Search
Search results
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Feb 1, 2019 (Updated Feb 1, 2019)
First 2 acts are interesting (1 more)
MacAvoy is great
A Textbook Example On How Not To End A Trilogy
Contains spoilers, click to show
Glass is the 3rd movie in M. Night Shyamalan's pseudo superhero trilogy following Unbreakable and Split. Unfortunately it is probably the worst movie out of the three and doesn't live up to the twenty years of build-up it has had going into it. Full spoilers will be present through this review as it's kind of hard to discuss the film without spoiling anything.
The movie opens with what is essentially a condensed version of both Unbreakable and Split. We see Bruce Willis' Dennis Dunn stalking criminals in his poncho and we see James MacAvoy's Kevin Wendell Crumb keeping four young girls captured in an abandoned warehouse. The old 'unstoppable force meets immovable object,' trope plays out and the two of them wind up getting caught by Sarah Paulson and her team, who apparently specialise in investigating those who have delusions about having superhuman powers.
She brings the two of them to a mental hospital where she is keeping Samuel L Jackson's Mr Glass. Sarah Paulson's character then spends the next chunk of the movie trying to convince the three that the powers that they believe they possess is actually in their heads and there is a real-world, logical explanation to everything that they can do. This part of the film is actually pretty interesting in the ideas that it poses and I liked where the film was going at this point.
Then the third act happens and we are reminded why Shyamalan so desperately needs an editor to keep his ideas in check. There is this huge build up that takes place teasing an epic fight between Dunn and The Beast at the top of some huge brand new building in the middle of the city. Unfortunately we never get there and instead we just get some mediocre action choreography in a medium sized car park between the two. The whole thing ends with the fairly contrived retcon twist that Kevin's dad was in the same train crash that Dunn survived and Mr Glass caused, thus making Mr Glass the 'creator,' of both superheroes. Then the three characters die in an extremely anticlimactic fashion. The Beast breaks a couple of Mr Glass' bones and he falls out of his wheelchair and dies, (even though this is something that we have seen happen to him in Unbreakable and he survived it.) Then a sniper randomly shoots Kevin even though the beast is tamed by the appearance of Anya Taylor-Joy's character, Casey from Split. He just gets shot once and dies with hardly any fanfare. Then David Dunn is drowned in a puddle as Sarah Paulson explains that she is part of a secret organisation that hunts people who believe that they are superheroes, determines whether or not they really are superheroes through a pretty drawn-out process and then proceeds to kill them if they do in fact possess superpowers. We also see that for some reason this group apparently only meets in crowded public restaurants in the middle of the city centre in broad daylight and have to wait until any non members of this super secret club, (that just killed 3 people in a public car park in broad daylight in front of cops and family members,) have left the restaurant before they can discuss business. Then it turns out that Mr Glass leaked the footage from the hospital security cameras online so that people would see that superheroes really do exist.
If you are someone that hasn't seen the movie and doesn't care about spoilers so you just read this review anyway; your brain is probably falling out of your ear after reading my description of the third act and that's because on paper this whole sequence of events is absolutely ludicrous and the fact that no one pointed this out during the movie's production is mind-boggling.
What a waste after two solid movies and a decent two first acts worth of build up...
There are some positives I took away though. It is as much of an absolute joy to watch James MacAvoy play so many totally different characters convincingly in one scene as it was in Split, maybe even more so here as we get to see even more personalities emerge and in even quicker succession. He is an utterly phenomenal actor. It is also cool to see Mr Glass and David Dunn after twenty years to see where they are at in their lives and how they have been spending their time since the events of Unbreakable. There are also some nice shots and camera angles in the film, (more so in the first two acts of the story,) and some nice colour scheme aesthetics going on in certain compositions that made some shots more interesting to look at.
Overall, this movie could have been so much more and in the end it throws away some really potentially interesting plot threads in favour for a few tacked on twists and gives us nothing more than a half arsed conclusion to an otherwise solid trilogy.
The movie opens with what is essentially a condensed version of both Unbreakable and Split. We see Bruce Willis' Dennis Dunn stalking criminals in his poncho and we see James MacAvoy's Kevin Wendell Crumb keeping four young girls captured in an abandoned warehouse. The old 'unstoppable force meets immovable object,' trope plays out and the two of them wind up getting caught by Sarah Paulson and her team, who apparently specialise in investigating those who have delusions about having superhuman powers.
She brings the two of them to a mental hospital where she is keeping Samuel L Jackson's Mr Glass. Sarah Paulson's character then spends the next chunk of the movie trying to convince the three that the powers that they believe they possess is actually in their heads and there is a real-world, logical explanation to everything that they can do. This part of the film is actually pretty interesting in the ideas that it poses and I liked where the film was going at this point.
Then the third act happens and we are reminded why Shyamalan so desperately needs an editor to keep his ideas in check. There is this huge build up that takes place teasing an epic fight between Dunn and The Beast at the top of some huge brand new building in the middle of the city. Unfortunately we never get there and instead we just get some mediocre action choreography in a medium sized car park between the two. The whole thing ends with the fairly contrived retcon twist that Kevin's dad was in the same train crash that Dunn survived and Mr Glass caused, thus making Mr Glass the 'creator,' of both superheroes. Then the three characters die in an extremely anticlimactic fashion. The Beast breaks a couple of Mr Glass' bones and he falls out of his wheelchair and dies, (even though this is something that we have seen happen to him in Unbreakable and he survived it.) Then a sniper randomly shoots Kevin even though the beast is tamed by the appearance of Anya Taylor-Joy's character, Casey from Split. He just gets shot once and dies with hardly any fanfare. Then David Dunn is drowned in a puddle as Sarah Paulson explains that she is part of a secret organisation that hunts people who believe that they are superheroes, determines whether or not they really are superheroes through a pretty drawn-out process and then proceeds to kill them if they do in fact possess superpowers. We also see that for some reason this group apparently only meets in crowded public restaurants in the middle of the city centre in broad daylight and have to wait until any non members of this super secret club, (that just killed 3 people in a public car park in broad daylight in front of cops and family members,) have left the restaurant before they can discuss business. Then it turns out that Mr Glass leaked the footage from the hospital security cameras online so that people would see that superheroes really do exist.
If you are someone that hasn't seen the movie and doesn't care about spoilers so you just read this review anyway; your brain is probably falling out of your ear after reading my description of the third act and that's because on paper this whole sequence of events is absolutely ludicrous and the fact that no one pointed this out during the movie's production is mind-boggling.
What a waste after two solid movies and a decent two first acts worth of build up...
There are some positives I took away though. It is as much of an absolute joy to watch James MacAvoy play so many totally different characters convincingly in one scene as it was in Split, maybe even more so here as we get to see even more personalities emerge and in even quicker succession. He is an utterly phenomenal actor. It is also cool to see Mr Glass and David Dunn after twenty years to see where they are at in their lives and how they have been spending their time since the events of Unbreakable. There are also some nice shots and camera angles in the film, (more so in the first two acts of the story,) and some nice colour scheme aesthetics going on in certain compositions that made some shots more interesting to look at.
Overall, this movie could have been so much more and in the end it throws away some really potentially interesting plot threads in favour for a few tacked on twists and gives us nothing more than a half arsed conclusion to an otherwise solid trilogy.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Let's Go Play At The Adams' in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<b><i>Warning, this review is kind-of spoilery.</i></b>
Im not even sure where to start with this review what a disturbing, strange, and violent novel.
I had so many different thoughts running through my head with this novel, that I actually had to start myself a little review notebook where I could put all my thoughts on paper. This is going to be a long review I can already feel it.
I should start by saying, this book turned out to be nothing like I thought it would be, but that hasnt let me down. This is a very uncomfortable 4 star read. Where American Psycho was 5 stars because I enjoyed the reading experience and Patrick Batemans deranged, dorky character (in the least sadistic way possible), this is the complete opposite. This was an unenjoyable 4 stars because it was just so dark and disturbing am I making sense?
What struck me about this novel at the beginning was that I disliked our victim, Barbara. She awoke gagged and tied up, and was merely annoyed, if not amused by the childrens game. Even later, when she realised that she really was a prisoner, she was snooty and still thought herself better than the children. Obviously, as the torture progressed and got worse, my opinion of her did change, as she changed too.
