Search
Search results
Baby piano for kids & toddlers
Education and Games
App
Music games for kids that will help your baby spend his time with an electronic device effectively....
JT (287 KP) rated Killing Them Softly (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
There was quite a significant gap between films for writer/director Andrew Dominik, five years in fact. His last feature length outing The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford was a Western epic and here he has teamed up with Brad Pitt again for Killing Them Softly, one with a significantly shorter run time.
Pitt plays Jackie Cogan a gun for hire who is called in to clean up the mess made after a mob protected card game is robbed and the criminal economy takes an unexpected nose dive. With the criminal underworld unsure of who to trust and with no games being run it’s up to Cogan to eliminate those responsible and get trust restored.
The film is also set against real footage of Bush and Obama referring to the struggling US economy and the need for the country to pull together as a community to get itself back on track, which is ironic given the narrative that Dominik is conveying. The group behind the heist are hardly your career criminals, Frankie (Scoot McNairy) and Russell (Ben Mendelsohn) are a pair of down and outs looking for some fast cash.
These guys are a highlight, prepping for the robbery with yellow rubber gloves, masks and a sawn off shotgun so short it would take everyone out who’s in the room. Mendelsohn is especially solid, his appearance as a disheveled drug taking dog thief is one of the few comedic elements to an otherwise dry film.
Killing Them Softly is a film where you have to rely heavily on the acting, and there is plenty on show. Pitt of course is ever commanding in his role, slicked back hair and leather jacket he’s the archetypal hitman, he calls the shots and others listen.
Then there is James Gandolfini, no stranger to the world of fictional organized crime having been head of the most famous TV family, the Sopranos. Gandolfini is another hitman, called on by Pitt to assist in taking out one of the targets, however the only thing he’s capable of doing is consuming large amounts of booze and women.
Add into the mix Ray Liotta (another with a fictional mafia past) who’s responsible for knocking off his own card game in the beginning, he’s the innocent party this time around and is whacked in a spectacular slow motion capture drive by. Dominik’s script is nowhere near as tight or as in depth as Chopper, it becomes confused at times and it’s hard to know exactly where it is supposed to lead us.
There is no question that the acting is top draw and there are some great scenes of dialogue that leaves you wanting more, of course it does seem to drift on a bit too much and the short sharp cuts between actors can get annoying.
It’s fair to say it has its share of brutal violence, poor Markie Trattman (Liotta) is on the receiving end of one of cinemas heaviest beatings, and when the hits are made there is no getting away from the realism to them, blood will fly.
At the end of the film Cogan has been short changed for his work, and as an audience you might feel short changed that the film promised was not the one returned?
Pitt plays Jackie Cogan a gun for hire who is called in to clean up the mess made after a mob protected card game is robbed and the criminal economy takes an unexpected nose dive. With the criminal underworld unsure of who to trust and with no games being run it’s up to Cogan to eliminate those responsible and get trust restored.
The film is also set against real footage of Bush and Obama referring to the struggling US economy and the need for the country to pull together as a community to get itself back on track, which is ironic given the narrative that Dominik is conveying. The group behind the heist are hardly your career criminals, Frankie (Scoot McNairy) and Russell (Ben Mendelsohn) are a pair of down and outs looking for some fast cash.
These guys are a highlight, prepping for the robbery with yellow rubber gloves, masks and a sawn off shotgun so short it would take everyone out who’s in the room. Mendelsohn is especially solid, his appearance as a disheveled drug taking dog thief is one of the few comedic elements to an otherwise dry film.
Killing Them Softly is a film where you have to rely heavily on the acting, and there is plenty on show. Pitt of course is ever commanding in his role, slicked back hair and leather jacket he’s the archetypal hitman, he calls the shots and others listen.
Then there is James Gandolfini, no stranger to the world of fictional organized crime having been head of the most famous TV family, the Sopranos. Gandolfini is another hitman, called on by Pitt to assist in taking out one of the targets, however the only thing he’s capable of doing is consuming large amounts of booze and women.
Add into the mix Ray Liotta (another with a fictional mafia past) who’s responsible for knocking off his own card game in the beginning, he’s the innocent party this time around and is whacked in a spectacular slow motion capture drive by. Dominik’s script is nowhere near as tight or as in depth as Chopper, it becomes confused at times and it’s hard to know exactly where it is supposed to lead us.
