Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Marvelous Cash Cows and How to Milk Them.
As just about everyone in the whole muggle world (or nomaj world if you’re reading this in the States) knows, FBaWtFT is the first of a five film spin-off series from the Potter franchise, still under the careful stewardship of David Yates. (And if the other films in the series were ‘amber-lit’ rather than ‘green-lit’, their production now seems assured after the US opening weekend alone has brought in nearly half its $180 million budget).
Set in New York in the mid-1920’s Eddie Redmayne (“The Danish Girl”; “The Theory of Everything”) plays Newt Scamander, a Brit newly arrived with a case full of trouble. Newt is a bit like an amiable and ditsy David Attenborough, with a strong desire to protect and establish breeding colonies for endangered species. It’s fair to say though that these are creatures that even Sir David hasn’t yet filmed.
Within the battered old case (a forerunner of Hermione Grainger’s bag, which was probably borrowed from Mary Poppins), Newt stores a menagerie of strange and wonderful creatures which – after a bump and a mishap – get released by wannabe baker and muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler, “Fanboys”). Newt has the job of rounding up the strays with the help of Tina (Katherine Waterston, “Steve Jobs”), an out of favour member of the Magical Congress of the USA (MACUSA). Unfortunately this couldn’t be happening at a worse time: something else – nothing to do with Newt – is wreaking havoc across New York and MACUSA is on red alert suspecting the involvement of a dark wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, following attacks in Europe. And keeping the secrets of wizardry from the NoMaj population is getting increasingly difficult, especially with the efforts of the “Second Salemers” movement run by Mary Lou (Samantha Morton, “Minority Report”) and her strange adopted family.
This film will obviously be an enormous success given the love of all things Potter, but is it any good? Well, its different for sure, being set many years before Potter and only having glancing references to Hogwarts and related matters. And that gives the opportunity to start afresh with new characters and new relationships which is refreshing. It’s all perfectly amiable, with Redmayne’s slightly embarrassed lack of eye-contact* in delivering his lines being charming. [* Is this perhaps the second leading character in a month that is high on the autistic spectrum?] . Redmayne does have a tendency to mutter though and (particularly with the sound system for the cinema I saw this in) this made a lot of his dialogue inaudible. Waterston makes for a charming if somewhat insipid heroine, not being given an awful lot to do in the action sequences.
Kowalski adds a humorous balance to the mixture, but the star comic turns are some of the creatures, especially the Niffler… a light fingered magpie-like creature with a voluminous pouch and expensive tastes!
In the ‘I-almost-know-who-that-is-behind-the-make-up-but-can’t-quite-place-him’ role is Ron “Hellboy” Perlman as the untrustworthy gangster Gnarlack. And in another cameo – and probably paid an enormous fee for his 30 seconds of screen time – is Johnny Depp, which was money well-wasted since, like most of his roles, he was completely unrecognisable (I only knew it was him from checking imdb afterwards).
At the pen is J.K.Rowling herself, and there are a few corking lines in the script. However, in common with many of her novels, there is also a tendency for extrapolation and padding. Some judicial editing could have knocked at least twenty minutes off its child-unfriendly 133 minute running time and made a better film. Undoubtedly the first half of the film is better than the second, with the finale slouching into – as my other half put it – “superhero” territory with much CGI destruction and smashing of glass. What is perhaps most surprising about the story is that there are few obvious set-ups for the next film.
Quirky and original, its a film that will no-doubt please Potter fans and it stands as a decent fantasy film in its own right. It’s difficult though to get the smell of big business and exploitation out of your nostrils: no doubt stockings throughout the world will be full of plush toy nifflers this Christmas.
Set in New York in the mid-1920’s Eddie Redmayne (“The Danish Girl”; “The Theory of Everything”) plays Newt Scamander, a Brit newly arrived with a case full of trouble. Newt is a bit like an amiable and ditsy David Attenborough, with a strong desire to protect and establish breeding colonies for endangered species. It’s fair to say though that these are creatures that even Sir David hasn’t yet filmed.
Within the battered old case (a forerunner of Hermione Grainger’s bag, which was probably borrowed from Mary Poppins), Newt stores a menagerie of strange and wonderful creatures which – after a bump and a mishap – get released by wannabe baker and muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler, “Fanboys”). Newt has the job of rounding up the strays with the help of Tina (Katherine Waterston, “Steve Jobs”), an out of favour member of the Magical Congress of the USA (MACUSA). Unfortunately this couldn’t be happening at a worse time: something else – nothing to do with Newt – is wreaking havoc across New York and MACUSA is on red alert suspecting the involvement of a dark wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, following attacks in Europe. And keeping the secrets of wizardry from the NoMaj population is getting increasingly difficult, especially with the efforts of the “Second Salemers” movement run by Mary Lou (Samantha Morton, “Minority Report”) and her strange adopted family.