While this book sounds like its going to be a quick, dark story about the kidnapping and torture of a babysitter, its actually a lot slower than that and there isnt a huge amount of the torture in front of our eyes. It goes on behind closed doors and is only hinted towards this doesnt make it any less skin crawling, however! This novel is largely focused on the characters and their thoughts throughout the week-long crime.
A lot of peoples reviews mentioned how the characters in this werent believable, but I think otherwise. Yes, maybe the idea that 5 kids all come together and mutually agree to kidnap and torture an adult is a little strange, but as individual people, I think its easy to assume they all really exist.
The eldest of the group is Dianne, at the age of 17, and I personally think she was the least likable but also least believe character. Her involvement in the kidnapping went no further than just because she was in charge of all the children simply because she was the oldest and she let them do whatever they wanted. She had no motive to want to hurt Barbara, she was simply cruel for crueltys sake.
Secondly, theres John, aged 16, and his involvement in the kidnapping went a lot further and was a lot more controversial. He had a motive, and that was simply lust. A sexually frustrated teenager is definitely easy to imagine and while only a teeny tiny amount go on to commit sex crimes, its totally plausible.
Afterwards comes Paul, aged 12, whose presence in the story is very strange. Hes not really got any motive other than his own dark desires. A weirdo 12 year old with violent tendencies is really nothing new Paul was just a little more over the top!
Next is Bobby, aged 10, the only kid of the bunch who shows any remorse at what theyve done. I personally feel that Bobby was the subject of peer-pressure. He thought kidnapping an adult would be fun, and as a young child, couldnt comprehend the consequences of his actions. Other reviewers didnt feel sorry for Bobby, but in a way, I did.
Lastly is Cindy, the youngest of the group at 9 years old. Cindy doesnt feature in the novel an awful lot, but when she does shes simply a bored young girl who doesnt fully understand the reality of whats happening. Even at the end, when things are getting more and more violent, Cindy doesnt care. Shes just going along with the rest of her friends.
As I mentioned before, there isnt a huge amount of on screen torture and violence, but when it is there, its grotesque and nightmarish. Johnson really did know how to write horrifying descriptions. Reading bits and pieces got really dark and at times I felt pretty squeamish.
One quick thing to say about the writing is that it really would have been nice to have more paragraph breaks! When the story is so dark and heavy, you need a bit of a breather sometimes, and you didnt get much of that with this novel.
Right, sorry this review has been a bit of a long, messy ramble! I really wasnt sure how to go about reviewing this weird, sinister book. If you like horrible books that are going to make you feel uncomfortable, and you can get your hands on this for cheap, I think its worth reading even just to be able to say youve read it! But its definitely, definitely not for everyone not even every horror reader.
<i>Thanks to Virginia on Goodreads for lending me her copy to read!</i>
Im not even sure where to start with this review what a disturbing, strange, and violent novel.
I had so many different thoughts running through my head with this novel, that I actually had to start myself a little review notebook where I could put all my thoughts on paper. This is going to be a long review I can already feel it.
I should start by saying, this book turned out to be nothing like I thought it would be, but that hasnt let me down. This is a very uncomfortable 4 star read. Where American Psycho was 5 stars because I enjoyed the reading experience and Patrick Batemans deranged, dorky character (in the least sadistic way possible), this is the complete opposite. This was an unenjoyable 4 stars because it was just so dark and disturbing am I making sense?
What struck me about this novel at the beginning was that I disliked our victim, Barbara. She awoke gagged and tied up, and was merely annoyed, if not amused by the childrens game. Even later, when she realised that she really was a prisoner, she was snooty and still thought herself better than the children. Obviously, as the torture progressed and got worse, my opinion of her did change, as she changed too.
While this book sounds like its going to be a quick, dark story about the kidnapping and torture of a babysitter, its actually a lot slower than that and there isnt a huge amount of the torture in front of our eyes. It goes on behind closed doors and is only hinted towards this doesnt make it any less skin crawling, however! This novel is largely focused on the characters and their thoughts throughout the week-long crime.
A lot of peoples reviews mentioned how the characters in this werent believable, but I think otherwise. Yes, maybe the idea that 5 kids all come together and mutually agree to kidnap and torture an adult is a little strange, but as individual people, I think its easy to assume they all really exist.
The eldest of the group is Dianne, at the age of 17, and I personally think she was the least likable but also least believe character. Her involvement in the kidnapping went no further than just because she was in charge of all the children simply because she was the oldest and she let them do whatever they wanted. She had no motive to want to hurt Barbara, she was simply cruel for crueltys sake.
Secondly, theres John, aged 16, and his involvement in the kidnapping went a lot further and was a lot more controversial. He had a motive, and that was simply lust. A sexually frustrated teenager is definitely easy to imagine and while only a teeny tiny amount go on to commit sex crimes, its totally plausible.
Afterwards comes Paul, aged 12, whose presence in the story is very strange. Hes not really got any motive other than his own dark desires. A weirdo 12 year old with violent tendencies is really nothing new Paul was just a little more over the top!
Next is Bobby, aged 10, the only kid of the bunch who shows any remorse at what theyve done. I personally feel that Bobby was the subject of peer-pressure. He thought kidnapping an adult would be fun, and as a young child, couldnt comprehend the consequences of his actions. Other reviewers didnt feel sorry for Bobby, but in a way, I did.
Lastly is Cindy, the youngest of the group at 9 years old. Cindy doesnt feature in the novel an awful lot, but when she does shes simply a bored young girl who doesnt fully understand the reality of whats happening. Even at the end, when things are getting more and more violent, Cindy doesnt care. Shes just going along with the rest of her friends.
As I mentioned before, there isnt a huge amount of on screen torture and violence, but when it is there, its grotesque and nightmarish. Johnson really did know how to write horrifying descriptions. Reading bits and pieces got really dark and at times I felt pretty squeamish.
One quick thing to say about the writing is that it really would have been nice to have more paragraph breaks! When the story is so dark and heavy, you need a bit of a breather sometimes, and you didnt get much of that with this novel.
Right, sorry this review has been a bit of a long, messy ramble! I really wasnt sure how to go about reviewing this weird, sinister book. If you like horrible books that are going to make you feel uncomfortable, and you can get your hands on this for cheap, I think its worth reading even just to be able to say youve read it! But its definitely, definitely not for everyone not even every horror reader.
<i>Thanks to Virginia on Goodreads for lending me her copy to read!</i>
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Crazy Rich Asians (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Crazy Rich Asians, Kevin Kwan’s romantic comedy has been delivered to the theaters with all of the glamour and glitz portrayed in the bestselling novel. This film features an all Asian Cast, a rarity, since the last American studio film to feature that was Joy Luck Club 25 years ago. This movie marks the first time Asians are cast as leads in a romantic comedy.
Rachel Chu’s (Constance Wu) journey to meet her boyfriend Nick Young’s (Henry Golding) family could be a bit of a fish out of water tale. Rachel is the daughter of a Chinese single mother who immigrated to America. Being an economics professor at NYU, is pretty prestigious accomplishment and Rachel loves what she does. She has been seeing Nick for over a year. He has his best friend’s wedding in Singapore and suggests that Rachel comes along to meet his friends and family.
Nick is from a well off family, a subject that he had never mentioned before. The first thing that tips her off is the treatment that they receive on the plane. When Rachel finds out that his family is well off, it does not change their relationship. However, she still does not realize how extensive the family finances are and is definitely not aware of the social status of the Youngs.
Singapore in all of its crisp and elegant beauty is a character in itself. We are taken to the many sites on the island as it is shown to Rachel. From the moment the couple arrive, they are met at the airport by Colin Khoo (Chris Pang), Nick’s best friend the groom and Araminta Lee (Sonoya Mizuno) the bride. They are taken to one of the Hawker’s Centre full of stalls, each specializing in a handful of dishes, some with a Michelin Star. We see an incredible smorgasbord in a quick cut of food porn. Nothing in Rachel’s first taste of town indicates the opulence that is to come.
Rachel goes to see Piek Goh(Awkwafina), her roommate during college. The Goh family is “new wealth” and we see the gilded display throughout to the point of excess. We meet Piek’s parents , Neenah (Chieng Mun Koh) and Wye Mun (Ken Jeong, bringing his brand of weird, creepy and awkward as Piek’s dad). The Gohs welcome Rachel with such warmth and treats her like family. This is where she learns how affluent and respected the Young’s are in Singapore. Piek takes it upon herself to provide her best friend with a fabulous suit of armor and education in order to survive the introduction to the world of the Youngs.