There is no question that the acting is top draw and there are some great scenes of dialogue that leaves you wanting more, of course it does seem to drift on a bit too much and the short sharp cuts between actors can get annoying.
It’s fair to say it has its share of brutal violence, poor Markie Trattman (Liotta) is on the receiving end of one of cinemas heaviest beatings, and when the hits are made there is no getting away from the realism to them, blood will fly.
At the end of the film Cogan has been short changed for his work, and as an audience you might feel short changed that the film promised was not the one returned?
Where'd You Go, Bernadette?
8.6
Rate It
Book
A compulsively readable and touching novel about misplaced genius and a mother and daughter's role...
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Existenz (1999) in Movies
Sep 23, 2019
The 1999 body horror version of Ready Player One
Famed, innovative but reclusive software developer Allegra Geller is ready to unveil her latest virtual augmented reality game, eXistenZ, and has invited her biggest fans and followers to the first best test launch party ever. The game features bio-mechanical controller ports which actually get plugged into the gamer's spine for the fully immersive experience.
Unfortunately, her party was rudely interrupted by a would-be assassin who wants to put an end to Geller before the game is released. Wounded but not executed, her fate is given to be marketing assistant who has never played a game in his life. The two escape and begin a road trip like no other trying to navigate their situation and figure out who they can trust.
The game novice, Ted Pikul, soon gets himself a "port" so he can join Gellar in the game and to also ascertain whether her main controller hub was severely damaged in the attempt on her lie. Once jacked in, he begins to slowly morph into a more submersive version of the same gradually losing control of himself an becoming his in game character.
The other "participants" they meet serve to enhance the game experience either with conflict or assistance, but it is hard to tell which side everyone plays for. The two become passionate for each other, but still are unable to comprehend whether their feelings are real or just part of the game.
They need to figure out how to finish the game so they can return back to reality.
The last of David Cronenberg's "Body Horror" films before he took his career in a different direction in the 2000s with films like "Eastern Promises" and "A History of Violence", eXistenZ is one truly wild and unique ride. If you have seen some of his other film in the genre like "The Fly" or "The Brood" you would be used to the over-the-top gore, brutality and strange way of storytelling he has made his career.
His characters are flawed, but motivated and that is why you are interested in their situation and go along with them. This film has some remarkable visceral, macabre elements that make it extremely unique, which is why you watch a movie like this. The internet was only a few years old in 1999 and games like World of Warcraft were still years away; however, this film underscores the dangers of becoming too close to the online world and the dangers it could cause.
At many points during the film, you wonder whether you are still within the game itself similar to watching a "Nightmare on Elm Street" film and wondering if you are still dreaming.
Jennifer Jason Leigh has never really gotten the respect she deserves. Whether in the recent "The Hateful Eight" or in films like "Dolores Claiborne" or "Single White Female" she has shown longevity and the ability to play complex, sometimes unlikable characters with the charisma and charm. I liked the fact she was a female game designer, leading in her field, in 1999 when there were probably not many like her at the time.
This film will keep you guessing all the way to the end and even leave you to interpret what you have just seen as the credits roll.
Easily recommended for gruesome horror fans.
Unfortunately, her party was rudely interrupted by a would-be assassin who wants to put an end to Geller before the game is released. Wounded but not executed, her fate is given to be marketing assistant who has never played a game in his life. The two escape and begin a road trip like no other trying to navigate their situation and figure out who they can trust.
The game novice, Ted Pikul, soon gets himself a "port" so he can join Gellar in the game and to also ascertain whether her main controller hub was severely damaged in the attempt on her lie. Once jacked in, he begins to slowly morph into a more submersive version of the same gradually losing control of himself an becoming his in game character.
The other "participants" they meet serve to enhance the game experience either with conflict or assistance, but it is hard to tell which side everyone plays for. The two become passionate for each other, but still are unable to comprehend whether their feelings are real or just part of the game.
They need to figure out how to finish the game so they can return back to reality.
The last of David Cronenberg's "Body Horror" films before he took his career in a different direction in the 2000s with films like "Eastern Promises" and "A History of Violence", eXistenZ is one truly wild and unique ride. If you have seen some of his other film in the genre like "The Fly" or "The Brood" you would be used to the over-the-top gore, brutality and strange way of storytelling he has made his career.
