Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Soul (2020) in Movies
Dec 30, 2020
Soul is Pixar at its most cerebral
In the last few days I've seen Pixar's latest animation - "Soul" - described by various reviewers as a cross between "Inside Out", "Coco", "La La Land" and "Whiplash". I'll add to that some older movies with more obvious parallels with the story: 1946's "A Matter of Life and Death" with David Niven; 1941's "Here Comes Mr Jordan" with Robert Montgomery and its 1978 remake - a personal favourite of mine - "Heaven Can Wait" with Warren Beatty. For these all tell the story of someone plucked from the world a tad too early.
In "Soul", Joe (Jamie Foxx) is a talented jazz pianist always dreaming of getting to be a big time session musician. He is stuck though in a worthwhile but unappreciated job as a high school music teacher. But his luck is - temporarily - about to change when an old successful student (nice touch) recommends him to provide backing to the fearsome jazz star Dorothea Williams (Angela Bassett).
Just as things seem to going his way, an open manhole cover has other ideas, and Joe falls to his 'death'. Feeling his soul has exited the world too early, and just before he gets his big shot, Joe's spirit struggles to return to the world with the help of reluctant soul/recruit "22" (Tina Fey).
Pete Docter seems to have done it again with "Soul". The man behind Pixar's hugely successful "Up" and "Inside Out" has the magic touch with these animated classics. He's had more than his share of Oscar success. (Although having gone straight to streaming on Disney+, does it qualify for the Oscars this year? Or have they relaxed the rules?) Assuming it is eligible, you'd be a brave man to bet against "Soul" winning Best Animated Feature this year.
For there are some sequences of this movie that are breathtakingly effective. The fall of Joe from the "stairway to the great beyond" to the pre-life domain (as shown in the trailer) is a masterpiece of graphic design. (And do I detect in there a tribute to the "stargate" in "2001: A Space Odyssey"?) What makes these sequences distinctive is not the afterlife soul's or the "great before" souls, who resemble blue variants of Casper. It's the 'counsellors' of the realms. They are surreally drawn Picasso-style in 2D and - although easy to draw for preschooler's with a crayon - might be a bit of a stretch for them to relate to.
But will the kids get it? I know that my 6-year old grandson enjoyed watching it. But ultimately, this is principally a Pixar film squarely targeted at adults to enjoy. Indeed, the themes of death and afterlife might be disturbing for younger children (as in "Coco"). They will certainly struggle to understand the land of lost souls, where those obsessed with their work or hobbies (metal detecting! LOL!) are almost beyond reach. And surely the message of 'enjoying the everyday here and now' rather than getting too wrapped up in career or life goals will only be relatable to adults.
"Soul" is brim-full with Pixar quirkiness. As per normal, the movie has a lot of detail that will need multiple watches. And I can confirm that the pause button helps! For example, "22" has been an earth-apprentice for so many millennia that he has had just about every mentor who's ever passed through. His 'den' is wallpapered with "Hello, My Name is ...." badges, and a pause at that point reveals mentors as varied as Gandhi, Aretha Franklin, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking! And in the end titles, the usual list of babies born during production are "Recent You Seminar graduates"!
The movie also features two of the most distinctive voices from UK television. Graham Norton plays Moonwind: a sign-spinning hippy and lost-soul-sea piratical captain (I've honestly not been taking drugs). And Richard Ayoade, a UK TV regular but familiar to US audiences from his role in "The IT Crowd", plays Counsellor Jerry (well, one of them!). Alice Braga, as another Counsellor Jerry and most recently seen as the doctor in "The New Mutants", is another familiar voice
For once, Michael Giacchino doesn't get the scoring gig. Instead, this went to the "Nine Inch Nails" partnership of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. (The soundtrack for "Mank" was their most recent work). The music is perhaps not as immediately accessible as some of the previous Pixar scores. But I think will be a 'grower'.
I have a "but" in my review. I sobbed like a young child during parts of "Up". And similarly, I was a mess as 'Bing Bong' faded away in "Inside Out". And yet here, my tear ducts remained stubbornly unchallenged. Perhaps this is a personal thing, and others were a soggy mess after this movie. But, for me, it simply didn't connect with me at the same raw emotional level that Docter's other work (and indeed other Pixar movies) have done. So, for that reason (only), I'm going to hold off my highest rating.
It's highly recommended since, notwithstanding this, it's a magnificent effort. (At the 11th hour, it made my "Number 7" slot in my Top 10 of 2020). It's also worth noting that it's mildly groundbreaking in being the first Pixar movie with a black leading character.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the full review in One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/30/soul-is-pixar-at-its-most-cerebral/).
In "Soul", Joe (Jamie Foxx) is a talented jazz pianist always dreaming of getting to be a big time session musician. He is stuck though in a worthwhile but unappreciated job as a high school music teacher. But his luck is - temporarily - about to change when an old successful student (nice touch) recommends him to provide backing to the fearsome jazz star Dorothea Williams (Angela Bassett).
Just as things seem to going his way, an open manhole cover has other ideas, and Joe falls to his 'death'. Feeling his soul has exited the world too early, and just before he gets his big shot, Joe's spirit struggles to return to the world with the help of reluctant soul/recruit "22" (Tina Fey).
Pete Docter seems to have done it again with "Soul". The man behind Pixar's hugely successful "Up" and "Inside Out" has the magic touch with these animated classics. He's had more than his share of Oscar success. (Although having gone straight to streaming on Disney+, does it qualify for the Oscars this year? Or have they relaxed the rules?) Assuming it is eligible, you'd be a brave man to bet against "Soul" winning Best Animated Feature this year.
For there are some sequences of this movie that are breathtakingly effective. The fall of Joe from the "stairway to the great beyond" to the pre-life domain (as shown in the trailer) is a masterpiece of graphic design. (And do I detect in there a tribute to the "stargate" in "2001: A Space Odyssey"?) What makes these sequences distinctive is not the afterlife soul's or the "great before" souls, who resemble blue variants of Casper. It's the 'counsellors' of the realms. They are surreally drawn Picasso-style in 2D and - although easy to draw for preschooler's with a crayon - might be a bit of a stretch for them to relate to.
But will the kids get it? I know that my 6-year old grandson enjoyed watching it. But ultimately, this is principally a Pixar film squarely targeted at adults to enjoy. Indeed, the themes of death and afterlife might be disturbing for younger children (as in "Coco"). They will certainly struggle to understand the land of lost souls, where those obsessed with their work or hobbies (metal detecting! LOL!) are almost beyond reach. And surely the message of 'enjoying the everyday here and now' rather than getting too wrapped up in career or life goals will only be relatable to adults.
"Soul" is brim-full with Pixar quirkiness. As per normal, the movie has a lot of detail that will need multiple watches. And I can confirm that the pause button helps! For example, "22" has been an earth-apprentice for so many millennia that he has had just about every mentor who's ever passed through. His 'den' is wallpapered with "Hello, My Name is ...." badges, and a pause at that point reveals mentors as varied as Gandhi, Aretha Franklin, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking! And in the end titles, the usual list of babies born during production are "Recent You Seminar graduates"!
The movie also features two of the most distinctive voices from UK television. Graham Norton plays Moonwind: a sign-spinning hippy and lost-soul-sea piratical captain (I've honestly not been taking drugs). And Richard Ayoade, a UK TV regular but familiar to US audiences from his role in "The IT Crowd", plays Counsellor Jerry (well, one of them!). Alice Braga, as another Counsellor Jerry and most recently seen as the doctor in "The New Mutants", is another familiar voice
For once, Michael Giacchino doesn't get the scoring gig. Instead, this went to the "Nine Inch Nails" partnership of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. (The soundtrack for "Mank" was their most recent work). The music is perhaps not as immediately accessible as some of the previous Pixar scores. But I think will be a 'grower'.
I have a "but" in my review. I sobbed like a young child during parts of "Up". And similarly, I was a mess as 'Bing Bong' faded away in "Inside Out". And yet here, my tear ducts remained stubbornly unchallenged. Perhaps this is a personal thing, and others were a soggy mess after this movie. But, for me, it simply didn't connect with me at the same raw emotional level that Docter's other work (and indeed other Pixar movies) have done. So, for that reason (only), I'm going to hold off my highest rating.
It's highly recommended since, notwithstanding this, it's a magnificent effort. (At the 11th hour, it made my "Number 7" slot in my Top 10 of 2020). It's also worth noting that it's mildly groundbreaking in being the first Pixar movie with a black leading character.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the full review in One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/30/soul-is-pixar-at-its-most-cerebral/).
