Search
Search results
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated Goodnight Mister Tom in Books
Nov 7, 2019
In September 1939, as Britain stands on the brink of the war, many young children from the cities are evacuated tot he countryside to escape an imminent German bombardment. Willie Beech, a boy from Deptford who is physically and emotionally abused by his mother, arrives at the home of Tom Oakley, a widower in his sixties who lives in the village of Little Weirwold. The boy is thinly clad, underfed and covered with painful bruises, and believes he is full of sin, a result of his upbringing by his mother, a domineering, insane, God-fearing widow.
"Mister Tom", as William christens his new guardian, is reclusive and bad-tempered, and as such is avoided by the community. Willie lives with him as his Mother wants him to live with someone who is either religious or lives next to a church. Though initially distant, he is touched after discovering William's home-life and treats him with kindness and understanding, helping to educate him. Under his care, William begins to thrive, forming a small circle of friends at school among his classmates including fellow-evacuee Zach. He also becomes proficient in drawing and dramatics. As William is changed by Tom, so is Tom transformed by William's presence in his home. It is revealed that Tom lost his wife and baby son to Scarlatina some 40 years previously, and he has become reclusive because of this.
The growing bond between William and Tom is threatened when William's mother requests that the boy returns to her in the city, telling him she is sick. At first, William thinks this will be a good thing, as he can be helpful to his mother. However, his mother is not pleased to learn the details of his time with Tom, feeling that he has not been disciplined properly. While William has been away, she has become pregnant and had a girl, but is neglecting the baby. After a bad reunion, where his mother becomes furious upon learning the details of her son's life with Tom, abhorring his association with the Jewish Zach among other things, she hits William and puts him in the under-stairs cupboard, chains him to the piping. William regains consciousness briefly to find himself in the cupboard – he has been stripped of his clothes, minus his underwear, and his ankle is twisted. He quietly sobs for Tom, before he falls asleep.
Back in Little Weirwold, Tom has a premonition that something is not right with William. Although he has never travelled beyond his immediate locality, he ventures into London and eventually locates William's neighbourhood of Deptford and his home. He persuades a local policeman to break down the door of the apparently empty home, to be greeted with a vile stench. They find William in the closet with the baby, who had also been locked under the stairs by William's mother and has now died. William is malnourished and badly bruised as he had been locked under the stairs for a number of days. William is hospitalised, but whilst there suffers horrific nightmares and is drugged simply to prevent his screams from disturbing other children. Tom is warned that it is likely that William will be taken to a children's home, and, unable to observe William's distress any longer, kidnaps him from the hospital and takes him back to Little Weirwold.
Back with Mister Tom, William is much damaged by his ordeal and is also blaming himself for the death of his sister as he had not been able to provide enough milk to feed her whilst locked away, and becomes very depressed. Later, when his favourite teacher Annie Hartridge has a baby, William is shocked to learn from Zach that a woman cannot conceive a child on her own, and realises that his mother was having a relationship with a man, even though she had previously told him that it was wrong for unmarried couples to live together or have children together (something which society in general had regarded as unacceptable at this time). Tom is traced by the authorities, who have come to tell William that his mother is dead, having committed suicide. They also offer him a place in a children's home, as they've been unable to trace any other relatives who may have been able to take care of him. Luckily the authorities realise that William has already found a good home and allow Tom to adopt him.
Tom, William and Zach then enjoy a holiday at the seaside village of Salmouth, where they stay in the house of a widow whose sons have been sent out to war. Zach then receives news that his father has been injured by a German bomb in London and he hurries home on the next train saying farewell to all his friends. Unfortunately this is the last time they see him. William later learns that Zach has been killed and is grief-stricken for some time, but his grief is later healed by another recluse, Geoffery Sanderton. Geoffery, a young man who had lost a leg during the war and takes William for private art lessons,recognises the signs of grief and gives William a pipe to paint along with a picture of two smiling young men. One of the men is Geoffery and he tells William about the loss of his own best friend, the other man in the picture and the owner of the pipe. This is when William starts to come to terms with Zach's death. Adding to this, Doctor Little, the village doctor, who was Zach's guardian while he was evacuated, is surprised but pleased when William asks to have Zach's bike. Through learning to ride it, William realises that Zach lives on inside him and he will never forget his wonderful companion that Zach was.
In the months following, William grows closer to Carrie, one of his friends. One night, on returning home to Tom (whom he now calls "Dad"), he thinks back on how much he has changed since arriving in Little Weirwold and realises that he is growing.
Goodnight Mr Tom Wiki.
Goodnight Mr Tom was published by Kestrel in 1981 and later on in that same year in the US by Harper and Row. The book won Author Michelle Magorian the annual Guardian Children's fiction prize. Magorian was also a runner up for the Carnegie Medal. The book has been adapted as a Movie, a play and a musical. The most recent theatrical adaption won the Laurence Olivier award for Best Entertainment.
I came across the book when I was 10/11 years old. I needed the book for English at primary school, since we needed to read the book and complete a series of assignments for our teacher. I have in the subsequent years read and re-read the book. The book is rather good and I recommand it for children from the ages of 9/10 upwards. The book is a good representation of what happened during WW2 in a fictional setting. And William and Mr Tom healing each other from what they both experienced (Tom loosing family to Scarlatina and William being abused by his mother). I give the book an 8/10.
"Mister Tom", as William christens his new guardian, is reclusive and bad-tempered, and as such is avoided by the community. Willie lives with him as his Mother wants him to live with someone who is either religious or lives next to a church. Though initially distant, he is touched after discovering William's home-life and treats him with kindness and understanding, helping to educate him. Under his care, William begins to thrive, forming a small circle of friends at school among his classmates including fellow-evacuee Zach. He also becomes proficient in drawing and dramatics. As William is changed by Tom, so is Tom transformed by William's presence in his home. It is revealed that Tom lost his wife and baby son to Scarlatina some 40 years previously, and he has become reclusive because of this.
The growing bond between William and Tom is threatened when William's mother requests that the boy returns to her in the city, telling him she is sick. At first, William thinks this will be a good thing, as he can be helpful to his mother. However, his mother is not pleased to learn the details of his time with Tom, feeling that he has not been disciplined properly. While William has been away, she has become pregnant and had a girl, but is neglecting the baby. After a bad reunion, where his mother becomes furious upon learning the details of her son's life with Tom, abhorring his association with the Jewish Zach among other things, she hits William and puts him in the under-stairs cupboard, chains him to the piping. William regains consciousness briefly to find himself in the cupboard – he has been stripped of his clothes, minus his underwear, and his ankle is twisted. He quietly sobs for Tom, before he falls asleep.
Back in Little Weirwold, Tom has a premonition that something is not right with William. Although he has never travelled beyond his immediate locality, he ventures into London and eventually locates William's neighbourhood of Deptford and his home. He persuades a local policeman to break down the door of the apparently empty home, to be greeted with a vile stench. They find William in the closet with the baby, who had also been locked under the stairs by William's mother and has now died. William is malnourished and badly bruised as he had been locked under the stairs for a number of days. William is hospitalised, but whilst there suffers horrific nightmares and is drugged simply to prevent his screams from disturbing other children. Tom is warned that it is likely that William will be taken to a children's home, and, unable to observe William's distress any longer, kidnaps him from the hospital and takes him back to Little Weirwold.