His characters are flawed, but motivated and that is why you are interested in their situation and go along with them. This film has some remarkable visceral, macabre elements that make it extremely unique, which is why you watch a movie like this. The internet was only a few years old in 1999 and games like World of Warcraft were still years away; however, this film underscores the dangers of becoming too close to the online world and the dangers it could cause.
At many points during the film, you wonder whether you are still within the game itself similar to watching a "Nightmare on Elm Street" film and wondering if you are still dreaming.
Jennifer Jason Leigh has never really gotten the respect she deserves. Whether in the recent "The Hateful Eight" or in films like "Dolores Claiborne" or "Single White Female" she has shown longevity and the ability to play complex, sometimes unlikable characters with the charisma and charm. I liked the fact she was a female game designer, leading in her field, in 1999 when there were probably not many like her at the time.
This film will keep you guessing all the way to the end and even leave you to interpret what you have just seen as the credits roll.
Easily recommended for gruesome horror fans.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Ghost in the Shell (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Ghost in the Shell is a film adaptation of a 1989 manga and subsequent 1995 anime. Set in the “not so distant future,” Scarlet Johansson plays as Major, the first functioning human brain/consciousness saved from an accident and placed into a full cybernetic body. Effectively, she is the perfect soldier and member of the Section 9 special task-force devoted to counter-terrorism operations.
As an adaptation, fans of the franchise will be pleased to know that Ghost in the shell nails the aesthetic and tone of the source material to provide a stunning, “lived in” future world. The special effects are excellent and really shine to bring this film to life and help us understand the world these characters inhabit.
The characters themselves, while “cool,” lack any real depth. It is not that Scarlet Johansson does an excellent job at being pensive and fits the role fine. It is just that there is no real human quality to her for us to attach to. Instead, everything she does feel “robotic.” Similar to her performance in Lucy with a little bit of Black Widow from the marvel universe crossed in.
Yes, I know she is supposed to be a cyborg. But the film wants us to believe she has actual interest in finding out who she was before the “accident,” but she shows very little human emotion to get us there. Furthermore, if she was the first human mind saved and put into a cyborg body, why doesn’t she show more human emotion when she starts to uncover her past. Meanwhile, her partner, Batou (Pilou Asbaek) showcases just slightly more emotion because he likes to feed stray dogs, however in his case, we at least understand that he is a loyal solder and friend to Major, and thus understand why he is along for the ride.
Additionally (or perhaps as a result) the story suffers from some pacing issues as the film doesn’t always provide clear or strong markers to help the viewer understand what exactly is motivating the characters throughout the film. Rather the film often holds a bit too long on sequences in an attempt to showcase the beautiful world and let the view ponder their own meaning of what they are watching.
This becomes problematic as the characters never really become likeable or establish any depth beyond the paint by numbers plot. Human becomes Cyborg, Cyborg works for a corporation/government, Cyborg figures out they have been lied to, revenge ensues.
In the end, I found myself checking my watch more than I had hoped as the film felt long and tired. If it wasn’t for the stunning world created on screen I would have been completely bored. It’s a shame because I really wanted to like this film. I cannot help but think that if this film had come out in 1999, it would have been amazing!
But in 2017 it feels average at best. Still, Ghost in the Shell is an adequate adaptation that fans of the franchise will enjoy. However I feel this adaptation does not help elevate the franchise beyond what the 1995 Anime has already accomplished.
As an adaptation, fans of the franchise will be pleased to know that Ghost in the shell nails the aesthetic and tone of the source material to provide a stunning, “lived in” future world. The special effects are excellent and really shine to bring this film to life and help us understand the world these characters inhabit.
The characters themselves, while “cool,” lack any real depth. It is not that Scarlet Johansson does an excellent job at being pensive and fits the role fine. It is just that there is no real human quality to her for us to attach to. Instead, everything she does feel “robotic.” Similar to her performance in Lucy with a little bit of Black Widow from the marvel universe crossed in.
Yes, I know she is supposed to be a cyborg. But the film wants us to believe she has actual interest in finding out who she was before the “accident,” but she shows very little human emotion to get us there. Furthermore, if she was the first human mind saved and put into a cyborg body, why doesn’t she show more human emotion when she starts to uncover her past. Meanwhile, her partner, Batou (Pilou Asbaek) showcases just slightly more emotion because he likes to feed stray dogs, however in his case, we at least understand that he is a loyal solder and friend to Major, and thus understand why he is along for the ride.