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Wicked & Wise in Tabletop Games
Jul 20, 2021
Who here has only thought of dragons as fearsome fire-breathing beasts of flight in fantastical worlds of magic and whimsy? I probably would be among you, if not for the cutey little Leafy Sea Dragons in our own world. That aside, not many would guess that dragons are actually smooth businesscreatures who employ simple, yet very professional, hordes of mice as their personal accountants. I guess you just don’t know what you don’t know. So thank you to designer Fertessa Allyse for cluing us all in on the inner workings of draconic wealth management.
Wicked & Wise is a trick-taking game where players belong to teams of dragon/mouse-kind bent on epic games of cards upon which they wager and win treasures and gold. Think you know Euchre? Well this is Euchre with purpose!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
Setup is different for each play count from two to six players. For this review, we have tackled the two-player version that uses an open-handed ghost-Mouse player. Separate all card types and place them in decks, per the rules. Each Dragon player will receive 10 basic cards for their hands, and the ghost-Mouse player will be dealt five cards face-up between both players. The starting player is determined and given the Lead Token, which in this prototype copy, is a 3d-printed white dragon (amazing). Each player (or team if playing with more players) also chooses their Goal card for the round and a Table Talk card in use for the entire game. There are more rules for setup, but this is the general idea.
Generally speaking, Wicked & Wise is played like a normal trick-taking game with several embellishments. One such is that the leading Dragon will play the first card to set the trump suit, then the other Dragon(s) will play their card to follow. Once all Dragons have played, the Mouse players will play their one card in the same team order the Dragons followed. The Dragons’ cards are all played for the suit and numeric value, as in Euchre, but the Mouse cards are played for their special abilities printed at the bottom of each card. These abilities could include drawing cards and passing them to their Dragon teammate, or choosing to take some Gold, or discarding and redrawing more basic cards. Oh, but here is the kicker – the Dragons now get another card they may play to help tip the odds and win the trick! I am no master of Euchre (or any trick-taking game for that matter), but I know I have never seen this in any game I have ever played. Two opportunities to play a card to win the trick? Excellent.
The round Goal cards are now consulted to see if the teams achieved their chosen Goal for the round. If successful, the team takes the reward printed. If not, they lose half the amount, rounded down. Afterward, the Cleanup actions will reset hand sizes and get the table ready to play the next round. The winning team is they who are able to amass the largest collection of Gold over the course of the three rounds of play. Games can last anywhere from 30 to 60 minutes per my plays, and they get faster with more experience and more focused players.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of this game. That said, I am absolutely impressed with how far along this game seems to be at this point. The art is mostly complete and it is simply amazing. Beth Sobel has always received high praise from us here, and never disappoints on anything she touches. I think the cards have a great look to them, and the suits are differentiated not only by color, but also by iconography – a boon for our colorblind gamer friends. I am very excited to see where the components end up at the end of the Kickstarter campaign for sure.
Euchre has always been one of my favorite games, and it is something I can play with any type of teammate or opponent. I learned how to play on a bus in France in college and will always accept an invitation to play it. So to have a themed version of Euchre to play that also adds so many interesting new decisions and teammate roles and physical score-keeping components just hits on every level. The theme and game are not necessarily securely tied together – I think those that are opposed to a fantasy setting can easily enjoy the game or simply re-theme it themselves to almost anything.
This one is a sneaky little game that pulls you in and keeps you interested throughout its entirety, and that is a mark of a great game for me. Once game nights can get back to normal soon (I hope) I can see this coming out to the table quite often. If you are in the market for a swole Euchre replacement (or extremely fun side session for the die-hards), then I recommend you take a look at Wicked & Wise. It adds so many great new ideas to keep an old standard fresh and tasty. Do consider backing it on Kickstarter when it launches in August, and let’s see if we can get Carla to drop an image of the Lead Player Token they are planning.
Wicked & Wise is a trick-taking game where players belong to teams of dragon/mouse-kind bent on epic games of cards upon which they wager and win treasures and gold. Think you know Euchre? Well this is Euchre with purpose!
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
Setup is different for each play count from two to six players. For this review, we have tackled the two-player version that uses an open-handed ghost-Mouse player. Separate all card types and place them in decks, per the rules. Each Dragon player will receive 10 basic cards for their hands, and the ghost-Mouse player will be dealt five cards face-up between both players. The starting player is determined and given the Lead Token, which in this prototype copy, is a 3d-printed white dragon (amazing). Each player (or team if playing with more players) also chooses their Goal card for the round and a Table Talk card in use for the entire game. There are more rules for setup, but this is the general idea.
Generally speaking, Wicked & Wise is played like a normal trick-taking game with several embellishments. One such is that the leading Dragon will play the first card to set the trump suit, then the other Dragon(s) will play their card to follow. Once all Dragons have played, the Mouse players will play their one card in the same team order the Dragons followed. The Dragons’ cards are all played for the suit and numeric value, as in Euchre, but the Mouse cards are played for their special abilities printed at the bottom of each card. These abilities could include drawing cards and passing them to their Dragon teammate, or choosing to take some Gold, or discarding and redrawing more basic cards. Oh, but here is the kicker – the Dragons now get another card they may play to help tip the odds and win the trick! I am no master of Euchre (or any trick-taking game for that matter), but I know I have never seen this in any game I have ever played. Two opportunities to play a card to win the trick? Excellent.
The round Goal cards are now consulted to see if the teams achieved their chosen Goal for the round. If successful, the team takes the reward printed. If not, they lose half the amount, rounded down. Afterward, the Cleanup actions will reset hand sizes and get the table ready to play the next round. The winning team is they who are able to amass the largest collection of Gold over the course of the three rounds of play. Games can last anywhere from 30 to 60 minutes per my plays, and they get faster with more experience and more focused players.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of this game. That said, I am absolutely impressed with how far along this game seems to be at this point. The art is mostly complete and it is simply amazing. Beth Sobel has always received high praise from us here, and never disappoints on anything she touches. I think the cards have a great look to them, and the suits are differentiated not only by color, but also by iconography – a boon for our colorblind gamer friends. I am very excited to see where the components end up at the end of the Kickstarter campaign for sure.
Euchre has always been one of my favorite games, and it is something I can play with any type of teammate or opponent. I learned how to play on a bus in France in college and will always accept an invitation to play it. So to have a themed version of Euchre to play that also adds so many interesting new decisions and teammate roles and physical score-keeping components just hits on every level. The theme and game are not necessarily securely tied together – I think those that are opposed to a fantasy setting can easily enjoy the game or simply re-theme it themselves to almost anything.
This one is a sneaky little game that pulls you in and keeps you interested throughout its entirety, and that is a mark of a great game for me. Once game nights can get back to normal soon (I hope) I can see this coming out to the table quite often. If you are in the market for a swole Euchre replacement (or extremely fun side session for the die-hards), then I recommend you take a look at Wicked & Wise. It adds so many great new ideas to keep an old standard fresh and tasty. Do consider backing it on Kickstarter when it launches in August, and let’s see if we can get Carla to drop an image of the Lead Player Token they are planning.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Light of My Life (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
It is difficult to talk about Casey Affleck in a positive light as a movie-maker without mentioning the heightened media storm that surrounded him in 2017, at the time of #metoo and his own moment of personal glory in winning the Best Actor Oscar for his excellent performance in Manchester By the Sea. The Oscar was deserved, as was the criticism. The latter affecting the sweetness of the former entirely, and perhaps explaining why a recent Academy Award winner would be so quiet for the next 3 years.
The facts are that he settled out of court for two sexual harassment claims, that in interviews later he would admit some guilt and shame towards. He never tried to hide it and seemed genuinely regretful of his part in whatever crimes took place. He never tried to deny it or belittle it or excuse it as something small and insignificant, he owned up and hung his head.
For which I’d be tempted to say, yes, he behaved like an asshole and abused his position, but is worthy of forgiveness, on probation that he learned from the mistake and never remotely did anything like it again. However, the media doesn’t forget, and in a personal and professional way he has been persona non grata ever since.
Like many others in the spotlight before him for nefarious reasons, I believe emphatically in saying it is possible to separate a person from their work. If someone has done something where they need to be in jail, then let the system take care of it, otherwise let them get on with life and continue to work. Affleck is such a talented actor that it is his performances that spring to mind above anything else by far, and that probably won’t change. I’d absolutely hate to think his negative reputation prevented him from doing the best work of his life.
One way to ensure some relative solitude and privacy whilst remaining at work, then, is to write, produce, direct and star in a small personal film about a father and daughter, alone for 90% of the movie, in a post apocalyptic wilderness. Affleck is the nameless “dad” to the pre-teen daughter he dotes on and will do anything to protect, named “Rag”, for reasons that are explained beautifully in the narrative.
