Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Christopher Robin (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
A Future Classic
The characters of Pooh, Eeyore, Piglet and Tigger are synonymous with the childhood of millions of adults across the globe. A.A. Milne’s classic creatures are etched into the memories of many, passed down through generations with tatty old story books and stuffed animals.
Their film history is a little more chequered. True box-office domination has eluded the little critters, until now at least. Rolling off the success of Paddington and its arguably even better sequel, Disney gets in on the action, the live-action that is, and brings Pooh and co to life in Christopher Robin. But does it work?
Christopher Robin (Ewan McGregor) – now a family man living in London – receives a surprise visit from his old childhood pal, Winnie-the-Pooh. With Christopher’s help, Pooh embarks on a journey to find his friends — Tigger, Eeyore, Owl, Piglet, Rabbit, Kanga and Roo. Once reunited, the lovable bear and the gang travel to London to help Christopher rediscover the joy of life.
With Marc Forster’s name attached to directing duties, you’d be forgiven for thinking he’d been hired simply to get the job done. After all, this is the same Marc Forster that brought us the perfectly adequate Quantum of Solace and the enjoyable if undistinguished World War Z. These aren’t the directing credits you’d expect when looking at a film involving a honey-loving bear in a red jumper.
Nevertheless, Forster proves us wrong. Christopher Robin is a sumptuous tale, beautifully realised with a script that makes us stop and look at the little things in life. Much like the film itself as it happens. Ewan McGregor was the ideal choice to play a world-weary Robin. At the brink of exhaustion and close to losing the truly important things in life – his wife (Hayley Atwell) and daughter (Bronte Carmichael), McGregor plays the part beautifully. Watching his inner-child slowly but surely rise to the surface is wonderful to see.
Elsewhere, the entire cast of voices used to bring our cuddly cast to life are absolutely spot on. Jim Cummings’ return as Pooh and Tigger brings a warm familiarity to proceedings and this was a nice touch by Disney to have him back behind the microphone. Toby Jones and former Doctor Who Peter Capaldi are also great as Owl and Rabbit respectively. Brad Garrett’s turn as Eeyore really couldn’t be more perfect.
Christopher Robin…is sure to be a future classic that can be passed down for generations
To look at, Christopher Robin really is sublime. The spectacular Sussex countryside is brought to life in the Hundred Acre Wood and the post-war setting of London lives and breathes right before your eyes. This is a film that draws you in as the script moves our cast from 1940s London, rich with smoke and smog, to lush countryside, heavy with dew and dripping in colour.
The CGI to bring Pooh, Piglet, Eeyore, Tigger, Kanga, Roo, Owl and Rabbit to life is nothing short of astounding. The way their fur moves in the wind feels so real and it is this depth that proves to be the film’s strongest suit. Using Disney’s seemingly unending source of funds, Marc Foster and his team have managed to create something truly astonishing.
Above all though, this is a film about the importance of family, and on that level it succeeds, and then some. While brief, the moments in which we see McGregor and his family spending time together, with Pooh and company in tow, are Christopher Robin’s most poignant. In typical Disney fashion, the film tugs on the heartstrings on more than one occasion, just enough to wipe away a solitary tear, but not enough to dig out the Kleenex.
Christopher Robin is another success for Disney’s live-action arm. With understated performances, very much similar to 2016’s remake of Pete’s Dragon, the House of Mouse has achieved something rather extraordinary. Yes, they’ve brought these wonderful characters back to life, but in a way that honours the books and stuffed animals we will have all grown up with. Unlike this year’s Peter Rabbit that destroyed the legacy of a much-loved literary character, Christopher Robin builds on that and is sure to be a future classic that can be passed down for generations.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/08/18/christopher-robin-review-a-future-classic/
Their film history is a little more chequered. True box-office domination has eluded the little critters, until now at least. Rolling off the success of Paddington and its arguably even better sequel, Disney gets in on the action, the live-action that is, and brings Pooh and co to life in Christopher Robin. But does it work?
Christopher Robin (Ewan McGregor) – now a family man living in London – receives a surprise visit from his old childhood pal, Winnie-the-Pooh. With Christopher’s help, Pooh embarks on a journey to find his friends — Tigger, Eeyore, Owl, Piglet, Rabbit, Kanga and Roo. Once reunited, the lovable bear and the gang travel to London to help Christopher rediscover the joy of life.
With Marc Forster’s name attached to directing duties, you’d be forgiven for thinking he’d been hired simply to get the job done. After all, this is the same Marc Forster that brought us the perfectly adequate Quantum of Solace and the enjoyable if undistinguished World War Z. These aren’t the directing credits you’d expect when looking at a film involving a honey-loving bear in a red jumper.
Nevertheless, Forster proves us wrong. Christopher Robin is a sumptuous tale, beautifully realised with a script that makes us stop and look at the little things in life. Much like the film itself as it happens. Ewan McGregor was the ideal choice to play a world-weary Robin. At the brink of exhaustion and close to losing the truly important things in life – his wife (Hayley Atwell) and daughter (Bronte Carmichael), McGregor plays the part beautifully. Watching his inner-child slowly but surely rise to the surface is wonderful to see.
Elsewhere, the entire cast of voices used to bring our cuddly cast to life are absolutely spot on. Jim Cummings’ return as Pooh and Tigger brings a warm familiarity to proceedings and this was a nice touch by Disney to have him back behind the microphone. Toby Jones and former Doctor Who Peter Capaldi are also great as Owl and Rabbit respectively. Brad Garrett’s turn as Eeyore really couldn’t be more perfect.
Christopher Robin…is sure to be a future classic that can be passed down for generations
To look at, Christopher Robin really is sublime. The spectacular Sussex countryside is brought to life in the Hundred Acre Wood and the post-war setting of London lives and breathes right before your eyes. This is a film that draws you in as the script moves our cast from 1940s London, rich with smoke and smog, to lush countryside, heavy with dew and dripping in colour.
The CGI to bring Pooh, Piglet, Eeyore, Tigger, Kanga, Roo, Owl and Rabbit to life is nothing short of astounding. The way their fur moves in the wind feels so real and it is this depth that proves to be the film’s strongest suit. Using Disney’s seemingly unending source of funds, Marc Foster and his team have managed to create something truly astonishing.
Above all though, this is a film about the importance of family, and on that level it succeeds, and then some. While brief, the moments in which we see McGregor and his family spending time together, with Pooh and company in tow, are Christopher Robin’s most poignant. In typical Disney fashion, the film tugs on the heartstrings on more than one occasion, just enough to wipe away a solitary tear, but not enough to dig out the Kleenex.
