Search
Search results
Inner Perspectives: Guideposts for the Spiritual Journey
3.0
Rate It
Podcast
Elizabeth Clare Prophet, modern mystic and pioneer in New Age spirituality, answers more than 300...
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Order in TV
Jul 6, 2020 (Updated Jul 6, 2020)
Don't Call Them Witches - 7/10
The Order is a 2019 supernatural horror/drama tv series created by Dennis Heaton and a team of writers including: Dennis Heaton, Shelley Eriksen, Rachel Langer, Jennica Harper, Penny Gummerson and Jason Filiatrault. The show was produced by Nomadic Pictures with producers Petros Danabassis, Jay Daniel Beechinor, and Morris Chapdelaine and released on Netflix in March. The shows stars Jake Manley, Sarah Grey, Matt Frewer, and Max Martini.
Thrust into a world of magic and monsters (werewolves), Jack Morten (Jake Manley) must pledge himself to a secret society so that he can avenge the death of his mother by their leader, Edward Coventry (Max Martini). His only family is his grandfather, "Pops" (Matt Frewer), the genius behind their plan for him to infiltrate the order and learn what he can to bring them down from the inside. Things go from bad to worse as he uncovers The Hermetic Order of the Blue Rose are practitioners of magic and someone or something is killing their pledges on campus. And more complications arise as he becomes enamoured with a higher ranking member Alyssa Drake (Sarah Grey) and a group of Knights whose mission is to stop evil magic users.
The Order is a decent show. I liked it alot but it was hard for me to get behind. It definitely has a lot of flaws and I can see a lot of people (like critics) tearing this show apart. That being said, I can't believe it has 100% on rotten tomatoes at this point or that it has been renewed for a second season. It was pretty slow building to me especially because I thought it was only going to be a secret society type show like the movie The Skulls but with a werewolf angle to it. I was very surprised when it was more about a magic secret society and later had a werewolf element to it. What I really didn't care for so much was the love theme to it that made me want to compare it to Twilight. You'll know what I'm talking about if you give it a chance. I really wanted to give this show a 6. There was a lot to hate in this show but it did get better towards the end. One thing the dialogue was full of cussing, which I didn't mind at all but it felt very amateurish. It made me laugh a lot but it also made me feel like the writers were in high school still. And I believe it's the main reason for the TV-MA rating. Which is another complaint I had. I don't think that for a rated TV-MA show, particularly a horror one, did they have enough violence, blood or gore. It felt very watered down to me in those respects. To me it seems like it was a cool idea, they had good actors who suffered from poor script and dialogue with a decent enough plot but a director(s) who were going for more of a Twilight vibe. As it gets farther into it did get better but barely got a 7 from me. As I write this I'm still contemplating whether to change my rating. It did do somethings quite well. They didn't mess up on the werewolves and even did them in a unique way and I appreciated the world building and
lore that they brought to them. Even the way they portrayed magic in the series was well done. I also generally liked the second half of the seasons' story arc and plot. I give this show a 7/10. I don't recommend it to anyone unless you were a big fan of the Twilight films or if you are just someone who watches anything with magic or werewolves.
Thrust into a world of magic and monsters (werewolves), Jack Morten (Jake Manley) must pledge himself to a secret society so that he can avenge the death of his mother by their leader, Edward Coventry (Max Martini). His only family is his grandfather, "Pops" (Matt Frewer), the genius behind their plan for him to infiltrate the order and learn what he can to bring them down from the inside. Things go from bad to worse as he uncovers The Hermetic Order of the Blue Rose are practitioners of magic and someone or something is killing their pledges on campus. And more complications arise as he becomes enamoured with a higher ranking member Alyssa Drake (Sarah Grey) and a group of Knights whose mission is to stop evil magic users.
The Order is a decent show. I liked it alot but it was hard for me to get behind. It definitely has a lot of flaws and I can see a lot of people (like critics) tearing this show apart. That being said, I can't believe it has 100% on rotten tomatoes at this point or that it has been renewed for a second season. It was pretty slow building to me especially because I thought it was only going to be a secret society type show like the movie The Skulls but with a werewolf angle to it. I was very surprised when it was more about a magic secret society and later had a werewolf element to it. What I really didn't care for so much was the love theme to it that made me want to compare it to Twilight. You'll know what I'm talking about if you give it a chance. I really wanted to give this show a 6. There was a lot to hate in this show but it did get better towards the end. One thing the dialogue was full of cussing, which I didn't mind at all but it felt very amateurish. It made me laugh a lot but it also made me feel like the writers were in high school still. And I believe it's the main reason for the TV-MA rating. Which is another complaint I had. I don't think that for a rated TV-MA show, particularly a horror one, did they have enough violence, blood or gore. It felt very watered down to me in those respects. To me it seems like it was a cool idea, they had good actors who suffered from poor script and dialogue with a decent enough plot but a director(s) who were going for more of a Twilight vibe. As it gets farther into it did get better but barely got a 7 from me. As I write this I'm still contemplating whether to change my rating. It did do somethings quite well. They didn't mess up on the werewolves and even did them in a unique way and I appreciated the world building and
lore that they brought to them. Even the way they portrayed magic in the series was well done. I also generally liked the second half of the seasons' story arc and plot. I give this show a 7/10. I don't recommend it to anyone unless you were a big fan of the Twilight films or if you are just someone who watches anything with magic or werewolves.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mitchells vs The Machines (2021) in Movies
May 16, 2021
Brilliantly original animation (1 more)
Fantastic laugh-out-loud gags throughout, many with a movie nerd bias
Dog-Pig-Dog-Pig-Loaf of Bread… KERBOOM!
Katie Mitchell (voiced by Abbi Jacobson) dreams of being a great film director (joining her icons on her version of Mount Rushmore!). She's about to travel to a west-coast film college when her dad Rick (Danny Mcbride) decides to cancel her air ticket and try to re-engage with her through one last epic road trip. Together with wife Linda (Maya Rudolph), dinosaur-mad son Aaron (director Michael Rianda) and cross-eyed pug Monchi (Doug the Pug!) they set off on their journey.
But the world is set to change forever, as sentient operating system PAL (Olivia Colman) and her army of robots take over the world and prepare to launch human-kind into deep dark space. The Mitchell's, as the world's unlikeliest Avengers, appear to be the only ones available to prevent the evil plan!
Positives:
- In my review of the lamentable "Thunder Force", I commented that it failed my "six laughs test" for a comedy. I only laughed 3 times in the whole film. In contrast, this movie hammered home guffaw-generating lines and scenes about six times a minute! It's hilarious. It's one of those films (like the best Pixar ones) with so much hidden detail buried in every shot. You could watch it a dozen times and still find new hidden gags.