Played by promising newcomer Anna Pniowsky, it is a testament to Affleck’s skill and sensitivity as actor and director that Rag always feels as important and centre stage as the “star” of the show. The film begins very unusually with a 7 minute static dialogue between the two, which demonstrates the relationship and energy of the film perfectly, and in such an interesting way. Pniowsky gives as good as she gets in terms of detailed characterisation, and the dynamic between the two is an absolute delight.
Inevitably, this film is always going to be seen as a poor cousin to The Road, starring Viggo Mortensen, from 2009. It is very similar, it can’t be denied. Even the idea of the parent ensuring “the light / fire” is kept alive within the child, considering that the survival of humanity in all senses is paramount, and supercedes the notion of survival at any cost. Dignity, kindness and non-violence must be maintained, or they will be lost. It is a message worth passing on – enough to make Affleck want to fly so close to the themes and tone of a bigger, well liked film. He must certainly have been aware of how similar they are.
It doesn’t always work, and I did find myself wishing for more action, or at least incident, rather than all the static talking scenes. Although they were often beautifully done, there were just one too many of them to keep the film fully engaging. The use of flashback, where we see the past they came from and the absent mother (presumed long dead) played by Elizabeth Moss, who does not get enough screen time to leave a mark, also doesn’t fully ring true.
Where it does work is in the simple beauty of the relationship between father and daughter. Her innocence and growing curiosity about the tainted world she is inheriting, and his single minded insistence on teaching her things his way and keeping her oblivious to the harshness of life for as long as possible. We begin to suspect his methods are not always the best, and that inevitably the time is coming where for good or bad she will have to find her own path without him.
Which leads to a very touching last 20 minutes I can’t possibly explain without leaving spoilers. If it wasn’t two hours but 90 minutes I believe the idea would have had more impact and not outstay its welcome. As it is, it is just a little flabby in the edit to be described as “great”, and might be otherwise described as slightly indulgent and naive, directorially. It is a tough one to pin down, because whilst I don’t think there is much wrong with it, I also don’t think there is enough right to fully recommend it to a wide audience.
I’m putting this one in the box marked “little seen gems”, intersecting with the one marked “near miss with potential”. When in a patient mood, this could be a film you relate to and enjoy. Just don’t go in expecting too much to happen and concentrate on what it means to be a parent in a cruel world. In that sense it has a lot to say and is well worth your time.
The facts are that he settled out of court for two sexual harassment claims, that in interviews later he would admit some guilt and shame towards. He never tried to hide it and seemed genuinely regretful of his part in whatever crimes took place. He never tried to deny it or belittle it or excuse it as something small and insignificant, he owned up and hung his head.
For which I’d be tempted to say, yes, he behaved like an asshole and abused his position, but is worthy of forgiveness, on probation that he learned from the mistake and never remotely did anything like it again. However, the media doesn’t forget, and in a personal and professional way he has been persona non grata ever since.
Like many others in the spotlight before him for nefarious reasons, I believe emphatically in saying it is possible to separate a person from their work. If someone has done something where they need to be in jail, then let the system take care of it, otherwise let them get on with life and continue to work. Affleck is such a talented actor that it is his performances that spring to mind above anything else by far, and that probably won’t change. I’d absolutely hate to think his negative reputation prevented him from doing the best work of his life.
One way to ensure some relative solitude and privacy whilst remaining at work, then, is to write, produce, direct and star in a small personal film about a father and daughter, alone for 90% of the movie, in a post apocalyptic wilderness. Affleck is the nameless “dad” to the pre-teen daughter he dotes on and will do anything to protect, named “Rag”, for reasons that are explained beautifully in the narrative.
Played by promising newcomer Anna Pniowsky, it is a testament to Affleck’s skill and sensitivity as actor and director that Rag always feels as important and centre stage as the “star” of the show. The film begins very unusually with a 7 minute static dialogue between the two, which demonstrates the relationship and energy of the film perfectly, and in such an interesting way. Pniowsky gives as good as she gets in terms of detailed characterisation, and the dynamic between the two is an absolute delight.
Inevitably, this film is always going to be seen as a poor cousin to The Road, starring Viggo Mortensen, from 2009. It is very similar, it can’t be denied. Even the idea of the parent ensuring “the light / fire” is kept alive within the child, considering that the survival of humanity in all senses is paramount, and supercedes the notion of survival at any cost. Dignity, kindness and non-violence must be maintained, or they will be lost. It is a message worth passing on – enough to make Affleck want to fly so close to the themes and tone of a bigger, well liked film. He must certainly have been aware of how similar they are.
It doesn’t always work, and I did find myself wishing for more action, or at least incident, rather than all the static talking scenes. Although they were often beautifully done, there were just one too many of them to keep the film fully engaging. The use of flashback, where we see the past they came from and the absent mother (presumed long dead) played by Elizabeth Moss, who does not get enough screen time to leave a mark, also doesn’t fully ring true.
Where it does work is in the simple beauty of the relationship between father and daughter. Her innocence and growing curiosity about the tainted world she is inheriting, and his single minded insistence on teaching her things his way and keeping her oblivious to the harshness of life for as long as possible. We begin to suspect his methods are not always the best, and that inevitably the time is coming where for good or bad she will have to find her own path without him.
Which leads to a very touching last 20 minutes I can’t possibly explain without leaving spoilers. If it wasn’t two hours but 90 minutes I believe the idea would have had more impact and not outstay its welcome. As it is, it is just a little flabby in the edit to be described as “great”, and might be otherwise described as slightly indulgent and naive, directorially. It is a tough one to pin down, because whilst I don’t think there is much wrong with it, I also don’t think there is enough right to fully recommend it to a wide audience.
I’m putting this one in the box marked “little seen gems”, intersecting with the one marked “near miss with potential”. When in a patient mood, this could be a film you relate to and enjoy. Just don’t go in expecting too much to happen and concentrate on what it means to be a parent in a cruel world. In that sense it has a lot to say and is well worth your time.
Tyler Fletcher (8 KP) rated Artemis Fowl (2020) in Movies
Jun 14, 2020
Character development (1 more)
Forgettable story
Another Live-Action Disney Adaption Bomb
Contains spoilers, click to show
What is it about fantasy novels that makes them so difficult to translate effectively to the silver screen? It’s not impossible – J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series and Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings adaptations are proof that it can be done. More often than not, however, the result is as limp and truncated as Kenneth Branagh’s Artemis Fowl – a few standout moments set adrift in a sea of underdeveloped characters, incomplete backstory elements, and abbreviated world building. Although the problem lies primarily in the difficulties associated with condensing an epic tale into a short-ish movie, the lack of elegance with which that is accomplished makes Artemis Fowl a failure for anyone hoping for the next great fantasy film.
The treatment accorded to Artemis Fowl (the movie condenses elements from the first two volumes of an eight-novel cycle into a single film) recalls a Disney misfire from more than three decades ago. Although The Black Cauldron was animated, it suffered from many of the same problems evident in Artemis Fowl: an oversimplification of the backstory, a rushed narrative with poorly realized characters, and a overall lack of faithfulness to the source material. The Black Cauldron worked better because it at least had a clean ending. Artemis Fowl suffers by trying to both provide a credible stopping point (in case there are no additional films) and offering a lead-in to additional adventures (in case there are additional films).
In the books, 12-year old Artemis (played by Ferdia Shaw, the grandson of Robert Shaw) is presented as an anti-hero (although, over the course of the saga, his villainous attributes fade to be replaced by heroic ones). Here, he’s more of a misunderstood boy-genius whose role as the protagonist is never in question. All of his edges have been smoothed out. The story focuses on Artemis’ efforts to locate and rescue his father, Artemis Fowl Sr. (Colin Farrell), an infamous art thief who has been kidnapped by the twisted evil fairy Opal Koboi. Her ransom for releasing him is that Artemis must locate and obtain a powerful McGuffin. He is joined in his efforts by Lower Elements Police (LEP) fairy police officer Holly Short (Lara McDonnell), giant dwarf Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad), and strongman Domovoi Butler (Nonso Anozie).
Artemis Fowl diverges considerably from the two books that form its basis, Artemis Fowl and Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. Although author Eoin Colfer reportedly “approved” the changes, they push the film into an alternate universe from the one occupied by the novels. Even with the pruning of subplots and condensation of the narrative, 100 minutes is too short to tell the story effectively. None of the characters are well-developed, including Artemis. The boy’s relationship with Holly Short evolves with whiplash-inducing rapidity – one moment, they’re enemies (actually, she’s his prisoner), the next they’re friends. The film’s frenetic pace might work for ADD viewers and preteens but there’s no time for world-building or anything more than the most basic exposition. As a result, Artemis Fowl feels rushed to the point of being exhausting and strangely confusing despite the relatively straightforward storyline.