Christopher Robin is another success for Disney’s live-action arm. With understated performances, very much similar to 2016’s remake of Pete’s Dragon, the House of Mouse has achieved something rather extraordinary. Yes, they’ve brought these wonderful characters back to life, but in a way that honours the books and stuffed animals we will have all grown up with. Unlike this year’s Peter Rabbit that destroyed the legacy of a much-loved literary character, Christopher Robin builds on that and is sure to be a future classic that can be passed down for generations.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/08/18/christopher-robin-review-a-future-classic/
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Zombieland: Double Tap (2019) in Movies
Oct 21, 2019
The best Zom-com since its predecessor!
When "Zombieland (2009)" first came out, I was sceptical about it, as it looked like it would be nothing but a gore-fest packed with silly and cringe-worthy cheap laughs. But then it started and 'For Whom The Bell Tolls' began playing and I knew I was in for a treat!
Fast-forward a decade, and I entered "Zombieland: Double Tap (2019)" with similar scepticism. I was concerned the studios were going to take what had become a modern classic and simply rehash it in a poor attempt to cash in on its previous success. But then it started and 'Master of Puppets' began playing and I knew I was in for a treat!
Picking up seamlessly where the first one left off, both in terms of story and tone, Double Tap begins with the our group of heroes approaching the White House, which they decide is a good place to lay down some roots in the post-apocalyptic, zombie-infested world they find themselves in.
It isn't long before the youngest member of the group, Little Rock, tires of their attempt at normality, desperate for interaction with any survivors her own age. After Wichita and Columbus fall out, the sisters take off, prompting a road trip for Tallahassee and Columbus to bring them back.
This is a masterclass in how a comedy movie should be executed. Laughs are frequent but not forced. The script is well-written and packed with the same sharp, witty dialogue found in its predecessor. And it manages to maintain its pacing for the duration - something few films can pull off. Too often, comedy films start off with an hilarious first act, but then runs out of steam by Act 2 before ruining the final act by trying to be too serious.
Yes, I'm looking at you "Baywatch (2017)"!
But Double Tap doesn't suffer from any of that. It retains the heart that made it stand out the first time around, whilst building on the laughs and relationships between the characters.
I found this film a little more meta than I remember the first one being. Lots of references to Zombie pop culture, like "The Walking Dead" and "Dawn of the Dead" - both of which Columbus refers to as unrealistic, which is ironically funny.
Of course, being a sequel, you need to introduce some new faces. The first one is Madison, played brilliantly by the beautiful Zoey Deutch. When the airhead blonde stereotype first appears, you immediately cringe and worry she's going to be the annoying tag-along that hopefully dies... yet the character is written in such a way that she effortlessly fits into the group and quickly becomes a likeable addition.
Next is Nevada, portrayed by the ever-reliable Rosario Dawson. She's a hard-hitting, Zombie-killing, Elvis-loving beauty who is an immediate and obvious match for Tallahassee.
And speaking of him, Woody Harrelson again steals the show with his incredibly funny, heart-warming and cringe-inducing turn as the violent Redneck. His lines are hilarious, even when they're not meant to be, and they're delivered inch-perfect every time.
The soundtrack is spot-on, and the visuals fit the type of movie this is trying to be. Overall, this film is a real treat. It flies by, provides many, many laughs, and also tugs on the heart strings just a little bit. It has everything that made the first one great, and it adds just enough to make this feel like more than just a remake.
Oh, and without spoiling things, it ain't over 'til the credits stop rolling... just saying! :-)
Not to be missed!
Fast-forward a decade, and I entered "Zombieland: Double Tap (2019)" with similar scepticism. I was concerned the studios were going to take what had become a modern classic and simply rehash it in a poor attempt to cash in on its previous success. But then it started and 'Master of Puppets' began playing and I knew I was in for a treat!
Picking up seamlessly where the first one left off, both in terms of story and tone, Double Tap begins with the our group of heroes approaching the White House, which they decide is a good place to lay down some roots in the post-apocalyptic, zombie-infested world they find themselves in.
It isn't long before the youngest member of the group, Little Rock, tires of their attempt at normality, desperate for interaction with any survivors her own age. After Wichita and Columbus fall out, the sisters take off, prompting a road trip for Tallahassee and Columbus to bring them back.
This is a masterclass in how a comedy movie should be executed. Laughs are frequent but not forced. The script is well-written and packed with the same sharp, witty dialogue found in its predecessor. And it manages to maintain its pacing for the duration - something few films can pull off. Too often, comedy films start off with an hilarious first act, but then runs out of steam by Act 2 before ruining the final act by trying to be too serious.
Yes, I'm looking at you "Baywatch (2017)"!
But Double Tap doesn't suffer from any of that. It retains the heart that made it stand out the first time around, whilst building on the laughs and relationships between the characters.
I found this film a little more meta than I remember the first one being. Lots of references to Zombie pop culture, like "The Walking Dead" and "Dawn of the Dead" - both of which Columbus refers to as unrealistic, which is ironically funny.
Of course, being a sequel, you need to introduce some new faces. The first one is Madison, played brilliantly by the beautiful Zoey Deutch. When the airhead blonde stereotype first appears, you immediately cringe and worry she's going to be the annoying tag-along that hopefully dies... yet the character is written in such a way that she effortlessly fits into the group and quickly becomes a likeable addition.
Next is Nevada, portrayed by the ever-reliable Rosario Dawson. She's a hard-hitting, Zombie-killing, Elvis-loving beauty who is an immediate and obvious match for Tallahassee.
And speaking of him, Woody Harrelson again steals the show with his incredibly funny, heart-warming and cringe-inducing turn as the violent Redneck. His lines are hilarious, even when they're not meant to be, and they're delivered inch-perfect every time.
The soundtrack is spot-on, and the visuals fit the type of movie this is trying to be. Overall, this film is a real treat. It flies by, provides many, many laughs, and also tugs on the heart strings just a little bit. It has everything that made the first one great, and it adds just enough to make this feel like more than just a remake.
Oh, and without spoiling things, it ain't over 'til the credits stop rolling... just saying! :-)
Not to be missed!
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2018
Blech
The Mummy was a completely awesome movie! Filled with perfectly timed comedy, a strong female heroine, a somewhat sinister Mummy, and great lines! I’m talking, of course, about the 1999 version of The Mummy. The one starring Brendan Fraser and the wonderful Rachel Weisz.
The remake tried to be a great movie and slid in somewhere around “mediocre at best”. As one might expect, this was Tom Cruise playing Tom Cruise. (Does the man ever actually try to play someone other than himself? Serious question.) Sofia Boutella is blandly proficient as the scantily clad mummy who couldn’t ooze menace or evil if her life depended on it. Given that we’re supposed to accept that this chick killed her baby half-brother and her father, you’d think there’d be something in the way of evil there. Instead she just comes across as your typical vengeful, wanton female. Annabelle Wallis was about as good as Boutella was. And I did not buy Crowe’s Jekyll/Hyde at all.