- This is a movie that is the perfect family film. A film that kids will love for the knockabout comedy and a film that adults will also fall in love with. This comes from three different angles:
-- Excellent character development of the whole family. Katie feels like a fully rounded stroppy teen: she seems to be struggling with her identity (lesbian? - "It took me a while to figure myself out"); and she is struggling towards her personal goals despite the well-intentioned but destructive doubts that her rough-and-ready father keeps sowing. This feels like a journey that the family is on towards enlightenment, before it's too late.
-- This is also a film with considerable emotional heft. It channels at times some of the best elements of the Toy Story films (most notably "Toy Story 3" with Andy's departure for college). (Any parents who have never experienced that joyous yet dreadful day when you drive your chicks to university or college for the first time: brace yourselves!)
-- It's a dream for film fans. Like "Ready Player One", it's populated with lots of fun movie easter-eggs scattered throughout. Katie's 'Mount Rushmore' by the way has Greta Gerwig, Céline Sciamma (from "Portrait of a Lady on Fire"), Lynne Ramsey and Hal Ashby as her directorial inspirations.
- And finally, it's a film for adults appreciative of some truly great satirical one-liners, including some razor-sharp zingers at 'big tech'. For example:
"It's almost like stealing people's data and giving it to a hyper-intelligent AI as part of an unregulated tech monopoly was a bad thing"
Negatives:
- My only minor criticism - and its a debatable one - might be the running time of 113 minutes. It might be a little too long for younger kids' attention spans. A 90 minute, more condensed, movie might have ticked the 'perfection' box.
Summary Thoughts: I don't normally "go" for animated films much. But this one is a different breed. An instant classic. It knocks you round the chops and forces your respect by being like no animated feature you've seen before. Witty, irreverent, gloriously entertaining it's a no-brainer that this gets 5-stars from me.
I said in my review of "Nomadland" that although that wasn't a 5* film for me, I could see why its brave and different slant at film-making earned it the Best Film Oscar. Well, almost regardless of what epically beautiful production Pixar might bring out before the end of the year, if the Academy doesn't vote this Best Animated Feature at next year's Oscars, then some sort of crime might have been committed.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/16/the-mitchells-vs-the-machines-dog-pig-dog-pig-loaf-of-bread-kerboom/. Thanks.)
But the world is set to change forever, as sentient operating system PAL (Olivia Colman) and her army of robots take over the world and prepare to launch human-kind into deep dark space. The Mitchell's, as the world's unlikeliest Avengers, appear to be the only ones available to prevent the evil plan!
Positives:
- In my review of the lamentable "Thunder Force", I commented that it failed my "six laughs test" for a comedy. I only laughed 3 times in the whole film. In contrast, this movie hammered home guffaw-generating lines and scenes about six times a minute! It's hilarious. It's one of those films (like the best Pixar ones) with so much hidden detail buried in every shot. You could watch it a dozen times and still find new hidden gags.
- This is a movie that is the perfect family film. A film that kids will love for the knockabout comedy and a film that adults will also fall in love with. This comes from three different angles:
-- Excellent character development of the whole family. Katie feels like a fully rounded stroppy teen: she seems to be struggling with her identity (lesbian? - "It took me a while to figure myself out"); and she is struggling towards her personal goals despite the well-intentioned but destructive doubts that her rough-and-ready father keeps sowing. This feels like a journey that the family is on towards enlightenment, before it's too late.
-- This is also a film with considerable emotional heft. It channels at times some of the best elements of the Toy Story films (most notably "Toy Story 3" with Andy's departure for college). (Any parents who have never experienced that joyous yet dreadful day when you drive your chicks to university or college for the first time: brace yourselves!)
-- It's a dream for film fans. Like "Ready Player One", it's populated with lots of fun movie easter-eggs scattered throughout. Katie's 'Mount Rushmore' by the way has Greta Gerwig, Céline Sciamma (from "Portrait of a Lady on Fire"), Lynne Ramsey and Hal Ashby as her directorial inspirations.
- And finally, it's a film for adults appreciative of some truly great satirical one-liners, including some razor-sharp zingers at 'big tech'. For example:
"It's almost like stealing people's data and giving it to a hyper-intelligent AI as part of an unregulated tech monopoly was a bad thing"
Negatives:
- My only minor criticism - and its a debatable one - might be the running time of 113 minutes. It might be a little too long for younger kids' attention spans. A 90 minute, more condensed, movie might have ticked the 'perfection' box.
Summary Thoughts: I don't normally "go" for animated films much. But this one is a different breed. An instant classic. It knocks you round the chops and forces your respect by being like no animated feature you've seen before. Witty, irreverent, gloriously entertaining it's a no-brainer that this gets 5-stars from me.
I said in my review of "Nomadland" that although that wasn't a 5* film for me, I could see why its brave and different slant at film-making earned it the Best Film Oscar. Well, almost regardless of what epically beautiful production Pixar might bring out before the end of the year, if the Academy doesn't vote this Best Animated Feature at next year's Oscars, then some sort of crime might have been committed.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/16/the-mitchells-vs-the-machines-dog-pig-dog-pig-loaf-of-bread-kerboom/. Thanks.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Jan 7, 2021
Good companion piece to CITIZEN KANE
Orson Welles’ 1941 masterpiece CITIZEN KANE is truly a remarkable work of art (especially for the time it was created) and it regularly lands in either the #1 or #2 spot on my list of all-time favorite films (battling back and forth with THE GODFATHER - the one that ends up at #1 is usually the one I have watched most recently), so I am a sucker for films that are about (or around) the making of this classic.
And…the Netflix film MANK does not disappoint in this regard.
Starring Oscar winning actor Gary Oldman (he won the Oscar for portraying Sir Winston Churchill in DARKEST HOUR), Mank tells the tale of the writing of the screenplay of CITIZEN KANE by screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz. It is an intriguing story of a self-destructive, alcoholic artist (is there any other kind in this kind of film) that (ultimately) produces one of the best scripts in Hollywood history, despite (or maybe because of) his condition and the people he interacts with along the way.
Directed by David Fincher (FIGHT CLUB) - who is one of my favorite Directors working today - MANK starts slow but brews to a satisfying conclusion as Fincher focuses on the man and the relationships he has with the people around him, rather than the circumstances, which then draws to a forceful conclusion.
Gary Oldman is, of course, stellar as Herman “Mank” Mankiewicz, the writer at the center of the story. This film hinges on this performance as the titular Mank is in almost every scene of this film - and at the beginning I was worried that Fincher was going to let Oldman revert to his “hammy” ways (a very real possibility with Oldman if he is left unchecked by a Director), but Fincher reels Oldman in just enough for him to bring a portrait of a troubled man, who has sold his soul to work and alcohol. This character needs to find that soul if he is to succeed. Since Mank won the Oscar for his screenplay - and I’ve already stated that I think the CITIZEN KANE screenplay is one of the best written of all time - you know how it will turn out, but it is fascinating (and satisfying) to watch Oldman on this journey.