Meeting the Youngs is comparable to being introduced to the Royal Family of Singapore and Rachel was not aware of the social graces that are expected in the circles of the crazy rich. You can see that she is not accustomed to the superabundance that she is witnesses and is a little overwhelmed in trying to adapt. As Nick introduces her to his mother Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh), Rachel immediately gleams that his mother does not like her. Thus begins the power play between them. Eleanor doesn’t think that Rachel is an appropriate candidate to be the future Mrs. Young and Rachel wants to be accepted as she is and now feels the need to prove that she is good enough for Nick.
The only member of Nick’s family that Rachel has met is Astrid Young Teo (Gemma Chan) his cousin. If Eleanor is the Queen, then Astrid is the princess. She doesn’t walk, she glides. The societal cognoscenti hold her in high esteem. The women want to have her style and the men want to have her. With all the grace and beauty, she reigns in the land of the crazy rich. Rachel liked her some much that she says Astrid is who she wants to be when she grows up. Those who think that her life golden, is unaware that she has her own problems.
We are introduced to the wedding party and the extensive lavishness of the super rich of Asia. It may seem ridiculous and an exaggeration, but the lifestyle of the crazy rich and Asian is based on reality. As Rachel carefully steps through the social landmines that have appeared, she becomes more confident in her own ability and recognizes the game and how to play it.
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, I wanted to see it again to catch all the things that I did not soak in from the first viewing. The story has a great balance of comedy and drama with Ken Jeong and Awkwafina gifting us with hilarious one liners and Constance Wu playing the confident woman learning how to find her footing. Henry Golding does exceptionally well on his first ever feature film, playing the man who has found love outside of the world of the Crazy Rich Asians.
This is an excellent romantic comedy that is served on a golden platter. Jon M. Chu has delivered a wonderfully delicious story that deserve to be watched over and over again. If you are a fan of the romantic comedy genre, take the time with this gem of a movie.
Rachel Chu’s (Constance Wu) journey to meet her boyfriend Nick Young’s (Henry Golding) family could be a bit of a fish out of water tale. Rachel is the daughter of a Chinese single mother who immigrated to America. Being an economics professor at NYU, is pretty prestigious accomplishment and Rachel loves what she does. She has been seeing Nick for over a year. He has his best friend’s wedding in Singapore and suggests that Rachel comes along to meet his friends and family.
Nick is from a well off family, a subject that he had never mentioned before. The first thing that tips her off is the treatment that they receive on the plane. When Rachel finds out that his family is well off, it does not change their relationship. However, she still does not realize how extensive the family finances are and is definitely not aware of the social status of the Youngs.
Singapore in all of its crisp and elegant beauty is a character in itself. We are taken to the many sites on the island as it is shown to Rachel. From the moment the couple arrive, they are met at the airport by Colin Khoo (Chris Pang), Nick’s best friend the groom and Araminta Lee (Sonoya Mizuno) the bride. They are taken to one of the Hawker’s Centre full of stalls, each specializing in a handful of dishes, some with a Michelin Star. We see an incredible smorgasbord in a quick cut of food porn. Nothing in Rachel’s first taste of town indicates the opulence that is to come.
Rachel goes to see Piek Goh(Awkwafina), her roommate during college. The Goh family is “new wealth” and we see the gilded display throughout to the point of excess. We meet Piek’s parents , Neenah (Chieng Mun Koh) and Wye Mun (Ken Jeong, bringing his brand of weird, creepy and awkward as Piek’s dad). The Gohs welcome Rachel with such warmth and treats her like family. This is where she learns how affluent and respected the Young’s are in Singapore. Piek takes it upon herself to provide her best friend with a fabulous suit of armor and education in order to survive the introduction to the world of the Youngs.
Meeting the Youngs is comparable to being introduced to the Royal Family of Singapore and Rachel was not aware of the social graces that are expected in the circles of the crazy rich. You can see that she is not accustomed to the superabundance that she is witnesses and is a little overwhelmed in trying to adapt. As Nick introduces her to his mother Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh), Rachel immediately gleams that his mother does not like her. Thus begins the power play between them. Eleanor doesn’t think that Rachel is an appropriate candidate to be the future Mrs. Young and Rachel wants to be accepted as she is and now feels the need to prove that she is good enough for Nick.
The only member of Nick’s family that Rachel has met is Astrid Young Teo (Gemma Chan) his cousin. If Eleanor is the Queen, then Astrid is the princess. She doesn’t walk, she glides. The societal cognoscenti hold her in high esteem. The women want to have her style and the men want to have her. With all the grace and beauty, she reigns in the land of the crazy rich. Rachel liked her some much that she says Astrid is who she wants to be when she grows up. Those who think that her life golden, is unaware that she has her own problems.
We are introduced to the wedding party and the extensive lavishness of the super rich of Asia. It may seem ridiculous and an exaggeration, but the lifestyle of the crazy rich and Asian is based on reality. As Rachel carefully steps through the social landmines that have appeared, she becomes more confident in her own ability and recognizes the game and how to play it.
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, I wanted to see it again to catch all the things that I did not soak in from the first viewing. The story has a great balance of comedy and drama with Ken Jeong and Awkwafina gifting us with hilarious one liners and Constance Wu playing the confident woman learning how to find her footing. Henry Golding does exceptionally well on his first ever feature film, playing the man who has found love outside of the world of the Crazy Rich Asians.
This is an excellent romantic comedy that is served on a golden platter. Jon M. Chu has delivered a wonderfully delicious story that deserve to be watched over and over again. If you are a fan of the romantic comedy genre, take the time with this gem of a movie.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Tether (The ELI Chronicles, #2) in Books
Feb 3, 2020
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<b>The ELI Chronicles Series</b>
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2387441859">The One and Only</a> - ★★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2803361466">The Tether</a> - ★★★★
<img src="https://i2.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Book-Review-Banner-19.png?resize=1024%2C576&ssl=1"/>;
<b><i>As soon as I read <a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/2018/05/29/the-one-and-only-julia-ash-book-review/">The One and Only, the first book of the ELI Chronicles,</a> I knew I had to finish the series. When Julia Ash reached out to me, letting me know the second book, The Tether, is available for review – I obviously jumped at the opportunity!M/i></b>
It took me a bit to get to it due to my busy schedule, but once I finally got my hands on The Tether and started reading it, I couldn’t put it down.
The Tether continues where the first book finished – Ruby managed to save the Earth from the ZOM-B disease and a possible zombie apocalypse, being the only person with a unique blood type that can provide a cure. And then she got turned to a vampire.
And when everything seems quiet, things are starting to escalate again. Ruby’s blood donors are from another planet, and one of the donors is the King of Darkness, an ancient vampire who is in search for food – animals and humans on Earth. And once again, it is up to Ruby to save the planet and her family. Only this time, she discovers she has way more power than she thought.
If you read my review on Book One, you will know I was confused and angry with how the first book ended. Right after a Zombie Apocalypse, we had a vampire ending. For a moment, I thought that once you start mixing too many things up, it can get confusing. But this series somehow manages to keep it all together, and it all logically makes sense. I just fear that perhaps people might not agree with me and find it confusing. I didn’t though.
Ruby, again, was my favourite character. She had to go through so much, and then learn to finally embrace it. She kept herself down on Earth, despite her power, and that made me like her even more. I also respect her so much for sacrificing herself for a greater cause, and always putting her family first!
<i><b>Clay, oh, Clay…</b></i>
We never got along buddy. But I couldn’t help but feel for Clay in this book, and he is slowly growing on me. He has to slowly age and then die, while his wife is immortal. Secretly, I hope he becomes a vampire too, so they can spend their eternity together, even though, let’s be honest, he won’t really bring anything much to the table. But I loved, how he sacrificed himself for his family, and stood up against bullies, even if they were immortal vampires.
I loved our main villain in this book – Zagan. For he had reasoning for everything he did, even though it was wrong. He had a purpose and a goal, and he did have a pinch of good inside him. But he also had evil, and that was never gonna change.
Interestingly enough, and a big no-surprise for me was the government. Their corruption and the depths that they were willing to go to reach their goal was scary – and very accurate to what actually is currently happening in the world. The fear is also represented, and how differently they react as soon as they see someone who has more power than them. Their thinking of making new people similar to this one case, that they could use for greater goals. This moment was captured in the book in a great way, as it is a great discussion point and a very painful subject at the same time for some people.
