Search
Search results
100 Recettes Libanaises
Food & Drink and Lifestyle
App
Top positions: #1 au Liban, #4 en France, #5 au Venezuela, #11 en Allemagne, #14 en UAE, #14 au...
3000+ Dessert Recipes
Food & Drink and Education
App
The fondant is the thing which brings a lot of beauty in dessert cooking – it is the thing used...
CSmart for craigslist - Pro classifieds mobile app
Catalogs and Finance
App
*WARNING* BUILT-IN POST COMING NEXT MAJOR UPDATE, PERSONALS SECTION NOT INCLUDED. Please read the...
Learn Hot English Magazine
Education and Magazines & Newspapers
App
Learn English with the Hot English app! English for all levels (easy – advanced). A monthly...
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Enola Holmes and the Black Barouche in Books
Sep 2, 2021
I am excited to present my first guest review, from my wonderful wife, Kate! Thanks, babe, for your review of this book, the seventh in Nancy Springer's Enola Holmes' series.
When I heard there was going to be another book in the Enola Holmes series, I jumped at the chance and promised my book-loving wife that I would write a guest review. So, here it is! Please accept my apologies ahead of time for the fact that I cannot (and would never dare try to) match the quality and skill that my wife demonstrates in her own book reviews.
Enola Holmes and the Black Barouche, by Nancy Springer, is another book in the growing series following Ms. Enola Holmes, the 15 year old sister of the famous Sherlock Holmes. This book is being released over 10 years after the last published novel, which came out in 2010. The earlier six novels covered the ongoing story of Enola’s (often contentious) relationship with her brothers (Sherlock and Mycroft), as well as brought the reader resolution about Enola’s missing/runaway mother. This new story starts with a Prologue written by none other than Sherlock himself, who provides a summary of these tales, and tells of his earlier encounters with Enola. His introduction even suggests his level of respect for her has improved dramatically. The new story finds the young detective (or Scientific Perditorian, as she has dubbed herself) seeking the whereabouts of Miss Leticia Glover’s twin sister, Flossie. Glover has been told that her sister has died, but the circumstances surrounding Flossie’s death are mysteriously vague. Initially, Glover seeks the assistance of Mr. Sherlock Holmes, but she ends up with the masterful pair of Enola and Sherlock, who are finally working together on a case. The two detectives set out, albeit in opposite directions, to ascertain the fate of the missing twin.
I think the allure of these books for me is the underlying message that Enola is as good as, if not better (or at least cleverer) than her notorious older brother. In the previous stories I enjoyed her ability to reach conclusions before him, even if she was getting there with only a slight edge. This particular story seamlessly continues the message that Enola’s keen mind works in ways that Sherlock’s doesn’t.
I thoroughly enjoyed this seventh book in the Enola Holmes series and hope that the author continues with her story. And, while I do enjoy that Enola and Sherlock have mended their relationship and are able to work together, I hope Enola can still find time to shine on her own. This particular book began with a Prologue from Sherlock, and ended with an Epilogue also penned from his perspective. As these stories are supposed to be Enola’s, it felt wrong for the final word to be coming from someone else. Beyond that, this was an excellent mystery and fun, quick read.
When I heard there was going to be another book in the Enola Holmes series, I jumped at the chance and promised my book-loving wife that I would write a guest review. So, here it is! Please accept my apologies ahead of time for the fact that I cannot (and would never dare try to) match the quality and skill that my wife demonstrates in her own book reviews.
Enola Holmes and the Black Barouche, by Nancy Springer, is another book in the growing series following Ms. Enola Holmes, the 15 year old sister of the famous Sherlock Holmes. This book is being released over 10 years after the last published novel, which came out in 2010. The earlier six novels covered the ongoing story of Enola’s (often contentious) relationship with her brothers (Sherlock and Mycroft), as well as brought the reader resolution about Enola’s missing/runaway mother. This new story starts with a Prologue written by none other than Sherlock himself, who provides a summary of these tales, and tells of his earlier encounters with Enola. His introduction even suggests his level of respect for her has improved dramatically. The new story finds the young detective (or Scientific Perditorian, as she has dubbed herself) seeking the whereabouts of Miss Leticia Glover’s twin sister, Flossie. Glover has been told that her sister has died, but the circumstances surrounding Flossie’s death are mysteriously vague. Initially, Glover seeks the assistance of Mr. Sherlock Holmes, but she ends up with the masterful pair of Enola and Sherlock, who are finally working together on a case. The two detectives set out, albeit in opposite directions, to ascertain the fate of the missing twin.
I think the allure of these books for me is the underlying message that Enola is as good as, if not better (or at least cleverer) than her notorious older brother. In the previous stories I enjoyed her ability to reach conclusions before him, even if she was getting there with only a slight edge. This particular story seamlessly continues the message that Enola’s keen mind works in ways that Sherlock’s doesn’t.