Fincher, of course, is smart enough to surround Oldman with some very good Supporting Actors, most notably the always evil Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister on GAME OF THRONES) as William Randolph Hearst (the inspiration for Charles Foster Kane). Dance spends most of the film observing Mank but in the final “confrontation” scene between the two, the screen sparkles as two wonderful thespians throw down.
Others in the Supporting cast - like Lilly Collins, Tom Burke (as Orson Welles), Jamie McShane and, especially Arliss Howard (as Louis B. Mayer) bring heft and the ability to go “toe to toe” with Oldman, not a small task.
Special notice has to be made of the work of Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies - Hearst’s mistress and a character that is used as a “throw away toy” in Citizen Kane. Davis and Mank form an interesting bond and the platonic chemistry between Seyfried and Oldman is strong. I gotta admit that when Seyfried first burst on the scene in such films as MAMA MIA and MEAN GIRLS, I figured she was just the “pretty young Rom-Com girl of the time” and would come and go quickly, but she has rounded into a very impressive actress and I can unequivocally state that I was wrong about her. She can act with the best of them.
The Cinematography by Erik Messerschmidt is also a very important part of this film - as he (and Fincher) attempt to recreate in this film the look/feel of CITIZEN KANE and they pull this off very, very well.
If you can get through the slow start of the film - and if you can stomach a protagonist that is not a very nice person in most of this film, than you’ll be rewarded by a rich film experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And…the Netflix film MANK does not disappoint in this regard.
Starring Oscar winning actor Gary Oldman (he won the Oscar for portraying Sir Winston Churchill in DARKEST HOUR), Mank tells the tale of the writing of the screenplay of CITIZEN KANE by screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz. It is an intriguing story of a self-destructive, alcoholic artist (is there any other kind in this kind of film) that (ultimately) produces one of the best scripts in Hollywood history, despite (or maybe because of) his condition and the people he interacts with along the way.
Directed by David Fincher (FIGHT CLUB) - who is one of my favorite Directors working today - MANK starts slow but brews to a satisfying conclusion as Fincher focuses on the man and the relationships he has with the people around him, rather than the circumstances, which then draws to a forceful conclusion.
Gary Oldman is, of course, stellar as Herman “Mank” Mankiewicz, the writer at the center of the story. This film hinges on this performance as the titular Mank is in almost every scene of this film - and at the beginning I was worried that Fincher was going to let Oldman revert to his “hammy” ways (a very real possibility with Oldman if he is left unchecked by a Director), but Fincher reels Oldman in just enough for him to bring a portrait of a troubled man, who has sold his soul to work and alcohol. This character needs to find that soul if he is to succeed. Since Mank won the Oscar for his screenplay - and I’ve already stated that I think the CITIZEN KANE screenplay is one of the best written of all time - you know how it will turn out, but it is fascinating (and satisfying) to watch Oldman on this journey.
Fincher, of course, is smart enough to surround Oldman with some very good Supporting Actors, most notably the always evil Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister on GAME OF THRONES) as William Randolph Hearst (the inspiration for Charles Foster Kane). Dance spends most of the film observing Mank but in the final “confrontation” scene between the two, the screen sparkles as two wonderful thespians throw down.
Others in the Supporting cast - like Lilly Collins, Tom Burke (as Orson Welles), Jamie McShane and, especially Arliss Howard (as Louis B. Mayer) bring heft and the ability to go “toe to toe” with Oldman, not a small task.
Special notice has to be made of the work of Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies - Hearst’s mistress and a character that is used as a “throw away toy” in Citizen Kane. Davis and Mank form an interesting bond and the platonic chemistry between Seyfried and Oldman is strong. I gotta admit that when Seyfried first burst on the scene in such films as MAMA MIA and MEAN GIRLS, I figured she was just the “pretty young Rom-Com girl of the time” and would come and go quickly, but she has rounded into a very impressive actress and I can unequivocally state that I was wrong about her. She can act with the best of them.
The Cinematography by Erik Messerschmidt is also a very important part of this film - as he (and Fincher) attempt to recreate in this film the look/feel of CITIZEN KANE and they pull this off very, very well.
If you can get through the slow start of the film - and if you can stomach a protagonist that is not a very nice person in most of this film, than you’ll be rewarded by a rich film experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Fright Night (1985) in Movies
Oct 30, 2020
You Can't Murder a Vampire
Fright Night- is a excellent vampire movie. Directed by Tom Holland. It has comedy, horror, lots of gory and Peter Vincent.
The plot: Teenage Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) is a horror-film junkie, so it's no surprise that, when a reclusive new neighbor named Jerry Dandridge (Chris Sarandon) moves next-door, Brewster becomes convinced he is a vampire. It's also no surprise when nobody believes him. However, after strange events begin to occur, Charlie has no choice but to turn to the only person who could possibly help: washed-up television vampire killer Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall).
While writing the script for Cloak & Dagger, Tom Holland amused himself when he conceived the idea of a horror-movie fan becoming convinced that his next-door neighbor was a vampire, but he did not initially think this premise was enough to sustain a story. "What's he gonna do", Holland asked, "because everybody's gonna think he's mad!"
The Peter Vincent character was named after horror icons Peter Cushing and Vincent Price, and Holland specifically wrote the part for Price, but at this point in his career, Price had been so badly typecast that he had stopped accepting roles in horror movies.
Holland and McDowall built a lasting friendship, and McDowall eventually invited Holland to a dinner party where he introduced him to Vincent Price, who was flattered that the part was an homage to him and commented that the film "was wonderful and he thought Roddy did a wonderful job."
Once his cast was in place, Holland got input from each of the actors and made numerous revisions to the script. Some were slight and others were major – such as the ending, which originally featured Peter Vincent transforming into a vampire as he returned to host Fright Night.
The cast could only wear them for a maximum of 20 minutes because they were virtually blind in them, and they were thick and painful, and dried out their eyes. A set was made for Stark to wear when he was in his final pursuit of Peter and Charley, but he kept tripping on the stairs. Holland told him to take one out, and he was then able to perform the scene.
Three sets were made for Amanda Bearse, but one of them caused her agonizing pain, which she initially tried to endure. When it finally became too much to bear, she took the contacts out and the crew realized they had forgotten to buff them. For the scene in Mrs. Brewster's bedroom, Geoffreys kept his contacts in for nearly 40 minutes, resulting in scratches on his eyeballs for months afterward.
For the transformation sequences, up to 8 hours were needed to prepare Sarandon's makeup.
The makeup for Evil Ed's wolf transformation took 18 hours.
On Christmas Eve, during the shooting of a scene where he is running down a staircase, Ragsdale accidentally tripped and broke his ankle, resulting in the film being temporarily put on a hold until he could recover. "
Many scenes were shot with his foot in a cast, including the scene in which Jerry comes to Charley's room to attack him. For shots in which Charley's feet were visible, the costumers slit Ragsdale's shoes in several places, slipped them on and then covered the portions of white cast that peeked through the slits with black cloth. For the scene in which Jerry is carrying Charley by the throat with one hand, Sarandon was simultaneously pushing Ragsdale along on a furniture dolly.