Additionally (or perhaps as a result) the story suffers from some pacing issues as the film doesn’t always provide clear or strong markers to help the viewer understand what exactly is motivating the characters throughout the film. Rather the film often holds a bit too long on sequences in an attempt to showcase the beautiful world and let the view ponder their own meaning of what they are watching.
This becomes problematic as the characters never really become likeable or establish any depth beyond the paint by numbers plot. Human becomes Cyborg, Cyborg works for a corporation/government, Cyborg figures out they have been lied to, revenge ensues.
In the end, I found myself checking my watch more than I had hoped as the film felt long and tired. If it wasn’t for the stunning world created on screen I would have been completely bored. It’s a shame because I really wanted to like this film. I cannot help but think that if this film had come out in 1999, it would have been amazing!
But in 2017 it feels average at best. Still, Ghost in the Shell is an adequate adaptation that fans of the franchise will enjoy. However I feel this adaptation does not help elevate the franchise beyond what the 1995 Anime has already accomplished.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Noah (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Biblical epics never seem to translate well from paper to the big screen. Mel Gibson’s 2004 misfire, The Passion of the Christ, showed just how difficult it was to turn promising source material into silver screen gold.
Now, 10 years on from that, Black Swan director Darren Aronofsky breathes new life into the biblical genre with his take on the classic ‘Noah’ tale. But can his sixth attempt behind the camera reverse the ailing genre’s fortunes?
Unfortunately, the answer is no. From lacklustre special effects to dreadful acting, Aronofsky’s biblical epic fails from start to finish, with only a few key scenes lifting it above The Passion of the Christ.
Noah follows the story of the titular hero played by Russell Crowe as he sets out on a mission given to him by the ‘Creator’ to rid the world of its evil and to start afresh. Jennifer Connelly plays Noah’s wife Naameh and Ray Winstone portrays his arch nemesis, Tubal-cain.
The story is like the tale we all know, but on steroids. Gone is the subtlety of the bibleNoah-poster version and in its place is a stark environmental message as Noah tells his family and those around him that humans have destroyed the planet and that we ourselves, must be destroyed. From stone angels sent to watch over the human race, to the addition of numerous characters, Noah rids the story of its depth in favour of poor special effects and anti-climatic battles. It’s a real shame as Aronofsky has proven himself to be utterly talented behind the lens.
The performances are also well-below what we expect from such gifted actors. Emma Watson’s take of Ila, Noah’s daughter-in-law is laughable at best; a world away from the talent we saw towards the end of the Harry Potter series. Jennifer Connelly is outstandingly poor and Russell Crowe seems to be on auto-pilot as he spouts meaningless drivel. Only Anthony Hopkins leaves his fine reputation in tact as Methuselah, though he is in the film for less than 15 minutes.
Moreover, the best and most memorable part from the bible story, the animals, is completely misguided. Not only are they playing second fiddle to the ridiculous rivalry between Noah and Ray Winstone’s idiotic villain, they are rendered in such poor CGI, you never truly believe that they are there. The elephants and snakes in particular are very shoddy.
Thankfully all is not lost. Being a Darren Aronofsky film, Noah is a beautifully shot film. The cinematography is outstanding with stunning vistas of a huge variety of landscapes and the inclusion of an exciting Genesis featurette in the latter half of the picture are real highlights.
At 138 minutes Noah is a true bum-number and there’ll be lots of shuffling about in your seat as you struggle to digest each and every part of information the film shoves down your throat.
Unfortunately, a promising marketing campaign and some good trailers mask a film which never rises above average. The special effects really needed much more work and the acting is very poor. Only a few stand-out scenes stop it from falling below The Passion of the Christ as another biblical turkey.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/04/14/noah-review/
Now, 10 years on from that, Black Swan director Darren Aronofsky breathes new life into the biblical genre with his take on the classic ‘Noah’ tale. But can his sixth attempt behind the camera reverse the ailing genre’s fortunes?
Unfortunately, the answer is no. From lacklustre special effects to dreadful acting, Aronofsky’s biblical epic fails from start to finish, with only a few key scenes lifting it above The Passion of the Christ.