Why was there a wet white t-shirt scene in The Mummy? Did not a single person making it go “You know, maybe we should have her put on a different color shirt?” Because it’s not like the wet white t-shirt is a blatant aim to give guys something to beat off to or anything. Between Boutella’s outfit and the “Lookit! Boobies!” of that particular scene, it was obvious that the film crew wasn’t exactly confident of their success in the movie being popular on it’s premise or the actors’ abilities alone.
Now, I do give them credit for the hiring of Sofia Boutella. She looked right for the role. However, why did we have to do the contrast of the evil foreign female against the stereotypical white female again. (Blonde hair, blue eyes, etc. etc. You really can’t get more white.) This is, admittedly, more predominant in my mind since seeing the criticism that Wonder Woman got for the very minor role African Americans played in the film. I couldn’t help but think “Really, how hard would it have been to hire an African American female for Jenny’s role?” And then it would have avoided the white girls vs the other girls thing. But, yeah, no, that’s too difficult a concept for the people making the casting decisions to understand.
(On a lighter note: A blonde-haired, blue-eyed Jenny meant every time she was on screen, I kept expecting Forest Gump to yell for her from off screen.)
The action was fine, with nothing new thrown in. Some of the scenes are recognizable from the better The Mummy. The dialogue was acceptable, but nothing to write home about.
Do yourself a favor and just watch The Mummy movie from 1999. It’s by far the better film experience. This one wasn’t bad, but it certainly wasn’t very good.
The remake tried to be a great movie and slid in somewhere around “mediocre at best”. As one might expect, this was Tom Cruise playing Tom Cruise. (Does the man ever actually try to play someone other than himself? Serious question.) Sofia Boutella is blandly proficient as the scantily clad mummy who couldn’t ooze menace or evil if her life depended on it. Given that we’re supposed to accept that this chick killed her baby half-brother and her father, you’d think there’d be something in the way of evil there. Instead she just comes across as your typical vengeful, wanton female. Annabelle Wallis was about as good as Boutella was. And I did not buy Crowe’s Jekyll/Hyde at all.
Why was there a wet white t-shirt scene in The Mummy? Did not a single person making it go “You know, maybe we should have her put on a different color shirt?” Because it’s not like the wet white t-shirt is a blatant aim to give guys something to beat off to or anything. Between Boutella’s outfit and the “Lookit! Boobies!” of that particular scene, it was obvious that the film crew wasn’t exactly confident of their success in the movie being popular on it’s premise or the actors’ abilities alone.
Now, I do give them credit for the hiring of Sofia Boutella. She looked right for the role. However, why did we have to do the contrast of the evil foreign female against the stereotypical white female again. (Blonde hair, blue eyes, etc. etc. You really can’t get more white.) This is, admittedly, more predominant in my mind since seeing the criticism that Wonder Woman got for the very minor role African Americans played in the film. I couldn’t help but think “Really, how hard would it have been to hire an African American female for Jenny’s role?” And then it would have avoided the white girls vs the other girls thing. But, yeah, no, that’s too difficult a concept for the people making the casting decisions to understand.
(On a lighter note: A blonde-haired, blue-eyed Jenny meant every time she was on screen, I kept expecting Forest Gump to yell for her from off screen.)
The action was fine, with nothing new thrown in. Some of the scenes are recognizable from the better The Mummy. The dialogue was acceptable, but nothing to write home about.
Do yourself a favor and just watch The Mummy movie from 1999. It’s by far the better film experience. This one wasn’t bad, but it certainly wasn’t very good.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Cold Pursuit (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Neeson's best film in years
Yes, we all know the jokes. Liam Neeson’s spiral into revenge thriller territory is one of the most meme-worthy things in film, except maybe John Travolta and Battlefield Earth. Starting with Taken and its, let’s be honest, dreadful sequels, the Irish actor has made a name for himself as the go-to guy to rough someone up after a spate of bad-luck.
He’s had kids killed, kidnapped and spouses murdered in cold blood, he’s even been framed for hijacking a jumbo jet – if anyone deserves a break, it’s Liam Neeson. Unfortunately, his films have ranged from great (Taken, Non-Stop), to middling (Run All Night, The Commuter), to downright dreadful (Taken 2, Taken 3) and that’s how the meme-worthiness was born. Nevertheless, Neeson is back for yet another revenge thriller in Cold Pursuit. But how does it stack up?
Nels Coxman’s (Neeson) quiet life as a snowplough driver comes crashing down when his beloved son (Micheál Richardson) dies under mysterious circumstances. His search for the truth soon becomes a quest for revenge against a psychotic drug lord named Viking (Tom Bateman) and his sleazy henchmen. Transformed from upstanding citizen to cold-blooded vigilante, Coxman unwittingly sets off a chain of events that includes a kidnapping, a series of deadly misunderstandings and a turf war between Viking and a rival boss called White Bull.
Let’s get the elephant in the room out of the way first. This is not a review biased by Neeson’s, shall we say, ill-worded rant on his former life. We all have our own opinions on the matter, but that should not detract from individuals going to see a movie in the cinema. In fact, Cold Pursuit is Neeson’s most accomplished film in years, helped by stylish directing from Swedish director Hans Petter Moland. It’s worth noting that Cold Pursuit is in fact a US remake of Swedish film, In Order of Disappearance and there’s a tasteful nod to the film’s roots in the end-credits.
With a dark, comedic edge, Cold Pursuit is as funny as much as it is gory and it is this hybridity of genres that remains the film’s trump card. The script, penned by Moland himself, is witty and sharp, filled with fantastic line-delivery by the entire cast who look like they’re having a cracking time. There are twists and turns and even a gay-romantic subplot – how very contemporary.
Apart from Neeson, Tom Bateman is an absolute stand-out as the film’s primary antagonist. Allowing him to be a presence in the film from the outset allows the audience to fully feel his character and there’s no doubt that he is a despicable human-being. Neeson performs in typical Liam Neeson fashion. He snarls and growls his way through the film but allows a softer side to creep in than we’re used to, helped in part by that comedic script.
Revenge thrillers rarely have the budget for flashy CGI or top-notch practical effects but Cold Pursuit is one of the better in the genre
It’s not perfect however. Laura Dern is a massively underused presence throughout and disappears completely from the film about 1-hour in with no other references to her character. This is a real shame as her chemistry with Neeson is good and they make a believable couple, especially when they’re dealing with the ramifications of their son’s death.
Dern continues to prove her acting prowess and it would have been nice to see her continue to be a feature throughout the film. The pacing is a little off too. At 118 minutes long, the film plods a little as it gets going and then doesn’t stop until the fun and entirely ridiculous finale.
