Search
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Circus Galacticus in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Have you ever wanted to run away and join the circus? How about a galaxy-traveling circus complete with your very own Doctor Who-like Ringmaster and spaceship? Sounds pretty awesome, right? While you sadly may not be able to do that in real life, Deva Fagan's Circus Galacticus takes the reader on a voyage through the stars. Okay, so maybe reading instead of experiencing those adventures isn't quite as fun, but it's still a grand ride to hop on while I impatiently wait for my very own Doctor to show up and whisk me away to galaxies unknown and unimagined.
Meet the Earther Beatrix "Trix" Ling: miserable, friendless orphan, you know, the usual. On the surface that is. Seriously unhappy at her boarding school, she often gets into trouble due to the fact she's quick to rile and doesn't think things through before acting or speaking. After a few weird events happen to Trix, such as some strange dude breaking into her room and her hair deciding it'd like to be a cotton candy pink, the Circus Galacticus comes to town promising her some answers. Here is where the journey for Trix and the reader begins. Aliens and gadgets abound, as do allies with their own special Tinker power and enemies trying to suppress that power, a spaceship that's alive with many mysterious corridors, and too much to even begin to cover, and really, they'd be better serviced by reading the book instead of this review. This book is like Doctor Who, The X-Men, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory all tossed into a blender to make one scrump-diddly-umptous concoction. Smoothly written, the book moves at a swift pace as Trix struggles to find somewhere she belongs, make and keep friends, and to believe she deserves it. I don't believe there's a person out there that hasn't felt like an outsider at one time or another, though some more-so than others perhaps, and while Trix may make mistakes and may not always follow rules, that only makes her all the more full-bodied as a character. Except a little with the Ringmaster and the circus tent spaceship, Big Top (as much a character as anyone, if not more), the others aren't delved into as much but they each add their own quirks to make the book well-rounded.
And while I'd heartily recommend Circus Galacticus with no reservations, it isn't a perfect book by any means. Trix's age is never mentioned and at one time she describes the others as her age or a few years older. Umm, okay, I don't even know how old you are, chica, so how am I supposed to know how old everyone else is? At first, I surmised she was somewhere between 12-16 until unneeded curse words popped up, so she's probably a teenager. I finally found out how old Trix was by going to the author's site. She's 15. Call me odd, but I like to know the main character's age. The book could also have stood to have a little more meat on its bones, even as little as fifty pages tacked on. This was like a sampler platter and I wanted a full-course meal. With dessert. So many questions were left unanswered and it is just begging for a sequel to explore these more fully. And as I said before, the curse words really added absolutely nothing to the context of the scenes they were in. Other words could have been substituted easily and been more fitting. Sure there weren't many, but this is intended for middle-grade students and except for the cursing, it's good, clean fun. I'm not naive enough to think that children don't come across foul language from many sources, and even use it themselves, but that doesn't mean that books tailored for their age range should include them either.
However, I had a blast travelling through space with the crew of the Big Top. If there is a sequel, and I truly hope there is, you can be sure I'll be there for the next adventure of Circus Galacticus.
If interested, the author has up illustrations of the main characters: http://devafagan.com/circus-galacticus-characters/
Meet the Earther Beatrix "Trix" Ling: miserable, friendless orphan, you know, the usual. On the surface that is. Seriously unhappy at her boarding school, she often gets into trouble due to the fact she's quick to rile and doesn't think things through before acting or speaking. After a few weird events happen to Trix, such as some strange dude breaking into her room and her hair deciding it'd like to be a cotton candy pink, the Circus Galacticus comes to town promising her some answers. Here is where the journey for Trix and the reader begins. Aliens and gadgets abound, as do allies with their own special Tinker power and enemies trying to suppress that power, a spaceship that's alive with many mysterious corridors, and too much to even begin to cover, and really, they'd be better serviced by reading the book instead of this review. This book is like Doctor Who, The X-Men, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory all tossed into a blender to make one scrump-diddly-umptous concoction. Smoothly written, the book moves at a swift pace as Trix struggles to find somewhere she belongs, make and keep friends, and to believe she deserves it. I don't believe there's a person out there that hasn't felt like an outsider at one time or another, though some more-so than others perhaps, and while Trix may make mistakes and may not always follow rules, that only makes her all the more full-bodied as a character. Except a little with the Ringmaster and the circus tent spaceship, Big Top (as much a character as anyone, if not more), the others aren't delved into as much but they each add their own quirks to make the book well-rounded.
And while I'd heartily recommend Circus Galacticus with no reservations, it isn't a perfect book by any means. Trix's age is never mentioned and at one time she describes the others as her age or a few years older. Umm, okay, I don't even know how old you are, chica, so how am I supposed to know how old everyone else is? At first, I surmised she was somewhere between 12-16 until unneeded curse words popped up, so she's probably a teenager. I finally found out how old Trix was by going to the author's site. She's 15. Call me odd, but I like to know the main character's age. The book could also have stood to have a little more meat on its bones, even as little as fifty pages tacked on. This was like a sampler platter and I wanted a full-course meal. With dessert. So many questions were left unanswered and it is just begging for a sequel to explore these more fully. And as I said before, the curse words really added absolutely nothing to the context of the scenes they were in. Other words could have been substituted easily and been more fitting. Sure there weren't many, but this is intended for middle-grade students and except for the cursing, it's good, clean fun. I'm not naive enough to think that children don't come across foul language from many sources, and even use it themselves, but that doesn't mean that books tailored for their age range should include them either.
However, I had a blast travelling through space with the crew of the Big Top. If there is a sequel, and I truly hope there is, you can be sure I'll be there for the next adventure of Circus Galacticus.
If interested, the author has up illustrations of the main characters: http://devafagan.com/circus-galacticus-characters/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Captain Marvel (2019) in Movies
Mar 9, 2019
Chemistry between Brie Larson and Samuel L. Jackson (1 more)
As always, END CREDITS SEQUENCE
A Marvel-ous "Buddy Cop" film
For those of you who read my reviews regularly know, I am a fan of the films produced in the MARVEL CINEMATIC UNIVERSE. There has been a bit of a hiatus in these films (the last one was ANT MAN AND THE WASP last July) so it was with some excitement that I headed to the multiplex to check out the latest installment in this film franchise.