The shot of Jerry pulling the pencil out of his hand was achieved by having a spring-loaded, collapsible pencil glued to his palm and an eraser-tip loosely attached to the back of his hand. When he turns his hand and pulls the spring-loaded piece from his palm, out of shot a |monofilament wire jerked away the tip, so when he turns it back, it appears as though he hss pulled it straight through his hand.
Filming of the sequence with the bat was difficult for effects veteran Randall Cook, who kept winding up on film while puppeteering the creature.
Its a excellent movie.
The plot: Teenage Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) is a horror-film junkie, so it's no surprise that, when a reclusive new neighbor named Jerry Dandridge (Chris Sarandon) moves next-door, Brewster becomes convinced he is a vampire. It's also no surprise when nobody believes him. However, after strange events begin to occur, Charlie has no choice but to turn to the only person who could possibly help: washed-up television vampire killer Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall).
While writing the script for Cloak & Dagger, Tom Holland amused himself when he conceived the idea of a horror-movie fan becoming convinced that his next-door neighbor was a vampire, but he did not initially think this premise was enough to sustain a story. "What's he gonna do", Holland asked, "because everybody's gonna think he's mad!"
The Peter Vincent character was named after horror icons Peter Cushing and Vincent Price, and Holland specifically wrote the part for Price, but at this point in his career, Price had been so badly typecast that he had stopped accepting roles in horror movies.
Holland and McDowall built a lasting friendship, and McDowall eventually invited Holland to a dinner party where he introduced him to Vincent Price, who was flattered that the part was an homage to him and commented that the film "was wonderful and he thought Roddy did a wonderful job."
Once his cast was in place, Holland got input from each of the actors and made numerous revisions to the script. Some were slight and others were major – such as the ending, which originally featured Peter Vincent transforming into a vampire as he returned to host Fright Night.
The cast could only wear them for a maximum of 20 minutes because they were virtually blind in them, and they were thick and painful, and dried out their eyes. A set was made for Stark to wear when he was in his final pursuit of Peter and Charley, but he kept tripping on the stairs. Holland told him to take one out, and he was then able to perform the scene.
Three sets were made for Amanda Bearse, but one of them caused her agonizing pain, which she initially tried to endure. When it finally became too much to bear, she took the contacts out and the crew realized they had forgotten to buff them. For the scene in Mrs. Brewster's bedroom, Geoffreys kept his contacts in for nearly 40 minutes, resulting in scratches on his eyeballs for months afterward.
For the transformation sequences, up to 8 hours were needed to prepare Sarandon's makeup.
The makeup for Evil Ed's wolf transformation took 18 hours.
On Christmas Eve, during the shooting of a scene where he is running down a staircase, Ragsdale accidentally tripped and broke his ankle, resulting in the film being temporarily put on a hold until he could recover. "
Many scenes were shot with his foot in a cast, including the scene in which Jerry comes to Charley's room to attack him. For shots in which Charley's feet were visible, the costumers slit Ragsdale's shoes in several places, slipped them on and then covered the portions of white cast that peeked through the slits with black cloth. For the scene in which Jerry is carrying Charley by the throat with one hand, Sarandon was simultaneously pushing Ragsdale along on a furniture dolly.
The shot of Jerry pulling the pencil out of his hand was achieved by having a spring-loaded, collapsible pencil glued to his palm and an eraser-tip loosely attached to the back of his hand. When he turns his hand and pulls the spring-loaded piece from his palm, out of shot a |monofilament wire jerked away the tip, so when he turns it back, it appears as though he hss pulled it straight through his hand.
Filming of the sequence with the bat was difficult for effects veteran Randall Cook, who kept winding up on film while puppeteering the creature.
Its a excellent movie.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Enola Holmes (2020) in Movies
Oct 4, 2020
Millie Bobby Brown - a confident raw talent (1 more)
Henry Cavill as a new take on Sherlock
The unsinkable Millie Bobby Brown
Sherlock Holmes never had a sister. But if he did, what adventures would Enola Holmes get up to? That’s the premise behind this Netflix feature. starring rising star Millie Bobby Brown.
Enola Holmes (Millie Bobby Brown) thinks she’s been named as such because it spells “alone” backwards. (But then, she admits, that it doesn’t seem to follow for either kcolrehs or tforcym!)
Enola has been brought up by her dearest mother Eudoria (Helena Bonham Carter) to be a strong and confident woman, free of the normal 19th century rituals of ladylike husband-seeking niceties: for her, it’s all mental gymnastics and martial arts. But when on her 16th birthday her mother vanishes, Enola sets out on a quest to find her. But Eudoria is a Holmes, and knows the value of clues and how to cover her tracks.
Of greater concern to Enola is her brother and ward Mycroft (Sam Claflin), who is intent on packing her off to the Victorian finishing school of Miss Harrison (“Killing Eve’s” Fiona Shaw). But while trying to escape from her brothers – not a trivial matter when one is the famous detective Sherlock (Henry Cavill) – Enola encounters a Marquess on the run (Louis Partridge) and adventure, intrigue and murder are on the cards.
Filming in this “Fleabag” style – where the lead is constantly breaking the fourth wall – requires a confidence in delivery that many young actors would struggle with. But not Millie Bobby Brown. Her asides and camera glances – while not quite as skillful as the astonishingly accomplished Phoebe Waller-Bridge – are nonetheless impressive and constantly entertaining. An underwater wink at the camera was particularly enjoyable.
So… actress – tick!
But perhaps more impressive to me was that the 16 year old – most famous for her role in “Stranger Things”, which I still haven’t watched – was also a PRODUCER of this movie. Which makes me think she is a serious person to watch in the movie business (if there ever is a movie business left after 2020). I read that she is the youngest person ever to appear on the annual list of the “world’s 100 most influential people” by Time magazine: so others agree!
The supporting case are a broad array of British acting talent, with Henry Cavill being particularly appealing as Sherlock, Burn Gorman at his slimy evil best as a murderous henchman, and Sam Claflin being as anonymous as I always find him. (That’s a compliment by the way: whereas I see some actors and think “oh, there’s <<Tom Hanks>> again”, I never recognize Claflin until the credits role… he is a chameleon of the acting world).
But acting the socks off everyone else for me is Frances de la Tour as the Marquess’s grandmother. A deliciously twinkling and charming performance from an old dame of the screen.
The similarities with “Fleabag” are not coincidental, since the director is Harry Bradbeer; director of all of the episodes except the original pilot. But it’s unfortunate in some ways that the style has been interpolated into the Holmes story. Since, of course, this approach was previously done by Guy Ritchie in the two very entertaining movies featuring Robert Downey Jnr and Jude Law. And for me, that’s a shame. Since although the styles are markedly different – here we have a lot of Paddington-style cardboard animations – the “feel” of the films is the same. As such, it doesn’t feel as novel as it should do. Why couldn’t she have been someone else’s sister? Houdini perhaps? Or Oscar Wilde?