However, it’s good to see the special effects are up to scratch for the genre. Revenge thrillers rarely have the budget for flashy CGI or top-notch practical effects but Cold Pursuit is one of the better in the genre. With a relatively modest budget of $60million, it appears that was well spent with clever editing and cinematography masking any less-than-stellar visuals.
Overall, Cold Pursuit is a fun, if forgettable revenge thriller that features some delicious dark comedy mixed with an intriguing story. It’s certainly Neeson’s best film since Non-Stopand marks a return to form for the Irish actor. Unfortunately, these type of flicks are ten-a-penny nowadays and I’m unsure whether snappy one-liners and beautiful snow-capped peaks are enough to differentiate it in a crowded marketplace.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/01/cold-pursuit-review-neesons-best-film-in-years/
He’s had kids killed, kidnapped and spouses murdered in cold blood, he’s even been framed for hijacking a jumbo jet – if anyone deserves a break, it’s Liam Neeson. Unfortunately, his films have ranged from great (Taken, Non-Stop), to middling (Run All Night, The Commuter), to downright dreadful (Taken 2, Taken 3) and that’s how the meme-worthiness was born. Nevertheless, Neeson is back for yet another revenge thriller in Cold Pursuit. But how does it stack up?
Nels Coxman’s (Neeson) quiet life as a snowplough driver comes crashing down when his beloved son (Micheál Richardson) dies under mysterious circumstances. His search for the truth soon becomes a quest for revenge against a psychotic drug lord named Viking (Tom Bateman) and his sleazy henchmen. Transformed from upstanding citizen to cold-blooded vigilante, Coxman unwittingly sets off a chain of events that includes a kidnapping, a series of deadly misunderstandings and a turf war between Viking and a rival boss called White Bull.
Let’s get the elephant in the room out of the way first. This is not a review biased by Neeson’s, shall we say, ill-worded rant on his former life. We all have our own opinions on the matter, but that should not detract from individuals going to see a movie in the cinema. In fact, Cold Pursuit is Neeson’s most accomplished film in years, helped by stylish directing from Swedish director Hans Petter Moland. It’s worth noting that Cold Pursuit is in fact a US remake of Swedish film, In Order of Disappearance and there’s a tasteful nod to the film’s roots in the end-credits.
With a dark, comedic edge, Cold Pursuit is as funny as much as it is gory and it is this hybridity of genres that remains the film’s trump card. The script, penned by Moland himself, is witty and sharp, filled with fantastic line-delivery by the entire cast who look like they’re having a cracking time. There are twists and turns and even a gay-romantic subplot – how very contemporary.
Apart from Neeson, Tom Bateman is an absolute stand-out as the film’s primary antagonist. Allowing him to be a presence in the film from the outset allows the audience to fully feel his character and there’s no doubt that he is a despicable human-being. Neeson performs in typical Liam Neeson fashion. He snarls and growls his way through the film but allows a softer side to creep in than we’re used to, helped in part by that comedic script.
Revenge thrillers rarely have the budget for flashy CGI or top-notch practical effects but Cold Pursuit is one of the better in the genre
It’s not perfect however. Laura Dern is a massively underused presence throughout and disappears completely from the film about 1-hour in with no other references to her character. This is a real shame as her chemistry with Neeson is good and they make a believable couple, especially when they’re dealing with the ramifications of their son’s death.
Dern continues to prove her acting prowess and it would have been nice to see her continue to be a feature throughout the film. The pacing is a little off too. At 118 minutes long, the film plods a little as it gets going and then doesn’t stop until the fun and entirely ridiculous finale.
However, it’s good to see the special effects are up to scratch for the genre. Revenge thrillers rarely have the budget for flashy CGI or top-notch practical effects but Cold Pursuit is one of the better in the genre. With a relatively modest budget of $60million, it appears that was well spent with clever editing and cinematography masking any less-than-stellar visuals.
Overall, Cold Pursuit is a fun, if forgettable revenge thriller that features some delicious dark comedy mixed with an intriguing story. It’s certainly Neeson’s best film since Non-Stopand marks a return to form for the Irish actor. Unfortunately, these type of flicks are ten-a-penny nowadays and I’m unsure whether snappy one-liners and beautiful snow-capped peaks are enough to differentiate it in a crowded marketplace.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/01/cold-pursuit-review-neesons-best-film-in-years/
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Back to the Future (1985) in Movies
Apr 10, 2019
My entire childhood
So funny how seeing a "decked out" DeLorean in a Target parking lot the other day made me want to rewatch Back to the Future again soon. It had been on my rewatch list ever since I purchased the trilogy on Blu Ray on Black Friday, but just hadn't gotten around to it yet.
To say this movie (and the original Star Wars trilogy) defined my childhood is an understatement. The year 1985 meant I was 14 years old and lived within biking distance of the theatre where it was showing. Only Back to the Future and The Empire Strikes Back have the distinction of being movies I saw at least fifteen times during their initial run; at one point every day for a week straight.
The story of how the film got made is an interesting as the perfect screenplay itself. Basically Bob Zemeckis and Bob Gale shopped the movie around after they had made a few films, including Used Cars (good movie), but studios weren't interested. Except Spielberg. Unfortunately, the duo had just worked with Spielberg on 1941 and it was a dud.
Luckily, Zemeckis directed Romancing the Stone in 1984, so they finally went back to Spielberg with that clout and got the deal done. BTTF was actually the first film released under Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment (with the E.T. logo) that Spielberg himself did not direct.
Then, casting. Filmmakers really wanted Michael J. Fox, but he was not available due to his TV schedule filming sitcom Family Ties. They had to move on, so they cast Eric Stoltz and filmed for 5 weeks.
Zemeckis felt like something wasn't right and asked Spielberg to take a look at the dailies. They agreed Stoltz was a good actor, but not right for the part of Marty McFly. They begged the Family Ties people to let Michael do both and they finally agreed. I can't believe how Michael did two full time jobs during production, but he did and managed to create an unforgettable character that will live forever in movie history.
If anyone ever decides it is a good idea to remake, reboot and/or get a sequel going I will personally go to their house and punch them in the face! ?
To say this movie (and the original Star Wars trilogy) defined my childhood is an understatement. The year 1985 meant I was 14 years old and lived within biking distance of the theatre where it was showing. Only Back to the Future and The Empire Strikes Back have the distinction of being movies I saw at least fifteen times during their initial run; at one point every day for a week straight.
The story of how the film got made is an interesting as the perfect screenplay itself. Basically Bob Zemeckis and Bob Gale shopped the movie around after they had made a few films, including Used Cars (good movie), but studios weren't interested. Except Spielberg. Unfortunately, the duo had just worked with Spielberg on 1941 and it was a dud.