This film will obviously be an enormous success given the love of all things Potter, but is it any good? Well, its different for sure, being set many years before Potter and only having glancing references to Hogwarts and related matters. And that gives the opportunity to start afresh with new characters and new relationships which is refreshing. It’s all perfectly amiable, with Redmayne’s slightly embarrassed lack of eye-contact* in delivering his lines being charming. [* Is this perhaps the second leading character in a month that is high on the autistic spectrum?] . Redmayne does have a tendency to mutter though and (particularly with the sound system for the cinema I saw this in) this made a lot of his dialogue inaudible. Waterston makes for a charming if somewhat insipid heroine, not being given an awful lot to do in the action sequences.
Kowalski adds a humorous balance to the mixture, but the star comic turns are some of the creatures, especially the Niffler… a light fingered magpie-like creature with a voluminous pouch and expensive tastes!
In the ‘I-almost-know-who-that-is-behind-the-make-up-but-can’t-quite-place-him’ role is Ron “Hellboy” Perlman as the untrustworthy gangster Gnarlack. And in another cameo – and probably paid an enormous fee for his 30 seconds of screen time – is Johnny Depp, which was money well-wasted since, like most of his roles, he was completely unrecognisable (I only knew it was him from checking imdb afterwards).
At the pen is J.K.Rowling herself, and there are a few corking lines in the script. However, in common with many of her novels, there is also a tendency for extrapolation and padding. Some judicial editing could have knocked at least twenty minutes off its child-unfriendly 133 minute running time and made a better film. Undoubtedly the first half of the film is better than the second, with the finale slouching into – as my other half put it – “superhero” territory with much CGI destruction and smashing of glass. What is perhaps most surprising about the story is that there are few obvious set-ups for the next film.
Quirky and original, its a film that will no-doubt please Potter fans and it stands as a decent fantasy film in its own right. It’s difficult though to get the smell of big business and exploitation out of your nostrils: no doubt stockings throughout the world will be full of plush toy nifflers this Christmas.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Hunger Games (2012) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Director Gary Ross had his work cut out trying to create a film which brought to life the startling realism of Suzanne Collins’ successful trilogy of novels and here we have the first, The Hunger Games.
This film has come at a time where movie fans have been released from the clawing hooks of the Harry Potter franchise and the finale of the Twilight Saga is now on the horizon. Some would say, it’s the perfect time to begin a new franchise and for the most part, they’re right. Move over witches and vampires, there’s a new, more mature kid ready to take your crowns.
I for one went into The Hunger Games trilogy blindfolded. I have not read the books so this review is purely based on the film I saw before me and I must say; I was mightily impressed.
The film is set some way in the future and the world is a much different place; in a place called Panem (a post-apocalyptic North America) is where we find 12 Districts full of variety with different races living alongside each other, just as we have today. However, there is a more sinister side to things as we learn that once a year; The Hunger Games tournament takes place.
For those of you not familiar with the event itself, here’s a brief description. Each year, one boy and one girl aged between 12 and 18 from each district fights to the death until there is one winner, showered with riches for the remainder of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence of X-Men First Class fame stars as Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young girl brought up in the coal mining community of District 12. After her young sister is picked to represent District 12, she decides the only thing to do is nominate herself and save her from certain death. Her male counterpart is Peeta Mellark played by a mature looking Josh Hutcherson of Journey to the Centre of the Earth fame.
Once the pair have been selected, they are taken to Capitol, a city brimming with the wealthy, a stark contrast to the coal mining community our District 12 heroes come from. Woody Harrelson stars as a previous winner of the games and the District 12 mentor, he takes it upon himself to train the ‘tributes’ and prepare them for the task ahead.
Once in battle, all chaos ensues and this is where the film begins to partially unravel. The actors and actresses all do excellent jobs, in particular Lawrence plays Katniss exceptionally well, her soft side comes through but you never forget her harsher, hunter like persona. Unfortunately, the action is held back by the ridiculous 12A certification the film has been lumbered with. It has become the case, as with The Woman in Black earlier this year that films based on best-selling and well known books or with teen stars have to be given this frankly dire classification. The violence is toned down to such a level that it becomes unrealistic and from what I have read, The Hunger Games is a much more brutal and unforgiving experience as a novel.
Other negatives include some shoddy CGI and too much hand based camera work, the battles at the beginning of the games are messy and not enjoyable to sit through. It’s a disappointing lapse in a film which is actually very good indeed.