As two hours of entertaining escapism, Enola Holmes worked well for me. Brown is eminently watchable, and given the Netflix response to the movie, a sequel would be – I expect – on the cards.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/04/the-unsinkable-millie-bobby-brown/. Thanks.)
Enola Holmes (Millie Bobby Brown) thinks she’s been named as such because it spells “alone” backwards. (But then, she admits, that it doesn’t seem to follow for either kcolrehs or tforcym!)
Enola has been brought up by her dearest mother Eudoria (Helena Bonham Carter) to be a strong and confident woman, free of the normal 19th century rituals of ladylike husband-seeking niceties: for her, it’s all mental gymnastics and martial arts. But when on her 16th birthday her mother vanishes, Enola sets out on a quest to find her. But Eudoria is a Holmes, and knows the value of clues and how to cover her tracks.
Of greater concern to Enola is her brother and ward Mycroft (Sam Claflin), who is intent on packing her off to the Victorian finishing school of Miss Harrison (“Killing Eve’s” Fiona Shaw). But while trying to escape from her brothers – not a trivial matter when one is the famous detective Sherlock (Henry Cavill) – Enola encounters a Marquess on the run (Louis Partridge) and adventure, intrigue and murder are on the cards.
Filming in this “Fleabag” style – where the lead is constantly breaking the fourth wall – requires a confidence in delivery that many young actors would struggle with. But not Millie Bobby Brown. Her asides and camera glances – while not quite as skillful as the astonishingly accomplished Phoebe Waller-Bridge – are nonetheless impressive and constantly entertaining. An underwater wink at the camera was particularly enjoyable.
So… actress – tick!
But perhaps more impressive to me was that the 16 year old – most famous for her role in “Stranger Things”, which I still haven’t watched – was also a PRODUCER of this movie. Which makes me think she is a serious person to watch in the movie business (if there ever is a movie business left after 2020). I read that she is the youngest person ever to appear on the annual list of the “world’s 100 most influential people” by Time magazine: so others agree!
The supporting case are a broad array of British acting talent, with Henry Cavill being particularly appealing as Sherlock, Burn Gorman at his slimy evil best as a murderous henchman, and Sam Claflin being as anonymous as I always find him. (That’s a compliment by the way: whereas I see some actors and think “oh, there’s <<Tom Hanks>> again”, I never recognize Claflin until the credits role… he is a chameleon of the acting world).
But acting the socks off everyone else for me is Frances de la Tour as the Marquess’s grandmother. A deliciously twinkling and charming performance from an old dame of the screen.
The similarities with “Fleabag” are not coincidental, since the director is Harry Bradbeer; director of all of the episodes except the original pilot. But it’s unfortunate in some ways that the style has been interpolated into the Holmes story. Since, of course, this approach was previously done by Guy Ritchie in the two very entertaining movies featuring Robert Downey Jnr and Jude Law. And for me, that’s a shame. Since although the styles are markedly different – here we have a lot of Paddington-style cardboard animations – the “feel” of the films is the same. As such, it doesn’t feel as novel as it should do. Why couldn’t she have been someone else’s sister? Houdini perhaps? Or Oscar Wilde?
As two hours of entertaining escapism, Enola Holmes worked well for me. Brown is eminently watchable, and given the Netflix response to the movie, a sequel would be – I expect – on the cards.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/10/04/the-unsinkable-millie-bobby-brown/. Thanks.)
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Into The Crooked Place (Into The Crooked Place #1) in Books
Oct 5, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2999418076">Into the Crooked Place</a> - ★★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3504840515">City of Spells</a> - TBR
<img src="https://i0.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Book-Review-Banner-76.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
Into the Crooked Place by Alexandra Christo was a book I was very excited to read in the first place.
There is magic and potions, there is romance and adventure. The hype around it was huge, and it is still talked about in the bookish community.
What’s not to like?
Tavia sells magic potions on the market. One day, she is ordered to sell a new magic potion. When her friend Saxoni drinks the new potion, something bad happens. The potion makes people do terrible things - and Tavia and Saxoni need to stop it, before it destroys everyone!
The storytelling in this book was amazing. I was immediately teleported to a world where going to a market to buy a love potion is normal. I could connect with all characters immediately, and wanted to know more about them. The story is told from multiple character’s points of view, which I found appropriate for this story.
Apart from Tavia and Saxony, we also meet Wesley - who is Tavia’s underboss. He is the one that she follows orders from, and he is the one to grant her her freedom, once she earns it by working for him.
<b><i>“There are no good people, he said. Just ones who haven’t made bad choices yet.”</i></b>
We also meet Karam - a feisty warrior woman, who is fighting in pits for money. Karam is a character that I instantly liked, for her bravery and her free spirit. She knows who she is, she knows how she got there, and she knows exactly what she wants.
<b><i>“She had fought her way to her position and hadn’t needed prayer or magic to do it. Just her fists and her smarts and the knowledge that she could.”</i></b>
I liked Karam and she was probably my favorite character.
I think that her journey was the most adventurous compared to all the other characters, and I feel like she’s grown the most.
<b><i>“She felt at home. And she knew why. She knew then that home could be anywhere, because it wasn’t a place, but a feeling. It was made up of people, not bricks, and it was something you could create for yourself, just like family.”</i></b>
The legacy that Karam and Saxony carry is very conveniently revealed. The author only revealed this when it was needed in the book, to fit a certain situation and prompt plot twists. This wasn’t something I enjoyed, and together with how the book ended, it did leave a bitter aftertaste. I think I would have liked the book more if certain reveals were handled better, and the ending was more interesting.
<b><i>“Sometimes, words spoken in anger are not words spoken in truth, dila.”</i></b>
To sum everything up, I still think Into the Crooked Place was amazing and enjoyable.
I enjoyed being in this magical world and I enjoyed the adventures the characters went through. If you’ve been reading my reviews, you will know I love a good versus evil battle, and this book did indeed have that. Would I change the ending? Yes. Would I change the way the reveals were handled? Yes. But was this still an amazing book? Most definitely. If you love young-adult magic and adventure books - you will enjoy this one!
Thank you to the teams at Hot Key Books and ReadersFirst, for sending me a copy of this book. Into the Crooked Place is the first book in the series. The second book is called City of Spells, and is expected to come out in 2021.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2999418076">Into the Crooked Place</a> - ★★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3504840515">City of Spells</a> - TBR
<img src="https://i0.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Book-Review-Banner-76.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
Into the Crooked Place by Alexandra Christo was a book I was very excited to read in the first place.
There is magic and potions, there is romance and adventure. The hype around it was huge, and it is still talked about in the bookish community.
What’s not to like?
Tavia sells magic potions on the market. One day, she is ordered to sell a new magic potion. When her friend Saxoni drinks the new potion, something bad happens. The potion makes people do terrible things - and Tavia and Saxoni need to stop it, before it destroys everyone!