And...after an opening that paid tribute to the late, great Stan Lee, I settled in for what, I hoped would be a fun time at the movies. I started to become a little concerned in the first half hour of this film as it jumbled things around, trying to tell an origin story of a person who has no memory of where she came from while Jude Law was "man-splaining" the new worlds and the new people that the audience needs to know about it. I was becoming concerned that this film was going to become a "hot mess".
And then came Samuel L. Jackson.
Mr. Jackson is a MOVIE STAR and his presence in this film instantly catapulted it to another level. The star power, energy and pacing of the film improved and (if I am honest with myself) the performance of Brie Larson as Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel improved as well. The film stopped being an "alien Super Hero" film and it become a "buddy cop film" along the lines of LETHAL WEAPON, 48 HOURS and (my personal favorite) MIDNIGHT RUN.
The chemistry between Jackson and Larson is undeniable and they play off of each other very well, bantering and bouncing lines back and forth while chasing - and being chased - by the bad guys. This dynamic raised the level of this film from a "middle of the road" SuperHero film to a fun action/comedy that is in the upper third of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Aside from Jackson, Larson (eventually) is terrifically cast as the titular character. She has a difficult balancing act to fulfill in the first 1/2 hour of the film, since her character has no memories, she also was in danger of having no personality. I've heard the word "bland" thrown around to characterize her performance, but I wouldn't quite go there (especially once Jackson shows up and her character's memories start to return). This is a well rounded, fierce performance and I don't think we've really seen the "best" that this character - or Larson's portrayal - has to offer.
Jude Law, Annette Benning(!) Lashana Lynch and Clark Gregg are all "fine" in supporting roles, but they pale in comparison to Larson/Jackson. Only Ben Mendehlson was able to "up" his performance to match these two, so when Jackson/Larson/Mendehlson were on the screen together, things crackled. Oh...and I would be remiss if I didn't mention one of the best feline performances in film in quite some time - GOOSE, the cat (yes, named after the character in TOP GUN). The less I say about this character the better - but it was really fun. The only disappointment for me was the usage of Gemma Chan (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) as Minn-Erva. She just didn't have much to do, probably because at the time of filming Chan was not much of a "name". I know here character is crucial to some Captain Marvel storylines in the comics, so I am hoping they bring her back and use her more in the future.
But...as for this film...it is a fun romp, with good action and a truly memorable pairing of Jackson/Larson - one that does not disappoint. Stay, of course, for the TWO end credits scene - the first one sets up AVENGERS: ENDGAME and the last one is...
Letter Grade A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And...after an opening that paid tribute to the late, great Stan Lee, I settled in for what, I hoped would be a fun time at the movies. I started to become a little concerned in the first half hour of this film as it jumbled things around, trying to tell an origin story of a person who has no memory of where she came from while Jude Law was "man-splaining" the new worlds and the new people that the audience needs to know about it. I was becoming concerned that this film was going to become a "hot mess".
And then came Samuel L. Jackson.
Mr. Jackson is a MOVIE STAR and his presence in this film instantly catapulted it to another level. The star power, energy and pacing of the film improved and (if I am honest with myself) the performance of Brie Larson as Carol Danvers/Captain Marvel improved as well. The film stopped being an "alien Super Hero" film and it become a "buddy cop film" along the lines of LETHAL WEAPON, 48 HOURS and (my personal favorite) MIDNIGHT RUN.
The chemistry between Jackson and Larson is undeniable and they play off of each other very well, bantering and bouncing lines back and forth while chasing - and being chased - by the bad guys. This dynamic raised the level of this film from a "middle of the road" SuperHero film to a fun action/comedy that is in the upper third of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Aside from Jackson, Larson (eventually) is terrifically cast as the titular character. She has a difficult balancing act to fulfill in the first 1/2 hour of the film, since her character has no memories, she also was in danger of having no personality. I've heard the word "bland" thrown around to characterize her performance, but I wouldn't quite go there (especially once Jackson shows up and her character's memories start to return). This is a well rounded, fierce performance and I don't think we've really seen the "best" that this character - or Larson's portrayal - has to offer.
Jude Law, Annette Benning(!) Lashana Lynch and Clark Gregg are all "fine" in supporting roles, but they pale in comparison to Larson/Jackson. Only Ben Mendehlson was able to "up" his performance to match these two, so when Jackson/Larson/Mendehlson were on the screen together, things crackled. Oh...and I would be remiss if I didn't mention one of the best feline performances in film in quite some time - GOOSE, the cat (yes, named after the character in TOP GUN). The less I say about this character the better - but it was really fun. The only disappointment for me was the usage of Gemma Chan (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) as Minn-Erva. She just didn't have much to do, probably because at the time of filming Chan was not much of a "name". I know here character is crucial to some Captain Marvel storylines in the comics, so I am hoping they bring her back and use her more in the future.
But...as for this film...it is a fun romp, with good action and a truly memorable pairing of Jackson/Larson - one that does not disappoint. Stay, of course, for the TWO end credits scene - the first one sets up AVENGERS: ENDGAME and the last one is...
Letter Grade A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
May 25, 2019
Succeeds...mostly...thanks to the charm and charisma of Will Smith
Unnecessary...a money grab...what was Will Smith thinking...why would Disney do this?
All complaints that were written regarding the live action remake of the beloved 1992 Animated classic, ALADDIN.
And...they would be wrong...as this ALADDIN is fun, fanciful, fast(ish) paced and fantastical. It also has something that I was surprised by...heart.
For those of you living in the "Cave of Wonder" for the past 20+ years, Aladdin follows the adventures of a street urchin who falls in love with a Princess and battles the evil Vizier, Jafar, for power via an enchanted lamp that houses a Genie that will grant 3 wishes.
Disney has shown it can do these remakes well when sticking to the source material (as was evidenced by the 2016 live action remake of the 1967 animated classic THE JUNGLE BOOK), but also has failed when it takes the characters, but not the story (the recent DUMBO), so Writer/Director Guy Ritchie (of all people) was smart to "just take the animated movie" and remake it as live action.
And...it works! Ritchie (SNATCH, the Robert Downey SHERLOCK HOLMES) seems to be an odd choice to helm this film, but he acquits himself quite well, relying on the pageantry and spectacle of it all to carry the day. The chase scenes are serviceable, but Ritchie's direction does get a bit clunky when the film slows down and focuses on the central love story.