The new planet, new characters, new powers was an interesting switch within the book. I didn’t expect that at all, but I was pleasantly surprised with how it all fitted in. It was all well thought of, The Tether story, the tree, the blood connection with Ruby, the link between the planet and Earth, the concept of how people lived their belief of healing what they were hurting and keeping the balance. The one thing that confused me was the mentions of their heartbeats, as I thought vampire’s hearts don’t beat.
<b><i>I really enjoyed The Tether and it ended perfectly, getting us ready for the third book and Ruby’s next challenge. I highly recommend it – it is a real page-turner with incredible plot twists!
Thank you to the author, Julia Ash, for sending me a copy of The Tether, in exchange for an honest review!</i></b>
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<b>The ELI Chronicles Series</b>
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2387441859">The One and Only</a> - ★★★★
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2803361466">The Tether</a> - ★★★★
<img src="https://i2.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Book-Review-Banner-19.png?resize=1024%2C576&ssl=1"/>;
<b><i>As soon as I read <a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/2018/05/29/the-one-and-only-julia-ash-book-review/">The One and Only, the first book of the ELI Chronicles,</a> I knew I had to finish the series. When Julia Ash reached out to me, letting me know the second book, The Tether, is available for review – I obviously jumped at the opportunity!M/i></b>
It took me a bit to get to it due to my busy schedule, but once I finally got my hands on The Tether and started reading it, I couldn’t put it down.
The Tether continues where the first book finished – Ruby managed to save the Earth from the ZOM-B disease and a possible zombie apocalypse, being the only person with a unique blood type that can provide a cure. And then she got turned to a vampire.
And when everything seems quiet, things are starting to escalate again. Ruby’s blood donors are from another planet, and one of the donors is the King of Darkness, an ancient vampire who is in search for food – animals and humans on Earth. And once again, it is up to Ruby to save the planet and her family. Only this time, she discovers she has way more power than she thought.
If you read my review on Book One, you will know I was confused and angry with how the first book ended. Right after a Zombie Apocalypse, we had a vampire ending. For a moment, I thought that once you start mixing too many things up, it can get confusing. But this series somehow manages to keep it all together, and it all logically makes sense. I just fear that perhaps people might not agree with me and find it confusing. I didn’t though.
Ruby, again, was my favourite character. She had to go through so much, and then learn to finally embrace it. She kept herself down on Earth, despite her power, and that made me like her even more. I also respect her so much for sacrificing herself for a greater cause, and always putting her family first!
<i><b>Clay, oh, Clay…</b></i>
We never got along buddy. But I couldn’t help but feel for Clay in this book, and he is slowly growing on me. He has to slowly age and then die, while his wife is immortal. Secretly, I hope he becomes a vampire too, so they can spend their eternity together, even though, let’s be honest, he won’t really bring anything much to the table. But I loved, how he sacrificed himself for his family, and stood up against bullies, even if they were immortal vampires.
I loved our main villain in this book – Zagan. For he had reasoning for everything he did, even though it was wrong. He had a purpose and a goal, and he did have a pinch of good inside him. But he also had evil, and that was never gonna change.
Interestingly enough, and a big no-surprise for me was the government. Their corruption and the depths that they were willing to go to reach their goal was scary – and very accurate to what actually is currently happening in the world. The fear is also represented, and how differently they react as soon as they see someone who has more power than them. Their thinking of making new people similar to this one case, that they could use for greater goals. This moment was captured in the book in a great way, as it is a great discussion point and a very painful subject at the same time for some people.
The new planet, new characters, new powers was an interesting switch within the book. I didn’t expect that at all, but I was pleasantly surprised with how it all fitted in. It was all well thought of, The Tether story, the tree, the blood connection with Ruby, the link between the planet and Earth, the concept of how people lived their belief of healing what they were hurting and keeping the balance. The one thing that confused me was the mentions of their heartbeats, as I thought vampire’s hearts don’t beat.
<b><i>I really enjoyed The Tether and it ended perfectly, getting us ready for the third book and Ruby’s next challenge. I highly recommend it – it is a real page-turner with incredible plot twists!
Thank you to the author, Julia Ash, for sending me a copy of The Tether, in exchange for an honest review!</i></b>
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Philadelphia Story (1940) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
It's as good (maybe better) than you've heard
We all know of movies that you hear are considered a "classic", but you've never seen, and the few clips of the film you've seen does not, exactly, motivate you to check out the entire film. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY was one such film for me. This 1940 George Cukor production is lauded for it's dialogue, direction and the stellar performances of the cast - particularly the 3 leads, Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart.
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sass Perilla (36 KP) rated The Master and Margarita in Books
Aug 9, 2019
Worth a read? Yes. Worth a reread? Maybe not.
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Master and Magarita: Mikhail Bulgakov
Firstly, I didn’t intend to write an essay on this novel. However, once started I found I had a lot to say, and the more I thought about the plot and characters, the more ideas and parallels were sparked, so I am hopeful that the verbosity of this review can be forgiven.
At the risk of sounding both ignorant and uncultured, I found this novel (at least at first) bloody hard slog; not least because the Russian characters have three names, plus a nickname, plus a pun on their name (none of which work particularly well in translation and all of which sound rather similar to the English untrained ear). As an example- Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev (who seems to be referred to by any and all of these names) is also known as “Homeless” and “the poet” is a key character in the opening section of the novel. To further demonstrate: there are 17 different names that start with A that are used to refer to 15 different characters with Andreyevich used as the middle name of a bereaved uncle, who makes a journey from Kiev after his nephew is beheaded in a freak tram accident- and Andrey the buffet manager at a Moscow theatre. Clear as mud right? And that is before starting on similarly named characters with the initials M, P, L and S! At my last count there were 45 distinct characters, and I am fairly sure there will be some that I have missed. Hence, I did a lot of re-reading to work out exactly who was doing what to whom.
Additionally, I would suggest you need to be wary of the different translations. The distinct changes in meaning are subtle but important. To triangulate I had three versions at my disposal: Hugh Aplin’s translation (available for free on Kindle), the audiobook version translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (which I listened to simultaneously when reading the book to come to my own interpretation, and the subtitles for the Russian TV miniseries from 2005 when I gave up trying to work out who was who from name alone!
So those were my “technical” issues (if you like) with engaging with this novel, and this lack of clarity and understanding (and my own lack of contextual knowledge of Stalinist Russia) meant I missed many of the (what I am sure are hysterically funny to those in the know) satirical jokes in the opening section. That said, the random action and quick changes of focus, undercurrent of chaos in Moscow despite entrenched hierarchal structures and clear threat that (any) one could go missing at any time, for an unclear reason gave a clear insight into the mind and fears of a 1930s Russian citizen. No wonder it was available only in censored form for so long.
Despite these hardships, there were some genuinely laugh out loud moments in the first Moscow based part of the novel. The citizens have not lost their individuality, as they scrabble and fight for bank notes in the theatre, which are later revealed to be worthless. Nor have they lost their sense of pride and vanity, which we see in the female theatre goers, so desperate to attain the fashionable French couture (which later literally disappears from their bodies leaving semi-naked citizenesses desperately trying to cover themselves in a scene reminiscent of “Allo Allo” meets “Benny Hill”). When Professor Woland says his show will “expose” what the locals have failed to realise is that it is their (moral) shortcomings that are about to be revealed. The message is clearly, that no government can successfully legislate against human nature.
Oooh- and another fun fact, apparently Woland (later revealed- or perhaps is implied- to be Satan) was the inspiration to the Rolling Stones 1968 hit “Sympathy for the Devil”, well at least that is what my Google-Fu tells me.
Obviously, there were substantial hurdles to leap, however, I found by the second half of the novel, when we finally meet the eponymous characters, I had got in to the swing of things and begun to embrace the farcical surrealism of the novel.
The second “book” marks a change in tone, although it continues to cut away to scenes of Jesus’ sentencing by Pilate and execution (here known in the Aramaic form Yeshua). Ironically it is these scenes that are the most “real” and substantially human, as Pilate’s decision weighs head achingly heavily on him throughout. The Master and Margarita seem to be the only two characters fully invested in the authenticity of literature, and serve as a counterpoint to the heavily censored “monstrous” writing of Ivan and the rest of the writers’ union Massolit, more interested in fine dining and what their positions can do for them then the production of quality writing.