Kenneth Branagh was undoubtedly selected to direct the film based on his success with two earlier Disney properties: the live-action Cinderella and Marvel’s Thor. Perhaps because Branagh had no input into the screenplay (which was completed before he came on board), the movie lacks the complex psychological qualities he normally brings to his films. Visually, Artemis Fowl is impressive. However, although the fairy world of Haven is beautifully rendered, it appears all-too-briefly. The film’s most impressive sequence, a throwdown with a seemingly invincible troll, is a standout by any definition, but it represents only about five minutes of screen time and there’s nothing else that comes close – not even the muted climax.
As is often the case, Branagh’s presence at the top results in some impressive names in the cast. The young leads are newcomers – this is Ferdia Shaw’s first movie (and it shows – his performance is occasionally wooden) and Lara McDonnell’s third (she’s better, evidencing an indomitable pluckiness) – but the rest of the cast is populated with veterans. Josh Gad, another Disney regular, has the most openly comedic role of the film as Mulch Diggums. Colin Farrell is called on for limited duty as Artemis’ mostly-absent father. Nonso Anozie, who has a history with Branagh, plays Artemis’ protector and advisor. Finally, Judi Dench adds a dose of class as Holly’s no-nonsense boss.
It has taken Artemis Fowl nearly 20 years to traverse the route from page to screen and one senses that neither fans nor newcomers will be especially pleased with the end result. Recognizing that the film faced rough seas, Disney postponed the movie’s originally planned August 2019 release to May 2020 then, when the coronavirus made that impossible, the studio elected to shift the film to its Disney+ platform. Although partially a face-saving gesture (Artemis Fowl would likely have had a similar box office reception to Disney’s underwhelming 2018 release, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms), it at least allows the film to find a large audience in a low-pressure situation.
The bottom line seems to be that, while Disney has shown an aptitude for making many different kinds of movies, fantasy epics aren’t among them. This is one genre the Magic Kingdom should perhaps avoid, leaving such properties to studios that have shown better success (such as Warner Brothers). Artemis Fowl could have been the beginning of a movie franchise but, based on the first installment, it’s more likely a one-and-done outing. Disney can't quite get away from the John Carters can they?
THIS FILM IS AN EXCEPTIONAL BOMB
The treatment accorded to Artemis Fowl (the movie condenses elements from the first two volumes of an eight-novel cycle into a single film) recalls a Disney misfire from more than three decades ago. Although The Black Cauldron was animated, it suffered from many of the same problems evident in Artemis Fowl: an oversimplification of the backstory, a rushed narrative with poorly realized characters, and a overall lack of faithfulness to the source material. The Black Cauldron worked better because it at least had a clean ending. Artemis Fowl suffers by trying to both provide a credible stopping point (in case there are no additional films) and offering a lead-in to additional adventures (in case there are additional films).
In the books, 12-year old Artemis (played by Ferdia Shaw, the grandson of Robert Shaw) is presented as an anti-hero (although, over the course of the saga, his villainous attributes fade to be replaced by heroic ones). Here, he’s more of a misunderstood boy-genius whose role as the protagonist is never in question. All of his edges have been smoothed out. The story focuses on Artemis’ efforts to locate and rescue his father, Artemis Fowl Sr. (Colin Farrell), an infamous art thief who has been kidnapped by the twisted evil fairy Opal Koboi. Her ransom for releasing him is that Artemis must locate and obtain a powerful McGuffin. He is joined in his efforts by Lower Elements Police (LEP) fairy police officer Holly Short (Lara McDonnell), giant dwarf Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad), and strongman Domovoi Butler (Nonso Anozie).
Artemis Fowl diverges considerably from the two books that form its basis, Artemis Fowl and Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. Although author Eoin Colfer reportedly “approved” the changes, they push the film into an alternate universe from the one occupied by the novels. Even with the pruning of subplots and condensation of the narrative, 100 minutes is too short to tell the story effectively. None of the characters are well-developed, including Artemis. The boy’s relationship with Holly Short evolves with whiplash-inducing rapidity – one moment, they’re enemies (actually, she’s his prisoner), the next they’re friends. The film’s frenetic pace might work for ADD viewers and preteens but there’s no time for world-building or anything more than the most basic exposition. As a result, Artemis Fowl feels rushed to the point of being exhausting and strangely confusing despite the relatively straightforward storyline.
Kenneth Branagh was undoubtedly selected to direct the film based on his success with two earlier Disney properties: the live-action Cinderella and Marvel’s Thor. Perhaps because Branagh had no input into the screenplay (which was completed before he came on board), the movie lacks the complex psychological qualities he normally brings to his films. Visually, Artemis Fowl is impressive. However, although the fairy world of Haven is beautifully rendered, it appears all-too-briefly. The film’s most impressive sequence, a throwdown with a seemingly invincible troll, is a standout by any definition, but it represents only about five minutes of screen time and there’s nothing else that comes close – not even the muted climax.
As is often the case, Branagh’s presence at the top results in some impressive names in the cast. The young leads are newcomers – this is Ferdia Shaw’s first movie (and it shows – his performance is occasionally wooden) and Lara McDonnell’s third (she’s better, evidencing an indomitable pluckiness) – but the rest of the cast is populated with veterans. Josh Gad, another Disney regular, has the most openly comedic role of the film as Mulch Diggums. Colin Farrell is called on for limited duty as Artemis’ mostly-absent father. Nonso Anozie, who has a history with Branagh, plays Artemis’ protector and advisor. Finally, Judi Dench adds a dose of class as Holly’s no-nonsense boss.
It has taken Artemis Fowl nearly 20 years to traverse the route from page to screen and one senses that neither fans nor newcomers will be especially pleased with the end result. Recognizing that the film faced rough seas, Disney postponed the movie’s originally planned August 2019 release to May 2020 then, when the coronavirus made that impossible, the studio elected to shift the film to its Disney+ platform. Although partially a face-saving gesture (Artemis Fowl would likely have had a similar box office reception to Disney’s underwhelming 2018 release, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms), it at least allows the film to find a large audience in a low-pressure situation.
The bottom line seems to be that, while Disney has shown an aptitude for making many different kinds of movies, fantasy epics aren’t among them. This is one genre the Magic Kingdom should perhaps avoid, leaving such properties to studios that have shown better success (such as Warner Brothers). Artemis Fowl could have been the beginning of a movie franchise but, based on the first installment, it’s more likely a one-and-done outing. Disney can't quite get away from the John Carters can they?
THIS FILM IS AN EXCEPTIONAL BOMB
Lee (2222 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
Jul 14, 2017
After a pretty lengthy drought, we finally get another decent DC movie
As the DC TV universe continues to go from strength to strength, the DC movie universe is gradually going downhill. Don’t get me wrong, I really liked Man of Steel, despite the overloaded CGI destruction at the end. I didn’t mind Batman Vs Superman either, even with Jesse Eisenberg doing his very best to try and ruin it. But, despite successfully introducing two other major DC heavyweight characters (and not so successfully introducing a few others) and picking up steam in the final act, the movie struggled. Suicide Squad then managed to take bad to a completely new level, and was just a complete train-wreck.
Batman Vs Superman was our first introduction to Wonder Woman in the DC movie universe, and she was the most entertaining and promising aspect of the whole movie. As a child of the 70s, I grew up watching and enjoying the Wonder Woman TV show, along with re-runs of the Batman 60s show and of course the Christopher Reeve Superman movies. After all these years of countless Batman and Superman movies, it was great to not only see Wonder Woman finally on the big screen, but also to see her being portrayed so well. Now, with her standalone movie coming out a few months before the mediocre looking Justice League movie, this is not only an important movie for DC but also an important first step in finally bringing strong female superheroes to the big screen. Paving the way for Captain Marvel, a Black Widow standalone movie, and more. This had to be good.
Thankfully, it is. Although there’s still a long way to go in order to reach the level that Marvel already managed to achieve many movies ago, this is indeed a serious step up for DC. Opening with a brief scene set in present day, Wonder Woman then takes us back to Themyscira. A paradise island, hidden from view from the rest of the world, where a young Diana lives peacefully among her Amazon tribe. Despite their peaceful existence though, the Amazons are constantly preparing themselves for the return of Ares, God of War. Archery and combat training is undertaken daily on the island, under the guidance of Dianas aunt, General Antiope (Robin Wright). Diana is keen to train too and her reluctant mother, Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen), eventually agrees, requesting that General Antiope train her hard and make her the best. As Diana grows into a woman, training has clearly gone well and she’s even managing to give her aunt a good run for her money! Just in time too as World War 1 pilot Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) crashes through the invisible barrier cloaking the island and crash lands into the sea, closely followed by a bunch of Germans who are on his tail. Time for the Amazon women to put their training to good use, but not without some casualties…
Steve tells Diana of the great war that’s raging throughout the world and Diana believes this to be the return of Ares. She decides to leave her home and travel with Steve to put an end to Ares once and for all. So, she grabs her shield and lasso of truth and ‘borrows’ the sacred ‘God Killer’ sword from the tower it rests in and off they go. Leaving behind the bright, vibrant island of Themyscira and returning to the traditional, dark grey pallet of colours that we’re used to seeing in our DC movies as they head to war-torn London.