Noah follows the story of the titular hero played by Russell Crowe as he sets out on a mission given to him by the ‘Creator’ to rid the world of its evil and to start afresh. Jennifer Connelly plays Noah’s wife Naameh and Ray Winstone portrays his arch nemesis, Tubal-cain.
The story is like the tale we all know, but on steroids. Gone is the subtlety of the bibleNoah-poster version and in its place is a stark environmental message as Noah tells his family and those around him that humans have destroyed the planet and that we ourselves, must be destroyed. From stone angels sent to watch over the human race, to the addition of numerous characters, Noah rids the story of its depth in favour of poor special effects and anti-climatic battles. It’s a real shame as Aronofsky has proven himself to be utterly talented behind the lens.
The performances are also well-below what we expect from such gifted actors. Emma Watson’s take of Ila, Noah’s daughter-in-law is laughable at best; a world away from the talent we saw towards the end of the Harry Potter series. Jennifer Connelly is outstandingly poor and Russell Crowe seems to be on auto-pilot as he spouts meaningless drivel. Only Anthony Hopkins leaves his fine reputation in tact as Methuselah, though he is in the film for less than 15 minutes.
Moreover, the best and most memorable part from the bible story, the animals, is completely misguided. Not only are they playing second fiddle to the ridiculous rivalry between Noah and Ray Winstone’s idiotic villain, they are rendered in such poor CGI, you never truly believe that they are there. The elephants and snakes in particular are very shoddy.
Thankfully all is not lost. Being a Darren Aronofsky film, Noah is a beautifully shot film. The cinematography is outstanding with stunning vistas of a huge variety of landscapes and the inclusion of an exciting Genesis featurette in the latter half of the picture are real highlights.
At 138 minutes Noah is a true bum-number and there’ll be lots of shuffling about in your seat as you struggle to digest each and every part of information the film shoves down your throat.
Unfortunately, a promising marketing campaign and some good trailers mask a film which never rises above average. The special effects really needed much more work and the acting is very poor. Only a few stand-out scenes stop it from falling below The Passion of the Christ as another biblical turkey.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/04/14/noah-review/
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Veiled Rose (Tales of Goldstone Wood, #2) in Books
Feb 11, 2019
I am always a fan of fairy re-tellings, even if it is for a fairy tale I am not actually familiar with, as that of Rose Red. It took me awhile, but I also gathered that the book is a kind of Christian allegory, and parts remind me of Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan.
Rose Red is by far the most intriguing character, as her birth is shrouded in mystery, her friends are animals with voices, and she cloaks herself in veils and layers to hide even the smallest scrap of skin from any prying eyes - including her own. The shame she bears for her own appearance is so great that her very existence is surrounded by grand tales of monsters and demons told by all of the local villagers, yet she bears a strength much greater than she appears to possess and she has a kind of magic that allows her to walk the secret Paths and face down death in all its forms. Even at the end of the book, I could not fully grasp who or what she is.
Leo manages to find and befriend Rose Red in boyhood, but he has a burden of his own as Prince Lionheart of Southlands, destined to become King. Leo knows his responsibilities, but he secretly just wants a friend and to make people laugh as a court jester. These polar opposites manage to pull him across the world again and again as he struggles with the simple question, "What do you want?"
Many other characters litter the pages of the book, which was at times confusing as I attempted to deduce which creature or character was on the side of good or evil, such as the Dragon - which became apparent at its occupation of Southlands. As an allegory for Christianity, some characters were clear - such as the Prince, but others were murkier, such as the Lady.
The structure of the book itself was off-putting for me. The book is divided into five parts, with chapters in each part, but in between each part a vague sense of time has passed, so that the reader cannot pick up where the last chapter left off. At each break, I would get the feeling that the plot was picking up, only to be let down that the climactic moments have been glossed over. I also really disliked the ending. Certain things are expected of classic fairy tales, and none of this was included in the ending of this book. Perhaps the author was aiming for something more "realistic" or to simply get the reader to continue the series, but loose endings this big make me feel like I wasted my time reading the book, only to get no satisfaction at the finale.