And it is Margarita’s journey of discovery and liberation from the stodgy, miserable societal expectations of that leads her back to her Master. Bulgakov mixes classical myth, Russian folklore and Bible stories to give us an impression of the timelessness of the central romance. As the worlds of communist Moscow and the inner worlds of the Master and Margarita collide, we are informed of the former’s desire to excuse all magic (and mischief) as the product of mass hypnosis, when the latter (and the reader) are fully aware of the spiritual significance and dimension of the events.
Clever, astute and in places laugh out loud funny, this novel none-the-less requires a level of dedication from the non-Russian speaking reader. Worth a read? Yes. Worth a re-read? Maybe not.
Firstly, I didn’t intend to write an essay on this novel. However, once started I found I had a lot to say, and the more I thought about the plot and characters, the more ideas and parallels were sparked, so I am hopeful that the verbosity of this review can be forgiven.
At the risk of sounding both ignorant and uncultured, I found this novel (at least at first) bloody hard slog; not least because the Russian characters have three names, plus a nickname, plus a pun on their name (none of which work particularly well in translation and all of which sound rather similar to the English untrained ear). As an example- Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev (who seems to be referred to by any and all of these names) is also known as “Homeless” and “the poet” is a key character in the opening section of the novel. To further demonstrate: there are 17 different names that start with A that are used to refer to 15 different characters with Andreyevich used as the middle name of a bereaved uncle, who makes a journey from Kiev after his nephew is beheaded in a freak tram accident- and Andrey the buffet manager at a Moscow theatre. Clear as mud right? And that is before starting on similarly named characters with the initials M, P, L and S! At my last count there were 45 distinct characters, and I am fairly sure there will be some that I have missed. Hence, I did a lot of re-reading to work out exactly who was doing what to whom.
Additionally, I would suggest you need to be wary of the different translations. The distinct changes in meaning are subtle but important. To triangulate I had three versions at my disposal: Hugh Aplin’s translation (available for free on Kindle), the audiobook version translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (which I listened to simultaneously when reading the book to come to my own interpretation, and the subtitles for the Russian TV miniseries from 2005 when I gave up trying to work out who was who from name alone!
So those were my “technical” issues (if you like) with engaging with this novel, and this lack of clarity and understanding (and my own lack of contextual knowledge of Stalinist Russia) meant I missed many of the (what I am sure are hysterically funny to those in the know) satirical jokes in the opening section. That said, the random action and quick changes of focus, undercurrent of chaos in Moscow despite entrenched hierarchal structures and clear threat that (any) one could go missing at any time, for an unclear reason gave a clear insight into the mind and fears of a 1930s Russian citizen. No wonder it was available only in censored form for so long.
Despite these hardships, there were some genuinely laugh out loud moments in the first Moscow based part of the novel. The citizens have not lost their individuality, as they scrabble and fight for bank notes in the theatre, which are later revealed to be worthless. Nor have they lost their sense of pride and vanity, which we see in the female theatre goers, so desperate to attain the fashionable French couture (which later literally disappears from their bodies leaving semi-naked citizenesses desperately trying to cover themselves in a scene reminiscent of “Allo Allo” meets “Benny Hill”). When Professor Woland says his show will “expose” what the locals have failed to realise is that it is their (moral) shortcomings that are about to be revealed. The message is clearly, that no government can successfully legislate against human nature.
Oooh- and another fun fact, apparently Woland (later revealed- or perhaps is implied- to be Satan) was the inspiration to the Rolling Stones 1968 hit “Sympathy for the Devil”, well at least that is what my Google-Fu tells me.
Obviously, there were substantial hurdles to leap, however, I found by the second half of the novel, when we finally meet the eponymous characters, I had got in to the swing of things and begun to embrace the farcical surrealism of the novel.
The second “book” marks a change in tone, although it continues to cut away to scenes of Jesus’ sentencing by Pilate and execution (here known in the Aramaic form Yeshua). Ironically it is these scenes that are the most “real” and substantially human, as Pilate’s decision weighs head achingly heavily on him throughout. The Master and Margarita seem to be the only two characters fully invested in the authenticity of literature, and serve as a counterpoint to the heavily censored “monstrous” writing of Ivan and the rest of the writers’ union Massolit, more interested in fine dining and what their positions can do for them then the production of quality writing.
And it is Margarita’s journey of discovery and liberation from the stodgy, miserable societal expectations of that leads her back to her Master. Bulgakov mixes classical myth, Russian folklore and Bible stories to give us an impression of the timelessness of the central romance. As the worlds of communist Moscow and the inner worlds of the Master and Margarita collide, we are informed of the former’s desire to excuse all magic (and mischief) as the product of mass hypnosis, when the latter (and the reader) are fully aware of the spiritual significance and dimension of the events.
Clever, astute and in places laugh out loud funny, this novel none-the-less requires a level of dedication from the non-Russian speaking reader. Worth a read? Yes. Worth a re-read? Maybe not.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Nightmares: A New Decade of Modern Horror in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Shallaballah by [a:Mark Samuels|679023|Mark Samuels|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1485638875p2/679023.jpg]
Weird and I didn't completely understand it. I'm not big on surreal-like stories.
1.5 stars
Sob in the Silence by [a:Gene Wolfe|23069|Gene Wolfe|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1207670073p2/23069.jpg]
I liked it okay, but wasn't wowed. I feel like there was a missed opportunity and that the ending was too abrupt.
3 stars
Our Tun Too Will One Day Come by [a:Brian Hodge|167606|Brian Hodge|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1326937946p2/167606.jpg]
Folklore and horror equal an interesting tale. I'd read more from Brian Hodge.
4 stars
Dead Sea Fruit by [a:Kaaron Warren|1207458|Kaaron Warren|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1303270263p2/1207458.jpg]
So far the best in the book. Perfectly paced and pretty darned creepy.
4.5 stars
Closet Dreams by [a:Lisa Tuttle|38313|Lisa Tuttle|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1296860221p2/38313.jpg]
Haunting. That's the first word that popped into my head when I finished this story. Also, disturbing, sad, and devastating. Trigger warning: <spoiler>pedophilia and abduction, although not described in any kind of detail</spoiler>
5 stars
Spectral Evidence by [a:Gemma Files|765702|Gemma Files|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1266869494p2/765702.jpg]
I had a hard time with this, especially at the beginning since it's written as a case study with footnotes. Had this been written as a regular short story, I do believe the horror is there for a good tale, but as it stands it didn't feel at all scary or nightmarish.
2.5 stars
Hushabye by [a:Simon Bestwick|2830642|Simon Bestwick|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png]
This was...okay. It sorta fit the book, but it also sorta didn't. The story almost felt noir, but not quite, plus everything was rather vague. Not bad, but fine.
3 stars
Very Low-Flying Aircraft by [a:Nicholas Royle|20435|Nicholas Royle|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png]
The only horror in this is the fact that it's included in a horror anthology. I'm not even sure what the point was.
1.5 stars
The Goosle by [a:Margo Lanagan|277536|Margo Lanagan|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1361153347p2/277536.jpg]
Meh. An even more twisted sequel of sorts to Hansel and Gretel sans Gretel. While it's gory, it didn't bother me but I didn't love it.
3 stars
The Clay Party by [a:Steve Duffy|376166|Steve Duffy|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1329037438p2/376166.jpg]
A take on the Donner Party told through diary entries and a letter at the end.
4 stars
Strappado by [a:Laird Barron|466494|Laird Barron|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1446325324p2/466494.jpg]
This didn't do anything for me; it was just too vague.
2 stars
Lonegan's Luck by [a:Stephen Graham Jones|96300|Stephen Graham Jones|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1458951688p2/96300.jpg]
Interesting, the writing and pace was good. The MC is a conman of the old(?) West. I didn't understand why he did what he did exactly, like were there circumstances of something that happened to the country as a whole, but it's not such a big thing. I only hoped he'd get a taste of his own medicine, so to speak.
3 stars
Mr. Pigsny by [a:Reggie Oliver|518983|Reggie Oliver|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1477924368p2/518983.jpg]
An odd, creepy little tale.
4 stars
At Night, When the Demons Come by [a:Ray Cluley|4446653|Ray Cluley|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png]
Perfectly told, perfectly paced, with a horrible-ish ending. Definitely memorable.
4.5 stars
Was She Wicked? Was She Good by [a:Mary Rickert|7344680|Mary Rickert|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] (as M. Rickert)
Meh. Not bad, but not great either. I don't really have much to say about it.
3 stars
The Shallows by [a:John Langan|58413|John Langan|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png]
I honestly don't even remember this one so it must not have been all that bad or good.