Luckily, Zemeckis directed Romancing the Stone in 1984, so they finally went back to Spielberg with that clout and got the deal done. BTTF was actually the first film released under Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment (with the E.T. logo) that Spielberg himself did not direct.
Then, casting. Filmmakers really wanted Michael J. Fox, but he was not available due to his TV schedule filming sitcom Family Ties. They had to move on, so they cast Eric Stoltz and filmed for 5 weeks.
Zemeckis felt like something wasn't right and asked Spielberg to take a look at the dailies. They agreed Stoltz was a good actor, but not right for the part of Marty McFly. They begged the Family Ties people to let Michael do both and they finally agreed. I can't believe how Michael did two full time jobs during production, but he did and managed to create an unforgettable character that will live forever in movie history.
If anyone ever decides it is a good idea to remake, reboot and/or get a sequel going I will personally go to their house and punch them in the face! ?
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Star Is Born (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Dullsville Arizona.
It’s unusual for the illustrious Mrs. Movie-Man and I to disagree over our opinion of a movie. Sure, she doesn’t like some genres like horror and sci-fi that I do, and I will often go to them alone. But in the main if we sit there together then we tend to have the same general view as to whether we liked it or not. (I guess that’s why we’ve been such a good match for nearly 40 years!). Not so though with this film.
The story has been filmed three times before: in 1937 (with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March); 1954 (with Judy Garland and James Mason) and 1976 (with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson). In all of these films the story has been the same: an alcoholic and over-the-hill actor (or with Kris Kristofferson, rock star) finds a young talented ingenue to love and develop into a superstar.
The modern day remake is a little different in that Jackson Maine, our older star (now played by Bradley Cooper), is a stadium-filling mega-rock-star, recognised and idolised in every bar he goes into…. and he frequents a LOT of bars. Maine mixes the cocktail with drugs in this version meaning that as one star is ascending, his seems destined to be heading into a black hole.
At its heart, this is a good story of having self-confidence in your own abilities, no matter how people around you try to put you down. Gaga’s Ally is one such person; a waitress who is constantly being told, especially by her blue-collar dad and his boozy friends, that although she has a great voice she’s “never going to make it” because of the way she looks. In chilled fashion she meets Jackson Maine, who hears her sing and thinks she might be on the edge of glory. Not worried about her big nose, he appreciates she was born that way: in fact he likes her so much he wants to poke her face. (Sorry… couldn’t resist it).
I appreciate from the IMDB rating that I am probably in a minority here. (At the time of writing this – pre-general release – it is a ridiculously high – and I suspect artificially pumped up – 8.8). But for me, I found the whole thing a dull affair. I can’t remember the last time I went to a film when I actively looked at my watch… but 1 hour 45 into this, I did (it had another 30 minutes to run).
For one thing, I just didn’t believe Bradley Cooper as the rock star character. He just came across as totally false and unbelievable to me. I had more resonance with Gaga’s Ally. Even though she is a novice actor (and it showed at times) in general I thought she did a creditable job. But given these two factors together, there are long and indulgent exchanges between the pair that seemed to me to go on in–ter–min–ably. Best actor in the film for me was Sam Elliott as Jackson’s brother Bobby. The mellowing of the brothers is a scene that I found genuinely touching.
I’d also like a glance at the original script, since there are some passages (the “boyfriend/husband” lines is a case in point) where it felt like one of them made an script mistake and, instead of Cooper (as director) shouting “cut”, they kept it going as some sort of half-arsed improv.
What is impressive is that they got to film at live concerts (including at Glastonbury), although most of this footage is of the hand-held nausea-inducing variety. There is zero doubt that Gaga can belt out a song better than anyone. But I didn’t get that same feeling about Bradley Cooper’s singing: like a lot of this film (with Cooper as co-producer, co-screenwriter AND director) it felt to me like a self-indulgent piece of casting.
I know music is extremely subjective, and “country” isnt really my think anyway. But the songs by Gaga and Lukas Nelson were – “Shallow” aside – for me rather forgetable.
Overall, in a couple of years that have brought us some great musicals – “La La Land“; “Sing Street“; “The Greatest Showman” – here’s a film about the music industry that did nothing for me I’m afraid.
But with my new user-rating system (this is the first post on the new web site) you have a chance to have YOUR say, so vote away!
The story has been filmed three times before: in 1937 (with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March); 1954 (with Judy Garland and James Mason) and 1976 (with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson). In all of these films the story has been the same: an alcoholic and over-the-hill actor (or with Kris Kristofferson, rock star) finds a young talented ingenue to love and develop into a superstar.
The modern day remake is a little different in that Jackson Maine, our older star (now played by Bradley Cooper), is a stadium-filling mega-rock-star, recognised and idolised in every bar he goes into…. and he frequents a LOT of bars. Maine mixes the cocktail with drugs in this version meaning that as one star is ascending, his seems destined to be heading into a black hole.
At its heart, this is a good story of having self-confidence in your own abilities, no matter how people around you try to put you down. Gaga’s Ally is one such person; a waitress who is constantly being told, especially by her blue-collar dad and his boozy friends, that although she has a great voice she’s “never going to make it” because of the way she looks. In chilled fashion she meets Jackson Maine, who hears her sing and thinks she might be on the edge of glory. Not worried about her big nose, he appreciates she was born that way: in fact he likes her so much he wants to poke her face. (Sorry… couldn’t resist it).
I appreciate from the IMDB rating that I am probably in a minority here. (At the time of writing this – pre-general release – it is a ridiculously high – and I suspect artificially pumped up – 8.8). But for me, I found the whole thing a dull affair. I can’t remember the last time I went to a film when I actively looked at my watch… but 1 hour 45 into this, I did (it had another 30 minutes to run).
For one thing, I just didn’t believe Bradley Cooper as the rock star character. He just came across as totally false and unbelievable to me. I had more resonance with Gaga’s Ally. Even though she is a novice actor (and it showed at times) in general I thought she did a creditable job. But given these two factors together, there are long and indulgent exchanges between the pair that seemed to me to go on in–ter–min–ably. Best actor in the film for me was Sam Elliott as Jackson’s brother Bobby. The mellowing of the brothers is a scene that I found genuinely touching.
I’d also like a glance at the original script, since there are some passages (the “boyfriend/husband” lines is a case in point) where it felt like one of them made an script mistake and, instead of Cooper (as director) shouting “cut”, they kept it going as some sort of half-arsed improv.
What is impressive is that they got to film at live concerts (including at Glastonbury), although most of this footage is of the hand-held nausea-inducing variety. There is zero doubt that Gaga can belt out a song better than anyone. But I didn’t get that same feeling about Bradley Cooper’s singing: like a lot of this film (with Cooper as co-producer, co-screenwriter AND director) it felt to me like a self-indulgent piece of casting.