Back with Mister Tom, William is much damaged by his ordeal and is also blaming himself for the death of his sister as he had not been able to provide enough milk to feed her whilst locked away, and becomes very depressed. Later, when his favourite teacher Annie Hartridge has a baby, William is shocked to learn from Zach that a woman cannot conceive a child on her own, and realises that his mother was having a relationship with a man, even though she had previously told him that it was wrong for unmarried couples to live together or have children together (something which society in general had regarded as unacceptable at this time). Tom is traced by the authorities, who have come to tell William that his mother is dead, having committed suicide. They also offer him a place in a children's home, as they've been unable to trace any other relatives who may have been able to take care of him. Luckily the authorities realise that William has already found a good home and allow Tom to adopt him.
Tom, William and Zach then enjoy a holiday at the seaside village of Salmouth, where they stay in the house of a widow whose sons have been sent out to war. Zach then receives news that his father has been injured by a German bomb in London and he hurries home on the next train saying farewell to all his friends. Unfortunately this is the last time they see him. William later learns that Zach has been killed and is grief-stricken for some time, but his grief is later healed by another recluse, Geoffery Sanderton. Geoffery, a young man who had lost a leg during the war and takes William for private art lessons,recognises the signs of grief and gives William a pipe to paint along with a picture of two smiling young men. One of the men is Geoffery and he tells William about the loss of his own best friend, the other man in the picture and the owner of the pipe. This is when William starts to come to terms with Zach's death. Adding to this, Doctor Little, the village doctor, who was Zach's guardian while he was evacuated, is surprised but pleased when William asks to have Zach's bike. Through learning to ride it, William realises that Zach lives on inside him and he will never forget his wonderful companion that Zach was.
In the months following, William grows closer to Carrie, one of his friends. One night, on returning home to Tom (whom he now calls "Dad"), he thinks back on how much he has changed since arriving in Little Weirwold and realises that he is growing.
Goodnight Mr Tom Wiki.
Goodnight Mr Tom was published by Kestrel in 1981 and later on in that same year in the US by Harper and Row. The book won Author Michelle Magorian the annual Guardian Children's fiction prize. Magorian was also a runner up for the Carnegie Medal. The book has been adapted as a Movie, a play and a musical. The most recent theatrical adaption won the Laurence Olivier award for Best Entertainment.
I came across the book when I was 10/11 years old. I needed the book for English at primary school, since we needed to read the book and complete a series of assignments for our teacher. I have in the subsequent years read and re-read the book. The book is rather good and I recommand it for children from the ages of 9/10 upwards. The book is a good representation of what happened during WW2 in a fictional setting. And William and Mr Tom healing each other from what they both experienced (Tom loosing family to Scarlatina and William being abused by his mother). I give the book an 8/10.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Downfall (Der Untergang) (2004) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
The true story of the last days of NAZI Germany, focusing on Hitler and his cohorts as they sought refuge on his Berlin Bunker and is chronicled here with such honesty.
Told in a straight forward manner, we are given a portrait of not only Adolf Hitler himself, played perfectly by Bruno Ganz, who manages to humanize him without ever apologising for his heinous acts, but also those close to him. Shown through the young eyes of his final secretary, Traudl Junge (Alexandra Maria Lara), we are given a picture of what The Third Reich was to those who believed in it as well as what it had become for those who would suffer at it bloody hands.
Directed by Hirschbiegel to put us, the audience in the anterooms with these monsters, we are placed into a complex environment, edgy, atmospheric and most of all, real, as we witness noble acts of patriotism, conscience and pure, despicable horror, none less so that Magda Geobells, with the full consent of her husband, Joseph, first drugging, then murdering their six children as they slept, rather than “let them live in a world without national socialism.”
The only redeeming factors were their eventual suicides and in terms of the film, their first rate performances throughout this harrowing scene. Corinna Harfouch, who portrays Magda manages to portray this evil woman yet convey the emotion which was subdued deep beneath the surface. No small feat to allow such a fleeting glimpse of humanity during such and inhuman act.
But the same must be said Bruno Ganz, who manages to portray Hitler with such humanity; whilst showing us the true nature of his monstrosities, highlighting that the REAL monsters live among us and can seduce us at any time, any where, especially when we are vulnerable.
During one of the film’s early scenes, Hitler and Albert Speer (Heino Ferch), his Armaments Minister, discussing his vision for The Third Reich as he looks over a model of the new Germany which would be built after he won the war, a Germany without department stores, instead focusing on art, literature and culture.
Surely a noble goal, but as we all know, this cultural hub would have been built at an unacceptable cost, mainly with the blood of those who Hitler and his cohorts deemed to be inferior.
This is one of many clever methods used to convey a fair portrait of Hitler and The Third Reich. To demonstrate how bad they were, you first have to show impartiality, pointing out the good in what they do, play devil’s advocate as it were. Because whether we like it or not, evil motives are often built upon decent goals.
But as this film demonstrates, as Hitler shows his destine for anyone, even his own people, who will not give their lives for HIS vision of Germany, his Third Reich was being eaten away by a cancer of his own making, a Germany rotting from the very top.
Downfall is without a doubt one of the best World War 2 films which I have ever seen, delivering a compelling and immersive look behind the scenes of one of the most important defeats in modern history.
But being British and having to follow this with subtitles, which was great as watching this in its native German only adds to the experience, it can be a bit difficult to keep up with every plot machination, as we spend two and half hours reading about troop deployments, tactics and the philosophy of the Third Reich as we are presented with such atmospheric work, but if you can keep up with but the text and visuals, this is one hell of an education for those who do not know and an immersive masterpiece for those who follow WW2 history.
Told in a straight forward manner, we are given a portrait of not only Adolf Hitler himself, played perfectly by Bruno Ganz, who manages to humanize him without ever apologising for his heinous acts, but also those close to him. Shown through the young eyes of his final secretary, Traudl Junge (Alexandra Maria Lara), we are given a picture of what The Third Reich was to those who believed in it as well as what it had become for those who would suffer at it bloody hands.
Directed by Hirschbiegel to put us, the audience in the anterooms with these monsters, we are placed into a complex environment, edgy, atmospheric and most of all, real, as we witness noble acts of patriotism, conscience and pure, despicable horror, none less so that Magda Geobells, with the full consent of her husband, Joseph, first drugging, then murdering their six children as they slept, rather than “let them live in a world without national socialism.”
The only redeeming factors were their eventual suicides and in terms of the film, their first rate performances throughout this harrowing scene. Corinna Harfouch, who portrays Magda manages to portray this evil woman yet convey the emotion which was subdued deep beneath the surface. No small feat to allow such a fleeting glimpse of humanity during such and inhuman act.
But the same must be said Bruno Ganz, who manages to portray Hitler with such humanity; whilst showing us the true nature of his monstrosities, highlighting that the REAL monsters live among us and can seduce us at any time, any where, especially when we are vulnerable.