The storytelling in this book was amazing. I was immediately teleported to a world where going to a market to buy a love potion is normal. I could connect with all characters immediately, and wanted to know more about them. The story is told from multiple character’s points of view, which I found appropriate for this story.
Apart from Tavia and Saxony, we also meet Wesley - who is Tavia’s underboss. He is the one that she follows orders from, and he is the one to grant her her freedom, once she earns it by working for him.
<b><i>“There are no good people, he said. Just ones who haven’t made bad choices yet.”</i></b>
We also meet Karam - a feisty warrior woman, who is fighting in pits for money. Karam is a character that I instantly liked, for her bravery and her free spirit. She knows who she is, she knows how she got there, and she knows exactly what she wants.
<b><i>“She had fought her way to her position and hadn’t needed prayer or magic to do it. Just her fists and her smarts and the knowledge that she could.”</i></b>
I liked Karam and she was probably my favorite character.
I think that her journey was the most adventurous compared to all the other characters, and I feel like she’s grown the most.
<b><i>“She felt at home. And she knew why. She knew then that home could be anywhere, because it wasn’t a place, but a feeling. It was made up of people, not bricks, and it was something you could create for yourself, just like family.”</i></b>
The legacy that Karam and Saxony carry is very conveniently revealed. The author only revealed this when it was needed in the book, to fit a certain situation and prompt plot twists. This wasn’t something I enjoyed, and together with how the book ended, it did leave a bitter aftertaste. I think I would have liked the book more if certain reveals were handled better, and the ending was more interesting.
<b><i>“Sometimes, words spoken in anger are not words spoken in truth, dila.”</i></b>
To sum everything up, I still think Into the Crooked Place was amazing and enjoyable.
I enjoyed being in this magical world and I enjoyed the adventures the characters went through. If you’ve been reading my reviews, you will know I love a good versus evil battle, and this book did indeed have that. Would I change the ending? Yes. Would I change the way the reveals were handled? Yes. But was this still an amazing book? Most definitely. If you love young-adult magic and adventure books - you will enjoy this one!
Thank you to the teams at Hot Key Books and ReadersFirst, for sending me a copy of this book. Into the Crooked Place is the first book in the series. The second book is called City of Spells, and is expected to come out in 2021.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Another favourite from the awards season that came with some strong acclaim from amongst friends and trusted reviewers, WWII satire Jojo Rabbit, from the likeable and unique mind of Taika Waititi, was always high on my list as a must see movie.
I have followed the Kiwi’s original output since way back, and always enjoyed his quirky sense of humour and childlike charm. Either Eagle vs Shark or The Flight of the Conchords would have been my first encounter; and by the time of Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Thor: Ragnarok I had become a tentative fan. Never entirely bowled over by his style and content in the same way as, say, Wes Anderson (to whom some compare his outlook on the creative world), and never rolling around on the floor in hysterics at his naivety and comedy of manners, nevertheless, I like the guy a lot.
So when I heard he had adapted a fantasy novel about Nazi Germany from the point of view of a child, and would be playing Hitler himself, I knew instantly where he would be pitching this. The idea of it being offensive in any way was not a concern or even a thought, and anyone that did react that way is just… ridiculous and deliberately missing the point for the sake of finding something to be outraged about.
Of course subjects of genocide, political repression and evil existing in the world should and must be treated with a sensitivity to a degree, and amongst the silly lampooning and most extreme moments of satire that care is evident. There are moments of real gravity and tenderness in the mix here, thanks in large to some wonderful performances from the adult actors, notably the ever reliable Sam Rockwell and the increasingly strong and impressive Scarlett Johansson, who picked up her second Oscar nomination for this, after Marriage Story ticked the box for true drama.
The film focuses and relies on young Roman Griffin Davis as the eponymous Jojo, a happy little boy who sees goodness and light in an ever darkening world around him. Waititi as director works well with kids, placing the idea of charm and likability above acting prowess per se. And that is both the strength and ultimate weakness of this premise. He is charming and likeable, and cute and sweet and very watchable, but his inexperience in front of the camera and ability to find a range of emotions is often tested beyond his tender years, and can therefore break the magic spell that is woven in the best scenes.
The humour itself also doesn’t always hit the mark. Sometimes it is merely amusing rather than something laugh out loud funny, much as an average Mel Brooks film always was. And that can lead to a feel of something uneven and rambling, as the story struggles to find what it really wants to say. In its final moments it does land on an overlying message that leaves you with a winning impression, and you leave feeling that you saw something you enjoyed, but not something you would unreservedly recommend to everyone. In fact if someone said they didn’t enjoy it, or get the joke at all, then I would respect that view.
Under a microscope of scrutiny it doesn’t hold up that well, and I wonder how a few years of distance will treat it, once our sensibilities shift again with time. There are a few moments when the heart of the film connects with it’s silly bone and resonates, but not nearly enough. I personally wanted more of that. But, sadly, whenever JoJo threatens to grow up it retreats back into childhood and shies away from commenting on anything serious or truly meaningful. But, of course, that is not the point. As an entertainment it is a wonderful, unique and lovely film. And that should really be all that it is judged by.
In conclusion, a curiosity I will look forward to watching again, but don’t think quite makes the grade as an instant classic. It only reinforced however how much I like Rockwell and Johansson, and will always be curious about what Waititi is up to next.
I have followed the Kiwi’s original output since way back, and always enjoyed his quirky sense of humour and childlike charm. Either Eagle vs Shark or The Flight of the Conchords would have been my first encounter; and by the time of Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Thor: Ragnarok I had become a tentative fan. Never entirely bowled over by his style and content in the same way as, say, Wes Anderson (to whom some compare his outlook on the creative world), and never rolling around on the floor in hysterics at his naivety and comedy of manners, nevertheless, I like the guy a lot.
So when I heard he had adapted a fantasy novel about Nazi Germany from the point of view of a child, and would be playing Hitler himself, I knew instantly where he would be pitching this. The idea of it being offensive in any way was not a concern or even a thought, and anyone that did react that way is just… ridiculous and deliberately missing the point for the sake of finding something to be outraged about.
Of course subjects of genocide, political repression and evil existing in the world should and must be treated with a sensitivity to a degree, and amongst the silly lampooning and most extreme moments of satire that care is evident. There are moments of real gravity and tenderness in the mix here, thanks in large to some wonderful performances from the adult actors, notably the ever reliable Sam Rockwell and the increasingly strong and impressive Scarlett Johansson, who picked up her second Oscar nomination for this, after Marriage Story ticked the box for true drama.
The film focuses and relies on young Roman Griffin Davis as the eponymous Jojo, a happy little boy who sees goodness and light in an ever darkening world around him. Waititi as director works well with kids, placing the idea of charm and likability above acting prowess per se. And that is both the strength and ultimate weakness of this premise. He is charming and likeable, and cute and sweet and very watchable, but his inexperience in front of the camera and ability to find a range of emotions is often tested beyond his tender years, and can therefore break the magic spell that is woven in the best scenes.