I thoroughly enjoyed this seventh book in the Enola Holmes series and hope that the author continues with her story. And, while I do enjoy that Enola and Sherlock have mended their relationship and are able to work together, I hope Enola can still find time to shine on her own. This particular book began with a Prologue from Sherlock, and ended with an Epilogue also penned from his perspective. As these stories are supposed to be Enola’s, it felt wrong for the final word to be coming from someone else. Beyond that, this was an excellent mystery and fun, quick read.
A film with dodgy voices.
Catching up here with a review of a film I saw a couple of weeks ago.
What a great film “Get Out” was. Jordan Peele’s classic which unpeeled (sic) race relations in a wholly novel and horrifying way. Yes, the story was a bit ‘out there’ and unbelievable, but he pulled it off with great chutzpah.
With his follow-up film – “Us”…. sorry but, for me, it just didn’t work.
From great beginnings
It all starts so promisingly. Young Adelaide Wilson (a fine debut performance by Madison Curry) is on a seaside holiday with her mother and careless father when she wanders onto the deserted Santa Cruz beach at night. There sits, like some gothic horror ghost train, the Hall of Mirrors. “Find Yourself” it taunts. She makes the mistake of entering and changes her life forever.
Spin forwards 30 years and Adelaide, now a married mother of two, is back in Santa Cruz with a terrifying feeling that things are about to go pear-shaped. And of course they do!
Why oh why oh why those voices?
This film had me gripped until a particular point. Having people stand still and silent at the end of your drive is an incredibly spooky thing to show. But then, for me, the wheels came off big time. The “reveal” of who these people were I could take. But the manner of their behaviour and – particularly – how they talked was horrifying; and not in a good way. When “Red” started speaking I couldn’t believe my ears: Joe Pasquale after swallowing Donald Duck.
From there, the film became farcical for me, descending in progressive stages to a tunnel-based apocalypse: a plot element that was just so paper thin it bore no scrutiny at all.
This was, no doubt, an attempt at a satirical dig at the class structure of America (“We are Americans” adding a double meaning to the name of the film). If it had been played as a deliberate comedy farce it might have worked. But otherwise no.
Flashes of Peele brilliance
This is not to say that there are not positives in the film. The excellent Lupita Nyong’o gives the whacky material her all, and the other adult female lead – Elisabeth Moss (from TV’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”) – is good value as Kitty Tyler: a diabolical incarnation in either form!
Peele also delivers flashes of directorial brilliance. The “hands across America”, disappearing into the sea, is a sight that stays with you. I also liked the twist at the end, although in retrospect it’s difficult to relate it to the rest of the story and strikes of desperation in the storytelling.
Overall, a big disappointment
I know there are some who really like this movie. Each to their own, but I was not one of them. After “Get Out” I was hoping for something much better. I hope that was just Jordan Peele’s “difficult second album”.
What a great film “Get Out” was. Jordan Peele’s classic which unpeeled (sic) race relations in a wholly novel and horrifying way. Yes, the story was a bit ‘out there’ and unbelievable, but he pulled it off with great chutzpah.
With his follow-up film – “Us”…. sorry but, for me, it just didn’t work.
From great beginnings
It all starts so promisingly. Young Adelaide Wilson (a fine debut performance by Madison Curry) is on a seaside holiday with her mother and careless father when she wanders onto the deserted Santa Cruz beach at night. There sits, like some gothic horror ghost train, the Hall of Mirrors. “Find Yourself” it taunts. She makes the mistake of entering and changes her life forever.
Spin forwards 30 years and Adelaide, now a married mother of two, is back in Santa Cruz with a terrifying feeling that things are about to go pear-shaped. And of course they do!
Why oh why oh why those voices?
This film had me gripped until a particular point. Having people stand still and silent at the end of your drive is an incredibly spooky thing to show. But then, for me, the wheels came off big time. The “reveal” of who these people were I could take. But the manner of their behaviour and – particularly – how they talked was horrifying; and not in a good way. When “Red” started speaking I couldn’t believe my ears: Joe Pasquale after swallowing Donald Duck.
From there, the film became farcical for me, descending in progressive stages to a tunnel-based apocalypse: a plot element that was just so paper thin it bore no scrutiny at all.
This was, no doubt, an attempt at a satirical dig at the class structure of America (“We are Americans” adding a double meaning to the name of the film). If it had been played as a deliberate comedy farce it might have worked. But otherwise no.
Flashes of Peele brilliance
This is not to say that there are not positives in the film. The excellent Lupita Nyong’o gives the whacky material her all, and the other adult female lead – Elisabeth Moss (from TV’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”) – is good value as Kitty Tyler: a diabolical incarnation in either form!