Using performers - for the most part - of Middle Eastern descent, Ritchie coaxes "good enough" performances from Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Naomi Scott as Jasmine. They are pleasant enough on screen but was stronger apart than together. I wouldn't call it "lack of chemstry", but rather, "medium chemistry". But when they are paired with others - or get the chance to shine on their own - they do quite well.
Scott plays well against Navid Negahban who brings a deepness of heart to his character of Jasmine's father, the Sultan and, especially, Nasim Pedrad (so that's what she's been doing since leaving SNL) as her handmaiden, Dalia (a character not in the animated film).
Massoud, of course, spends a great deal of this film playing off the Genie character. So let's talk about Will Smith's performance in the iconic Robin Williams role. EVERYONE (including myself) was asking why Smith would take on this role. It's a "lose/lose" proposition, trying to fill the shoes of one of the wildest, wackiest and most frenetic performances in screen history. So Smith does a very smart thing - he doesn't even try. He makes this Genie "his own" not trying to mimic Williams' performance, but rather creating a charming, friendly and funny Genie with heart (there's that word again) behind his eyes. It is a strong performance by Smith - one that only a performer with his charm and charisma could pull off. His presence in this film elevates the proceedings and I wanted more of this character.
The music you know and love is all there - and they are welcome presences in this film - though they felt abbreviated (maybe it's just because I'm more familiar with the Soundtrack performances of these songs and not how they were used in the original film) and there is an Original number, a "girl power" song for Jasmine that felt a little too "Disney Channel" to me - but I don't think I'm the target audience for that song, so I'll cut it some slack.
A slight downgrade in the final rating of this film needs to be made because of the "meh" characterization and performance of the main villain, Jafar. As played by Marwan Kenzari, this Jafar was seething and menacing but never really bigger than life and threatening - qualities that make Jafar one of the better villains in the Disney animated canon.
But, ultimately, this film will succeed or fail, I think, by your reaction to Smith's interpretation of the Genie. It's NOT Robin Williams, and that's a good thing. For me, Smith...and this film...succeeds.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
All complaints that were written regarding the live action remake of the beloved 1992 Animated classic, ALADDIN.
And...they would be wrong...as this ALADDIN is fun, fanciful, fast(ish) paced and fantastical. It also has something that I was surprised by...heart.
For those of you living in the "Cave of Wonder" for the past 20+ years, Aladdin follows the adventures of a street urchin who falls in love with a Princess and battles the evil Vizier, Jafar, for power via an enchanted lamp that houses a Genie that will grant 3 wishes.
Disney has shown it can do these remakes well when sticking to the source material (as was evidenced by the 2016 live action remake of the 1967 animated classic THE JUNGLE BOOK), but also has failed when it takes the characters, but not the story (the recent DUMBO), so Writer/Director Guy Ritchie (of all people) was smart to "just take the animated movie" and remake it as live action.
And...it works! Ritchie (SNATCH, the Robert Downey SHERLOCK HOLMES) seems to be an odd choice to helm this film, but he acquits himself quite well, relying on the pageantry and spectacle of it all to carry the day. The chase scenes are serviceable, but Ritchie's direction does get a bit clunky when the film slows down and focuses on the central love story.
Using performers - for the most part - of Middle Eastern descent, Ritchie coaxes "good enough" performances from Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Naomi Scott as Jasmine. They are pleasant enough on screen but was stronger apart than together. I wouldn't call it "lack of chemstry", but rather, "medium chemistry". But when they are paired with others - or get the chance to shine on their own - they do quite well.
Scott plays well against Navid Negahban who brings a deepness of heart to his character of Jasmine's father, the Sultan and, especially, Nasim Pedrad (so that's what she's been doing since leaving SNL) as her handmaiden, Dalia (a character not in the animated film).
Massoud, of course, spends a great deal of this film playing off the Genie character. So let's talk about Will Smith's performance in the iconic Robin Williams role. EVERYONE (including myself) was asking why Smith would take on this role. It's a "lose/lose" proposition, trying to fill the shoes of one of the wildest, wackiest and most frenetic performances in screen history. So Smith does a very smart thing - he doesn't even try. He makes this Genie "his own" not trying to mimic Williams' performance, but rather creating a charming, friendly and funny Genie with heart (there's that word again) behind his eyes. It is a strong performance by Smith - one that only a performer with his charm and charisma could pull off. His presence in this film elevates the proceedings and I wanted more of this character.
The music you know and love is all there - and they are welcome presences in this film - though they felt abbreviated (maybe it's just because I'm more familiar with the Soundtrack performances of these songs and not how they were used in the original film) and there is an Original number, a "girl power" song for Jasmine that felt a little too "Disney Channel" to me - but I don't think I'm the target audience for that song, so I'll cut it some slack.
A slight downgrade in the final rating of this film needs to be made because of the "meh" characterization and performance of the main villain, Jafar. As played by Marwan Kenzari, this Jafar was seething and menacing but never really bigger than life and threatening - qualities that make Jafar one of the better villains in the Disney animated canon.
But, ultimately, this film will succeed or fail, I think, by your reaction to Smith's interpretation of the Genie. It's NOT Robin Williams, and that's a good thing. For me, Smith...and this film...succeeds.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) in Movies
Mar 4, 2018
Groundbreaking Special Effects (1 more)
Music
Truly...a masterpiece
Over the years, many, many words have been written and said about the 1968 Stanley Kubrick opus, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but after re-watching it, there is only 1 word I would write about it...
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Infinite Sky (Infinite Sky, #1) in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can also be found on my blog (<a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.co.uk">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
When I first heard of Infinite Sky by C.J. Flood, I knew it was a book that I was going to have to read as soon as possible. Firstly, because I have a thing for Irish travellers. I find them fascinating. Secondly, it sounded like a really good read. I must say that I fell in love with this story.
Infinite Sky is a coming of age story told by thirteen year old Iris. Iris' mother has left her, her brother, and her dad behind so she can go to traveling. Iris' brother, Sam, takes this extremely hard and starts to become a moody, violent person. To top it off, travellers, or gypsies as Iris's dad and brother call them, have moved into their field. Sam and Iris' dad are enraged about this, but Iris in intrigued especially when she catches a glimpse of fourteen year old Trick. Day by day, Trick and Iris spend time together and just talking about life. Irish begins to fall in love with Trick. However, Sam and Iris' dad aren't going to make it easy for the two love birds to spend time together. Due to prejudices, someone close to Iris ends up dead.