I know music is extremely subjective, and “country” isnt really my think anyway. But the songs by Gaga and Lukas Nelson were – “Shallow” aside – for me rather forgetable.
Overall, in a couple of years that have brought us some great musicals – “La La Land“; “Sing Street“; “The Greatest Showman” – here’s a film about the music industry that did nothing for me I’m afraid.
But with my new user-rating system (this is the first post on the new web site) you have a chance to have YOUR say, so vote away!
All That Has Flown Beyond (Natural Magic #2)
8.0
Rate It
Book
Kaiyo’s bloodline has been part of the Garrow pack for generations. He has been destined to be...
Paranormal M_M Romance
Piper (13 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Strong Characters (3 more)
Clever Camerawork
Myers is Finally Threatening Again
Callbacks and Subversions
"You're The New Doctor Loomis" (3 more)
Plot Holes
Predictable
Too Much Off-Screen Action
Halloween: Predictably Unpredictable
Contains spoilers, click to show
After the nightmare of a film that was Rob Zombie’s 2007 remake, I refused to bother seeing the new Halloween on its release, choosing instead to pick up a DVD when the price got knocked down significantly enough - after all, we’ve had sixty-three Halloween films now and only half of them were worth watching (really, Season of the Witch?) and this looked, in all honesty, like just another slasher-film-reboot that wasn’t worth the time. Now don’t get me wrong, it absolutely was just another slasher film, but I wish I’d seen it in the cinema. And a year earlier than I did, too, because I missed out big-time with this one.
The plot is predictable, because of course it is. It’s Michael Myers, what’s he going to do except escape from a mental institution and murder some people? But it’s beautifully subverted; some of the characters you might expect to last till the end die before the halfway mark, and while there are a fair amount who are clearly written in just to be killed minutes later, they contribute to some fine, gory moments, so it’s kind of okay. There’s no real heartbreaker here - everyone you really rooted for just about makes it, and everyone that was kind of a dick is killed. And that’s fine, because in a way this isn’t the kind of slasher where it matters who lives or dies. This is a film about preserving a legacy, or perhaps just making one, and it works. We’re told fairly early on that this is a direct sequel to the original Halloween (Myers’ death toll at the start of this version, apparently, is five, which matches the amount of kills he made in the first movie - as far as I’m aware, Myers has actually killed over 100 people in all the films combined, so this is a nice subtle way of telling us what to remember and what to ignore completely). Having said that, references are made throughout to previous films, the best of which is of course a callback to the infamous scene where Myers tumbles out of a window only for his body to completely disappear - this time it’s Laurie Strode who does the tumbling, and she very much intends to do a little vanishing act of her own, Michael, so keep an eye on - oh, no, you looked away, I wonder what’s happening down there!
Focusing on Laurie for a moment, Jamie Lee Curtis does an absolutely excellent job here. Age has given her character wisdom, paranoia, and a whole lot of guns, and the acting carries a huge amount of weight and strength with it. Having said that, there are a couple of moments where all of Laurie’s fear-induced calculations don’t seem to have quite worked out - why bother going to such extreme measures to protect your house, if the front door you’re standing behind is half glass? But that’s the thing about this movie - whatever you plan for, whatever you think Michael Myers is capable of, he’s stronger than you think, he’s far more terrifying than you remember, and right until the end, he’s here to remind you that nothing you can plan for will ever be enough. Of course, we never actually see him die (again) so here’s looking forward to the next sequel…
The cinematography is something to at least wonder over - settings and locations are used well and established with some wonderful wide shots, and some of the best scenes are those where the camera just stays in one place, at a very carefully-selected window for example, and watches. Two scenes are worth a particular mention; the first, in which we follow our two podcast-host characters to a gas station, seems fairly dull until Myers catches up to them, but if you watch the background carefully enough you’ll see he’s there all along, beating people up and murdering quite happily (swapping his prison jumpsuit for those traditional blues in the process). The second seems a little superficial, in the grand scheme of the movie, but it’s well-shot nonetheless - we watch, from that aforementioned window, as a woman hears about all the nasty things Michael might do, and of course we can see him through another window, heading for her front door, and when he finally appears inside the house he’s all the way across the room, somehow, and he calmly wanders on over and stabs the woman quite coolly through the throat, in a scene which I think is most reminiscent of the original films.
However, there are moments when you don’t see Michael at all, just the aftermath, or where we watch him enter a room and are forced to linger in the corridor while he does the dirty work. A couple of times that’s just fine, but considering the nature of the film it would be nice to watch the magic happen a couple more times. And while we’re on the negatives, I might mention that the reveal that the Doctor Loomis-type character who looked, felt, and sounded like a rip-off of Doctor Loomis, and was even referred to as “The New Doctor Loomis” did EXACTLY the same thing that Doctor Loomis did, surprise, and we were somehow expected to not see that coming like it was all one big, obvious, heavy-handed bluff. A couple of the other characters, too, felt like they were purely rammed in there to be irritating - there were a couple of strong scenes with our podcast hosts, but ultimately they were rude, on-the-nose and annoyingly egotistical, and I was happy to see them go, just like Alison’s friend Foggy Nelson.
The score, incidentally, is worth mentioning, from a haunting retune of the original Myers theme to darker and more dramatic variations on it later on that really would have been quite something to hear in surround-sound. I’m never usually one to appreciate the music of a film quite fully enough, so it was nice to have this grab my attention in quite the way it did. Overall, it’s a genuinely good follow-on that takes the best of the films before and makes the best use of the worst of them. Some of the characters might be a little annoying, some of the action could have translated better on-screen than off, but it was an honest and straight-up slasher film and it just wasn’t that bad at all.
The plot is predictable, because of course it is. It’s Michael Myers, what’s he going to do except escape from a mental institution and murder some people? But it’s beautifully subverted; some of the characters you might expect to last till the end die before the halfway mark, and while there are a fair amount who are clearly written in just to be killed minutes later, they contribute to some fine, gory moments, so it’s kind of okay. There’s no real heartbreaker here - everyone you really rooted for just about makes it, and everyone that was kind of a dick is killed. And that’s fine, because in a way this isn’t the kind of slasher where it matters who lives or dies. This is a film about preserving a legacy, or perhaps just making one, and it works. We’re told fairly early on that this is a direct sequel to the original Halloween (Myers’ death toll at the start of this version, apparently, is five, which matches the amount of kills he made in the first movie - as far as I’m aware, Myers has actually killed over 100 people in all the films combined, so this is a nice subtle way of telling us what to remember and what to ignore completely). Having said that, references are made throughout to previous films, the best of which is of course a callback to the infamous scene where Myers tumbles out of a window only for his body to completely disappear - this time it’s Laurie Strode who does the tumbling, and she very much intends to do a little vanishing act of her own, Michael, so keep an eye on - oh, no, you looked away, I wonder what’s happening down there!
