s Baby get the balance right? Or is it a good decade too late?
Breaking up with Mark Darcy (Colin Firth) leaves Bridget Jones (Renée Zellweger) over 40 and single again. Feeling that she has everything under control, Jones decides to focus on her career as a top news producer. Suddenly, her love life comes back from the dead when she meets a handsome American named Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Things couldn’t be better, until Bridget discovers that she is pregnant. From then on, the befuddled mum-to-be must figure out if the proud dad is Mark or Jack.
The casting choices throughout the film are spot on and it’s a pleasure to see Colin Firth back on the big screen. His quintessentially British persona has been a highlight of both previous films and it’s no exception here. Patrick Dempsey’s turn as the dashing American stallion is sheer perfection and both he and Firth remain intensely likeable as the movie progresses, despite their obvious flaws.
Of course, praise must go to Renée Zellweger who, despite 12 years in between filming, manages to channel that iconic character like it was yesterday. She may look different to how we all remember her, but as soon as she speaks, it’s impossible not to feel at home.
Elsewhere, Emma Thompson, Jim Broadbent and Celia Imrie all pop up from time to time with the former providing Bridget Jones’s Baby with some of its best comedic moments. Her character is sharp and very well written indeed.
It would be very easy to go picking around the plot; criticising its blatant lack of originality, but that’s not what director Sharon Maguire was aiming for. Instead, she cleverly crafts a film that remains faithful to its predecessors, all the while introducing a new generation of comedy fans to the titular character.
What does this mean? Well, it toes the line quite well between the heart-warming qualities of the original and the over-the-top hilarity of films like Bridesmaids and Spy. This may not sit well with some die-hard fans of the series, but it’s sure to be a winner for the more modern movie-goer.
Overall, Bridget Jones’s Baby is better than it ever had the right to be. It’s nostalgic, beautifully sweet, ridiculous, over-the-top and quite frankly, absolutely hilarious. I haven’t laughed that much in years, it’s a must see for fans and newcomers alike.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/09/17/no-big-bloomers-bridget-joness-baby-review/