2 stars
Little Pig by [a:Anna Taborska|4343515|Anna Taborska|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png]
Horrific only in the way of what you might do to for the survival of those you love. A quirky start with an powerful ending.
4 stars
Omphalos by [a:Livia Llewellyn|2966042|Livia Llewellyn|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1298571003p2/2966042.jpg]
Well-written but definitely not one for everybody. It's sick, a little too descriptive with the incest. I don't need an actual scene with explicitness. While I felt sorry for the MC and her brother, the story made me sad for actual victims. Possibly the point, but it's an upsetting story that some should probably skip. Also, what happened in the end? I get some of it, but it was so confusing and vague that I didn't fully comprehend the conclusion. It doesn't matter much, but I'm getting tired of vague endings or other scenes in these stories.
3.5 stars
How We Escaped Our Certain Fate by [a:Dan Chaon|16560|Dan Chaon|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1241719844p2/16560.jpg]
Interesting and thoughtful zombie tale. Slightly melancholy.
3.5 stars
That Tiny Flutter of The Heart I Used to Call Love by [a:Robert Shearman|128037|Robert Shearman|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1363523036p2/128037.jpg]
Strange. I'm not sure exactly what I thought of this tale, and I'm not sure I totally get what happened at the end, but that seems to be my lot with some of these stories.
3 stars
Interstate Love Song (Murder Ballad No. 8) by [a:Caitlín R. Kiernan|4798562|Caitlín R. Kiernan|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1491390729p2/4798562.jpg]
I liked this story. It was....interesting to say the least. Not my favorite but solid.
3.75 stars
Shay Corsham Worsted by [a:Garth Nix|8347|Garth Nix|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1207583754p2/8347.jpg]
3.5 stars
The Atlas of Hell by [a:Nathan Ballingrud|2957979|Nathan Ballingrud|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1354770124p2/2957979.jpg]
4.5 stars
Ambitious Boys Like You by [a:Richard Kadrey|37557|Richard Kadrey|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1252945001p2/37557.jpg]
4 - 4.5 stars
Okay, I kinda ran out of reviewing steam near the end, but the last two stories were excellent.
Weird and I didn't completely understand it. I'm not big on surreal-like stories.
1.5 stars
Sob in the Silence by [a:Gene Wolfe|23069|Gene Wolfe|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1207670073p2/23069.jpg]
I liked it okay, but wasn't wowed. I feel like there was a missed opportunity and that the ending was too abrupt.
3 stars
Our Tun Too Will One Day Come by [a:Brian Hodge|167606|Brian Hodge|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1326937946p2/167606.jpg]
Folklore and horror equal an interesting tale. I'd read more from Brian Hodge.
4 stars
Dead Sea Fruit by [a:Kaaron Warren|1207458|Kaaron Warren|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1303270263p2/1207458.jpg]
So far the best in the book. Perfectly paced and pretty darned creepy.
4.5 stars
Closet Dreams by [a:Lisa Tuttle|38313|Lisa Tuttle|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1296860221p2/38313.jpg]
Haunting. That's the first word that popped into my head when I finished this story. Also, disturbing, sad, and devastating. Trigger warning: <spoiler>pedophilia and abduction, although not described in any kind of detail</spoiler>
5 stars
Spectral Evidence by [a:Gemma Files|765702|Gemma Files|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1266869494p2/765702.jpg]
I had a hard time with this, especially at the beginning since it's written as a case study with footnotes. Had this been written as a regular short story, I do believe the horror is there for a good tale, but as it stands it didn't feel at all scary or nightmarish.
2.5 stars
Hushabye by [a:Simon Bestwick|2830642|Simon Bestwick|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png]
This was...okay. It sorta fit the book, but it also sorta didn't. The story almost felt noir, but not quite, plus everything was rather vague. Not bad, but fine.
3 stars
Very Low-Flying Aircraft by [a:Nicholas Royle|20435|Nicholas Royle|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png]
The only horror in this is the fact that it's included in a horror anthology. I'm not even sure what the point was.
1.5 stars
The Goosle by [a:Margo Lanagan|277536|Margo Lanagan|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1361153347p2/277536.jpg]
Meh. An even more twisted sequel of sorts to Hansel and Gretel sans Gretel. While it's gory, it didn't bother me but I didn't love it.
3 stars
The Clay Party by [a:Steve Duffy|376166|Steve Duffy|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1329037438p2/376166.jpg]
A take on the Donner Party told through diary entries and a letter at the end.
4 stars
Strappado by [a:Laird Barron|466494|Laird Barron|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1446325324p2/466494.jpg]
This didn't do anything for me; it was just too vague.
2 stars
Lonegan's Luck by [a:Stephen Graham Jones|96300|Stephen Graham Jones|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1458951688p2/96300.jpg]
Interesting, the writing and pace was good. The MC is a conman of the old(?) West. I didn't understand why he did what he did exactly, like were there circumstances of something that happened to the country as a whole, but it's not such a big thing. I only hoped he'd get a taste of his own medicine, so to speak.
3 stars
Mr. Pigsny by [a:Reggie Oliver|518983|Reggie Oliver|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1477924368p2/518983.jpg]
An odd, creepy little tale.
4 stars
At Night, When the Demons Come by [a:Ray Cluley|4446653|Ray Cluley|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png]
Perfectly told, perfectly paced, with a horrible-ish ending. Definitely memorable.
4.5 stars
Was She Wicked? Was She Good by [a:Mary Rickert|7344680|Mary Rickert|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] (as M. Rickert)
Meh. Not bad, but not great either. I don't really have much to say about it.
3 stars
The Shallows by [a:John Langan|58413|John Langan|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png]
I honestly don't even remember this one so it must not have been all that bad or good.
2 stars
Little Pig by [a:Anna Taborska|4343515|Anna Taborska|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png]
Horrific only in the way of what you might do to for the survival of those you love. A quirky start with an powerful ending.
4 stars
Omphalos by [a:Livia Llewellyn|2966042|Livia Llewellyn|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1298571003p2/2966042.jpg]
Well-written but definitely not one for everybody. It's sick, a little too descriptive with the incest. I don't need an actual scene with explicitness. While I felt sorry for the MC and her brother, the story made me sad for actual victims. Possibly the point, but it's an upsetting story that some should probably skip. Also, what happened in the end? I get some of it, but it was so confusing and vague that I didn't fully comprehend the conclusion. It doesn't matter much, but I'm getting tired of vague endings or other scenes in these stories.
3.5 stars
How We Escaped Our Certain Fate by [a:Dan Chaon|16560|Dan Chaon|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1241719844p2/16560.jpg]
Interesting and thoughtful zombie tale. Slightly melancholy.
3.5 stars
That Tiny Flutter of The Heart I Used to Call Love by [a:Robert Shearman|128037|Robert Shearman|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1363523036p2/128037.jpg]
Strange. I'm not sure exactly what I thought of this tale, and I'm not sure I totally get what happened at the end, but that seems to be my lot with some of these stories.
3 stars
Interstate Love Song (Murder Ballad No. 8) by [a:Caitlín R. Kiernan|4798562|Caitlín R. Kiernan|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1491390729p2/4798562.jpg]
I liked this story. It was....interesting to say the least. Not my favorite but solid.
3.75 stars
Shay Corsham Worsted by [a:Garth Nix|8347|Garth Nix|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1207583754p2/8347.jpg]
3.5 stars
The Atlas of Hell by [a:Nathan Ballingrud|2957979|Nathan Ballingrud|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1354770124p2/2957979.jpg]
4.5 stars
Ambitious Boys Like You by [a:Richard Kadrey|37557|Richard Kadrey|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1252945001p2/37557.jpg]
4 - 4.5 stars
Okay, I kinda ran out of reviewing steam near the end, but the last two stories were excellent.
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Shining in Books
Apr 6, 2019
Different from the movie (1 more)
Well written
Contains spoilers, click to show
In his most well-known horror story, 'The Shining,' which is either a ghost story or the collapse of a man's mental state, Jack Torrance, a recovering alcoholic who just lost his job teaching at a school, gets hired to be the Winter caretaker of the infamous Overlook Hotel. In this book, the readers follow Jack into a nervous breakdown, as well as his possession by the ghosts of this hotel.
While the Torrance's seem like every other family - a small boy and moving to a new town - we find out that their son, Danny, has special abilities that help him to see things that may or may not happen in the future.