I love the title of this book. Infinite Sky sounds so innocent and makes me think of a world of possibilities. For a middle grade/young adult book, I don't think the title could've been any better.
I do like the cover of Infinite Sky. It has a sort of classic look about it. It looks like it'd be a happy book, but after reading the synopsis, we know it's not all full of sunshine and rainbows, or in this case, cornfields and birds. I really do hope the author sticks to this cover as I think adding or taking anything away from it would ruin it.
The world building/setting of Infinite Sky was done very well. The story mostly takes place in a cornfield and around it. C.J. Flood makes the world of Infinite Sky come alive with her writing. I was able to clearly picture every bit of the story in my mind quite easily.
Pacing wise, the story starts out just a bit slow but quickly, the pacing picks up, and the story is very easy to follow. It's not too fast and not too slow, but stays at a steady pace throughout. Sometimes I did feel as if the chapters ended rather abruptly though.
The dialogue/wording in this story is beautiful. C.J. Flood has a fine gift when it comes to her writing. I was really happy that Irish spoke like a thirteen year old girl as well as the other characters speaking like their age instead of sounding older. I loved how the dialogue between Trick and Iris didn't come across as being forced. It sounded just like two young teens having a conversation.
The characters felt very real to me. Iris speaks and acts like a thirteen year old girl. She has a somewhat innocent quality about her that is quite subtle in the book but still apparent. Trick is more street-wise and cares a lot about Iris. Sam is a chav (someone who dresses a certain way and is usually just a menace to society), but there is back story about why he became one that is quite heart wrenching.
The ending of the story is quite an emotional one, and C.J. Flood does a fantastic job in her writing to pull at the reader's heart strings. I felt like crying after reading how Iris is feeling.
Over all, Infinite Sky is a sweet coming of age story that is beautifully written and tugs at your heartstrings. This is one of those books that is destined and should be a classic.
I'd recommend this book to everyone aged 12+ as it's a really little gem of a book.
Infinite Sky by C.J. Flood gets a 4.5 out of 5 from me.
When I first heard of Infinite Sky by C.J. Flood, I knew it was a book that I was going to have to read as soon as possible. Firstly, because I have a thing for Irish travellers. I find them fascinating. Secondly, it sounded like a really good read. I must say that I fell in love with this story.
Infinite Sky is a coming of age story told by thirteen year old Iris. Iris' mother has left her, her brother, and her dad behind so she can go to traveling. Iris' brother, Sam, takes this extremely hard and starts to become a moody, violent person. To top it off, travellers, or gypsies as Iris's dad and brother call them, have moved into their field. Sam and Iris' dad are enraged about this, but Iris in intrigued especially when she catches a glimpse of fourteen year old Trick. Day by day, Trick and Iris spend time together and just talking about life. Irish begins to fall in love with Trick. However, Sam and Iris' dad aren't going to make it easy for the two love birds to spend time together. Due to prejudices, someone close to Iris ends up dead.
I love the title of this book. Infinite Sky sounds so innocent and makes me think of a world of possibilities. For a middle grade/young adult book, I don't think the title could've been any better.
I do like the cover of Infinite Sky. It has a sort of classic look about it. It looks like it'd be a happy book, but after reading the synopsis, we know it's not all full of sunshine and rainbows, or in this case, cornfields and birds. I really do hope the author sticks to this cover as I think adding or taking anything away from it would ruin it.
The world building/setting of Infinite Sky was done very well. The story mostly takes place in a cornfield and around it. C.J. Flood makes the world of Infinite Sky come alive with her writing. I was able to clearly picture every bit of the story in my mind quite easily.
Pacing wise, the story starts out just a bit slow but quickly, the pacing picks up, and the story is very easy to follow. It's not too fast and not too slow, but stays at a steady pace throughout. Sometimes I did feel as if the chapters ended rather abruptly though.
The dialogue/wording in this story is beautiful. C.J. Flood has a fine gift when it comes to her writing. I was really happy that Irish spoke like a thirteen year old girl as well as the other characters speaking like their age instead of sounding older. I loved how the dialogue between Trick and Iris didn't come across as being forced. It sounded just like two young teens having a conversation.
The characters felt very real to me. Iris speaks and acts like a thirteen year old girl. She has a somewhat innocent quality about her that is quite subtle in the book but still apparent. Trick is more street-wise and cares a lot about Iris. Sam is a chav (someone who dresses a certain way and is usually just a menace to society), but there is back story about why he became one that is quite heart wrenching.
The ending of the story is quite an emotional one, and C.J. Flood does a fantastic job in her writing to pull at the reader's heart strings. I felt like crying after reading how Iris is feeling.
Over all, Infinite Sky is a sweet coming of age story that is beautifully written and tugs at your heartstrings. This is one of those books that is destined and should be a classic.
I'd recommend this book to everyone aged 12+ as it's a really little gem of a book.
Infinite Sky by C.J. Flood gets a 4.5 out of 5 from me.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) in Movies
Jul 4, 2018
A Masterpiece
Over the years, many, many words have been written and said about the 1968 Stanley Kubrick opus, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but after re-watching it, there is only 1 word I would write about it...
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Rambo: Last Blood (2019) in Movies
Sep 24, 2019
Not really a "Rambo" flick...but kind of is (if you squint)...
The "final" installment in the Sylvester Stallone as John Rambo series of films (the 5th!) RAMBO: LAST BLOOD is one of those hybrid type of films that is really two 45-50 minute films put together to give you one 1 hour, 45 minute adventure. These two film-ettes are clear throwbacks to 2 other films.
"Oh...you say...they are paying homage to previous RAMBO films, like the first one FIRST BLOOD and the best one RAMBO..." and...that would make sense and give a reason for this character to re-emerge, but this is NOT what is happening here.
The first half of this film has been done better as the Liam Neeson film TAKEN while the 2nd half of this film is a clear homage to HOME ALONE - or as I call it BLOODY HOME ALONE. So, instead of the crooks being comically hurt, they are dismembered, disemboweled, be-headed and run through the middle with pointy stuff.