Thankfully, the lengthy running time allows the final third to pick up nicely to leave you with a lasting impression.
The Hunger Games had the unenviable task of being on the receiving end of comparisons to Harry Potter and the Twilight franchises, and to an extent it has done its source material proud. Does it live up to the much-loved world of Hogwarts? Probably not. Does it live up to the lust and romance of the Twilight Saga? Most definitely. It sits, right smack in the middle and that’s not a bad place to be.
Gary Ross has produced a fine blockbuster with excellent performances from the cast and some fabulous design choices. Yes, it’s a little too long, there are some shoddy special effects and the character development lacks depth, but for fans of the series and newcomers alike, it moves the game on and is an enjoyable experience.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/04/05/the-hunger-games-2012-review/
This film has come at a time where movie fans have been released from the clawing hooks of the Harry Potter franchise and the finale of the Twilight Saga is now on the horizon. Some would say, it’s the perfect time to begin a new franchise and for the most part, they’re right. Move over witches and vampires, there’s a new, more mature kid ready to take your crowns.
I for one went into The Hunger Games trilogy blindfolded. I have not read the books so this review is purely based on the film I saw before me and I must say; I was mightily impressed.
The film is set some way in the future and the world is a much different place; in a place called Panem (a post-apocalyptic North America) is where we find 12 Districts full of variety with different races living alongside each other, just as we have today. However, there is a more sinister side to things as we learn that once a year; The Hunger Games tournament takes place.
For those of you not familiar with the event itself, here’s a brief description. Each year, one boy and one girl aged between 12 and 18 from each district fights to the death until there is one winner, showered with riches for the remainder of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence of X-Men First Class fame stars as Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young girl brought up in the coal mining community of District 12. After her young sister is picked to represent District 12, she decides the only thing to do is nominate herself and save her from certain death. Her male counterpart is Peeta Mellark played by a mature looking Josh Hutcherson of Journey to the Centre of the Earth fame.
Once the pair have been selected, they are taken to Capitol, a city brimming with the wealthy, a stark contrast to the coal mining community our District 12 heroes come from. Woody Harrelson stars as a previous winner of the games and the District 12 mentor, he takes it upon himself to train the ‘tributes’ and prepare them for the task ahead.
Once in battle, all chaos ensues and this is where the film begins to partially unravel. The actors and actresses all do excellent jobs, in particular Lawrence plays Katniss exceptionally well, her soft side comes through but you never forget her harsher, hunter like persona. Unfortunately, the action is held back by the ridiculous 12A certification the film has been lumbered with. It has become the case, as with The Woman in Black earlier this year that films based on best-selling and well known books or with teen stars have to be given this frankly dire classification. The violence is toned down to such a level that it becomes unrealistic and from what I have read, The Hunger Games is a much more brutal and unforgiving experience as a novel.
Other negatives include some shoddy CGI and too much hand based camera work, the battles at the beginning of the games are messy and not enjoyable to sit through. It’s a disappointing lapse in a film which is actually very good indeed.
Thankfully, the lengthy running time allows the final third to pick up nicely to leave you with a lasting impression.
The Hunger Games had the unenviable task of being on the receiving end of comparisons to Harry Potter and the Twilight franchises, and to an extent it has done its source material proud. Does it live up to the much-loved world of Hogwarts? Probably not. Does it live up to the lust and romance of the Twilight Saga? Most definitely. It sits, right smack in the middle and that’s not a bad place to be.
Gary Ross has produced a fine blockbuster with excellent performances from the cast and some fabulous design choices. Yes, it’s a little too long, there are some shoddy special effects and the character development lacks depth, but for fans of the series and newcomers alike, it moves the game on and is an enjoyable experience.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/04/05/the-hunger-games-2012-review/
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Thread Needle in Books
Jun 17, 2021
“Magic is the first sin. It must be bound.”
Anna is an orphan, she is a witch with no magic, she is a nobody.
Raised by her aunt in London since her parents’ death when she was just 3 months old, Anna leads a monotonous life of school, homework, chores and learning to control her magic. Not that she has much magic to control, but Anna has been raised in the shadow of the Binders, a coven who believe magic is a sin and who will bind Anna’s magic when she turns 16. Until then, Anna must not draw attention to herself or the world of magic, she must shrink and she must be invisible. Only when her magic is bound will she be safe…or so the Binders would lead her to believe.
Threadneedle begins around Anna’s 15th birthday, when Anna and her Aunt receive a surprise visit from a family friend (and witch) Selene, her daughter Effie and friend Attis. Anna has idolised Selene since her childhood but I imagine even she did not anticipate this birthday visit to change her life so significantly.