Soon after the family arrives to take over the hotel for the Winter, Danny meets a man named Hallorann - a chef at the hotel - who has the same abilities as him, which he calls 'Shine:' "What you got son, I call it shinin' on, the Bible calls it having visions, and there's scientists that call it precognition. I've read up on it, son. I've studied on it. They all mean seeing the future. Do you understand that?" Hallorann tells Danny.
Why does Danny, or anyone for that matter, have the Shine? King doesn't explain this in the book, it just seems to be something specific people are born with, even Danny's parents take him to a doctor before the snowfall hits to figure out what is going on,but even the doctor believes it's just a child's overactive imagination. Even so, Danny continues to have visions: one is of the room 217 in the Overlook, which even Hallorann told him to never go inside, and the other is of a creature-like man swinging a roque mallet, yelling about someone needing to take their medicine,"Come out! Come out, you little shit! Take your medicine!" We,also,meet his imaginary friend, Tony, who is the one whom continues to show Danny these visions over and over.
Unlike the movie, 'The Shining' book stands on it's own as an almost completely different story, even having Jack wielding a roque mallet and not an axe. Also the infamous scene of the Grady twins showing up in a hallway, asking Danny to play with them, never happened in the book; Hallorann also survives Jack's attack, Wendy is nearly beaten to-death by the roque mallet, and the hedge maze doesn't even exist! Instead, King wrote about topiary animals that came to life to kill you, "The rabbit was down on all fours, cropping grass. Its belly was against the ground. But not ten minutes ago it had been up on its hind legs, of course it had been, he had trimmed its ears...and its belly."
Jack begins to change when he finds a scrapbook in the basement that contains articles and such of things that happened at the Overlook. One such thing that sticks with Jack is about a Masked Ball that took place at the grand opening of the hotel. "Horace M. Derwent Requests The Pleasure of Your Company At a Masked Ball to Celebrate The Grand Opening of THE OVERLOOK HOTEL...Dinner Will Be Served At 8 P.M. Unmasking And Dancing At Midnight August 29,1945...RSVP"
Later on in the story, Jack, Wendy and Danny are awoken by the elevator going up and down by itself, but inside is a surprise,"Then she was up, her cheeks flushed, her forehead as pale and shining as a spirit lamp. 'What about this, Jack? Is this a short circuit?' She threw something and suddenly the hall was full of drifting confetti, red and white and blue and yellow. 'Is this?' A green party streamer, faded to a pale pastel color with age." Continuously, throughout the book,the past hotel guests make themselves known, either by showing up in rooms or leaving things for the family to find.
King shines (pun intended) with this book, he keeps things moving so that readers don't get bored. Known for his horror books, he doesn't disappoint in this one, which I personally think that this is his best work ever. He doesn't jump from scene to scene (like in many of his other books), he flawlessly keeps the timeline going even though he switches from character view points, between Jack, Danny, Wendy and Hallorann.
Although the film 'The Shining' is a classic in the horror movie genre, it is a huge step away from the book itself. "And the Red Death held sway over all." is a line that was never in the movie,but is quite frequent through the book. Even the most recognizable scene of "Here's Johnny!" is not in the book!
Also, Hallorann's character has a much bigger part in the story, the reader gets to see him living his Winter life in Florida, working as a chef in another hotel.. Hallorann even has a back story in the book that is wonderful to read about; we get to accompany him to a lawyer's office where he feels the need to get his Will made out for everything to be left to his sister when he is overcome with the feeling that his life may be about to end,"Hallorann had stepped in and told this McIver that he wanted to make a will,and could McIver help him out? Well, McIver asked,how soon do you want the document? Yesterday, said Hallorann, and threw his head back and laughed."
This 659- page book is well worth the read. You not only get a different take on 'The Shining' that is so well known,but you also get a different ending!'The Shining' will now always be a staple on my book shelf.
Even if you love the movie as much as I do (it is my favorite horror movie of all time), you will love the book just as much. King went above and beyond when he wrote 'The Shining.' Highly recommend!
While the Torrance's seem like every other family - a small boy and moving to a new town - we find out that their son, Danny, has special abilities that help him to see things that may or may not happen in the future.
Soon after the family arrives to take over the hotel for the Winter, Danny meets a man named Hallorann - a chef at the hotel - who has the same abilities as him, which he calls 'Shine:' "What you got son, I call it shinin' on, the Bible calls it having visions, and there's scientists that call it precognition. I've read up on it, son. I've studied on it. They all mean seeing the future. Do you understand that?" Hallorann tells Danny.
Why does Danny, or anyone for that matter, have the Shine? King doesn't explain this in the book, it just seems to be something specific people are born with, even Danny's parents take him to a doctor before the snowfall hits to figure out what is going on,but even the doctor believes it's just a child's overactive imagination. Even so, Danny continues to have visions: one is of the room 217 in the Overlook, which even Hallorann told him to never go inside, and the other is of a creature-like man swinging a roque mallet, yelling about someone needing to take their medicine,"Come out! Come out, you little shit! Take your medicine!" We,also,meet his imaginary friend, Tony, who is the one whom continues to show Danny these visions over and over.
Unlike the movie, 'The Shining' book stands on it's own as an almost completely different story, even having Jack wielding a roque mallet and not an axe. Also the infamous scene of the Grady twins showing up in a hallway, asking Danny to play with them, never happened in the book; Hallorann also survives Jack's attack, Wendy is nearly beaten to-death by the roque mallet, and the hedge maze doesn't even exist! Instead, King wrote about topiary animals that came to life to kill you, "The rabbit was down on all fours, cropping grass. Its belly was against the ground. But not ten minutes ago it had been up on its hind legs, of course it had been, he had trimmed its ears...and its belly."
Jack begins to change when he finds a scrapbook in the basement that contains articles and such of things that happened at the Overlook. One such thing that sticks with Jack is about a Masked Ball that took place at the grand opening of the hotel. "Horace M. Derwent Requests The Pleasure of Your Company At a Masked Ball to Celebrate The Grand Opening of THE OVERLOOK HOTEL...Dinner Will Be Served At 8 P.M. Unmasking And Dancing At Midnight August 29,1945...RSVP"
Later on in the story, Jack, Wendy and Danny are awoken by the elevator going up and down by itself, but inside is a surprise,"Then she was up, her cheeks flushed, her forehead as pale and shining as a spirit lamp. 'What about this, Jack? Is this a short circuit?' She threw something and suddenly the hall was full of drifting confetti, red and white and blue and yellow. 'Is this?' A green party streamer, faded to a pale pastel color with age." Continuously, throughout the book,the past hotel guests make themselves known, either by showing up in rooms or leaving things for the family to find.
King shines (pun intended) with this book, he keeps things moving so that readers don't get bored. Known for his horror books, he doesn't disappoint in this one, which I personally think that this is his best work ever. He doesn't jump from scene to scene (like in many of his other books), he flawlessly keeps the timeline going even though he switches from character view points, between Jack, Danny, Wendy and Hallorann.
Although the film 'The Shining' is a classic in the horror movie genre, it is a huge step away from the book itself. "And the Red Death held sway over all." is a line that was never in the movie,but is quite frequent through the book. Even the most recognizable scene of "Here's Johnny!" is not in the book!
Also, Hallorann's character has a much bigger part in the story, the reader gets to see him living his Winter life in Florida, working as a chef in another hotel.. Hallorann even has a back story in the book that is wonderful to read about; we get to accompany him to a lawyer's office where he feels the need to get his Will made out for everything to be left to his sister when he is overcome with the feeling that his life may be about to end,"Hallorann had stepped in and told this McIver that he wanted to make a will,and could McIver help him out? Well, McIver asked,how soon do you want the document? Yesterday, said Hallorann, and threw his head back and laughed."
This 659- page book is well worth the read. You not only get a different take on 'The Shining' that is so well known,but you also get a different ending!'The Shining' will now always be a staple on my book shelf.
Even if you love the movie as much as I do (it is my favorite horror movie of all time), you will love the book just as much. King went above and beyond when he wrote 'The Shining.' Highly recommend!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A valiant attempt to recreate a masterpiece.
How do you repaint a masterpiece: the Mona Lisa of children’s fantasy cinema? Some would say “You shouldn’t try”.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild in Video Games
Jul 25, 2017
Bonus Points - An Example Of The Favoritism Towards Certain Developers In The Gaming Industry, Even When They Don’t Deliver
Zelda: Breath Of The Wild came out last month and it has taken the gaming world by storm. As a non Zelda fan, I am left wondering why this is the case. Why is this Zelda game so revolutionary? I don’t own the game, but I have played the first few hours of it and I have read a good number of reviews on the game. There are a few critics claiming that this game, ‘writes a new chapter in the videogames industry,’ and that it is an, ‘evolution of everything that has come before.’