All with lots and lots of blood spurting everywhere.
Inexplicably, Sylvester Stallone agreed to revise his John Rambo personae after 11 years away from it and he is showing every moment of his 73 years of age in this role. To say that Stallone is a little "long in the tooth" for this type of action/beat 'em up role would be doing a disservice to the term "long in the tooth".
As is fairly typical in these types of films, the plot is fairly straightforward - John Rambo is living a peaceful existence until someone close to him is kidnapped by bad guys south of the border, so Rambo goes in search of her (that's the first half of the film - the TAKEN portion). And...this part of the film is...okay (just...okay). The "good guys" around Rambo are nice (enough) and he is joined by a crusading journalist who also has had someone kidnapped so you think he might be joined by a ragtag group of "frenemies" to fight a common enemy...but...Rambo goes in "mano a mano" (this is a Stallone/Rambo film after all) and this part of the film, ultimately, fails to deliver the goods and falls flat.
Director Adrian Grunberg (the immortal GET THE GRINGO...yeah, I've never heard of it, either) sets up at the beginning of this movie some interesting side characters (the journalist, the one time bad guy who is now out of the bad guy business and might have a redemption-type arc, the plucky teenager) and some interesting character traits (PTSD, Concussion symptoms) that our hero is suffering from. All of these elements should have/could have been utilized to bring some interesting twists to the action scenes - but they are all quickly...and promptly...dropped to show Stallone being macho and killing bad guys on his way to fulfilling the goal of the first half of the film.
And then comes the 2nd half.
The bad guys come to Rambo's Ranch to exact some revenge (I can see a bobby-trapped Halloween-type walk through haunted house coming to a corn field near you this fall). Any pretense of plot, character development, etc. is gone in a hot minute as this part of the film is all about the bloody Home Alone-type booby-traps at the ranch. Wanna see someone get a pitchfork to the face? Check! Wanna see someone get their arm chopped off with a machete? Check! How about falling through a trap door onto some spikes? You got it! And it just gets bigger, bloodier and more comedicly-"awesome-gruesome" as we go. If you enjoy this type of thing (and...I gotta admit...I do) then this is pretty entertaining.
Ridiculous? Yes. Is Stallone too old for this type of film? Yes. Over-the-top? Of course. A good film with strong characters? Heck no.
But that's not what we came to see. If you can get through the fairly slow (and poorly written) first half of this film, the 2nd half is bloody good fun.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10 - just know what kind of film you are watching) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
"Oh...you say...they are paying homage to previous RAMBO films, like the first one FIRST BLOOD and the best one RAMBO..." and...that would make sense and give a reason for this character to re-emerge, but this is NOT what is happening here.
The first half of this film has been done better as the Liam Neeson film TAKEN while the 2nd half of this film is a clear homage to HOME ALONE - or as I call it BLOODY HOME ALONE. So, instead of the crooks being comically hurt, they are dismembered, disemboweled, be-headed and run through the middle with pointy stuff.
All with lots and lots of blood spurting everywhere.
Inexplicably, Sylvester Stallone agreed to revise his John Rambo personae after 11 years away from it and he is showing every moment of his 73 years of age in this role. To say that Stallone is a little "long in the tooth" for this type of action/beat 'em up role would be doing a disservice to the term "long in the tooth".
As is fairly typical in these types of films, the plot is fairly straightforward - John Rambo is living a peaceful existence until someone close to him is kidnapped by bad guys south of the border, so Rambo goes in search of her (that's the first half of the film - the TAKEN portion). And...this part of the film is...okay (just...okay). The "good guys" around Rambo are nice (enough) and he is joined by a crusading journalist who also has had someone kidnapped so you think he might be joined by a ragtag group of "frenemies" to fight a common enemy...but...Rambo goes in "mano a mano" (this is a Stallone/Rambo film after all) and this part of the film, ultimately, fails to deliver the goods and falls flat.
Director Adrian Grunberg (the immortal GET THE GRINGO...yeah, I've never heard of it, either) sets up at the beginning of this movie some interesting side characters (the journalist, the one time bad guy who is now out of the bad guy business and might have a redemption-type arc, the plucky teenager) and some interesting character traits (PTSD, Concussion symptoms) that our hero is suffering from. All of these elements should have/could have been utilized to bring some interesting twists to the action scenes - but they are all quickly...and promptly...dropped to show Stallone being macho and killing bad guys on his way to fulfilling the goal of the first half of the film.
And then comes the 2nd half.
The bad guys come to Rambo's Ranch to exact some revenge (I can see a bobby-trapped Halloween-type walk through haunted house coming to a corn field near you this fall). Any pretense of plot, character development, etc. is gone in a hot minute as this part of the film is all about the bloody Home Alone-type booby-traps at the ranch. Wanna see someone get a pitchfork to the face? Check! Wanna see someone get their arm chopped off with a machete? Check! How about falling through a trap door onto some spikes? You got it! And it just gets bigger, bloodier and more comedicly-"awesome-gruesome" as we go. If you enjoy this type of thing (and...I gotta admit...I do) then this is pretty entertaining.
Ridiculous? Yes. Is Stallone too old for this type of film? Yes. Over-the-top? Of course. A good film with strong characters? Heck no.
But that's not what we came to see. If you can get through the fairly slow (and poorly written) first half of this film, the 2nd half is bloody good fun.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10 - just know what kind of film you are watching) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Getting A Life, Even If You're Dead (No Going Back, #1) in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review can also be found on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.com/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
I've been wanting to read this book for awhile. I love books with ghosts in them. I had high hopes for this book, but it just turned out to be an mediocre read.
Right away, the title of this book suggests that it's not going to be a scary book or one that takes itself too seriously. I do like the title, and I found it very interesting.
I like the cover. I think it suits a young adult book, and the cover fits with the setting of the book.
The world building was alright. I just felt that the ghosts were able to do too many things such as they were able to manipulate objects in the living world. They could move things, open doors, log on to Facebook, etc. It was the logging on to Facebook that really got to me. The ghosts even had their own Facebook pages! They could even write on others' Facebook profiles. I just think that because the ghosts were able to do too much, they would've been discovered in a real world setting.
The pacing was just alright. It wasn't too fast, and it wasn't too slow. It was just kind of there. I found myself not really in a rush to find out what would happen next.