Selene, Effie and Attis are the complete opposite of the Binders, using magic freely and unreservedly: they open up a whole new world to the reluctant Anna and even convince her to create a coven with them, discovering new witches right under their noses. However, as Anna practices magic more, a peculiar symbol seems to haunt her; the symbol of the eye – the symbol of a curse.
The majority of Threadneedle takes place within Anna’s home and school. Anna’s life as a nobody at school is turned on its head with Effie’s arrival and she finds that, along with friends, comes the drama of a typical teenage girl. Bullying and body-shaming are key topics here and sort of edged the book into the YA category in my opinion.
Anna as a character is portrayed as an entirely ordinary teenager, if a little meek. Her aunt, in juxtaposition, is controlling and dominating, although she always expresses that this is necessary to protect Anna and comes from a place of love. Aunt is rarely referred to by her name and has an abusive hold over Anna, punishing her with magic if she so much as shows a flicker of emotion. The reader witnesses Anna’s emotional and physical abuse at the hands of her Aunt, with Cari Thomas even beginning each chapter with one of the Binders’ tenets, signifying the brainwashing nature of the coven.
Anna doesn’t remain meek for long though: fuelled by her intrigue of magic and the mystery behind her parent’s death, Anna soon starts pushing the boundaries that she has lived within for so long. Will she succeed and manage to discover the magical world that surrounds her? Or will her magic be knotted before she gets the chance?
Despite being set in present-day London, Thomas really does introduce an entirely new world of magic with different magical languages, different covens and the constant threat of The Hunters. I found the mixture of darkness and realism incredible.
I also loved the fact that the magic and non-magic worlds run side by side in Thomas’ world but I am very conscious that any magical book written post-Harry Potter is obviously going to have comparisons made. However, Anna does not have the safety of Hogwarts or a doting headmaster to fall back on. There are no teachers providing an education in magic, she must find her magic on her own. No this is a far cry from Harry Potter; Threadneedle is more like a bubbling mixture of Charmed, with a ladle full of Mean Girls and a teaspoon of The Craft for good measure.
The sheer amount of world building by Cari Thomas means that the first few chapters of Threadneedle can feel quite slow but the novel soon settles into place. Thomas also has almost a rhythmic quality to her narrative, with fast-paced writing in dramatic spots before slowing right down again to represent Anna’s isolation. The final chapters were so captivating, with several mysteries that had been steadily growing finally coming to a head: I couldn’t read this fast enough.
Threadneedle is the first in the Language of Magic series by Cari Thomas and it is one hell of a debut! From prophecies and poison to bullies and love triangles; magical libraries, witch hunters and more plot twists than you can imagine, this book has it all. Thomas’ writing is so clever that towards the end of the book even the reader doesn’t know who to believe any more!
Thank you to HarperCollins, and NetGalley for the opportunity to discover this new world. The hype around this book is going to be crazy and it is completely deserved.
Anna is an orphan, she is a witch with no magic, she is a nobody.
Raised by her aunt in London since her parents’ death when she was just 3 months old, Anna leads a monotonous life of school, homework, chores and learning to control her magic. Not that she has much magic to control, but Anna has been raised in the shadow of the Binders, a coven who believe magic is a sin and who will bind Anna’s magic when she turns 16. Until then, Anna must not draw attention to herself or the world of magic, she must shrink and she must be invisible. Only when her magic is bound will she be safe…or so the Binders would lead her to believe.
Threadneedle begins around Anna’s 15th birthday, when Anna and her Aunt receive a surprise visit from a family friend (and witch) Selene, her daughter Effie and friend Attis. Anna has idolised Selene since her childhood but I imagine even she did not anticipate this birthday visit to change her life so significantly.
Selene, Effie and Attis are the complete opposite of the Binders, using magic freely and unreservedly: they open up a whole new world to the reluctant Anna and even convince her to create a coven with them, discovering new witches right under their noses. However, as Anna practices magic more, a peculiar symbol seems to haunt her; the symbol of the eye – the symbol of a curse.
The majority of Threadneedle takes place within Anna’s home and school. Anna’s life as a nobody at school is turned on its head with Effie’s arrival and she finds that, along with friends, comes the drama of a typical teenage girl. Bullying and body-shaming are key topics here and sort of edged the book into the YA category in my opinion.
Anna as a character is portrayed as an entirely ordinary teenager, if a little meek. Her aunt, in juxtaposition, is controlling and dominating, although she always expresses that this is necessary to protect Anna and comes from a place of love. Aunt is rarely referred to by her name and has an abusive hold over Anna, punishing her with magic if she so much as shows a flicker of emotion. The reader witnesses Anna’s emotional and physical abuse at the hands of her Aunt, with Cari Thomas even beginning each chapter with one of the Binders’ tenets, signifying the brainwashing nature of the coven.