During one of the film’s early scenes, Hitler and Albert Speer (Heino Ferch), his Armaments Minister, discussing his vision for The Third Reich as he looks over a model of the new Germany which would be built after he won the war, a Germany without department stores, instead focusing on art, literature and culture.
Surely a noble goal, but as we all know, this cultural hub would have been built at an unacceptable cost, mainly with the blood of those who Hitler and his cohorts deemed to be inferior.
This is one of many clever methods used to convey a fair portrait of Hitler and The Third Reich. To demonstrate how bad they were, you first have to show impartiality, pointing out the good in what they do, play devil’s advocate as it were. Because whether we like it or not, evil motives are often built upon decent goals.
But as this film demonstrates, as Hitler shows his destine for anyone, even his own people, who will not give their lives for HIS vision of Germany, his Third Reich was being eaten away by a cancer of his own making, a Germany rotting from the very top.
Downfall is without a doubt one of the best World War 2 films which I have ever seen, delivering a compelling and immersive look behind the scenes of one of the most important defeats in modern history.
But being British and having to follow this with subtitles, which was great as watching this in its native German only adds to the experience, it can be a bit difficult to keep up with every plot machination, as we spend two and half hours reading about troop deployments, tactics and the philosophy of the Third Reich as we are presented with such atmospheric work, but if you can keep up with but the text and visuals, this is one hell of an education for those who do not know and an immersive masterpiece for those who follow WW2 history.
Fred (860 KP) rated The Producers (2005) in Movies
May 27, 2019
If I had never seen the original, this may have been decent
No question that the original 1968 film is one of the greatest comedies of all time. Anyone who's seen the original is going to have a hard time not comparing this film to the original. As soon as this movie started, I knew I was in trouble. Let's just say that Nathan Lane & Matthew Broderick don't even come close to Zero Mostel & Gene Wilder. But it doesn't stop there. There is nobody in this film that is better than anyone in the original film. I realize they needed people that could not only act, but sing & in some cases, dance. But one cannot look at the first 10 minutes of the film & think, "Those are the worst impressions of Mostel & Wilder I've ever seen." Broderick is the hardest to look at. He just doesn't come off as natural when he becomes hysterical or when he's explaining things to Bialystock. Nathan Lane fares better, but somehow the jokes come out very stale & unfunny.
Some of my favorite jokes from the original are just awful in this film. For example, in the original, Max says, "Well, you know what they say; smile & the world smiles with you." He then turns & looks into the camera & says, "This man should be in a straight-jacket." Crossing the 4th wall works so well. Yet, in this film, Lane says the line to a statue. During the out-takes on the DVD, we see Lane deliver the line to the camera, ala Mostel. But he stops, realizing that he's not supposed to do it the same way as Zero, but the new, lamer version. The Hitler tryouts are also ruined in comparison to the original. In the original, the man singing "Have You Ever Heard the German Band", points to the piano player & orders, "You Vill Play It!" Hilarious. In this one the same character turns & say, "Play the song, please." or something weak like that. And finally, when the man (who has become a mentally challenged man for this film) goes to sing "The Little Wooden Boy", he goes into a stupid little dance, & when he is just about to start, the director yells, "Next!" Nowhere near as funny as the original, where we see a man so sure of himself & so confident get ready to sing & then is cut off with the much funnier, "Thank you!" More problems arise with the changing of the story from the original. The main change is the omission of LSD (Dick Shawn's character). I heard they removed him as a hippie wouldn't work today. So, instead of just making him something other than a hippie, let's get rid of him & throw the character of Franz in there. Doesn't work. Then, when the play is finally put on, the director, a very homosexual Roger DeBris, comes out & sings, creating an obviously gay Hitler. And the audience then loves the show. How weak. There are other changes too, none of them good.
Now, let's get to the good points of this film. Some of the original songs are pretty good. Broderick redeems his bad acting for some good singing & dancing. Even Will Ferrel does a pretty good job. I can't say the same for Uma Thurman though, as her song is annoying & screechy! There are some funny parts in the movie, & they are all new to the story as all the original jokes fall flat (even without comparison). But there are not enough of the funny parts to save this film.
I can see how some may like the Broadway aspect of this film & I myself might have if the film itself didn't stink on the whole. So, I'll stick to the original film, this film had no reason to be made & now that I have seen it, it had no reason to be watched either.
Some of my favorite jokes from the original are just awful in this film. For example, in the original, Max says, "Well, you know what they say; smile & the world smiles with you." He then turns & looks into the camera & says, "This man should be in a straight-jacket." Crossing the 4th wall works so well. Yet, in this film, Lane says the line to a statue. During the out-takes on the DVD, we see Lane deliver the line to the camera, ala Mostel. But he stops, realizing that he's not supposed to do it the same way as Zero, but the new, lamer version. The Hitler tryouts are also ruined in comparison to the original. In the original, the man singing "Have You Ever Heard the German Band", points to the piano player & orders, "You Vill Play It!" Hilarious. In this one the same character turns & say, "Play the song, please." or something weak like that. And finally, when the man (who has become a mentally challenged man for this film) goes to sing "The Little Wooden Boy", he goes into a stupid little dance, & when he is just about to start, the director yells, "Next!" Nowhere near as funny as the original, where we see a man so sure of himself & so confident get ready to sing & then is cut off with the much funnier, "Thank you!" More problems arise with the changing of the story from the original. The main change is the omission of LSD (Dick Shawn's character). I heard they removed him as a hippie wouldn't work today. So, instead of just making him something other than a hippie, let's get rid of him & throw the character of Franz in there. Doesn't work. Then, when the play is finally put on, the director, a very homosexual Roger DeBris, comes out & sings, creating an obviously gay Hitler. And the audience then loves the show. How weak. There are other changes too, none of them good.
Now, let's get to the good points of this film. Some of the original songs are pretty good. Broderick redeems his bad acting for some good singing & dancing. Even Will Ferrel does a pretty good job. I can't say the same for Uma Thurman though, as her song is annoying & screechy! There are some funny parts in the movie, & they are all new to the story as all the original jokes fall flat (even without comparison). But there are not enough of the funny parts to save this film.
I can see how some may like the Broadway aspect of this film & I myself might have if the film itself didn't stink on the whole. So, I'll stick to the original film, this film had no reason to be made & now that I have seen it, it had no reason to be watched either.
Kyera (8 KP) rated Princess of Thorns in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Princess of Thorns is a not-so-classic retelling of the Sleeping Beauty story. The main character is actually the daughter of the cursed princess, who awoke from a kiss. Her name is Aurora, like the Disney movie's princess and her mother's name is Rose. In the french version of the tale, Sleeping Beauty's daughter is named Aurore. I believe that her mother's is the shortened form of Briar Rose, like German version of her tale by the Brother's Grimm. If you are familiar with the Grimm and Perrault versions of the tale, not only the Disney one, then you will notice many similarities. In a few versions of the tale, there is an evil step-mother or mother-in-law who attempts to eat the leading lady's children.