Rose Red is by far the most intriguing character, as her birth is shrouded in mystery, her friends are animals with voices, and she cloaks herself in veils and layers to hide even the smallest scrap of skin from any prying eyes - including her own. The shame she bears for her own appearance is so great that her very existence is surrounded by grand tales of monsters and demons told by all of the local villagers, yet she bears a strength much greater than she appears to possess and she has a kind of magic that allows her to walk the secret Paths and face down death in all its forms. Even at the end of the book, I could not fully grasp who or what she is.
Leo manages to find and befriend Rose Red in boyhood, but he has a burden of his own as Prince Lionheart of Southlands, destined to become King. Leo knows his responsibilities, but he secretly just wants a friend and to make people laugh as a court jester. These polar opposites manage to pull him across the world again and again as he struggles with the simple question, "What do you want?"
Many other characters litter the pages of the book, which was at times confusing as I attempted to deduce which creature or character was on the side of good or evil, such as the Dragon - which became apparent at its occupation of Southlands. As an allegory for Christianity, some characters were clear - such as the Prince, but others were murkier, such as the Lady.
The structure of the book itself was off-putting for me. The book is divided into five parts, with chapters in each part, but in between each part a vague sense of time has passed, so that the reader cannot pick up where the last chapter left off. At each break, I would get the feeling that the plot was picking up, only to be let down that the climactic moments have been glossed over. I also really disliked the ending. Certain things are expected of classic fairy tales, and none of this was included in the ending of this book. Perhaps the author was aiming for something more "realistic" or to simply get the reader to continue the series, but loose endings this big make me feel like I wasted my time reading the book, only to get no satisfaction at the finale.
Tribe – TV, Dramas & more
Entertainment
App
Tribe is a social TV & movie streaming service where you can watch Korean TV dramas, Asian movies,...
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated The Lovely Bones (2009) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Life is just beginning to blossom for Suzie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) who has her first date with the boy she’s been dying to kiss, when she is unexpectedly murdered. Her mother can’t deal, her father becomes obsessed and her chain-smoking grandma becomes the most stable force in the family. But Suzie refuses to cross the border between heaven and earth with her killer still on the loose and distressingly interested in her younger sister.
“The Lovely Bones” is a prime example of a good film based on an acclaimed book that could have been great given thirty more minutes. The characters were engaging but less than ideally developed, case in point would be the mother whose sudden flee from her home only to appear picking oranges on a farm left the audience collectively confused.
Still the use of perspective and sound are undeniably captivating. From the graphically delightful and horrific imagery that is the world between heaven and our own to the use of color to establish the time period.
The heroine and villain are equally engrossing yet most of the film’s seasoned actors have performed better. The least developed characters were Suzie’s parents played by Mark Wahlberg and Rachael Weisz. But Susan Sarandon as Grandma Lynn left Wahlberg and Weisz in the dust creating a delightfully flawed character in her supporting role.
Both a drama and a thriller, there were moments during “The Lovely Bones” which captivated the entire theater making it a film that will provide great images for fans of the book. Yet while it will be a delight for those familiar with the book, the plot holes that “The Lovely Bones” leaves for the non-literary crowd are staggering.
In the end “The Lovely Bones” was a good enough film that attempted to stay true to the book but really could have been lovelier.
“The Lovely Bones” is a prime example of a good film based on an acclaimed book that could have been great given thirty more minutes. The characters were engaging but less than ideally developed, case in point would be the mother whose sudden flee from her home only to appear picking oranges on a farm left the audience collectively confused.
Still the use of perspective and sound are undeniably captivating. From the graphically delightful and horrific imagery that is the world between heaven and our own to the use of color to establish the time period.
The heroine and villain are equally engrossing yet most of the film’s seasoned actors have performed better. The least developed characters were Suzie’s parents played by Mark Wahlberg and Rachael Weisz. But Susan Sarandon as Grandma Lynn left Wahlberg and Weisz in the dust creating a delightfully flawed character in her supporting role.
Both a drama and a thriller, there were moments during “The Lovely Bones” which captivated the entire theater making it a film that will provide great images for fans of the book. Yet while it will be a delight for those familiar with the book, the plot holes that “The Lovely Bones” leaves for the non-literary crowd are staggering.
In the end “The Lovely Bones” was a good enough film that attempted to stay true to the book but really could have been lovelier.
Math's Journey
Education and Stickers
App
Welcome to the magical world of mathematics! Math's Journey helps children aged 3-6 learn the basics...