Anna doesn’t remain meek for long though: fuelled by her intrigue of magic and the mystery behind her parent’s death, Anna soon starts pushing the boundaries that she has lived within for so long. Will she succeed and manage to discover the magical world that surrounds her? Or will her magic be knotted before she gets the chance?
Despite being set in present-day London, Thomas really does introduce an entirely new world of magic with different magical languages, different covens and the constant threat of The Hunters. I found the mixture of darkness and realism incredible.
I also loved the fact that the magic and non-magic worlds run side by side in Thomas’ world but I am very conscious that any magical book written post-Harry Potter is obviously going to have comparisons made. However, Anna does not have the safety of Hogwarts or a doting headmaster to fall back on. There are no teachers providing an education in magic, she must find her magic on her own. No this is a far cry from Harry Potter; Threadneedle is more like a bubbling mixture of Charmed, with a ladle full of Mean Girls and a teaspoon of The Craft for good measure.
The sheer amount of world building by Cari Thomas means that the first few chapters of Threadneedle can feel quite slow but the novel soon settles into place. Thomas also has almost a rhythmic quality to her narrative, with fast-paced writing in dramatic spots before slowing right down again to represent Anna’s isolation. The final chapters were so captivating, with several mysteries that had been steadily growing finally coming to a head: I couldn’t read this fast enough.
Threadneedle is the first in the Language of Magic series by Cari Thomas and it is one hell of a debut! From prophecies and poison to bullies and love triangles; magical libraries, witch hunters and more plot twists than you can imagine, this book has it all. Thomas’ writing is so clever that towards the end of the book even the reader doesn’t know who to believe any more!
Thank you to HarperCollins, and NetGalley for the opportunity to discover this new world. The hype around this book is going to be crazy and it is completely deserved.
Ari Augustine (10 KP) rated Crave (Crave, #1) in Books
May 4, 2020
I am super torn about CRAVE by Tracy Wolff.
First off, the world is kind of amazing. I did love the Hogwarts-Vampire Academy-Narnia-in-Alaska vibes I was getting from the setting. It was beautiful, secluded, and totally magical. Grace is hilarious most of the time, filled with snark and near corny knock knock jokes, but I also enjoyed how she called characters out on their crap. She wasn't always a reckless mess, which was nice, and I readily felt for her grief over the death of her parents. From the beginning, I was there for her pain, her panic attacks, her bravery, her wit, and this new adventure before her. Second to Grace is Jaxon, who I adored in so many ways. Perfection and arrogance aside, he's totally a broody vampire, but this isn't the ONLY side to his character we get, and unlike so many other characters we could compare him to, he does change throughout the course of the book. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that maybe Jaxon, not Grace, is the main lead of this story. They had amazing chemistry, sexy banter, and I deeply enjoyed the tug o' war between them.
Okay. Now for the....not so great. For one, while the setting is so magical and new, we don't really get to explore it much. Yes, we get the AMAZING library filled with witches, unusual tomes, and gargoyles, but I would have loved to hear more about the classes, the different cliques, the way this new place functioned. Unfortunately, because Grace was left out of the loop for pretty much the whole book, we were, too. So we end up not really getting to explore this new place much and that really sucked. This brings us to a second thing I struggled with: Grace.
While I absolutely adored her character, I also kind of wanted to smack her and scream "OPEN YOUR EYES". Even with Macy (her cousin) half spelling it out and with all the impossibilities going on (like students standing outside in below 0 weather without jackets), Grace just sort of files it away as odd, but shrugs. Meh. So that guy wanted to murder me? Meh. So these beads shock everyone but me? Meh. So I fell from a tree and somehow this hot guy caught me midair? Double meh. The list goes on. This went on for the ENTIRE BOOK. And while it was all painfully obvious to us, it sailed over her head like an invisible wind. This really bothered me. Just like the instalove with Jaxon bothered me. Look, I believe in instant attraction. I know a hottie when I see one and, yeah, there's always that little phase of infatuation and attraction, but this started intense and just sort of ended with love bombs. The chemistry, as I said before, was amazing, but I wished we could have had more to go on. It bothered me that Grace was constantly throwing herself at Jaxon, forcing herself on him and forcing him to open on. She also made so many assumptions about Jaxon and I was waiting for her rationale, which never really came. It's like meeting a feral dog in the tundra and believing it wont harm you because it's one of God's creatures or something. She totally idolized him, and I think that, more than anything, kept preventing me from fully loving her as a character.