The author makes use of these characters and plots in her novel. She chooses to include the ill-fated mother, brother and sister, as well as the villainous step-mother. Although that familial tie is not explicitly stated, the King was the children's father and he married the ogre. Thus, she would be their step-mother. And you thought you had a dysfunctional family?
In true fairytale fashion, there are ogres, witches, fairies, and ruffians. Not all are portrayed as you would expect. The ogres have evolved, or perhaps devolved depending upon who you ask. In the early years, the ogres were monstrous creatures that devoured souls whole. They did not control themselves, but feasted on the entire soul leaving nothing behind. As time went on, they were forced to change and limit how much they took. After a time, the ogres began to become smaller and take on much more human-like appearances. Their food source never changed and they prided themselves upon each soul they took, marking their bare skulls.
The Fae seem human, although they possess extra-human traits and magic. One may not think of fairies and immediately imagine a human-like creature with great dexterity, skill in battle, and a lack of guilt -but the Fair Folk are shown this way in the novel. A fairy can bestow a gift upon a human child, like beauty, courage, eloquence, obedience, or strength. But each blessing comes with a curse, as the magic always finds a way to turn the gift into a burden. There are untold consequences to the blessings that cannot be avoided. As such, the fairies stopped giving their gifts to human children.
As with most fairytales, there is an element of romance. The love story blossoms under unusual circumstances and not without its share of problems. The two characters get to know each other throughout the journey, but their are many secrets left untold. As they are discovered, the relationship is altered for good or bad. And in the end, a choice must be made.
Most importantly, the novel isn't entirely predictable (although the budding romance was expected). Generally, you expect good to triumph over evil in most modern retellings of the story - unlike their Grimm counterparts. The plot's climax was frankly a little anti-climactic, but enjoyable non-the-less.
I think the author showed an average amount of character development, although I usually think more would be incredibly beneficial. Certain aspects of the world were explained, but not vividly enough. The "show-don't-tell" method could have been employed here to create a richer, more immersive world. Overall, I was pleased with the author's lexicon, grammar, and spelling - which happens much less often than should reasonably be expected.
I would certainly read another novel by this author as I love stories based upon fairytales. If you read Alex Flinn, I would highly recommend this novel to you just keep in mind it is slightly darker. Readers of fantasy, romance, and the like will enjoy this book and should give it a chance. It seems to target the female demographic, but males should enjoy it as well.
The author makes use of these characters and plots in her novel. She chooses to include the ill-fated mother, brother and sister, as well as the villainous step-mother. Although that familial tie is not explicitly stated, the King was the children's father and he married the ogre. Thus, she would be their step-mother. And you thought you had a dysfunctional family?
In true fairytale fashion, there are ogres, witches, fairies, and ruffians. Not all are portrayed as you would expect. The ogres have evolved, or perhaps devolved depending upon who you ask. In the early years, the ogres were monstrous creatures that devoured souls whole. They did not control themselves, but feasted on the entire soul leaving nothing behind. As time went on, they were forced to change and limit how much they took. After a time, the ogres began to become smaller and take on much more human-like appearances. Their food source never changed and they prided themselves upon each soul they took, marking their bare skulls.
The Fae seem human, although they possess extra-human traits and magic. One may not think of fairies and immediately imagine a human-like creature with great dexterity, skill in battle, and a lack of guilt -but the Fair Folk are shown this way in the novel. A fairy can bestow a gift upon a human child, like beauty, courage, eloquence, obedience, or strength. But each blessing comes with a curse, as the magic always finds a way to turn the gift into a burden. There are untold consequences to the blessings that cannot be avoided. As such, the fairies stopped giving their gifts to human children.
As with most fairytales, there is an element of romance. The love story blossoms under unusual circumstances and not without its share of problems. The two characters get to know each other throughout the journey, but their are many secrets left untold. As they are discovered, the relationship is altered for good or bad. And in the end, a choice must be made.
Most importantly, the novel isn't entirely predictable (although the budding romance was expected). Generally, you expect good to triumph over evil in most modern retellings of the story - unlike their Grimm counterparts. The plot's climax was frankly a little anti-climactic, but enjoyable non-the-less.
I think the author showed an average amount of character development, although I usually think more would be incredibly beneficial. Certain aspects of the world were explained, but not vividly enough. The "show-don't-tell" method could have been employed here to create a richer, more immersive world. Overall, I was pleased with the author's lexicon, grammar, and spelling - which happens much less often than should reasonably be expected.
I would certainly read another novel by this author as I love stories based upon fairytales. If you read Alex Flinn, I would highly recommend this novel to you just keep in mind it is slightly darker. Readers of fantasy, romance, and the like will enjoy this book and should give it a chance. It seems to target the female demographic, but males should enjoy it as well.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children in Books
Jun 7, 2018
This review can also be found on my blog <a href="themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.co.uk">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>.
I feel the synopsis of what the book is about makes it sound a lot better than what it is. I wanted to like this book, I really did. I had high hopes for it. Unfortunately, it didn't do much for me. I was expecting more of a ghost story. Instead I got more of a sci-fi story, and one that wasn't very good.
Jacob's grandfather tells him of a magical island of which he spent his childhood. He shows him photos and tells him stories about the peculiar children he grew up with. As Jacob becomes a teenager, he stops believing in his grandfather's ridiculous stories until something awful happens. Jacob travels to the mysterious island to find out about his grandfather. Little does he know that by going to that island he's put himself and many others in danger.
First off, I thought the word building/setting were fantastic. The author made me feel as if I was on the island. I'll give him props there. The description of the world was beautifully described.
I couldn't relate very much to the characters. I can't really place why that is. I just couldn't connect. I found myself not caring what happened to any of them. Perhaps the author should've spent a bit more time character building to make me relate to at least one the characters. The characters just felt a bit one dimensional. There wasn't even one that I could remotely say that I favourited. Okay, that's a lie. I liked Fiona, the Irish girl, but I only liked her because she was Irish, and I love all things Irish. That's it.
I found the pacing to be a bit slow. I'd read a chapter, then I'd get bored with it and go off to do something else. I really struggled with this book. There are a couple of chapters that the pacing is great in, but it's not until the last two chapters that the pacing definitely picks up.
The dialogue was easy to understand although some Americans may not get all the slang British terms. There was one scene where a character says "I was taking a piss" where he meant that he was joking around. The phrase he meant was "taking the piss" which is a British slang phrase for joking. "Taking a piss" isn't a typo either as it's mentioned a few more times. This annoyed me because taking a piss, is just that, it means urinating. "Taking the piss" means to be joking around. Other than that, the dialogue was good.
The best part of the book was the photographs found within the book. I loved that little touch! I found myself studying the photos and enjoying them a million times better than the actual book.
The cover is also something I loved about the book. How freaky does that little girl look??? The German cover looks even better. It's the same photo, just with a green hue. If I was marking the book based on the cover alone, it'd get 5 out of 5 for me.
The title of the book doesn't really leave anything to make you wonder what the books about. It says exactly what the book is about - a home for peculiar children.
All in all, this book left me feeling empty. I didn't really feel much of anything reading it until I got to the last two chapters where it got exciting. However, I will not put myself through the torture of reading the second book in the series especially as I don't care about the characters or what happens to them. I'm just glad I won this book in a competition and didn't buy it.