Steve takes over as charming tour guide as Diana enters the human world for the first time. Her innocence and curiosity of the modern world are played beautifully by Gadot, with plenty of fish-out-of-water style humour too. But she’s also never afraid to question and stand up for what she believes in and tackle those who try and oppose her, giving an interesting perspective on aspects of humanity which deserve to be questioned. Her drive to get to the front-line of war, to seek out Ares and supposedly end all war by defeating him, constantly driving her forward. Romance eventually blossoms between Diana and Steve, but it feels natural and believable and helps to hold the movie together during some of its slower moments.
When Wonder Woman manages to get to the front line and steps out into no-mans land, ignoring the advice of Steve and those around her, it’s magnificent. It heralds the first in a series of magnificent action sequences involving German soldiers as she puts her training to good use. Initially shielding herself from the onslaught of bullets before moving onto the offensive with some bad-ass combat moves, slo-mo back-flips, jumps, whip action and displays of pure power and strength. Everything we got a glimpse of in Batman Vs Superman, ramped up to the max, perfectly executed and accompanied by a rocking soundtrack!
Where Wonder Woman doesn’t work so well is in the handling of its villains. Whenever we switch to General Ludendorff and Doctor Poison, busily developing deadly gases to unleash, momentum seems to be lost. And as for Ares, when we do finally meet him he’s pretty laughable, with no clearly defined motivation or character. Following a bit of villain monologue, we get the general gist of what his beef is and then the last 20 minutes or so descend into the over the top CG destruction that we’re so used to seeing now in these movies. It’s a minor gripe, and not handled as badly as some previous movies, but along with the pacing issues it does affect the overall enjoyment of the movie somewhat.
None of this detracts from Wonder Woman herself though. Gal Gadot has truly made this role her own and displays the perfect mix of strength, beauty, brains, confidence, determination and general all-round girl power. She can more than hold her own in the DC universe and should hopefully be a prominent force in the upcoming Justice League movie and beyond.
Batman Vs Superman was our first introduction to Wonder Woman in the DC movie universe, and she was the most entertaining and promising aspect of the whole movie. As a child of the 70s, I grew up watching and enjoying the Wonder Woman TV show, along with re-runs of the Batman 60s show and of course the Christopher Reeve Superman movies. After all these years of countless Batman and Superman movies, it was great to not only see Wonder Woman finally on the big screen, but also to see her being portrayed so well. Now, with her standalone movie coming out a few months before the mediocre looking Justice League movie, this is not only an important movie for DC but also an important first step in finally bringing strong female superheroes to the big screen. Paving the way for Captain Marvel, a Black Widow standalone movie, and more. This had to be good.
Thankfully, it is. Although there’s still a long way to go in order to reach the level that Marvel already managed to achieve many movies ago, this is indeed a serious step up for DC. Opening with a brief scene set in present day, Wonder Woman then takes us back to Themyscira. A paradise island, hidden from view from the rest of the world, where a young Diana lives peacefully among her Amazon tribe. Despite their peaceful existence though, the Amazons are constantly preparing themselves for the return of Ares, God of War. Archery and combat training is undertaken daily on the island, under the guidance of Dianas aunt, General Antiope (Robin Wright). Diana is keen to train too and her reluctant mother, Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen), eventually agrees, requesting that General Antiope train her hard and make her the best. As Diana grows into a woman, training has clearly gone well and she’s even managing to give her aunt a good run for her money! Just in time too as World War 1 pilot Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) crashes through the invisible barrier cloaking the island and crash lands into the sea, closely followed by a bunch of Germans who are on his tail. Time for the Amazon women to put their training to good use, but not without some casualties…
Steve tells Diana of the great war that’s raging throughout the world and Diana believes this to be the return of Ares. She decides to leave her home and travel with Steve to put an end to Ares once and for all. So, she grabs her shield and lasso of truth and ‘borrows’ the sacred ‘God Killer’ sword from the tower it rests in and off they go. Leaving behind the bright, vibrant island of Themyscira and returning to the traditional, dark grey pallet of colours that we’re used to seeing in our DC movies as they head to war-torn London.
Steve takes over as charming tour guide as Diana enters the human world for the first time. Her innocence and curiosity of the modern world are played beautifully by Gadot, with plenty of fish-out-of-water style humour too. But she’s also never afraid to question and stand up for what she believes in and tackle those who try and oppose her, giving an interesting perspective on aspects of humanity which deserve to be questioned. Her drive to get to the front-line of war, to seek out Ares and supposedly end all war by defeating him, constantly driving her forward. Romance eventually blossoms between Diana and Steve, but it feels natural and believable and helps to hold the movie together during some of its slower moments.
When Wonder Woman manages to get to the front line and steps out into no-mans land, ignoring the advice of Steve and those around her, it’s magnificent. It heralds the first in a series of magnificent action sequences involving German soldiers as she puts her training to good use. Initially shielding herself from the onslaught of bullets before moving onto the offensive with some bad-ass combat moves, slo-mo back-flips, jumps, whip action and displays of pure power and strength. Everything we got a glimpse of in Batman Vs Superman, ramped up to the max, perfectly executed and accompanied by a rocking soundtrack!
Where Wonder Woman doesn’t work so well is in the handling of its villains. Whenever we switch to General Ludendorff and Doctor Poison, busily developing deadly gases to unleash, momentum seems to be lost. And as for Ares, when we do finally meet him he’s pretty laughable, with no clearly defined motivation or character. Following a bit of villain monologue, we get the general gist of what his beef is and then the last 20 minutes or so descend into the over the top CG destruction that we’re so used to seeing now in these movies. It’s a minor gripe, and not handled as badly as some previous movies, but along with the pacing issues it does affect the overall enjoyment of the movie somewhat.
None of this detracts from Wonder Woman herself though. Gal Gadot has truly made this role her own and displays the perfect mix of strength, beauty, brains, confidence, determination and general all-round girl power. She can more than hold her own in the DC universe and should hopefully be a prominent force in the upcoming Justice League movie and beyond.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Nightmares: A New Decade of Modern Horror in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Shallaballah by [a:Mark Samuels|679023|Mark Samuels|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1485638875p2/679023.jpg]
Weird and I didn't completely understand it. I'm not big on surreal-like stories.
1.5 stars
Sob in the Silence by [a:Gene Wolfe|23069|Gene Wolfe|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1207670073p2/23069.jpg]
I liked it okay, but wasn't wowed. I feel like there was a missed opportunity and that the ending was too abrupt.
3 stars
Our Tun Too Will One Day Come by [a:Brian Hodge|167606|Brian Hodge|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1326937946p2/167606.jpg]
Folklore and horror equal an interesting tale. I'd read more from Brian Hodge.
4 stars
Dead Sea Fruit by [a:Kaaron Warren|1207458|Kaaron Warren|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1303270263p2/1207458.jpg]
So far the best in the book. Perfectly paced and pretty darned creepy.
4.5 stars
Closet Dreams by [a:Lisa Tuttle|38313|Lisa Tuttle|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1296860221p2/38313.jpg]
Haunting. That's the first word that popped into my head when I finished this story. Also, disturbing, sad, and devastating. Trigger warning: <spoiler>pedophilia and abduction, although not described in any kind of detail</spoiler>
5 stars
Spectral Evidence by [a:Gemma Files|765702|Gemma Files|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1266869494p2/765702.jpg]
I had a hard time with this, especially at the beginning since it's written as a case study with footnotes. Had this been written as a regular short story, I do believe the horror is there for a good tale, but as it stands it didn't feel at all scary or nightmarish.
2.5 stars
Hushabye by [a:Simon Bestwick|2830642|Simon Bestwick|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png]
This was...okay. It sorta fit the book, but it also sorta didn't. The story almost felt noir, but not quite, plus everything was rather vague. Not bad, but fine.
3 stars
Very Low-Flying Aircraft by [a:Nicholas Royle|20435|Nicholas Royle|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png]
The only horror in this is the fact that it's included in a horror anthology. I'm not even sure what the point was.
1.5 stars
The Goosle by [a:Margo Lanagan|277536|Margo Lanagan|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1361153347p2/277536.jpg]
Meh. An even more twisted sequel of sorts to Hansel and Gretel sans Gretel. While it's gory, it didn't bother me but I didn't love it.