Focusing on Laurie for a moment, Jamie Lee Curtis does an absolutely excellent job here. Age has given her character wisdom, paranoia, and a whole lot of guns, and the acting carries a huge amount of weight and strength with it. Having said that, there are a couple of moments where all of Laurie’s fear-induced calculations don’t seem to have quite worked out - why bother going to such extreme measures to protect your house, if the front door you’re standing behind is half glass? But that’s the thing about this movie - whatever you plan for, whatever you think Michael Myers is capable of, he’s stronger than you think, he’s far more terrifying than you remember, and right until the end, he’s here to remind you that nothing you can plan for will ever be enough. Of course, we never actually see him die (again) so here’s looking forward to the next sequel…
The cinematography is something to at least wonder over - settings and locations are used well and established with some wonderful wide shots, and some of the best scenes are those where the camera just stays in one place, at a very carefully-selected window for example, and watches. Two scenes are worth a particular mention; the first, in which we follow our two podcast-host characters to a gas station, seems fairly dull until Myers catches up to them, but if you watch the background carefully enough you’ll see he’s there all along, beating people up and murdering quite happily (swapping his prison jumpsuit for those traditional blues in the process). The second seems a little superficial, in the grand scheme of the movie, but it’s well-shot nonetheless - we watch, from that aforementioned window, as a woman hears about all the nasty things Michael might do, and of course we can see him through another window, heading for her front door, and when he finally appears inside the house he’s all the way across the room, somehow, and he calmly wanders on over and stabs the woman quite coolly through the throat, in a scene which I think is most reminiscent of the original films.
However, there are moments when you don’t see Michael at all, just the aftermath, or where we watch him enter a room and are forced to linger in the corridor while he does the dirty work. A couple of times that’s just fine, but considering the nature of the film it would be nice to watch the magic happen a couple more times. And while we’re on the negatives, I might mention that the reveal that the Doctor Loomis-type character who looked, felt, and sounded like a rip-off of Doctor Loomis, and was even referred to as “The New Doctor Loomis” did EXACTLY the same thing that Doctor Loomis did, surprise, and we were somehow expected to not see that coming like it was all one big, obvious, heavy-handed bluff. A couple of the other characters, too, felt like they were purely rammed in there to be irritating - there were a couple of strong scenes with our podcast hosts, but ultimately they were rude, on-the-nose and annoyingly egotistical, and I was happy to see them go, just like Alison’s friend Foggy Nelson.
The score, incidentally, is worth mentioning, from a haunting retune of the original Myers theme to darker and more dramatic variations on it later on that really would have been quite something to hear in surround-sound. I’m never usually one to appreciate the music of a film quite fully enough, so it was nice to have this grab my attention in quite the way it did. Overall, it’s a genuinely good follow-on that takes the best of the films before and makes the best use of the worst of them. Some of the characters might be a little annoying, some of the action could have translated better on-screen than off, but it was an honest and straight-up slasher film and it just wasn’t that bad at all.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Language Of Thorns 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>;
<img src="https://gipostcards.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/new-blog-banner-17.png"/>;
<b>3.8 ★, to be exact. </b>
Sometimes, we enter a library, not really knowing what we are looking for. One day, I entered the library, only to return a few books. Instead, I returned with two more. The first one didn’t impress me, but the second one was this book – The Language of Thorns by Leigh Bardugo. I only picked it up, because I liked the cover. And I know, we shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, but I guess the magic worked on me this time around.
This book featured six stories, all six magical and beautiful in their own way. Some attracted me more, some a bit less, but I, overall, feel delighted to have read this book. I haven’t read Leigh’s previous books, so I didn’t know about this world before, but these are apparently the same woods featured in those books as well.
I will give a brief opinion on all stories, and the main rating will be the average from them all. Let’s go.
<b><i>1. Ayama and the Thorn Wood – ★★★★★</i></b>
<b>‘’Interesting things only happen to pretty girls.’’</b>
A beautiful tale that will show you how beauty comes from within. The King and Queen have two sons – one is a beautiful man, the future king, and the other one is a monster. They are scared and ashamed of the monster-boy, and let him live his life in the labyrinth they made for him. In the village, in a poor family, there are two daughters, one as beautiful as the sun, and the other one ugly. When the monster escapes the labyrinth and starts ruining fields and make disasters, everyone is scared to go and talk to him and beg for forgiveness, so the ugly lady is sent to her woods – quite certain she will never return…
<b>‘’This little prince was shaped a bit like a boy but more like a wolf, his body covered in slick black fur from crown to clawed foot. His eyes were red as blood, and the nubs of two budding horns protruded from his head.’’</b>
<b><i>2. The Too-Clever Fox – ★★★★★</i></b>
<b>‘’Freedom is a burden, but you will learn to bear it.’’</b>
I loved this story the most, out of all six of them. It reminded me of home, and of how we tell stories back there. The whole ‘’Once Upon a Time’’ is real, and I enjoyed every moment of it. The winter theme, the hunting, the girl and the fox. This is a story that will teach you to not be assured you can outsmart everyone. Foxes in stories have always been presented as the smart ones, outsmarting every animal in the woods. This reminds me of Aesop’s Tales, which I really loved as a little girl. But sometimes, you will get outsmarted, and it might cost you your life. The twist was definitely unexpected, but indeed satisfying.
<b><i>3. The Witch of Duva – ★★★</i></b>
A story where girls disappear, and one girl decides to go into the woods and try to figure out why. This story upset me, and I didn’t like it. But deep inside, it’s a good one. Very creepy though, and very horror-y, but worth reading. Turn the lights off, get under a blanket, turn your torch on, and only then you will be ready to know the deep secrets this story tells you.
<b><i>4. Little Knife – ★★★★</i></b>
The shortest story in the book, but by all means not the least intriguing. A story that features a woman that is too beautiful, that men lose their mind as soon as they see her. To get the chance to marry her, men will have to go through a various of tasks. The twist at the end is incredible, and I really liked it. It starts off as a usual story, but it goes wild.
<b><i>5. The Soldier Prince – ★★</i></b>
This was a story I enjoyed the least. It all screamed ‘’The Nutcracker’’ to me, and I couldn’t see it as original. It was a re-make, and it was very different that the story we know, but it just didn’t work for me. This is a story about a man who makes toys and gives them life. And when one toy sort of ‘’wakes up’’, interesting things start to happen. Quite a creepy story. I usually like those, but this one was not my cup of tea.