The humour itself also doesn’t always hit the mark. Sometimes it is merely amusing rather than something laugh out loud funny, much as an average Mel Brooks film always was. And that can lead to a feel of something uneven and rambling, as the story struggles to find what it really wants to say. In its final moments it does land on an overlying message that leaves you with a winning impression, and you leave feeling that you saw something you enjoyed, but not something you would unreservedly recommend to everyone. In fact if someone said they didn’t enjoy it, or get the joke at all, then I would respect that view.
Under a microscope of scrutiny it doesn’t hold up that well, and I wonder how a few years of distance will treat it, once our sensibilities shift again with time. There are a few moments when the heart of the film connects with it’s silly bone and resonates, but not nearly enough. I personally wanted more of that. But, sadly, whenever JoJo threatens to grow up it retreats back into childhood and shies away from commenting on anything serious or truly meaningful. But, of course, that is not the point. As an entertainment it is a wonderful, unique and lovely film. And that should really be all that it is judged by.
In conclusion, a curiosity I will look forward to watching again, but don’t think quite makes the grade as an instant classic. It only reinforced however how much I like Rockwell and Johansson, and will always be curious about what Waititi is up to next.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Sonic the Hedgehog (2020) in Movies
Dec 22, 2020
Not as bad as expected
Sonic the Hedgehog is a legend, a gaming institution, and adapting him for the big screen was always going to be a tall order. This was proved when the trailer for this 2020 release first dropped in 2019 - the original appearance of Sonic faced such outcry and derision that studio Paramount did the unexpected and completely overhauled Sonic's looks. The result in the final film released in February of this year is a character that looks very much like the Sonic we know and love, but in a storyline and film that is sadly rather lacking.
Sonic the Hedgehog was directed by Jeff Fowler and stars James Marsden and Jim Carrey as the humans, with Ben Schwartz voicing the animated Sonic. The plot unfortunately is the entirely predictable buddy story you'd expect when a CGI character gets thrown into the real world - Sonic befriends a human, experiences all the fun earth has to offer before being hunted by an evil villain, and at the end everyone learns the value of friendship. So far, so generic and for me this was the biggest disappointment about this entire film. The script, the plot, the animation, it was all just so average.
Having seen the surprisingly good Detective Pikachu the previous year, which managed to seamlessly blend the real world with animated characters in a better than average story, I'd hoped Sonic would follow in the same vein but I'm sad to say it didn't. Yes Sonic looks a million times better than he did initially (the teeth in the original version are the stuff of nightmares), but he still looks too animated and cartoonish for the real world. The Pokémon in Warner Bros' film looked real, but Sonic just looks out of place. He isn't helped with Ben Schwartz's rather unconvincing voice which feels ill-fitting too, personally I think they should've done a Pikachu and Ryan Reynolds and gone with a completely outlandish OTT voice. It's a shame as the rest of the scenery and action based CGI are actually quite good, although the slow motion scenes have been done before and so much better (X-Men: Days of Future Past).
To be fair, despite a sometimes dodgy script, the human cast do at least do their best. James Marsden has surprisingly good chemistry with an animated hedgehog, although it's Jim Carrey as Dr Robotnik that steals the show. Whilst his Robotnik isn't quite the rounded Eggman of the games, Carrey's performance is wonderfully wacky, sinister and completely over the top, and is responsible for virtually all of the laughs here. He's having an absolute whale of a time and this really draws us in as viewers and makes us have fun too. He's the Carrey we know from the 90s, his performance so akin to those of Ace Ventura and The Mask that you can't help but love the exaggerated show he gives here.
Paramount has also done a good job of including some nostalgic nods to the games, from the gold rings in the opening Paramount logo to Sonic's red sneakers. Even the final battle between Sonic and Robotnik had me squealing with joy at how much it reminded me of the actions you undertake to defeat the boss battles. There are some aspects of the games that are missing, most noticeably the Badniks (Robotnik's creature like robots) and Sonic's friends, who have sadly been left for a blatant sequel baiting end credits scene for a sequel we may never see. I also found Robotnik's machines and vehicles to be a little too technologically advanced and was disappointed not to see some that were more reminiscent of the wacky contraptions from the games.
This adaptation of Sonic the Hedgehog isn't the best, and to be frank it could have been done so much better. That said, it still held my attention for its 100min run time and could never be called dull, even if it was a little too puerile to be anything better than average.
Sonic the Hedgehog was directed by Jeff Fowler and stars James Marsden and Jim Carrey as the humans, with Ben Schwartz voicing the animated Sonic. The plot unfortunately is the entirely predictable buddy story you'd expect when a CGI character gets thrown into the real world - Sonic befriends a human, experiences all the fun earth has to offer before being hunted by an evil villain, and at the end everyone learns the value of friendship. So far, so generic and for me this was the biggest disappointment about this entire film. The script, the plot, the animation, it was all just so average.
Having seen the surprisingly good Detective Pikachu the previous year, which managed to seamlessly blend the real world with animated characters in a better than average story, I'd hoped Sonic would follow in the same vein but I'm sad to say it didn't. Yes Sonic looks a million times better than he did initially (the teeth in the original version are the stuff of nightmares), but he still looks too animated and cartoonish for the real world. The Pokémon in Warner Bros' film looked real, but Sonic just looks out of place. He isn't helped with Ben Schwartz's rather unconvincing voice which feels ill-fitting too, personally I think they should've done a Pikachu and Ryan Reynolds and gone with a completely outlandish OTT voice. It's a shame as the rest of the scenery and action based CGI are actually quite good, although the slow motion scenes have been done before and so much better (X-Men: Days of Future Past).
To be fair, despite a sometimes dodgy script, the human cast do at least do their best. James Marsden has surprisingly good chemistry with an animated hedgehog, although it's Jim Carrey as Dr Robotnik that steals the show. Whilst his Robotnik isn't quite the rounded Eggman of the games, Carrey's performance is wonderfully wacky, sinister and completely over the top, and is responsible for virtually all of the laughs here. He's having an absolute whale of a time and this really draws us in as viewers and makes us have fun too. He's the Carrey we know from the 90s, his performance so akin to those of Ace Ventura and The Mask that you can't help but love the exaggerated show he gives here.
Paramount has also done a good job of including some nostalgic nods to the games, from the gold rings in the opening Paramount logo to Sonic's red sneakers. Even the final battle between Sonic and Robotnik had me squealing with joy at how much it reminded me of the actions you undertake to defeat the boss battles. There are some aspects of the games that are missing, most noticeably the Badniks (Robotnik's creature like robots) and Sonic's friends, who have sadly been left for a blatant sequel baiting end credits scene for a sequel we may never see. I also found Robotnik's machines and vehicles to be a little too technologically advanced and was disappointed not to see some that were more reminiscent of the wacky contraptions from the games.