3 stars
The Clay Party by [a:Steve Duffy|376166|Steve Duffy|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1329037438p2/376166.jpg]
A take on the Donner Party told through diary entries and a letter at the end.
4 stars
Strappado by [a:Laird Barron|466494|Laird Barron|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1446325324p2/466494.jpg]
This didn't do anything for me; it was just too vague.
2 stars
Lonegan's Luck by [a:Stephen Graham Jones|96300|Stephen Graham Jones|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1458951688p2/96300.jpg]
Interesting, the writing and pace was good. The MC is a conman of the old(?) West. I didn't understand why he did what he did exactly, like were there circumstances of something that happened to the country as a whole, but it's not such a big thing. I only hoped he'd get a taste of his own medicine, so to speak.
3 stars
Mr. Pigsny by [a:Reggie Oliver|518983|Reggie Oliver|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1477924368p2/518983.jpg]
An odd, creepy little tale.
4 stars
At Night, When the Demons Come by [a:Ray Cluley|4446653|Ray Cluley|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png]
Perfectly told, perfectly paced, with a horrible-ish ending. Definitely memorable.
4.5 stars
Was She Wicked? Was She Good by [a:Mary Rickert|7344680|Mary Rickert|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] (as M. Rickert)
Meh. Not bad, but not great either. I don't really have much to say about it.
3 stars
The Shallows by [a:John Langan|58413|John Langan|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png]
I honestly don't even remember this one so it must not have been all that bad or good.
2 stars
Little Pig by [a:Anna Taborska|4343515|Anna Taborska|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png]
Horrific only in the way of what you might do to for the survival of those you love. A quirky start with an powerful ending.
4 stars
Omphalos by [a:Livia Llewellyn|2966042|Livia Llewellyn|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1298571003p2/2966042.jpg]
Well-written but definitely not one for everybody. It's sick, a little too descriptive with the incest. I don't need an actual scene with explicitness. While I felt sorry for the MC and her brother, the story made me sad for actual victims. Possibly the point, but it's an upsetting story that some should probably skip. Also, what happened in the end? I get some of it, but it was so confusing and vague that I didn't fully comprehend the conclusion. It doesn't matter much, but I'm getting tired of vague endings or other scenes in these stories.
3.5 stars
How We Escaped Our Certain Fate by [a:Dan Chaon|16560|Dan Chaon|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1241719844p2/16560.jpg]
Interesting and thoughtful zombie tale. Slightly melancholy.
3.5 stars
That Tiny Flutter of The Heart I Used to Call Love by [a:Robert Shearman|128037|Robert Shearman|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1363523036p2/128037.jpg]
Strange. I'm not sure exactly what I thought of this tale, and I'm not sure I totally get what happened at the end, but that seems to be my lot with some of these stories.
3 stars
Interstate Love Song (Murder Ballad No. 8) by [a:Caitlín R. Kiernan|4798562|Caitlín R. Kiernan|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1491390729p2/4798562.jpg]
I liked this story. It was....interesting to say the least. Not my favorite but solid.
3.75 stars
Shay Corsham Worsted by [a:Garth Nix|8347|Garth Nix|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1207583754p2/8347.jpg]
3.5 stars
The Atlas of Hell by [a:Nathan Ballingrud|2957979|Nathan Ballingrud|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1354770124p2/2957979.jpg]
4.5 stars
Ambitious Boys Like You by [a:Richard Kadrey|37557|Richard Kadrey|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1252945001p2/37557.jpg]
4 - 4.5 stars
Okay, I kinda ran out of reviewing steam near the end, but the last two stories were excellent.
Weird and I didn't completely understand it. I'm not big on surreal-like stories.
1.5 stars
Sob in the Silence by [a:Gene Wolfe|23069|Gene Wolfe|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1207670073p2/23069.jpg]
I liked it okay, but wasn't wowed. I feel like there was a missed opportunity and that the ending was too abrupt.
3 stars
Our Tun Too Will One Day Come by [a:Brian Hodge|167606|Brian Hodge|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1326937946p2/167606.jpg]
Folklore and horror equal an interesting tale. I'd read more from Brian Hodge.
4 stars
Dead Sea Fruit by [a:Kaaron Warren|1207458|Kaaron Warren|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1303270263p2/1207458.jpg]
So far the best in the book. Perfectly paced and pretty darned creepy.
4.5 stars
Closet Dreams by [a:Lisa Tuttle|38313|Lisa Tuttle|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1296860221p2/38313.jpg]
Haunting. That's the first word that popped into my head when I finished this story. Also, disturbing, sad, and devastating. Trigger warning: <spoiler>pedophilia and abduction, although not described in any kind of detail</spoiler>
5 stars
Spectral Evidence by [a:Gemma Files|765702|Gemma Files|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1266869494p2/765702.jpg]
I had a hard time with this, especially at the beginning since it's written as a case study with footnotes. Had this been written as a regular short story, I do believe the horror is there for a good tale, but as it stands it didn't feel at all scary or nightmarish.
2.5 stars
Hushabye by [a:Simon Bestwick|2830642|Simon Bestwick|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png]
This was...okay. It sorta fit the book, but it also sorta didn't. The story almost felt noir, but not quite, plus everything was rather vague. Not bad, but fine.
3 stars
Very Low-Flying Aircraft by [a:Nicholas Royle|20435|Nicholas Royle|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/m_50x66-82093808bca726cb3249a493fbd3bd0f.png]
The only horror in this is the fact that it's included in a horror anthology. I'm not even sure what the point was.
1.5 stars
The Goosle by [a:Margo Lanagan|277536|Margo Lanagan|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1361153347p2/277536.jpg]
Meh. An even more twisted sequel of sorts to Hansel and Gretel sans Gretel. While it's gory, it didn't bother me but I didn't love it.
3 stars
The Clay Party by [a:Steve Duffy|376166|Steve Duffy|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1329037438p2/376166.jpg]
A take on the Donner Party told through diary entries and a letter at the end.
4 stars
Strappado by [a:Laird Barron|466494|Laird Barron|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1446325324p2/466494.jpg]
This didn't do anything for me; it was just too vague.
2 stars
Lonegan's Luck by [a:Stephen Graham Jones|96300|Stephen Graham Jones|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1458951688p2/96300.jpg]
Interesting, the writing and pace was good. The MC is a conman of the old(?) West. I didn't understand why he did what he did exactly, like were there circumstances of something that happened to the country as a whole, but it's not such a big thing. I only hoped he'd get a taste of his own medicine, so to speak.
3 stars
Mr. Pigsny by [a:Reggie Oliver|518983|Reggie Oliver|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1477924368p2/518983.jpg]
An odd, creepy little tale.
4 stars
At Night, When the Demons Come by [a:Ray Cluley|4446653|Ray Cluley|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png]
Perfectly told, perfectly paced, with a horrible-ish ending. Definitely memorable.
4.5 stars
Was She Wicked? Was She Good by [a:Mary Rickert|7344680|Mary Rickert|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png] (as M. Rickert)
Meh. Not bad, but not great either. I don't really have much to say about it.
3 stars
The Shallows by [a:John Langan|58413|John Langan|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png]
I honestly don't even remember this one so it must not have been all that bad or good.
2 stars
Little Pig by [a:Anna Taborska|4343515|Anna Taborska|https://s.gr-assets.com/assets/nophoto/user/u_50x66-632230dc9882b4352d753eedf9396530.png]
Horrific only in the way of what you might do to for the survival of those you love. A quirky start with an powerful ending.
4 stars
Omphalos by [a:Livia Llewellyn|2966042|Livia Llewellyn|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1298571003p2/2966042.jpg]
Well-written but definitely not one for everybody. It's sick, a little too descriptive with the incest. I don't need an actual scene with explicitness. While I felt sorry for the MC and her brother, the story made me sad for actual victims. Possibly the point, but it's an upsetting story that some should probably skip. Also, what happened in the end? I get some of it, but it was so confusing and vague that I didn't fully comprehend the conclusion. It doesn't matter much, but I'm getting tired of vague endings or other scenes in these stories.
3.5 stars
How We Escaped Our Certain Fate by [a:Dan Chaon|16560|Dan Chaon|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1241719844p2/16560.jpg]
Interesting and thoughtful zombie tale. Slightly melancholy.
3.5 stars
That Tiny Flutter of The Heart I Used to Call Love by [a:Robert Shearman|128037|Robert Shearman|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1363523036p2/128037.jpg]
Strange. I'm not sure exactly what I thought of this tale, and I'm not sure I totally get what happened at the end, but that seems to be my lot with some of these stories.