Odd things I don't know how to feel about: I can totally see where people here are comparing it to Twilight. It pretty much follows the same Vampire Romance formula. Human girl meets broody vampire boy who has a dark past, a set of fangs, and, of course, many enemies. The girl almost always sacrifices herself for love and that happens here, too. I will argue that these characters had WAY MORE personality than Bella and Edward, though. In fact, I FUCKING LOVES all the scenes where Grace handed Jaxon his ass. In fact, this is pretty much why I was unable to put the book down despite all the issues I had with it later. What struck me, though, was I couldn't shake the feeling that the book was either laughing at Twilight (by being a better version of it) or if it was laughing at itself....as if Twilight were the inside joke. This was actually the most entertaining part of the book, and I was unable to figure out if this was meant to be comedic or if I was just reading it that way. Does this make sense? There were so many Twilight references and at one point, Grace event comments to herself about how she wasn't going to be like those female heroines in YA fantasy novels. I don't know. I read this alongside a friend who also felt like the book wasn't taking itself seriously, but neither of us could tell if this was deliberate or not.
Overall, it was a light and entertaining read. Was it perfect? No. Is it funny? Hell yes. Lots of delicious fangy hotness? Um...YEAH. And despite all the problems I had with it, it was still a fun book to setting into during midterms week.
First off, the world is kind of amazing. I did love the Hogwarts-Vampire Academy-Narnia-in-Alaska vibes I was getting from the setting. It was beautiful, secluded, and totally magical. Grace is hilarious most of the time, filled with snark and near corny knock knock jokes, but I also enjoyed how she called characters out on their crap. She wasn't always a reckless mess, which was nice, and I readily felt for her grief over the death of her parents. From the beginning, I was there for her pain, her panic attacks, her bravery, her wit, and this new adventure before her. Second to Grace is Jaxon, who I adored in so many ways. Perfection and arrogance aside, he's totally a broody vampire, but this isn't the ONLY side to his character we get, and unlike so many other characters we could compare him to, he does change throughout the course of the book. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that maybe Jaxon, not Grace, is the main lead of this story. They had amazing chemistry, sexy banter, and I deeply enjoyed the tug o' war between them.
Okay. Now for the....not so great. For one, while the setting is so magical and new, we don't really get to explore it much. Yes, we get the AMAZING library filled with witches, unusual tomes, and gargoyles, but I would have loved to hear more about the classes, the different cliques, the way this new place functioned. Unfortunately, because Grace was left out of the loop for pretty much the whole book, we were, too. So we end up not really getting to explore this new place much and that really sucked. This brings us to a second thing I struggled with: Grace.
While I absolutely adored her character, I also kind of wanted to smack her and scream "OPEN YOUR EYES". Even with Macy (her cousin) half spelling it out and with all the impossibilities going on (like students standing outside in below 0 weather without jackets), Grace just sort of files it away as odd, but shrugs. Meh. So that guy wanted to murder me? Meh. So these beads shock everyone but me? Meh. So I fell from a tree and somehow this hot guy caught me midair? Double meh. The list goes on. This went on for the ENTIRE BOOK. And while it was all painfully obvious to us, it sailed over her head like an invisible wind. This really bothered me. Just like the instalove with Jaxon bothered me. Look, I believe in instant attraction. I know a hottie when I see one and, yeah, there's always that little phase of infatuation and attraction, but this started intense and just sort of ended with love bombs. The chemistry, as I said before, was amazing, but I wished we could have had more to go on. It bothered me that Grace was constantly throwing herself at Jaxon, forcing herself on him and forcing him to open on. She also made so many assumptions about Jaxon and I was waiting for her rationale, which never really came. It's like meeting a feral dog in the tundra and believing it wont harm you because it's one of God's creatures or something. She totally idolized him, and I think that, more than anything, kept preventing me from fully loving her as a character.
Odd things I don't know how to feel about: I can totally see where people here are comparing it to Twilight. It pretty much follows the same Vampire Romance formula. Human girl meets broody vampire boy who has a dark past, a set of fangs, and, of course, many enemies. The girl almost always sacrifices herself for love and that happens here, too. I will argue that these characters had WAY MORE personality than Bella and Edward, though. In fact, I FUCKING LOVES all the scenes where Grace handed Jaxon his ass. In fact, this is pretty much why I was unable to put the book down despite all the issues I had with it later. What struck me, though, was I couldn't shake the feeling that the book was either laughing at Twilight (by being a better version of it) or if it was laughing at itself....as if Twilight were the inside joke. This was actually the most entertaining part of the book, and I was unable to figure out if this was meant to be comedic or if I was just reading it that way. Does this make sense? There were so many Twilight references and at one point, Grace event comments to herself about how she wasn't going to be like those female heroines in YA fantasy novels. I don't know. I read this alongside a friend who also felt like the book wasn't taking itself seriously, but neither of us could tell if this was deliberate or not.