Peele also delivers flashes of directorial brilliance. The “hands across America”, disappearing into the sea, is a sight that stays with you. I also liked the twist at the end, although in retrospect it’s difficult to relate it to the rest of the story and strikes of desperation in the storytelling.
Overall, a big disappointment
I know there are some who really like this movie. Each to their own, but I was not one of them. After “Get Out” I was hoping for something much better. I hope that was just Jordan Peele’s “difficult second album”.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Kingdomino: Age of Giants in Tabletop Games
Sep 7, 2021 (Updated Sep 29, 2021)
In the expansion review series, we take a look at a game expansion to discuss whether it is a necessary purchase/addition to one’s collection.
This breakdown is for the super popular tile-laying game Kingdomino and its Age of Giants expansion.
Included in this strangely-dimensioned-box-when-compared-with-its-base-game is a plethora of components. Most notably are components to include a fifth player (brown this time) and a very large domino dispenser. Also included are six gianteeples, 17 Challenge Tiles, and a scorepad.
The giants can be found in the art on certain dominoes and their footprints are found on other dominoes. When drawing and adding a tile featuring a giant to your kingdom you must also place a gianteeple upon the domino. This giant is attracted to crowns, so it will cover up (and thus nullify for scoring) one of the crown icons in your kingdom. Dominoes with giant footprints will award the player with the ability to reassign a gianteeple from the placer’s kingdom to an opponent’s kingdom, covering a crown in the process.
The 17 Challenge Tiles that are included in this expansion help players to hone in on a certain strategy when placing terrain dominoes. At setup two of the 17 tiles are revealed and will dictate extra bonus points at game end for all players who satisfy their iconography. Some will award bonus points for having certain terrain types in the kingdom, while others will award points having no crown icons on any dominoes at all! There are several types of Challenge Tiles to explore each game.
Age of Giants is an excellent expansion that includes a lot of thoughtful components and rules. I especially enjoy the domino dispenser and I always like being able to add more players to my games. So for those points alone I would add this expansion. However, the Challenge Tiles are very interesting, especially for players who suffer from not having specific goals to attain whilst playing. Similarly, the addition of the giants and their footprint dominoes are a nice touch, but secondary to me, oddly.
Does this mean I recommend everyone to go out and purchase this expansion post-haste?
Official recommendation: No, this is not a must-buy at all. Everything included within this expansion is great, and adds something to the original Kingdomino, but unless you are needing components for a fifth player, or really enjoy the idea of the Challenge Tile, the rest is really fluff to help pimp out your game. Yes, the domino dispenser is awesome and handy, but not necessary. Yes, it’s cool to be able to send giants to neighboring kingdoms to mess with your opponents, but I don’t think Kingdomino needed that. So, I am torn with this recommendation, but I am thankful I have it in my collection for my first few points.
This breakdown is for the super popular tile-laying game Kingdomino and its Age of Giants expansion.
Included in this strangely-dimensioned-box-when-compared-with-its-base-game is a plethora of components. Most notably are components to include a fifth player (brown this time) and a very large domino dispenser. Also included are six gianteeples, 17 Challenge Tiles, and a scorepad.
The giants can be found in the art on certain dominoes and their footprints are found on other dominoes. When drawing and adding a tile featuring a giant to your kingdom you must also place a gianteeple upon the domino. This giant is attracted to crowns, so it will cover up (and thus nullify for scoring) one of the crown icons in your kingdom. Dominoes with giant footprints will award the player with the ability to reassign a gianteeple from the placer’s kingdom to an opponent’s kingdom, covering a crown in the process.
The 17 Challenge Tiles that are included in this expansion help players to hone in on a certain strategy when placing terrain dominoes. At setup two of the 17 tiles are revealed and will dictate extra bonus points at game end for all players who satisfy their iconography. Some will award bonus points for having certain terrain types in the kingdom, while others will award points having no crown icons on any dominoes at all! There are several types of Challenge Tiles to explore each game.
Age of Giants is an excellent expansion that includes a lot of thoughtful components and rules. I especially enjoy the domino dispenser and I always like being able to add more players to my games. So for those points alone I would add this expansion. However, the Challenge Tiles are very interesting, especially for players who suffer from not having specific goals to attain whilst playing. Similarly, the addition of the giants and their footprint dominoes are a nice touch, but secondary to me, oddly.
Does this mean I recommend everyone to go out and purchase this expansion post-haste?
Official recommendation: No, this is not a must-buy at all. Everything included within this expansion is great, and adds something to the original Kingdomino, but unless you are needing components for a fifth player, or really enjoy the idea of the Challenge Tile, the rest is really fluff to help pimp out your game. Yes, the domino dispenser is awesome and handy, but not necessary. Yes, it’s cool to be able to send giants to neighboring kingdoms to mess with your opponents, but I don’t think Kingdomino needed that. So, I am torn with this recommendation, but I am thankful I have it in my collection for my first few points.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Hawkeye in TV
Dec 23, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
Marvel Studios continue their streak of enjoyable mini-series with Hawkeye, a series that was met with a fair amount of indifference upon its announcement, which is understandable. On the surface , Clint Barton isn't the most exciting Avenger to build a series around, but Hawkeye surprises with a team of decent writers, and a story adapted from Matt Fraction and David Aja's acclaimed comic book run.