I was going to give this book a 2 - 2.5 star rating but the ending saved it a bit.
I feel the synopsis of what the book is about makes it sound a lot better than what it is. I wanted to like this book, I really did. I had high hopes for it. Unfortunately, it didn't do much for me. I was expecting more of a ghost story. Instead I got more of a sci-fi story, and one that wasn't very good.
Jacob's grandfather tells him of a magical island of which he spent his childhood. He shows him photos and tells him stories about the peculiar children he grew up with. As Jacob becomes a teenager, he stops believing in his grandfather's ridiculous stories until something awful happens. Jacob travels to the mysterious island to find out about his grandfather. Little does he know that by going to that island he's put himself and many others in danger.
First off, I thought the word building/setting were fantastic. The author made me feel as if I was on the island. I'll give him props there. The description of the world was beautifully described.
I couldn't relate very much to the characters. I can't really place why that is. I just couldn't connect. I found myself not caring what happened to any of them. Perhaps the author should've spent a bit more time character building to make me relate to at least one the characters. The characters just felt a bit one dimensional. There wasn't even one that I could remotely say that I favourited. Okay, that's a lie. I liked Fiona, the Irish girl, but I only liked her because she was Irish, and I love all things Irish. That's it.
I found the pacing to be a bit slow. I'd read a chapter, then I'd get bored with it and go off to do something else. I really struggled with this book. There are a couple of chapters that the pacing is great in, but it's not until the last two chapters that the pacing definitely picks up.
The dialogue was easy to understand although some Americans may not get all the slang British terms. There was one scene where a character says "I was taking a piss" where he meant that he was joking around. The phrase he meant was "taking the piss" which is a British slang phrase for joking. "Taking a piss" isn't a typo either as it's mentioned a few more times. This annoyed me because taking a piss, is just that, it means urinating. "Taking the piss" means to be joking around. Other than that, the dialogue was good.
The best part of the book was the photographs found within the book. I loved that little touch! I found myself studying the photos and enjoying them a million times better than the actual book.
The cover is also something I loved about the book. How freaky does that little girl look??? The German cover looks even better. It's the same photo, just with a green hue. If I was marking the book based on the cover alone, it'd get 5 out of 5 for me.
The title of the book doesn't really leave anything to make you wonder what the books about. It says exactly what the book is about - a home for peculiar children.
All in all, this book left me feeling empty. I didn't really feel much of anything reading it until I got to the last two chapters where it got exciting. However, I will not put myself through the torture of reading the second book in the series especially as I don't care about the characters or what happens to them. I'm just glad I won this book in a competition and didn't buy it.
I was going to give this book a 2 - 2.5 star rating but the ending saved it a bit.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Leatherheads (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The movie opens with John Krasinski’s character, “Carter Rutherford”, playing college-level football for Princeton at a bleacher-groaning, over-packed game chock full of screaming patrons and die-hard fans. The kid is a golden-child, a war hero, and the nation’s most promising young athlete in the good old year of 1925. Carter is dynamic, attractive, and exactly what the country needs at a time of World War I. It is little wonder his face plasters billboards across town, that his name is uttered with awe and adoration. In truth, how could you not? The kid had, after all, single-handedly forced a contingent of German soldiers to surrender without even shooting one bullet.
Cut to George Clooney’s character, the aging “Dodge Connelly”, playing pro-football in mire-like conditions; his audience a tangle of bored fans and uninspired locals. It is a far cry from the opulent circumstance of college-level football. Men, bedraggled and sweating under the promise of returning to work at the mines and fields if their football dreams go under, play with reckless abandon and forgotten morals in hopes of winning that next game. Yet, as fate will go, the Bulldogs lose their sponsorship and the team goes under, forcing men to return to their day-jobs and leaving Dodge without a future. The man has no marketable skills, no trade. He is a football player and is determined to see his team back in the game.
Of course, that isn’t the only bit of chaos. There has to be a girl; there is always a girl involved in stories like these. Enter Renée Zellweger’s character, the vivacious and equally tenacious “Lexie Littleton” – a news reporter for the Tribune. Lexie is on a mission to expose Carter Rutherford and get to the bottom of his infamous war story. It comes to no surprise that when Lexie and Dodge meet in a hotel lobby awaiting the arrival of Carter Rutherford and his manager, “CC Frazier” (played by Jonathan Pryce), that sparks immediately fly between them. Dodge has a proposal for CC and Carter: have Carter take a leave of absence from Princeton to play pro-football for the Bulldogs, thus saving pro-football and paying Carter for his efforts. Naturally, CC wants a cut from the profits and finds a way to do so to accommodate his own needs. Dodge, without any other alternative, agrees.
Meanwhile, Lexie is working her magic on Carter to try and weasel the true story out of him as best she can. Try as she might she cannot ignore Dodge, no matter how acid her tongue wags in his direction. In the end, Lexie gets her story yet realizes she must decide between exposing the truth or letting America bask in the glory of its self-proclaimed war-hero.
In review, there is a true chemistry between all of the main characters and both Zellweger and Clooney do a good job of conveying the vehement (and callous) emotion between Lexie and Dodge. However, no matter how funny the banter becomes between these three main characters or how well the scene plugs along, in the end the movie comes off as a passable but by no means memorable. Betimes it seems to stretch on and on and more then once I found myself looking at my clock. In truth, the movie didn’t need to be nearly two hours long. It felt two hours long which is never a good thing, especially when we’re talking about theatre seats.
That said, I thought the movie was a cute and enjoyable comedy. It won’t crack your funny bone but it will certainly tickle it more then once. All in all I give it 3.5 out of 5. It succeeded in making me laugh and did keep me entertained. Above all, I’m sure many will find it enjoyable to some extent.
Cut to George Clooney’s character, the aging “Dodge Connelly”, playing pro-football in mire-like conditions; his audience a tangle of bored fans and uninspired locals. It is a far cry from the opulent circumstance of college-level football. Men, bedraggled and sweating under the promise of returning to work at the mines and fields if their football dreams go under, play with reckless abandon and forgotten morals in hopes of winning that next game. Yet, as fate will go, the Bulldogs lose their sponsorship and the team goes under, forcing men to return to their day-jobs and leaving Dodge without a future. The man has no marketable skills, no trade. He is a football player and is determined to see his team back in the game.
Of course, that isn’t the only bit of chaos. There has to be a girl; there is always a girl involved in stories like these. Enter Renée Zellweger’s character, the vivacious and equally tenacious “Lexie Littleton” – a news reporter for the Tribune. Lexie is on a mission to expose Carter Rutherford and get to the bottom of his infamous war story. It comes to no surprise that when Lexie and Dodge meet in a hotel lobby awaiting the arrival of Carter Rutherford and his manager, “CC Frazier” (played by Jonathan Pryce), that sparks immediately fly between them. Dodge has a proposal for CC and Carter: have Carter take a leave of absence from Princeton to play pro-football for the Bulldogs, thus saving pro-football and paying Carter for his efforts. Naturally, CC wants a cut from the profits and finds a way to do so to accommodate his own needs. Dodge, without any other alternative, agrees.