3 stars
Interstate Love Song (Murder Ballad No. 8) by [a:Caitlín R. Kiernan|4798562|Caitlín R. Kiernan|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1491390729p2/4798562.jpg]
I liked this story. It was....interesting to say the least. Not my favorite but solid.
3.75 stars
Shay Corsham Worsted by [a:Garth Nix|8347|Garth Nix|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1207583754p2/8347.jpg]
3.5 stars
The Atlas of Hell by [a:Nathan Ballingrud|2957979|Nathan Ballingrud|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1354770124p2/2957979.jpg]
4.5 stars
Ambitious Boys Like You by [a:Richard Kadrey|37557|Richard Kadrey|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1252945001p2/37557.jpg]
4 - 4.5 stars
Okay, I kinda ran out of reviewing steam near the end, but the last two stories were excellent.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Kids of Appetite in Books
Dec 14, 2018
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good.</i>
<i>Mosquitoland </i>was the best book I read last year (2015) and I was excited to discover what David Arnold would write next. I approached<i> Kids of Appetite</i> with mild trepidation; what if it did not live up to my expectations? Need not have worried – it was brilliant. Dubbed a “tragicomedy” <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a combination of realistic, heartbreaking experiences with intellectual humour.
The book opens mid interview at a local police station where two teenagers, Vic and Mad, are being questioned about a murder their friend has supposedly committed. From there, the story backtracks a week and proceeds to bring the reader up to date. It all begins with Vic running away from home, distancing himself from his mother and her new partner. By chance, a coincidence – a bump, Vic would say – he is found by Mad who introduces him to a small group of homeless friends. Vic may not have packed in preparation for life on the streets – or in a greenhouse as it turns out – however he did grab the urn containing his late father’s ashes before racing out of the house. Along with the urn is a letter containing cryptic clues that lead to various locations that Vic’s father wished for his ashes to be scattered. He, along with his new found friends; make it a mission to put his father to rest.
It is not possible to label the general theme of the book. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a story full of stories. Each character has their own past, something that led them to the situation they find themselves in now. The group consists of five members – once Vic has been accepted. Baz, at age twenty-seven, is clearly the leader: responsible, caring, and fatherly – until accused of murder. Seven years younger is Zuz, Baz’s mute brother, and finally Coco, an eleven year old with the mouth of a foul old lady. It is Coco, amongst all her swearing and hilarious misuse of words, that coins the name <i>Kids of Appetite, KOA</i> for short, a play on words: they are not solely in want of food, they hunger for life.
Initially it would appear that the main focus will be on Vic: his father’s death, his mother’s new partner, Moebius (facial paralysis) – a syndrome that results in a lot of bullying and discrimination – and, of course, his flight from home. However the remaining members of <i>KOA </i>equally contribute to the overall narrative. Mad, like Vic, knows what it is like to lose a father. Unfortunately she also knows what it is like to lose a mother. Her life since the fateful car crash that left her and orphan has been full of abuse and uncertainty. Baz and Zuz, on the other hand, have escaped a traumatizing childhood in the midst of the Congo Civil War.
Similarly with <i>Mosquitoland</i>, Arnold’s second book is full of intellectual knowledge and humour complete with references to highbrow material. Vic is obsessed with an operatic song and deeply interested in abstract art, particularly Matisse. He pulls the artist’s work apart in search of meaning and relatable truths of life. Like Vic, Mad has a particular song she draws comfort from. The lyrics help her make sense of the world around her, and produce her own manifesto – Madifesto, rather. She is particularly fascinated by S E Hinton’s <i>The Outsiders</i> – a book I have not read, but am obviously going to now. With in-depth theories purloined from her favourite novel, she encourages and advises those around her.
The murder investigation is evidently another key point of the book. I do not want to say too much on the matter as it would not be fair to give the ending away. Be reassured that<i> Kids of Appetite</i> is not a thriller, crime or horror novel; it is the events and dialogue leading up to the conclusion that make up the greatest parts of the story.
It is essentially the characters that make <i>Kids of Appetite</i> such a fantastic work of fiction. Their background stories are all based on real life experiences of many people throughout the world, but it is their opinion of life, their terminology, and their reckless enthusiasm that really impacts the reader. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book to be read over and over again. So many phrases can be lifted and quoted to explain our own lives and feelings. In fact, the entire novel is one big quote to sum up life itself. Although there are so many themes, stories and ideas, there is one clear message. Let go. Let go of the past. Let go of the things that hold you back. For Vic and Mad it is the death of their parents; for Coco it is abandonment; and Baz and Zuz learn to let go of their violent childhood.
David Arnold is an extremely talented author, seamlessly flowing from one notion to another, whilst sweeping the reader into a sea of pure emotion. He may over use the word “ergo” and have an unconventional penchant for ellipses, but that only adds to the uniqueness of the writing. There may be an excessive amount of expletives, however that is overshadowed by the pure genius of the story itself. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book I want to recommend to all. The blurb likens it to authors Rainbow Rowell and Jennifer Niven – I would like to throw John Green into the mix – and should appeal to many Young Adult readers. I could write forever about this book, but I would rather you go and read it yourself. And whilst you read, remember:
<i>They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good. </i>
They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good.</i>
<i>Mosquitoland </i>was the best book I read last year (2015) and I was excited to discover what David Arnold would write next. I approached<i> Kids of Appetite</i> with mild trepidation; what if it did not live up to my expectations? Need not have worried – it was brilliant. Dubbed a “tragicomedy” <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a combination of realistic, heartbreaking experiences with intellectual humour.
The book opens mid interview at a local police station where two teenagers, Vic and Mad, are being questioned about a murder their friend has supposedly committed. From there, the story backtracks a week and proceeds to bring the reader up to date. It all begins with Vic running away from home, distancing himself from his mother and her new partner. By chance, a coincidence – a bump, Vic would say – he is found by Mad who introduces him to a small group of homeless friends. Vic may not have packed in preparation for life on the streets – or in a greenhouse as it turns out – however he did grab the urn containing his late father’s ashes before racing out of the house. Along with the urn is a letter containing cryptic clues that lead to various locations that Vic’s father wished for his ashes to be scattered. He, along with his new found friends; make it a mission to put his father to rest.
It is not possible to label the general theme of the book. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a story full of stories. Each character has their own past, something that led them to the situation they find themselves in now. The group consists of five members – once Vic has been accepted. Baz, at age twenty-seven, is clearly the leader: responsible, caring, and fatherly – until accused of murder. Seven years younger is Zuz, Baz’s mute brother, and finally Coco, an eleven year old with the mouth of a foul old lady. It is Coco, amongst all her swearing and hilarious misuse of words, that coins the name <i>Kids of Appetite, KOA</i> for short, a play on words: they are not solely in want of food, they hunger for life.
Initially it would appear that the main focus will be on Vic: his father’s death, his mother’s new partner, Moebius (facial paralysis) – a syndrome that results in a lot of bullying and discrimination – and, of course, his flight from home. However the remaining members of <i>KOA </i>equally contribute to the overall narrative. Mad, like Vic, knows what it is like to lose a father. Unfortunately she also knows what it is like to lose a mother. Her life since the fateful car crash that left her and orphan has been full of abuse and uncertainty. Baz and Zuz, on the other hand, have escaped a traumatizing childhood in the midst of the Congo Civil War.
Similarly with <i>Mosquitoland</i>, Arnold’s second book is full of intellectual knowledge and humour complete with references to highbrow material. Vic is obsessed with an operatic song and deeply interested in abstract art, particularly Matisse. He pulls the artist’s work apart in search of meaning and relatable truths of life. Like Vic, Mad has a particular song she draws comfort from. The lyrics help her make sense of the world around her, and produce her own manifesto – Madifesto, rather. She is particularly fascinated by S E Hinton’s <i>The Outsiders</i> – a book I have not read, but am obviously going to now. With in-depth theories purloined from her favourite novel, she encourages and advises those around her.
The murder investigation is evidently another key point of the book. I do not want to say too much on the matter as it would not be fair to give the ending away. Be reassured that<i> Kids of Appetite</i> is not a thriller, crime or horror novel; it is the events and dialogue leading up to the conclusion that make up the greatest parts of the story.
It is essentially the characters that make <i>Kids of Appetite</i> such a fantastic work of fiction. Their background stories are all based on real life experiences of many people throughout the world, but it is their opinion of life, their terminology, and their reckless enthusiasm that really impacts the reader. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book to be read over and over again. So many phrases can be lifted and quoted to explain our own lives and feelings. In fact, the entire novel is one big quote to sum up life itself. Although there are so many themes, stories and ideas, there is one clear message. Let go. Let go of the past. Let go of the things that hold you back. For Vic and Mad it is the death of their parents; for Coco it is abandonment; and Baz and Zuz learn to let go of their violent childhood.