Overall, it was a light and entertaining read. Was it perfect? No. Is it funny? Hell yes. Lots of delicious fangy hotness? Um...YEAH. And despite all the problems I had with it, it was still a fun book to setting into during midterms week.
Naomi Forrest (42 KP) rated The Toy Makers in Books
Jan 2, 2019
The first thing on the very first page that I loved was the narrator setting the scene and talking directly to you:
‘See the woman with the cage of pipe-cleaner birds, the vagrant soldier marvelling at the stuffed dogs lounging in their baskets? Keep a careful eye on them; you will see them again’.
I knew just from this descriptive ‘setting the scene’ chapter this book was going to be amazing, there was so much magic encapsulated in those first five pages. Papa Jack’s Emporium is the most wonderful shop you could imagine, a labyrinth of joy, surprises around every aisle and so much more. If you have ever seen the toy shop on Home Alone 2 that looked so amazing as a child, it has nothing on this! I was pretty sure for at least half of the book that Papa Jack was indeed Father Christmas.
After the initial chapter, the reader is introduced to Cathy, a fifteen year old who, shamefully (the year is 1906), is unmarried and pregnant. Plans are made for her to go to a special home where she will give birth and her child will be adopted. However, Cathy spots an advert looking for staff for the Emporium and runs away and so, the magic begins! The reader is catapulted into the world of the emporium and soon meets Papa Jack’s sons, Emil and Kaspar, who assist their father in the running of the store and the making of the toys, which are so much more than toys as we know them. People flock from far and wide to the emporium for it’s sublime creations and the memories and pleasures that they evoke.
The first half of the novel was like a fairytale, building beautifully to a gorgeous climax, full of wonder, friendship and subtle romance (perfectly done, so as not to detract from more pressing themes). In my head, toy soldiers and paper trees were everywhere and the wendy house is the stuff that dreams are made of. I loved observing (as I stood in the corner of the emporium, I’m sure, so convincing is Dinsdale) the relationships the built between Cathy and Emil and Cathy and Kaspar, though at times I felt sorry for Emil, never quite catching up to Kaspar as he wishes. If only the story had ended at page 187. And yet, that would not have been satisfying, not enough, so really, I’m glad it didn’t.
The second part of the novel, that is where Dinsdale really takes us on a journey. A couple of darker themes are touched upon in part one, where we learn of Jekab’s history (Papa Jack) but it ramps up in the second part, which ties in with World War I and beyond. You would think going from such wonderment and happiness to a bleak world of misery and reality would make you want to stop reading but I could not put this book down. I read 3/4 of it in one go! It is in the second part that Dinsdale brings in themes of shell shock, betrayal, sibling jealousy, bitterness and true, deep, familial love. Without spoilers, some characters truly lose everything and I cried during and after the book as it moved me so greatly (I mean, I am a crier anyway but not usually with books!). The entire novel is shaped around the ‘war’ between the brothers with some shocking twists along the way. Though part two draws in more realities, more brutalities and some heartbreaking moments, magic still punctuates and carries the reader through to the end. The ending is bitter sweet and my emotions were cloudy here, anger, joy, sadness and warmth all merging into a big teary mess.
I won’t say too much about specifics because some kinds of magic need to be discovered for yourself. The most beautiful sentiment in this novel though is that toys can’t save a life but they can save a soul, because toys transport many of us back to times of happiness, of wonder and of innocence, when things were simpler and problems remedied more easily. Times change but the joy of toys doesn’t. I can recall going through toy exhibits at both the castle museum in York and a toy museum in Edinburgh and it was so thrilling not only to see toys from my childhood but toys from before. Toys have the power to make magic we never knew existed, even if it is only in our head. The Toy Makers has yielded many comparisons with Erin Morgensten’s The Night Circus but for me, this novel surpassed anything I have read before in a similar vein. I have truly been blown away into a world that I honestly believe I will carry with me forever more. If, like me, you are a Harry Potter fan, you will know what I mean when I say that this book matches up to that first trip to Diagon Alley, to Hogwarts and to Honeydukes or that journey up Enid Blyton’s faraway tree as a child but it is even more exciting as an adult. It isn’t only the description that is first rate though; Dinsdale’s narrative style and use of language pulls you in and flows so smoothly, you are carried away from the first page whether you are prepared for it or not. Some reviews have said it is too fantastical but I cannot rate this book highly enough. It isn’t always easy reading – prepare to have your heart broken in several places- but go in looking for magic. You won’t be disappointed!