Most of Barton's specific plot beats revolve around his family, and his loss of hearing. The human elements ensure that he remains a relatable, street level character. The "Hawkeye" that this series is really about of course is MCU newcomer Kate Bishop, a fan favourite comic character who is portrayed wonderfully by Hailee Steinfeld. The series is essentially her origin story, and I for one can't wait to see her in future projects. The chemistry between Steinfeld and Jeremy Renner is great, and provides a huge amount of heart to the overall story.
Florence Pugh has a welcome return as Yelena, and her involvement ensures that Hawkeye is as much of a tribute to Black Widow as anything else, and serves some much needed closure for her concluded story arc that has been frustratingly absent since the events of Avengers: Endgame.
Elsewhere, the likes of Vera Farmiga, Tony Dalton, and Alaqua Cox make up a strong supporting cast, and sets up an upcoming series for Echo, a deeper cut from the Marvel vaults, but one that I'm intrigued to see develop.
And then of course, there's motherfucking Kingpin. Arguably the most popular character from the Netflix shows, the decision to bring Vincent Donofrio back as Wilson Fisk is a smart one. His presence in the MCU is incredibly exciting to me, and Donofrio does and excellent job once again, at filling the boots of one of Marvel's most intimidating villains. Welcome back sir.
There are plenty of exciting action set pieces sprinkled throughout (a car chase involving various trick arrows is a particular highlight) and the decision to keep Hawkeye firmly street level in its execution is a wise one. It allows New York City to feel like a character in it's own right, and the Christmas setting adds to that. It does feel like a proper holiday watch at times, and this is probably why the show feels so goofy on more than one occasion. I know that the MCU likes to keep the mood light for the most part, and is often found guilty of undercutting serious or epic moments with jokes. Hawkeye occasionally goes overboard with these moments, especially in the finale. It's not enough to derail what is an incredibly entertaining series, but it's a little frustrating.
Overall though, Hawkeye is another decent and fleshed out mini series in this sprawling franchise. The extra runtime of a season has ensured that all of the MCU shows this year have been high quality and worth watching. I just hope it's not too long until we get a Kate Bishop/Yelena reunion!
Most of Barton's specific plot beats revolve around his family, and his loss of hearing. The human elements ensure that he remains a relatable, street level character. The "Hawkeye" that this series is really about of course is MCU newcomer Kate Bishop, a fan favourite comic character who is portrayed wonderfully by Hailee Steinfeld. The series is essentially her origin story, and I for one can't wait to see her in future projects. The chemistry between Steinfeld and Jeremy Renner is great, and provides a huge amount of heart to the overall story.
Florence Pugh has a welcome return as Yelena, and her involvement ensures that Hawkeye is as much of a tribute to Black Widow as anything else, and serves some much needed closure for her concluded story arc that has been frustratingly absent since the events of Avengers: Endgame.
Elsewhere, the likes of Vera Farmiga, Tony Dalton, and Alaqua Cox make up a strong supporting cast, and sets up an upcoming series for Echo, a deeper cut from the Marvel vaults, but one that I'm intrigued to see develop.
And then of course, there's motherfucking Kingpin. Arguably the most popular character from the Netflix shows, the decision to bring Vincent Donofrio back as Wilson Fisk is a smart one. His presence in the MCU is incredibly exciting to me, and Donofrio does and excellent job once again, at filling the boots of one of Marvel's most intimidating villains. Welcome back sir.
There are plenty of exciting action set pieces sprinkled throughout (a car chase involving various trick arrows is a particular highlight) and the decision to keep Hawkeye firmly street level in its execution is a wise one. It allows New York City to feel like a character in it's own right, and the Christmas setting adds to that. It does feel like a proper holiday watch at times, and this is probably why the show feels so goofy on more than one occasion. I know that the MCU likes to keep the mood light for the most part, and is often found guilty of undercutting serious or epic moments with jokes. Hawkeye occasionally goes overboard with these moments, especially in the finale. It's not enough to derail what is an incredibly entertaining series, but it's a little frustrating.
Overall though, Hawkeye is another decent and fleshed out mini series in this sprawling franchise. The extra runtime of a season has ensured that all of the MCU shows this year have been high quality and worth watching. I just hope it's not too long until we get a Kate Bishop/Yelena reunion!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Enjoyable and harmless comedy laced with a degree of sentimentality.
The Plot
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.