I did enjoy the idea of the plot. I like how Kendra is able to see her dead best friend and then realizes she can actually see ghosts. I like how there was a mystery incorporated in the book. There was also romance going on with all the characters. However, I just felt as if there was too much going on with the plot. Perhaps this book would've been better without the romance especially the romance between Loic and Amber. I also felt as if the mystery about how Loic died wasn't that big of a mystery at all. I had correctly predicted the mystery surrounding Loic's death from the very beginning. There is a small plot twist towards the end, but it's not a major one. The author does leave the ending of this book open for the next book in the series, but I think this book could work well as a stand alone.
I didn't really connect with any of the characters, but I did enjoy them. My favorite character was Amber. To me, she felt the most realistic. It was good to see the wide range of emotions she was feeling throughout the book. I enjoyed her zest for life (even if she was dead). I also liked Pierrot. He seemed like a sweet boy, and it was clear how much he loved his brother. As for Kendra, I didn't like the way she treated her mother. I found her to be a bit disrespectful and a bit spoiled. I also didn't really care for Loic. To me, he came across as very whiny and a little bit selfish. I get that he just died and wanted answers, but it's like he just wanted everything to happen all at once. He was a very impatient boy.
I felt that the dialogue fit in more with a middle grade book rather then a young adult book. The way the characters thought and spoke made them seem like they were around thirteen or fourteen as opposed to being around seventeen years old. I also felt the dialogue didn't fit in with a modern day story. I can understand Amber using words that people don't really say anymore being as she died in the 1980s (although she's been a ghost, so surely she would've picked up the modern day lingo), but even Kendra used odd words such as the word "crimmers" (or something to that effect) when she was shocked about something. There's not really any violence, but there is some swearing. There's also no sexual references besides kissing.
Overall, Getting a Life, Even If You're Dead by Beth Watson is just an alright read. It's not great, but it's definitely not a bad read by any means. I believe that if the ghosts were a bit more believable and the book was written in more of a young adult tone, it could've been much better. I probably will read the next book in the series simply because it will focus on Amber.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 13+ who are like the mystery genre but also like their books with a little bit of romance.
(I received a free paperback of this book from the author in exchange for a fair and honest review).
I've been wanting to read this book for awhile. I love books with ghosts in them. I had high hopes for this book, but it just turned out to be an mediocre read.
Right away, the title of this book suggests that it's not going to be a scary book or one that takes itself too seriously. I do like the title, and I found it very interesting.
I like the cover. I think it suits a young adult book, and the cover fits with the setting of the book.
The world building was alright. I just felt that the ghosts were able to do too many things such as they were able to manipulate objects in the living world. They could move things, open doors, log on to Facebook, etc. It was the logging on to Facebook that really got to me. The ghosts even had their own Facebook pages! They could even write on others' Facebook profiles. I just think that because the ghosts were able to do too much, they would've been discovered in a real world setting.
The pacing was just alright. It wasn't too fast, and it wasn't too slow. It was just kind of there. I found myself not really in a rush to find out what would happen next.
I did enjoy the idea of the plot. I like how Kendra is able to see her dead best friend and then realizes she can actually see ghosts. I like how there was a mystery incorporated in the book. There was also romance going on with all the characters. However, I just felt as if there was too much going on with the plot. Perhaps this book would've been better without the romance especially the romance between Loic and Amber. I also felt as if the mystery about how Loic died wasn't that big of a mystery at all. I had correctly predicted the mystery surrounding Loic's death from the very beginning. There is a small plot twist towards the end, but it's not a major one. The author does leave the ending of this book open for the next book in the series, but I think this book could work well as a stand alone.
I didn't really connect with any of the characters, but I did enjoy them. My favorite character was Amber. To me, she felt the most realistic. It was good to see the wide range of emotions she was feeling throughout the book. I enjoyed her zest for life (even if she was dead). I also liked Pierrot. He seemed like a sweet boy, and it was clear how much he loved his brother. As for Kendra, I didn't like the way she treated her mother. I found her to be a bit disrespectful and a bit spoiled. I also didn't really care for Loic. To me, he came across as very whiny and a little bit selfish. I get that he just died and wanted answers, but it's like he just wanted everything to happen all at once. He was a very impatient boy.
I felt that the dialogue fit in more with a middle grade book rather then a young adult book. The way the characters thought and spoke made them seem like they were around thirteen or fourteen as opposed to being around seventeen years old. I also felt the dialogue didn't fit in with a modern day story. I can understand Amber using words that people don't really say anymore being as she died in the 1980s (although she's been a ghost, so surely she would've picked up the modern day lingo), but even Kendra used odd words such as the word "crimmers" (or something to that effect) when she was shocked about something. There's not really any violence, but there is some swearing. There's also no sexual references besides kissing.
Overall, Getting a Life, Even If You're Dead by Beth Watson is just an alright read. It's not great, but it's definitely not a bad read by any means. I believe that if the ghosts were a bit more believable and the book was written in more of a young adult tone, it could've been much better. I probably will read the next book in the series simply because it will focus on Amber.
I'd recommend this book to those aged 13+ who are like the mystery genre but also like their books with a little bit of romance.
(I received a free paperback of this book from the author in exchange for a fair and honest review).
Louise (64 KP) rated The School For Good and Evil in Books
Jul 2, 2018
After bingeing the Harry Potter series I wasn't ready to let go of the fantasy world, I needed more wizards,witches and fantastical beasts. I saw Regan@peruseproject haul and talk about this book and the premise had me hooked.
It's starts off with two girls from the little village of Gavaldon, Every four years for the past 200 years 2 children are kidnapped by the 'Master'. One good and one bad child, it can be two girls,two boys or one of each are taken from their homes forever and believed to be sent to a school for fairy tales.
There is one child, Sophie who has lived for this moment, she is determined to become a princess and meet her Prince Charming and leave the dreary village for good. Sophie is beautiful,the most beautiful girl in Gavaldon and strives for perfection for she knows her time has come and to make sure she is picked she makes sure she carries out good deeds on a daily basis like befriending Agatha.
Agatha is the complete opposite from Sophie, she is not beautiful, she wears black frumpy clothes and keeps to herself. The night the 'Master' comes, children are locked up whereas Sophie encourages it by opening her window and leaving cookies. Agatha tries to rescue Sophie from the Master but just ends up being caught as well, hoping that they will be able to find their way home again.