Meanwhile, Lexie is working her magic on Carter to try and weasel the true story out of him as best she can. Try as she might she cannot ignore Dodge, no matter how acid her tongue wags in his direction. In the end, Lexie gets her story yet realizes she must decide between exposing the truth or letting America bask in the glory of its self-proclaimed war-hero.
In review, there is a true chemistry between all of the main characters and both Zellweger and Clooney do a good job of conveying the vehement (and callous) emotion between Lexie and Dodge. However, no matter how funny the banter becomes between these three main characters or how well the scene plugs along, in the end the movie comes off as a passable but by no means memorable. Betimes it seems to stretch on and on and more then once I found myself looking at my clock. In truth, the movie didn’t need to be nearly two hours long. It felt two hours long which is never a good thing, especially when we’re talking about theatre seats.
That said, I thought the movie was a cute and enjoyable comedy. It won’t crack your funny bone but it will certainly tickle it more then once. All in all I give it 3.5 out of 5. It succeeded in making me laugh and did keep me entertained. Above all, I’m sure many will find it enjoyable to some extent.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Dec 17, 2019
During the opening credits of Jojo Rabbit, we're treated to The Beatles singing "I Want to Hold Your Hand" while documentary footage plays showing crowds of Germans going absolutely nuts for Hitler, sieg-heiling and cheering for him. It's a fairly good indication of the kind of humour you can expect from Jojo Rabbit and writer/director Taika Waititi, who hit the big time after directing 'Thor Ragnarok', but has previously been responsible for a wide range of brilliantly quirky movies such as 'What We Do in the Shadows' and 'Hunt for the Wilderpeople'.
We begin by meeting 10 year old German boy, Johannes 'Jojo' Betzler (Roman Griffin Davis), as he nervously prepares to head off to Nazi youth camp in order to fulfill his dream of serving Adolf Hitler. Heading up the camp is one-eyed Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell), aided by a bunch of inept instructors, including Fraulein Rahm (Rebel Wilson) and Finkel (Alfie Allen). At the camp, boys get to play with knives and hand grenades, girls are taught the importance of having babies (Fraulein Rahm has given birth to 18!), while all of the children are taught about the evil monsters that are the Jews. Accompanying Jojo at the camp are best friend Yorki (a brilliant Archie Yates, soon to be starring in the recently announced remake of Home Alone) and Jojo's imaginary friend Hitler (Taika Waititi). When Jojo refuses to wring the neck of rabbit during a lesson on killing (earning him the nickname Jojo Rabbit), and is hospitalised following an unfortunate incident with a grenade, he is forced to leave the camp behind, returning home to be with his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson).
While his mother is out during the day, Jojo discovers a teenage Jewish girl named Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie) hiding out in the wall-space of his sisters bedroom. Jojo is initially shocked, and repulsed, by this hideous Jew, even more so when he discovers that it was his mother who was responsible for hiding her. As time goes on though, Jojo and Elsa begin to form a friendship, with Elsa feeding Jojo a series of made up ridiculous stories and tales regarding the origins and ways of Jews so that Jojo can write a book about them. All the while, Rosie remains completely unaware that Jojo knows anything of Elsa. The bumbling, goofy Hitler occasionally shows up too when Jojo needs words of encouragement, or when times are tough, and provides us with some welcome light relief. More humour is provided in the form of various smaller characters, including gestapo member Stephen Merchant and his team during what is essentially a pretty serious and dramatic scene as they show up and ransack Jojo's house.
But Jojo Rabbit is a movie about relationships. The Jojo/Hitler dynamic begins to take a backseat as things start to get more serious and we focus more on the bond between Jojo and his mother, and the relationship between Jojo and Elsa, as the final months of the war play out. The child actors in Jojo Rabbit are all outstanding and we also get to see a wonderfully different side to Scarlett Johansson. Sam Rockwell is hilarious and Rebel Wilson is just, well, Rebel Wilson! Occasionally though, we are dealt an unexpected gut punch, and it's fair to say that you'll be crying at Jojo Rabbit just as much as you'll be laughing. If I'm honest, I really wasn't expecting that side to Jojo Rabbit and it did more for me and my enjoyment of the movie than the comedy did, which wasn't really as laugh out loud as I thought it would be. Overall though, Jojo Rabbit is simply wonderful - funny, heartbreaking, sad and poignant - and unlike anything you've ever seen before.
We begin by meeting 10 year old German boy, Johannes 'Jojo' Betzler (Roman Griffin Davis), as he nervously prepares to head off to Nazi youth camp in order to fulfill his dream of serving Adolf Hitler. Heading up the camp is one-eyed Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell), aided by a bunch of inept instructors, including Fraulein Rahm (Rebel Wilson) and Finkel (Alfie Allen). At the camp, boys get to play with knives and hand grenades, girls are taught the importance of having babies (Fraulein Rahm has given birth to 18!), while all of the children are taught about the evil monsters that are the Jews. Accompanying Jojo at the camp are best friend Yorki (a brilliant Archie Yates, soon to be starring in the recently announced remake of Home Alone) and Jojo's imaginary friend Hitler (Taika Waititi). When Jojo refuses to wring the neck of rabbit during a lesson on killing (earning him the nickname Jojo Rabbit), and is hospitalised following an unfortunate incident with a grenade, he is forced to leave the camp behind, returning home to be with his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson).
While his mother is out during the day, Jojo discovers a teenage Jewish girl named Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie) hiding out in the wall-space of his sisters bedroom. Jojo is initially shocked, and repulsed, by this hideous Jew, even more so when he discovers that it was his mother who was responsible for hiding her. As time goes on though, Jojo and Elsa begin to form a friendship, with Elsa feeding Jojo a series of made up ridiculous stories and tales regarding the origins and ways of Jews so that Jojo can write a book about them. All the while, Rosie remains completely unaware that Jojo knows anything of Elsa. The bumbling, goofy Hitler occasionally shows up too when Jojo needs words of encouragement, or when times are tough, and provides us with some welcome light relief. More humour is provided in the form of various smaller characters, including gestapo member Stephen Merchant and his team during what is essentially a pretty serious and dramatic scene as they show up and ransack Jojo's house.
But Jojo Rabbit is a movie about relationships. The Jojo/Hitler dynamic begins to take a backseat as things start to get more serious and we focus more on the bond between Jojo and his mother, and the relationship between Jojo and Elsa, as the final months of the war play out. The child actors in Jojo Rabbit are all outstanding and we also get to see a wonderfully different side to Scarlett Johansson. Sam Rockwell is hilarious and Rebel Wilson is just, well, Rebel Wilson! Occasionally though, we are dealt an unexpected gut punch, and it's fair to say that you'll be crying at Jojo Rabbit just as much as you'll be laughing. If I'm honest, I really wasn't expecting that side to Jojo Rabbit and it did more for me and my enjoyment of the movie than the comedy did, which wasn't really as laugh out loud as I thought it would be. Overall though, Jojo Rabbit is simply wonderful - funny, heartbreaking, sad and poignant - and unlike anything you've ever seen before.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Two Popes (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020 (Updated Jan 26, 2020)
Fantastic performances from two old acting pros.