This adaptation of Sonic the Hedgehog isn't the best, and to be frank it could have been done so much better. That said, it still held my attention for its 100min run time and could never be called dull, even if it was a little too puerile to be anything better than average.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Poor Unfortunate Soul: A Tale of the Sea Witch (Villains #3) in Books
Sep 7, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
A review by The Disney Bookworm:
The third instalment in Serena Valentino’s villain’s tales is the story of Ursula. I was really looking forward to this: after scaring the beejeeeesus out of me as a kid, Ursula has become my favourite villain as an adult. She definitely projects the body confidence I lack that’s for sure!
Regular readers will know I was left a little disappointed by The Beast Within and so it was with some trepidation that I ventured onto the next novel in the series. However, I was too tempted by the promise of a backstory to my favourite sassy octopus.
Poor Unfortunate Soul starts off really well, as is the case with all Valentino’s books. We meet Ursula as an orphaned human girl, raised by a loving adoptive father but never accepted by the villagers around her. She is acutely aware that she is different and is constantly drawn to the sea. However, when the villagers realise Ursula’s true form and start a literal witch hunt, her father tries to protect her and it ends tragically.
Vengeful and alone, Ursula returns to the sea and discovers her family isn’t lost to her after all: she has a brother, Triton.
Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Triton and Ursula are not destined for an emotional reunion and a game of happy families. Instead, Triton wants Ursula to conform to his idea of beauty and live in his kingdom as a mermaid. He also refuses to share his throne with Ursula: something their parents aspired to.
The siblings also disagree over the treatment of humans. Although both despise the race, the sea king disapproves of his sister’s vengeful ways and eventually banishes her from his kingdom. This only adds fuel to Ursula’s rage, causing her to plot to destroy her tyrant brother by using his youngest daughter: Ariel.
We all know how that story goes!
I really enjoyed this backstory to Ursula and the twist that her and Triton were related but separated when they were young. In my opinion it gave me what I wanted from the villains series: empathy for the villain.
However, as was the case in The Beast Within, I was willing for this to be fleshed out more. How were Triton and Ursula separated? What was the kingdom like when the siblings attempted to cohabitate? Ariel’s mother is briefly mentioned as a friend to Ursula – was it her death that permanently severed Triton and Ursula’s relationship? In my opinion, Ursula’s brief relationship with her brother is the lynch pin in her demise but the details are glossed over as an almost appendix in the story. I wanted more of this and less of Tulip!
Ah yes, Tulip is back! Although for the life of me I’m not sure why!
Yes, she was in the last book and we know she made a deal with Ursula.
Yes, she links the books together, particularly with the references to Maleficent’s evil doings in a neighbouring kingdom.
Yes, she has a friendship with Circe and Pflanze: allowing the odd sisters to locate their beloved sister.
Yes, she has a weird nanny who feels like she should be someone but I’m not entirely sure whom.
But dear god she takes up too much of these books. She clearly regained her beauty for a reason and I’m sure her royal suitor has a future role but she just doesn’t interest me as a character. She’s an extra: popping up now and again to make some link in the storyline.
I can’t delve much further into this book without completely ruining the story for you so let me just say that I enjoyed the book more than The Beast Within. Poor Unfortunate Soul gave me the backstory of Ursula and allowed me to witness how her hate and thirst for power consumed her, as well as the consequences of this.
The novel was less heavily involved with the Odd Sisters than The Beast Within. It seemed that the villain was the main focus which was in keeping with Fairest of All and greatly appreciated. However, I was still left wanting more: these are thin books and a quick read; I just feel that the opportunities for developing real, complex villains are being missed.
The third instalment in Serena Valentino’s villain’s tales is the story of Ursula. I was really looking forward to this: after scaring the beejeeeesus out of me as a kid, Ursula has become my favourite villain as an adult. She definitely projects the body confidence I lack that’s for sure!
Regular readers will know I was left a little disappointed by The Beast Within and so it was with some trepidation that I ventured onto the next novel in the series. However, I was too tempted by the promise of a backstory to my favourite sassy octopus.
Poor Unfortunate Soul starts off really well, as is the case with all Valentino’s books. We meet Ursula as an orphaned human girl, raised by a loving adoptive father but never accepted by the villagers around her. She is acutely aware that she is different and is constantly drawn to the sea. However, when the villagers realise Ursula’s true form and start a literal witch hunt, her father tries to protect her and it ends tragically.
Vengeful and alone, Ursula returns to the sea and discovers her family isn’t lost to her after all: she has a brother, Triton.
Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Triton and Ursula are not destined for an emotional reunion and a game of happy families. Instead, Triton wants Ursula to conform to his idea of beauty and live in his kingdom as a mermaid. He also refuses to share his throne with Ursula: something their parents aspired to.
The siblings also disagree over the treatment of humans. Although both despise the race, the sea king disapproves of his sister’s vengeful ways and eventually banishes her from his kingdom. This only adds fuel to Ursula’s rage, causing her to plot to destroy her tyrant brother by using his youngest daughter: Ariel.
We all know how that story goes!
I really enjoyed this backstory to Ursula and the twist that her and Triton were related but separated when they were young. In my opinion it gave me what I wanted from the villains series: empathy for the villain.
However, as was the case in The Beast Within, I was willing for this to be fleshed out more. How were Triton and Ursula separated? What was the kingdom like when the siblings attempted to cohabitate? Ariel’s mother is briefly mentioned as a friend to Ursula – was it her death that permanently severed Triton and Ursula’s relationship? In my opinion, Ursula’s brief relationship with her brother is the lynch pin in her demise but the details are glossed over as an almost appendix in the story. I wanted more of this and less of Tulip!
Ah yes, Tulip is back! Although for the life of me I’m not sure why!
Yes, she was in the last book and we know she made a deal with Ursula.
Yes, she links the books together, particularly with the references to Maleficent’s evil doings in a neighbouring kingdom.
Yes, she has a friendship with Circe and Pflanze: allowing the odd sisters to locate their beloved sister.
Yes, she has a weird nanny who feels like she should be someone but I’m not entirely sure whom.
But dear god she takes up too much of these books. She clearly regained her beauty for a reason and I’m sure her royal suitor has a future role but she just doesn’t interest me as a character. She’s an extra: popping up now and again to make some link in the storyline.
I can’t delve much further into this book without completely ruining the story for you so let me just say that I enjoyed the book more than The Beast Within. Poor Unfortunate Soul gave me the backstory of Ursula and allowed me to witness how her hate and thirst for power consumed her, as well as the consequences of this.
The novel was less heavily involved with the Odd Sisters than The Beast Within. It seemed that the villain was the main focus which was in keeping with Fairest of All and greatly appreciated. However, I was still left wanting more: these are thin books and a quick read; I just feel that the opportunities for developing real, complex villains are being missed.