‘See the woman with the cage of pipe-cleaner birds, the vagrant soldier marvelling at the stuffed dogs lounging in their baskets? Keep a careful eye on them; you will see them again’.
I knew just from this descriptive ‘setting the scene’ chapter this book was going to be amazing, there was so much magic encapsulated in those first five pages. Papa Jack’s Emporium is the most wonderful shop you could imagine, a labyrinth of joy, surprises around every aisle and so much more. If you have ever seen the toy shop on Home Alone 2 that looked so amazing as a child, it has nothing on this! I was pretty sure for at least half of the book that Papa Jack was indeed Father Christmas.
After the initial chapter, the reader is introduced to Cathy, a fifteen year old who, shamefully (the year is 1906), is unmarried and pregnant. Plans are made for her to go to a special home where she will give birth and her child will be adopted. However, Cathy spots an advert looking for staff for the Emporium and runs away and so, the magic begins! The reader is catapulted into the world of the emporium and soon meets Papa Jack’s sons, Emil and Kaspar, who assist their father in the running of the store and the making of the toys, which are so much more than toys as we know them. People flock from far and wide to the emporium for it’s sublime creations and the memories and pleasures that they evoke.
The first half of the novel was like a fairytale, building beautifully to a gorgeous climax, full of wonder, friendship and subtle romance (perfectly done, so as not to detract from more pressing themes). In my head, toy soldiers and paper trees were everywhere and the wendy house is the stuff that dreams are made of. I loved observing (as I stood in the corner of the emporium, I’m sure, so convincing is Dinsdale) the relationships the built between Cathy and Emil and Cathy and Kaspar, though at times I felt sorry for Emil, never quite catching up to Kaspar as he wishes. If only the story had ended at page 187. And yet, that would not have been satisfying, not enough, so really, I’m glad it didn’t.
The second part of the novel, that is where Dinsdale really takes us on a journey. A couple of darker themes are touched upon in part one, where we learn of Jekab’s history (Papa Jack) but it ramps up in the second part, which ties in with World War I and beyond. You would think going from such wonderment and happiness to a bleak world of misery and reality would make you want to stop reading but I could not put this book down. I read 3/4 of it in one go! It is in the second part that Dinsdale brings in themes of shell shock, betrayal, sibling jealousy, bitterness and true, deep, familial love. Without spoilers, some characters truly lose everything and I cried during and after the book as it moved me so greatly (I mean, I am a crier anyway but not usually with books!). The entire novel is shaped around the ‘war’ between the brothers with some shocking twists along the way. Though part two draws in more realities, more brutalities and some heartbreaking moments, magic still punctuates and carries the reader through to the end. The ending is bitter sweet and my emotions were cloudy here, anger, joy, sadness and warmth all merging into a big teary mess.
I won’t say too much about specifics because some kinds of magic need to be discovered for yourself. The most beautiful sentiment in this novel though is that toys can’t save a life but they can save a soul, because toys transport many of us back to times of happiness, of wonder and of innocence, when things were simpler and problems remedied more easily. Times change but the joy of toys doesn’t. I can recall going through toy exhibits at both the castle museum in York and a toy museum in Edinburgh and it was so thrilling not only to see toys from my childhood but toys from before. Toys have the power to make magic we never knew existed, even if it is only in our head. The Toy Makers has yielded many comparisons with Erin Morgensten’s The Night Circus but for me, this novel surpassed anything I have read before in a similar vein. I have truly been blown away into a world that I honestly believe I will carry with me forever more. If, like me, you are a Harry Potter fan, you will know what I mean when I say that this book matches up to that first trip to Diagon Alley, to Hogwarts and to Honeydukes or that journey up Enid Blyton’s faraway tree as a child but it is even more exciting as an adult. It isn’t only the description that is first rate though; Dinsdale’s narrative style and use of language pulls you in and flows so smoothly, you are carried away from the first page whether you are prepared for it or not. Some reviews have said it is too fantastical but I cannot rate this book highly enough. It isn’t always easy reading – prepare to have your heart broken in several places- but go in looking for magic. You won’t be disappointed!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tail as old as Kline.
With the Disney marketing machine in full swing, its hard to separate the hype from the movie reality in this latest live-action remake of one of their classic animated features from 1991. If you are lucky enough to have children you will know that each child tends to have “their” Disney feature: for my second daughter (then 4) that film would be “Beauty and the Beast”. With a VHS video tape worn down to the substrate, this is a film I know every line of dialogue to (“I’m especially good at expectorating”). So seeing this movie was always going to be a wander down Nostalgia Avenue and a left turn into Emotion Crescent, regardless of how good a film it was. And so it proved.
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….