Being inaugurated as a new pope in the last century must have been a source of enormous pride. But there must also have been a nagging thought... at some point you are going to be paraded, stiff as a board, around your work courtyard before being taken back inside to your place of work and buried there!
All that changed in 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the first pope to voluntarily do so since Pope Celestine V in 1294. (Pope Gregory XII also resigned in 1415, but he was effectively forced to).
This movie tells the story of that curious situation, when Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (played by Jonathan Pryce) ended up as Pope Francis while Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) was still alive. The official reason for the pope's resignation appears to have been his advanced age. But the film paints a rather different picture.
The movie starts back in 2005 as we enter the papal conclave. Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger, as was) is the highly-political German cardinal who desperately wants the papacy; Bergoglio is the highly respected Argentinian cardinal who doesn't seek the office but might have it thrust upon him. (Clearly, when the white smoke clears, history has dictated the outcome).
But flash forward to 2013 and Bergoglio will get another bite of the cherry. Is he worthy of the role? Through flashbacks we return to Perón's unsettling rule over Argentina and the events that made the man.
The two stars are simply outstanding together, and it's no surprise at all that both have been nominated in the Oscar acting categories. They are almost joint leads. But - perhaps to give the film its best awards-season shot - Pryce is down for Best Actor and Hopkins is down for Best Supporting Actor.
Anthony Hopkins in particular for me shone with the brilliant quietness and subtle facial movements that are the mark of a truly confident actor. Less is more.
I was enjoying this movie enormously up until we flashed back to the Argentinian sub-plot. Set in the time of Perón's "Dirty War" when a huge number of people - estimates range from 9,000 to 30,000 - simply went "missing". There's nothing wrong with this sequence of the film. For example, a reunion of Bergoglio with a persecuted priest, Father Jalics (Lisandro Fiks) - is brilliantly and movingly done. It's just that for me it seemed so disjointed. It was jarring to switch from this Evita-era drama to the gentle drama of the papal plot.
If the movie had been 30 minutes shorter and focused on the mental struggles of Benedict I would have preferred it. Curiously - we don't really get to fully understand his divergence from the faith. Bergoglio gets no end of back-story. But Ratzinger's is probably just as interesting, but not explored.
This is still a really fine movie and will appeal to older folks who like a story rich with character acting and not heavy on the action or special effects. The director is Fernando Meirelles (who interestingly directed the Rio Olympics opening ceremony!) and it's written by Anthony McCarten, the man behind the screenplays for "The Theory of Everything", "Darkest Hour" and "Bohemian Rhapsody".
You may still be able to find this in selected cinemas (e.g. Curzon) but it is also streaming on Netflix, which is where I had to watch it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/26/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-two-popes-2019/ ).
All that changed in 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the first pope to voluntarily do so since Pope Celestine V in 1294. (Pope Gregory XII also resigned in 1415, but he was effectively forced to).
This movie tells the story of that curious situation, when Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (played by Jonathan Pryce) ended up as Pope Francis while Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) was still alive. The official reason for the pope's resignation appears to have been his advanced age. But the film paints a rather different picture.
The movie starts back in 2005 as we enter the papal conclave. Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger, as was) is the highly-political German cardinal who desperately wants the papacy; Bergoglio is the highly respected Argentinian cardinal who doesn't seek the office but might have it thrust upon him. (Clearly, when the white smoke clears, history has dictated the outcome).
But flash forward to 2013 and Bergoglio will get another bite of the cherry. Is he worthy of the role? Through flashbacks we return to Perón's unsettling rule over Argentina and the events that made the man.
The two stars are simply outstanding together, and it's no surprise at all that both have been nominated in the Oscar acting categories. They are almost joint leads. But - perhaps to give the film its best awards-season shot - Pryce is down for Best Actor and Hopkins is down for Best Supporting Actor.
Anthony Hopkins in particular for me shone with the brilliant quietness and subtle facial movements that are the mark of a truly confident actor. Less is more.
I was enjoying this movie enormously up until we flashed back to the Argentinian sub-plot. Set in the time of Perón's "Dirty War" when a huge number of people - estimates range from 9,000 to 30,000 - simply went "missing". There's nothing wrong with this sequence of the film. For example, a reunion of Bergoglio with a persecuted priest, Father Jalics (Lisandro Fiks) - is brilliantly and movingly done. It's just that for me it seemed so disjointed. It was jarring to switch from this Evita-era drama to the gentle drama of the papal plot.
If the movie had been 30 minutes shorter and focused on the mental struggles of Benedict I would have preferred it. Curiously - we don't really get to fully understand his divergence from the faith. Bergoglio gets no end of back-story. But Ratzinger's is probably just as interesting, but not explored.
This is still a really fine movie and will appeal to older folks who like a story rich with character acting and not heavy on the action or special effects. The director is Fernando Meirelles (who interestingly directed the Rio Olympics opening ceremony!) and it's written by Anthony McCarten, the man behind the screenplays for "The Theory of Everything", "Darkest Hour" and "Bohemian Rhapsody".
You may still be able to find this in selected cinemas (e.g. Curzon) but it is also streaming on Netflix, which is where I had to watch it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/26/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-two-popes-2019/ ).
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
In May 1940, as Germany advanced into France, Allied troops found themselves surrounded at the town of Dunkirk with little time to escape. In the distance, the Germans sought to capture or kill each of the nearly 400,000 men. French and British soldiers began the slow process to evacuate using every naval or civilian ship available. Dunkirk examines the heroism involved by everyone on the land, sea, and air in their attempt to get their countrymen home.
When we discuss, reflect, or are taught about World War II, we often think the turning points of the war as the Battle of the Bulge, Leningrad, Midway, or D-Day. In doing this, we overlook moments like Dunkirk. Christopher Nolan exposes how vital this moment was in determining the fate, not only of the war, but the world in Dunkirk.
It is hard to describe what the film is like just from the visuals. It captures you and surrounds you by making the audience feel as though they are witnessing these events from a third-person perspective, as well as, through the eyes of those involved. The film itself is not limited to just the war or a discussion of the circumstances that led up to the war itself. There are no major battles shown, however, the film demonstrates quite vividly the horrors of war, the confusion, the chaos, the brutality, and the fear that each moment might be your last.
Dunkirk, masterfully tells the story of those involved in the evacuation of those troops that found themselves being pursued by Nazi Germany. Each frame will have audiences fearing for the safety of the men on the screen and hoping that they will somehow make it home despite all indications that their fate is sealed. Nolan gives audiences the opportunity to see the events in a multilayered way so that we can understand all of the moving parts involved in this massive undertaking. It renews the appreciation that many of us have for those who fought in World War II and offers a new sense of appreciation for younger generations who are far removed from those events. Most impressive about the film is its ability to be more historically accurate in displaying the different people who actually were fighting. It is not, like Saving Private Ryan, a film that exaggerates American participation in the war to make it look as though the only people fighting were Americans and Nazis. Dunkirk shows how the French, British, and Belgians, of various colors and backgrounds were fighting well before summer of 1944.