All is not as planned, when Sophie is dropped into a river of Sludge she finds she has been put in the wrong school and there must have been a mix up of some sort as Agatha has been put in the good school. Sophie is to train to become a witch, henchman or some horrendous creature. With lessons on uglification and surviving Fairy-tales, she instantly seeks out the Headmaster to explain the mishap. Agatha is also out of her comfort zone with glamorous girls in pink dresses with only boys and manicure's on their minds, she wants to return home to Gavaldon as soon as possible but first she has to persuade Sophie. The master has other plans, will Sophie eventually get to the good side? will Agatha get to home?
The two castles are amazing, in the front of the book you get a map to view the two sides of the school. The good side, you have glass rooms,rooms made out of candy, groom rooms, everything possible to make you a princess. On the evil side, you have dungeons and torture chambers which smell of damp. The teachers in the school are composed of a two-headed dog that can remove their heads and attach to other bodies, there are werewolves, fairies, gargoyles,witches and princesses.
Sophie believes that she has been put into the wrong school however as you she develops throughout the book there are sides to her that are not always good. She was angry that she was put in the wrong school,I mean she has dreamed about this her whole life and will do anything to get there.
Agatha is an outcast in the school of good because she doesn't conform to wearing pink dresses and swooning whenever a boy is in the vicinity. However she is a really caring character and doesn't believe that she could ever be beautiful and nor do the others in the good school.
Then there is the love interest - of course there was going to be one! His name is Tedros and he is the most handsome boy in the school of good and not to forget King Arthur's son. He instantly gets all the girls attention, even Sophie's from the other side of the school.
I only had some minor problems with the book, I felt that the author was trying to describe too much at once and it became quite confusing to keep up with. The vanity in this book was overwhelming it set a clear line between ugly and beautiful. This is a middle grade book - impressionable teenagers are going to be reading this. You don't need to be beautiful on the outside the be a princess... it's what on the inside that counts.
This book was fast paced, easy to read (at points) and definitely worth a read if you love fairy tales.
Overall I rated this 3.5 out of 5 stars
It's starts off with two girls from the little village of Gavaldon, Every four years for the past 200 years 2 children are kidnapped by the 'Master'. One good and one bad child, it can be two girls,two boys or one of each are taken from their homes forever and believed to be sent to a school for fairy tales.
There is one child, Sophie who has lived for this moment, she is determined to become a princess and meet her Prince Charming and leave the dreary village for good. Sophie is beautiful,the most beautiful girl in Gavaldon and strives for perfection for she knows her time has come and to make sure she is picked she makes sure she carries out good deeds on a daily basis like befriending Agatha.
Agatha is the complete opposite from Sophie, she is not beautiful, she wears black frumpy clothes and keeps to herself. The night the 'Master' comes, children are locked up whereas Sophie encourages it by opening her window and leaving cookies. Agatha tries to rescue Sophie from the Master but just ends up being caught as well, hoping that they will be able to find their way home again.
All is not as planned, when Sophie is dropped into a river of Sludge she finds she has been put in the wrong school and there must have been a mix up of some sort as Agatha has been put in the good school. Sophie is to train to become a witch, henchman or some horrendous creature. With lessons on uglification and surviving Fairy-tales, she instantly seeks out the Headmaster to explain the mishap. Agatha is also out of her comfort zone with glamorous girls in pink dresses with only boys and manicure's on their minds, she wants to return home to Gavaldon as soon as possible but first she has to persuade Sophie. The master has other plans, will Sophie eventually get to the good side? will Agatha get to home?
The two castles are amazing, in the front of the book you get a map to view the two sides of the school. The good side, you have glass rooms,rooms made out of candy, groom rooms, everything possible to make you a princess. On the evil side, you have dungeons and torture chambers which smell of damp. The teachers in the school are composed of a two-headed dog that can remove their heads and attach to other bodies, there are werewolves, fairies, gargoyles,witches and princesses.
Sophie believes that she has been put into the wrong school however as you she develops throughout the book there are sides to her that are not always good. She was angry that she was put in the wrong school,I mean she has dreamed about this her whole life and will do anything to get there.
Agatha is an outcast in the school of good because she doesn't conform to wearing pink dresses and swooning whenever a boy is in the vicinity. However she is a really caring character and doesn't believe that she could ever be beautiful and nor do the others in the good school.
Then there is the love interest - of course there was going to be one! His name is Tedros and he is the most handsome boy in the school of good and not to forget King Arthur's son. He instantly gets all the girls attention, even Sophie's from the other side of the school.
I only had some minor problems with the book, I felt that the author was trying to describe too much at once and it became quite confusing to keep up with. The vanity in this book was overwhelming it set a clear line between ugly and beautiful. This is a middle grade book - impressionable teenagers are going to be reading this. You don't need to be beautiful on the outside the be a princess... it's what on the inside that counts.
This book was fast paced, easy to read (at points) and definitely worth a read if you love fairy tales.
Overall I rated this 3.5 out of 5 stars
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Graduate (1967) in Movies
Jun 16, 2019
Career Defining Turn by Bancroft
On the surface, THE GRADUATE is a story of a young college graduate who has an affair with an older woman. But look beneath the surface and this film becomes much, much more.
Directed by Mike Nichols, THE GRADUATE tells the tale of Benjamin Braddock a recent College Graduate who returns home to figure out what to do with his life. He enters the film in a malaise and is paralyzed into inaction by no clear direction to his life. Taking advantage of this young man's vulnerability, family friend, Mrs. Robinson, seduces Benjamin but Benjamin realizes that he is in love with Mrs. Robinson's daughter, Elaine.
Sounds pretty straight forward, right? But under the smart, understated Direction of Mike Nichols (who won an Oscar for his work), this film becomes much, much more - subverting the notion of love and lust while driving a narrative that shines a light on the generational gap between parents and adult children in a time of great change in America - oh...and doing it in a subtly comedic way (the screenplay was wonderfully written by the great Buck Henry who makes a cameo in this film as a Hotel clerk).