<b><i>6. When Water Sand Fire – ★★★★</i></b>
<b>‘’ We were not made to please princes.’’</b>
This one is the longest story in the book. It features a world of creatures living underwater, and Ulla, who can sing and create magic, but who, as the people believe, is not a true born, but a mix between the underwater world and the humans. She is asked to help the prince become a king, but when the magic price is too high to paid, it doesn’t seem like she has a choice. I truly enjoyed this story, as it’s a beautiful mix of emotions while you read it. It was a bit disappointing that it seems as a remake of the creation of the character of Ursula from The Little Mermaid, at least to me.
Have you read this book, or any of Leigh Bardugo’s books? Let me know in the comments, I love to chat with you!
<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>;
<img src="https://gipostcards.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/new-blog-banner-17.png"/>;
<b>3.8 ★, to be exact. </b>
Sometimes, we enter a library, not really knowing what we are looking for. One day, I entered the library, only to return a few books. Instead, I returned with two more. The first one didn’t impress me, but the second one was this book – The Language of Thorns by Leigh Bardugo. I only picked it up, because I liked the cover. And I know, we shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, but I guess the magic worked on me this time around.
This book featured six stories, all six magical and beautiful in their own way. Some attracted me more, some a bit less, but I, overall, feel delighted to have read this book. I haven’t read Leigh’s previous books, so I didn’t know about this world before, but these are apparently the same woods featured in those books as well.
I will give a brief opinion on all stories, and the main rating will be the average from them all. Let’s go.
<b><i>1. Ayama and the Thorn Wood – ★★★★★</i></b>
<b>‘’Interesting things only happen to pretty girls.’’</b>
A beautiful tale that will show you how beauty comes from within. The King and Queen have two sons – one is a beautiful man, the future king, and the other one is a monster. They are scared and ashamed of the monster-boy, and let him live his life in the labyrinth they made for him. In the village, in a poor family, there are two daughters, one as beautiful as the sun, and the other one ugly. When the monster escapes the labyrinth and starts ruining fields and make disasters, everyone is scared to go and talk to him and beg for forgiveness, so the ugly lady is sent to her woods – quite certain she will never return…
<b>‘’This little prince was shaped a bit like a boy but more like a wolf, his body covered in slick black fur from crown to clawed foot. His eyes were red as blood, and the nubs of two budding horns protruded from his head.’’</b>
<b><i>2. The Too-Clever Fox – ★★★★★</i></b>
<b>‘’Freedom is a burden, but you will learn to bear it.’’</b>
I loved this story the most, out of all six of them. It reminded me of home, and of how we tell stories back there. The whole ‘’Once Upon a Time’’ is real, and I enjoyed every moment of it. The winter theme, the hunting, the girl and the fox. This is a story that will teach you to not be assured you can outsmart everyone. Foxes in stories have always been presented as the smart ones, outsmarting every animal in the woods. This reminds me of Aesop’s Tales, which I really loved as a little girl. But sometimes, you will get outsmarted, and it might cost you your life. The twist was definitely unexpected, but indeed satisfying.
<b><i>3. The Witch of Duva – ★★★</i></b>
A story where girls disappear, and one girl decides to go into the woods and try to figure out why. This story upset me, and I didn’t like it. But deep inside, it’s a good one. Very creepy though, and very horror-y, but worth reading. Turn the lights off, get under a blanket, turn your torch on, and only then you will be ready to know the deep secrets this story tells you.
<b><i>4. Little Knife – ★★★★</i></b>
The shortest story in the book, but by all means not the least intriguing. A story that features a woman that is too beautiful, that men lose their mind as soon as they see her. To get the chance to marry her, men will have to go through a various of tasks. The twist at the end is incredible, and I really liked it. It starts off as a usual story, but it goes wild.
<b><i>5. The Soldier Prince – ★★</i></b>
This was a story I enjoyed the least. It all screamed ‘’The Nutcracker’’ to me, and I couldn’t see it as original. It was a re-make, and it was very different that the story we know, but it just didn’t work for me. This is a story about a man who makes toys and gives them life. And when one toy sort of ‘’wakes up’’, interesting things start to happen. Quite a creepy story. I usually like those, but this one was not my cup of tea.
<b><i>6. When Water Sand Fire – ★★★★</i></b>
<b>‘’ We were not made to please princes.’’</b>
This one is the longest story in the book. It features a world of creatures living underwater, and Ulla, who can sing and create magic, but who, as the people believe, is not a true born, but a mix between the underwater world and the humans. She is asked to help the prince become a king, but when the magic price is too high to paid, it doesn’t seem like she has a choice. I truly enjoyed this story, as it’s a beautiful mix of emotions while you read it. It was a bit disappointing that it seems as a remake of the creation of the character of Ursula from The Little Mermaid, at least to me.
Have you read this book, or any of Leigh Bardugo’s books? Let me know in the comments, I love to chat with you!
<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>;
Erika (17789 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Dec 22, 2018 (Updated Dec 22, 2018)
A sequel no one asked for, but Disney was going to give it to us whether we wanted it or not...
Unnecessary is the main word I would use to describe this film. Mary Poppins (1964) is actually practically perfect in every way, like the lady herself; and anything to follow was going to pale in comparison. Maybe I would have been more tolerant if Christopher Robin hadn't had an extremely similar plot, but I was honestly just counting down the minutes until it was over.
The music was ok, I guess, sufficient. I just can't believe Emily Blunt in period pieces, she has a face that knows about text messaging (I am a huge Blunt fan, btw). I'm glad Disney decided to keep the whole, American doing the crappiest Cockney accent thing going. I get why they chose Lin-Manuel Miranda, he's very entertaining, and I know he did that Hamilton thing (zero interest in that). The only parts I loved him in was when he was just dancing, no singing with the bad accent. The lamplighter song was by far the best out of the lot.
In the end, I've seen this same movie several times. I'm really doubting whether I want to see Aladdin, and I'll never give Disney my money again for a remake/sequel to a classic film (aside from possibly Aladdin).
Honestly, I don't know who would actually love this film. Who was it even made for? I think the reason they want everyone to see it the first weekend is so it doesn't get around how just ok the film was.
The music was ok, I guess, sufficient. I just can't believe Emily Blunt in period pieces, she has a face that knows about text messaging (I am a huge Blunt fan, btw). I'm glad Disney decided to keep the whole, American doing the crappiest Cockney accent thing going. I get why they chose Lin-Manuel Miranda, he's very entertaining, and I know he did that Hamilton thing (zero interest in that). The only parts I loved him in was when he was just dancing, no singing with the bad accent. The lamplighter song was by far the best out of the lot.
In the end, I've seen this same movie several times. I'm really doubting whether I want to see Aladdin, and I'll never give Disney my money again for a remake/sequel to a classic film (aside from possibly Aladdin).
Honestly, I don't know who would actually love this film. Who was it even made for? I think the reason they want everyone to see it the first weekend is so it doesn't get around how just ok the film was.