While I appreciate that this is a well made game and it is doing new things within the Zelda franchise, these statements stick in my throat a little. This isn’t because I don’t agree that this is an impressive game, because it is. Other than the odd frame rate drop, there aren’t many flaws with this game and I did enjoy the few hours that I spent with it, (I had a lend of a friends Switch for the night so I could try the game for myself.)
My problem comes from the fact that this is a well made game that isn’t doing anything that hasn’t been done before a million times and frankly been done better. Full disclosure, I have never been a Zelda fan, but I wanted this game to convert me and I’m sorry to say that it didn’t. The purpose of this piece isn’t to attack the Zelda franchise, so you fanboys can put your pitchforks down. What I want to discuss is how when Nintendo do anything that is slightly better than a disaster, it is heralded as the brave new step in video games by a large number of the video game press.
I get it, nostalgia is a powerful lens and most writers in their 30’s grew up playing on Nintendo systems and franchises like Mario and Zelda, but as someone who is around ten years younger and grew up with Playstation, I don’t feel that Nintendo has advanced a great deal since the turn of the millennium and frankly, I don’t see Nintendo as having broken any new ground in the last twenty years.
If games like Breath of the Wild came out on another console, they wouldn’t be lauded as the best thing since sliced bread. In fact they have, it’s called Horizon: Zero Dawn! When Horizon came out it received a positive critical reception and high sales, but no one was writing articles claiming it was the next step in the evolution of video games. Splatoon has been put on a pedestal and has been described as ‘fresh,’ and, ‘unique,’ even though it is nothing more than a dumbed down version of Team Fortress 2 for a younger audience. Super Mario Maker was released in 2015 and it was essentially a $60 level editor. Level editors have been included in other games since forever and no fuss has been made, but when Nintendo sell an entire game based on the concept, it’s hailed as another, ‘triumph by Nintendo.’
When you compare Breath of The Wild to other recent open world games like The Witcher or Skyrim, there is nothing that makes it unique from a design and functionality standpoint. If Breath of The Wild came out in 2008, then sure you could get away with labeling it revolutionary, but in this day and age it isn’t any more special than Horizon or Skyrim.
Let’s look at some of the features that have been called unique in the game. The tower climbing to uncover zones of the map mechanic has been done in the Assassin’s Creed and Far Cry series’. Using plants for crafting and cooking has been done in Far Cry and Skyrim. Far Cry 2 and Dead Island had degradable weapons. The inventory system is very reminiscent of multiple Ubisoft titles; essentially Breath of The Wild has taken some elements from other games and made something from that within the Zelda universe.
This may sound patronizing, but it honestly isn’t intended that way. I get it, Nintendo fans have had it hard over these last five years, they have had nothing to be proud of since the launch of the Wii and they have had to stand by their console of choice and defend themselves with very little ammo to defend themselves with, but as a result nowadays when anything better than a car crash is released by them it is inflated by a large number of critics in the industry and so Nintendo fans are given a justification for putting their mediocre games on a pedestal. This is why to the rest of the industry it appears that Nintendo fans can’t accept things for the way that they really are and everything is blown so far out of proportion.
Some examples of Nintendo games being blown out of proportion and reviewers being clouded by nostalgia are available to go and check out right now on Metacritic. Zelda: Skyward Sword is currently sitting at a 93, Zelda: Twilight Princess is sitting at a 95 and Metroid: Other M has a 79. All three of these games are recognized as subpar and once the novelty wore off, even the most hardcore of Nintendo fans would agree that these are forgettable, black marks on the respective franchises track records. Not that BOTW isn’t a game for Zelda fans to be proud of, because it is. I can see why this would be people’s game of the year so far and I can see why it could be considered as the best Zelda game, but to someone that isn’t a Zelda fan that praise is meaningless.
In summary, the inflation of mediocrity in the industry has to stop, if we want gaming to improve. If we want to break new ground across the gaming media, these sycophants and apologists living in a false perception of reality have to go. These novelty games that are applauded for simply carrying the title of a beloved franchise, have to stop being praised so highly and given a free pass of any sort of criticism just because of a nostalgic lens.
While I appreciate that this is a well made game and it is doing new things within the Zelda franchise, these statements stick in my throat a little. This isn’t because I don’t agree that this is an impressive game, because it is. Other than the odd frame rate drop, there aren’t many flaws with this game and I did enjoy the few hours that I spent with it, (I had a lend of a friends Switch for the night so I could try the game for myself.)
My problem comes from the fact that this is a well made game that isn’t doing anything that hasn’t been done before a million times and frankly been done better. Full disclosure, I have never been a Zelda fan, but I wanted this game to convert me and I’m sorry to say that it didn’t. The purpose of this piece isn’t to attack the Zelda franchise, so you fanboys can put your pitchforks down. What I want to discuss is how when Nintendo do anything that is slightly better than a disaster, it is heralded as the brave new step in video games by a large number of the video game press.
I get it, nostalgia is a powerful lens and most writers in their 30’s grew up playing on Nintendo systems and franchises like Mario and Zelda, but as someone who is around ten years younger and grew up with Playstation, I don’t feel that Nintendo has advanced a great deal since the turn of the millennium and frankly, I don’t see Nintendo as having broken any new ground in the last twenty years.
If games like Breath of the Wild came out on another console, they wouldn’t be lauded as the best thing since sliced bread. In fact they have, it’s called Horizon: Zero Dawn! When Horizon came out it received a positive critical reception and high sales, but no one was writing articles claiming it was the next step in the evolution of video games. Splatoon has been put on a pedestal and has been described as ‘fresh,’ and, ‘unique,’ even though it is nothing more than a dumbed down version of Team Fortress 2 for a younger audience. Super Mario Maker was released in 2015 and it was essentially a $60 level editor. Level editors have been included in other games since forever and no fuss has been made, but when Nintendo sell an entire game based on the concept, it’s hailed as another, ‘triumph by Nintendo.’
When you compare Breath of The Wild to other recent open world games like The Witcher or Skyrim, there is nothing that makes it unique from a design and functionality standpoint. If Breath of The Wild came out in 2008, then sure you could get away with labeling it revolutionary, but in this day and age it isn’t any more special than Horizon or Skyrim.
Let’s look at some of the features that have been called unique in the game. The tower climbing to uncover zones of the map mechanic has been done in the Assassin’s Creed and Far Cry series’. Using plants for crafting and cooking has been done in Far Cry and Skyrim. Far Cry 2 and Dead Island had degradable weapons. The inventory system is very reminiscent of multiple Ubisoft titles; essentially Breath of The Wild has taken some elements from other games and made something from that within the Zelda universe.
This may sound patronizing, but it honestly isn’t intended that way. I get it, Nintendo fans have had it hard over these last five years, they have had nothing to be proud of since the launch of the Wii and they have had to stand by their console of choice and defend themselves with very little ammo to defend themselves with, but as a result nowadays when anything better than a car crash is released by them it is inflated by a large number of critics in the industry and so Nintendo fans are given a justification for putting their mediocre games on a pedestal. This is why to the rest of the industry it appears that Nintendo fans can’t accept things for the way that they really are and everything is blown so far out of proportion.
Some examples of Nintendo games being blown out of proportion and reviewers being clouded by nostalgia are available to go and check out right now on Metacritic. Zelda: Skyward Sword is currently sitting at a 93, Zelda: Twilight Princess is sitting at a 95 and Metroid: Other M has a 79. All three of these games are recognized as subpar and once the novelty wore off, even the most hardcore of Nintendo fans would agree that these are forgettable, black marks on the respective franchises track records. Not that BOTW isn’t a game for Zelda fans to be proud of, because it is. I can see why this would be people’s game of the year so far and I can see why it could be considered as the best Zelda game, but to someone that isn’t a Zelda fan that praise is meaningless.
In summary, the inflation of mediocrity in the industry has to stop, if we want gaming to improve. If we want to break new ground across the gaming media, these sycophants and apologists living in a false perception of reality have to go. These novelty games that are applauded for simply carrying the title of a beloved franchise, have to stop being praised so highly and given a free pass of any sort of criticism just because of a nostalgic lens.