Nichols, smartly, casts then relative unknown Dustin Hoffman as Benjamin because he was able to play the comedy of the awkwardness of the character (especially early on in the seduction/sex scenes with Mrs. Robinson) as well as showing emotion in emotionlessness. His Benjamin is empty - but not lacking of personality or interest - a tough tightrope to walk, but Hoffman plays it well and earned an Academy Award nomination for his work. His character does become...if I'm being honest...less interesting and more "stalker-ish" (certainly from a 21st Century perspective) as he pursues Elaine in the 2nd half of the film, so this diminishes this performance just a bit.
Also earning an Academy Award nomination is Anne Bancroft who dons a career-defining role as Mrs. Robinson. She was having trouble with the part until Director Nichols reminded her that Mrs. Robinson is seducing Benjamin not out of love or lust, but out of anger at the direction her life has drifted. We find out that Mrs. Robinson was an Art Major in College but gave up anything resembling a career when she got pregnant shortly before marrying Mr. Robinson. You can see the seething anger and resentment in the way Bancroft performs this character, with just a tinge of regret. This is a woman trying to take some control over her life - by controlling her relationship with Benjamin. And, when Benjamin decides it is time to take control of his own life, she resents it and digs her claws in deeper. It is a tour-de-force performance, one of the all-time great female performances in film.
The third side to this triangle is Elaine Robinson and as written - and portrayed by Katherine Ross - this is the most problematic of the characters. Elaine appears to be a well adjusted young woman finishing off her college career and is forced into a "date" with Benjamin at the insistence of Benjamin's parents and Elaine's father (Elaine's mother - Mrs. Robinson - is, understandably, silent on this). There is a good scene in the middle of the film where Benjamin and Elaine make a connection (which spurs Benjamin into his obsession with Elaine) but I couldn't really see what was in it for Elaine. Sure, there is the "break away from the carefully crafted life that my parents have set up for me" angle (and, surely, her desire to NOT marry the pre-Med student that she is engaged to lines right up with that) but I just didn't understand/buy her infatuation with Benjamin. Despite this, Ross earned the 3rd acting Nomination from this film.
Credit all 3 of these performances to Director Nichols who finds the right balance in every scene along with an interesting visual style that punctuates the loneliness and isolation that Benjamin is feeling. Add to that the haunting songs/sounds of the Simon and Garfunkel soundtrack - just about the only music in this film - and you have a funny, haunting and important film that is an interesting look at a time in America (the late '60's) where great change was happening and the "Generation Gap" was never more noticeable.
One last note - I LOVED the closing shot of this film. Nichols let the camera roll just a little longer than the actors expected and the look on their faces change, subtly, from surety of their decision and direction to a more "unsure" look. It is a perfect, ambiguous, way to end and I applaud Nichols for making this strong choice.
Come for the seduction, stay for the subtle humor and to watch a Director at the top of his game.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Directed by Mike Nichols, THE GRADUATE tells the tale of Benjamin Braddock a recent College Graduate who returns home to figure out what to do with his life. He enters the film in a malaise and is paralyzed into inaction by no clear direction to his life. Taking advantage of this young man's vulnerability, family friend, Mrs. Robinson, seduces Benjamin but Benjamin realizes that he is in love with Mrs. Robinson's daughter, Elaine.
Sounds pretty straight forward, right? But under the smart, understated Direction of Mike Nichols (who won an Oscar for his work), this film becomes much, much more - subverting the notion of love and lust while driving a narrative that shines a light on the generational gap between parents and adult children in a time of great change in America - oh...and doing it in a subtly comedic way (the screenplay was wonderfully written by the great Buck Henry who makes a cameo in this film as a Hotel clerk).
Nichols, smartly, casts then relative unknown Dustin Hoffman as Benjamin because he was able to play the comedy of the awkwardness of the character (especially early on in the seduction/sex scenes with Mrs. Robinson) as well as showing emotion in emotionlessness. His Benjamin is empty - but not lacking of personality or interest - a tough tightrope to walk, but Hoffman plays it well and earned an Academy Award nomination for his work. His character does become...if I'm being honest...less interesting and more "stalker-ish" (certainly from a 21st Century perspective) as he pursues Elaine in the 2nd half of the film, so this diminishes this performance just a bit.
Also earning an Academy Award nomination is Anne Bancroft who dons a career-defining role as Mrs. Robinson. She was having trouble with the part until Director Nichols reminded her that Mrs. Robinson is seducing Benjamin not out of love or lust, but out of anger at the direction her life has drifted. We find out that Mrs. Robinson was an Art Major in College but gave up anything resembling a career when she got pregnant shortly before marrying Mr. Robinson. You can see the seething anger and resentment in the way Bancroft performs this character, with just a tinge of regret. This is a woman trying to take some control over her life - by controlling her relationship with Benjamin. And, when Benjamin decides it is time to take control of his own life, she resents it and digs her claws in deeper. It is a tour-de-force performance, one of the all-time great female performances in film.
The third side to this triangle is Elaine Robinson and as written - and portrayed by Katherine Ross - this is the most problematic of the characters. Elaine appears to be a well adjusted young woman finishing off her college career and is forced into a "date" with Benjamin at the insistence of Benjamin's parents and Elaine's father (Elaine's mother - Mrs. Robinson - is, understandably, silent on this). There is a good scene in the middle of the film where Benjamin and Elaine make a connection (which spurs Benjamin into his obsession with Elaine) but I couldn't really see what was in it for Elaine. Sure, there is the "break away from the carefully crafted life that my parents have set up for me" angle (and, surely, her desire to NOT marry the pre-Med student that she is engaged to lines right up with that) but I just didn't understand/buy her infatuation with Benjamin. Despite this, Ross earned the 3rd acting Nomination from this film.
Credit all 3 of these performances to Director Nichols who finds the right balance in every scene along with an interesting visual style that punctuates the loneliness and isolation that Benjamin is feeling. Add to that the haunting songs/sounds of the Simon and Garfunkel soundtrack - just about the only music in this film - and you have a funny, haunting and important film that is an interesting look at a time in America (the late '60's) where great change was happening and the "Generation Gap" was never more noticeable.
One last note - I LOVED the closing shot of this film. Nichols let the camera roll just a little longer than the actors expected and the look on their faces change, subtly, from surety of their decision and direction to a more "unsure" look. It is a perfect, ambiguous, way to end and I applaud Nichols for making this strong choice.
Come for the seduction, stay for the subtle humor and to watch a Director at the top of his game.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)