The film also pulls of quite an ambitious task by removing the Nazis from the film. This is not to say that there is no German presence in the film, rather, they minimize the focus on the Nazis in order to keep the focus on those evacuating and those involved in assisting with the efforts. In my viewing, I felt that this strengthened the film in adding to the fear by having a faceless enemy, one that could be lurking around the corner or coming around the corner at any moment. This added to the tension to make audiences feel the fear that so many of these young men must have had as they waited to board their ships to get home.
Dunkirk is impressive, emotional, and full of tension. It raises the bar with respect to how historically-based films should be in the representation of events. It does not rely on one linear story to capture the audience. It is an intelligent and overdue homage to the men and women who did all they could to ensure that these men made it home.
When we discuss, reflect, or are taught about World War II, we often think the turning points of the war as the Battle of the Bulge, Leningrad, Midway, or D-Day. In doing this, we overlook moments like Dunkirk. Christopher Nolan exposes how vital this moment was in determining the fate, not only of the war, but the world in Dunkirk.
It is hard to describe what the film is like just from the visuals. It captures you and surrounds you by making the audience feel as though they are witnessing these events from a third-person perspective, as well as, through the eyes of those involved. The film itself is not limited to just the war or a discussion of the circumstances that led up to the war itself. There are no major battles shown, however, the film demonstrates quite vividly the horrors of war, the confusion, the chaos, the brutality, and the fear that each moment might be your last.
Dunkirk, masterfully tells the story of those involved in the evacuation of those troops that found themselves being pursued by Nazi Germany. Each frame will have audiences fearing for the safety of the men on the screen and hoping that they will somehow make it home despite all indications that their fate is sealed. Nolan gives audiences the opportunity to see the events in a multilayered way so that we can understand all of the moving parts involved in this massive undertaking. It renews the appreciation that many of us have for those who fought in World War II and offers a new sense of appreciation for younger generations who are far removed from those events. Most impressive about the film is its ability to be more historically accurate in displaying the different people who actually were fighting. It is not, like Saving Private Ryan, a film that exaggerates American participation in the war to make it look as though the only people fighting were Americans and Nazis. Dunkirk shows how the French, British, and Belgians, of various colors and backgrounds were fighting well before summer of 1944.
The film also pulls of quite an ambitious task by removing the Nazis from the film. This is not to say that there is no German presence in the film, rather, they minimize the focus on the Nazis in order to keep the focus on those evacuating and those involved in assisting with the efforts. In my viewing, I felt that this strengthened the film in adding to the fear by having a faceless enemy, one that could be lurking around the corner or coming around the corner at any moment. This added to the tension to make audiences feel the fear that so many of these young men must have had as they waited to board their ships to get home.
Dunkirk is impressive, emotional, and full of tension. It raises the bar with respect to how historically-based films should be in the representation of events. It does not rely on one linear story to capture the audience. It is an intelligent and overdue homage to the men and women who did all they could to ensure that these men made it home.
Dean Connelly (17 KP) rated F1 2017 Day One Edition in Video Games
Jan 10, 2018
More depth then last year (6 more)
AI is better
Tougher then last year
No German Grand Prix
It makes you think more
Feels like a proper F1 game
More to do besides campaign
Ai still isn’t perfect (3 more)
Biased stewarding
McLaren is constantly cursed
Never be Hamilton’s team mate
Still got it to be at the top
I went off F1 games when I played F1 2011 for the Wii, so after I took a chance on F1 2016, which I love for the gameplay the graphics the engine, the pit stops, the drivers AI (well some of the AI.) i just loved how Codemasters made an F1 game that was worth paying for, so I suppose this one is the same right? Wrong, this is way way better the 2016, The high scores it has got, are validated. I’ve never seen graphics this smooth or advanced, even my other half who has no interest in games whatsoever went “wow” when she saw them. The R&D part of F1 2017 is bigger by all means. Last year you had 5 departments with 5 upgrades, this year, you have 4 but you have at least 20 upgrades per department with separate goals for achievements, like do 20 pits stops your pit crew gets quicker or you race 60 races as first driver you get 15% points back from what you earn all race weekends. The most challenging part of this R&D is what do you upgrade first? (If you race a McLaren, I’d recommend reliability then speed.) not only that but do you save up your points and buy quality control and/or make everything cheaper (it’s a long road but it is worth it.) The biggest change this year is reliability, last year you could put fill your car up, put it in rich and that’s it. Not so this year, you have to manage your parts, and every engine has to last you at least 6 races, same with the parts, otherwise more then 4 engines or parts, grid penalties I’m afraid. There are More ways to get R&D points this year, track acclimatisation, Tyre management team objectives and Qualifying pace now they've added fuel saving and Race Strategy. They don’t take as long as they used to too. The teams you can pick have been put into 3 categories. (Your McLarens and Saubers make the bottom, Red Bull, Ferrari and Mercedes make the top and everyone else makes the middle.) each team has different objectives, (so Mercedes is to stay top of the pile, Williams is challenging for podiums, Saubers is to challenge for points you get the idea.)
If youre bored with a season theres more to it there's the traditional multiplayer, events, time trials New for this year, there is a championship mode. Using cars using older and newer cars and invitational events. Ranging from overtake challenge (overtake cars in say 3 minutes) to pursuit (AI in slower cars but you have to pass them) to time attack (cover say 3 laps in 5 minutes.) There's also multiple championships (ranging from a championship in classic cars to a double header tour to an international street series. Agent wise, you still get the option of changing teams every year and half way through a season. She’s presented a lot more in this year.
Bad news, well if you’re thinking of driving a McLaren, be afraid to be disappointed. I’ve heard more complaints about McLaren being as bad in the game then they are in real life, dare I say worse. The Ai still decide to take you off but it’s not as bad as 2016s AI. Your engineer is not as useless as last year but he still needs work on, agent is stil the same as last year so could have her doing more. Marshall’s still are biased and can’t tell the difference
It’s definitely an upgrade on last season but AI still isn’t perfect and there is so much more that could’ve been done. But as far as a game goes, this is more Mercedes then McLaren.
If youre bored with a season theres more to it there's the traditional multiplayer, events, time trials New for this year, there is a championship mode. Using cars using older and newer cars and invitational events. Ranging from overtake challenge (overtake cars in say 3 minutes) to pursuit (AI in slower cars but you have to pass them) to time attack (cover say 3 laps in 5 minutes.) There's also multiple championships (ranging from a championship in classic cars to a double header tour to an international street series. Agent wise, you still get the option of changing teams every year and half way through a season. She’s presented a lot more in this year.
Bad news, well if you’re thinking of driving a McLaren, be afraid to be disappointed. I’ve heard more complaints about McLaren being as bad in the game then they are in real life, dare I say worse. The Ai still decide to take you off but it’s not as bad as 2016s AI. Your engineer is not as useless as last year but he still needs work on, agent is stil the same as last year so could have her doing more. Marshall’s still are biased and can’t tell the difference
It’s definitely an upgrade on last season but AI still isn’t perfect and there is so much more that could’ve been done. But as far as a game goes, this is more Mercedes then McLaren.