David Arnold is an extremely talented author, seamlessly flowing from one notion to another, whilst sweeping the reader into a sea of pure emotion. He may over use the word “ergo” and have an unconventional penchant for ellipses, but that only adds to the uniqueness of the writing. There may be an excessive amount of expletives, however that is overshadowed by the pure genius of the story itself. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book I want to recommend to all. The blurb likens it to authors Rainbow Rowell and Jennifer Niven – I would like to throw John Green into the mix – and should appeal to many Young Adult readers. I could write forever about this book, but I would rather you go and read it yourself. And whilst you read, remember:
<i>They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good. </i>
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Growing up I remember watching Alfred Hitchcock Presents on USA network and catching the occasional twilight zone on the weekends. In fact, it’s hard to believe that our second TV was a small black and white 13” TV that we would watch all types of shows on when our living room TV was otherwise preoccupied. While all these shows were only available in black and white, they still portrayed a frightening imagery that likely would lose a lot of their suspense if the show had been presented in color. The Lighthouse, the second feature directed by Robert Eggers (The Witch) utilizes not only a black and white picture to build on the dread of loneliness the film wishes to convey, but also presents itself in a boxy format, to better mimic silent films of a bygone era.
The Lighthouse features Willem Dafoe as Thomas Wake, a grizzled old lighthouse keeper who begins his four-week duty on a secluded lighthouse with Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson), a man who has never worked a lighthouse in his young life. Thomas a former seaman who longs for his time back on the waves directs Ephraim around in his duties as one would expect from an experienced sea captain, teaching Ephraim the way of a lighthouse keeper. One rule that Ephraim must obey is that no one manages the light except Thomas, and no one may look upon its glory except Thomas. Reluctant to obey but not wishing to lose his pay Ephraim obliges and the two spend four weeks managing their duties as best as they can.
It’s after the four weeks, when their relief fails to arrive, that things begin to go off the rails. It is here where the secrets begin to emerge, and the audience is left to wonder whether these two will ever make it off the island. It’s here where the film begins to intensify as the struggle for survival with dwindling supplies, and the effects of loneliness and solitude begin to rear its ugly head. Where each mans sanity will be tested and the bond, they have built over the past four weeks will be put to the test.
The Lighthouse is a movie that is difficult to put into any one genre. Much of the movie plays out like a drama, where the old man and the newcomer work to overcome their differences as one mentors the other. The movie always has an underlying sense of dread, wondering what will come next. As the film progresses, the genre changes, and the suspense and horror begin to develop. What was a job where each man understood their roles becomes a race for survival. The questions begin to mount as we see the characters relationship morph and change. Why did Ephraim choose a life of solitude so far from civilization?
Why doesn’t Thomas allow anyone to man the light but him? What is each men hiding from one another?
William Dafoe does another outstanding job as the gruff, old lighthouse keeper. His accent, mannerisms and evening toasts all are performed with such authenticity that it’s hard to distinguish the actor from the character.
The real surprise was the performance of Robert Pattinson who is best known for his previous works on the Twilight series. He brings so much character to the screen that I would have had a hard time recognizing him if I didn’t know he was in the movie. He delivers a performance that is likely to garner Oscar buzz, something that wouldn’t surprise fans of William Dafoe, but might shock fans of Robert Pattinson. Robert Pattinson in this role is by far the best performance he’s ever done in his career and all, including his most devoted fans, will be pleasantly surprised by his performance in this film.
As I discussed in the opening paragraph, some films and shows play best to the medium that they are recorded on. Much like the old Alfred Hitchcock movies/shows, The Lighthouse benefits from its use of black and white and its boxy presentation. While there is certainly plenty of dialog throughout, it still takes on a very “silent movie” feel. One that you could almost expect to see placards of dialog appear instead of the actual words coming out on the screen. It is this stunning use of the above that truly brings The Lighthouse alive, and if done in color would have lost much of its personality in the process.
There is a ton of imagery and symbolism which I’m sure will be argued about on numerous Reddit posts for the next few days and weeks to come. I won’t pretend to understand much of it, and I believe that Eggers leaves many of what we see open for interpretation. Everything from the lighthouse itself, to the seagulls, to the mermaids (yes you read that correctly) all are open for discussion. After watching it I couldn’t help but wonder what the discussion of this particular film would have led to in my theater appreciation course back in college. That’s not to say that you can’t simply sit back and enjoy it for what it is, I just think its far more beneficial to think of what was seen and try to understand the meaning of it all.
The Lighthouse isn’t a movie that will appeal to everyone. For those who want a scary and suspenseful movie, it would be difficult to recommend.
While it certainly has suspense, it suspenseful in the way of an old Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock movie, as opposed to something more recent like Paranormal Activity. The black and white video and the odd boxy aspect ratio may turn off a lot of folks as well, although I certainly don’t see it being as fascinating if it was done in any other way. There is a lot to love in this movie, and the character portrayals deserve the Oscar buzz that is certainly right around the corner. It’s a movie that is far easier to experience then to explain in a review, so I encourage those with even a little bit of curiosity to take the plunge and experience it for yourself.
The Lighthouse features Willem Dafoe as Thomas Wake, a grizzled old lighthouse keeper who begins his four-week duty on a secluded lighthouse with Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson), a man who has never worked a lighthouse in his young life. Thomas a former seaman who longs for his time back on the waves directs Ephraim around in his duties as one would expect from an experienced sea captain, teaching Ephraim the way of a lighthouse keeper. One rule that Ephraim must obey is that no one manages the light except Thomas, and no one may look upon its glory except Thomas. Reluctant to obey but not wishing to lose his pay Ephraim obliges and the two spend four weeks managing their duties as best as they can.
It’s after the four weeks, when their relief fails to arrive, that things begin to go off the rails. It is here where the secrets begin to emerge, and the audience is left to wonder whether these two will ever make it off the island. It’s here where the film begins to intensify as the struggle for survival with dwindling supplies, and the effects of loneliness and solitude begin to rear its ugly head. Where each mans sanity will be tested and the bond, they have built over the past four weeks will be put to the test.
The Lighthouse is a movie that is difficult to put into any one genre. Much of the movie plays out like a drama, where the old man and the newcomer work to overcome their differences as one mentors the other. The movie always has an underlying sense of dread, wondering what will come next. As the film progresses, the genre changes, and the suspense and horror begin to develop. What was a job where each man understood their roles becomes a race for survival. The questions begin to mount as we see the characters relationship morph and change. Why did Ephraim choose a life of solitude so far from civilization?
Why doesn’t Thomas allow anyone to man the light but him? What is each men hiding from one another?
William Dafoe does another outstanding job as the gruff, old lighthouse keeper. His accent, mannerisms and evening toasts all are performed with such authenticity that it’s hard to distinguish the actor from the character.
The real surprise was the performance of Robert Pattinson who is best known for his previous works on the Twilight series. He brings so much character to the screen that I would have had a hard time recognizing him if I didn’t know he was in the movie. He delivers a performance that is likely to garner Oscar buzz, something that wouldn’t surprise fans of William Dafoe, but might shock fans of Robert Pattinson. Robert Pattinson in this role is by far the best performance he’s ever done in his career and all, including his most devoted fans, will be pleasantly surprised by his performance in this film.
As I discussed in the opening paragraph, some films and shows play best to the medium that they are recorded on. Much like the old Alfred Hitchcock movies/shows, The Lighthouse benefits from its use of black and white and its boxy presentation. While there is certainly plenty of dialog throughout, it still takes on a very “silent movie” feel. One that you could almost expect to see placards of dialog appear instead of the actual words coming out on the screen. It is this stunning use of the above that truly brings The Lighthouse alive, and if done in color would have lost much of its personality in the process.
There is a ton of imagery and symbolism which I’m sure will be argued about on numerous Reddit posts for the next few days and weeks to come. I won’t pretend to understand much of it, and I believe that Eggers leaves many of what we see open for interpretation. Everything from the lighthouse itself, to the seagulls, to the mermaids (yes you read that correctly) all are open for discussion. After watching it I couldn’t help but wonder what the discussion of this particular film would have led to in my theater appreciation course back in college. That’s not to say that you can’t simply sit back and enjoy it for what it is, I just think its far more beneficial to think of what was seen and try to understand the meaning of it all.
The Lighthouse isn’t a movie that will appeal to everyone. For those who want a scary and suspenseful movie, it would be difficult to recommend.
While it certainly has suspense, it suspenseful in the way of an old Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock movie, as opposed to something more recent like Paranormal Activity. The black and white video and the odd boxy aspect ratio may turn off a lot of folks as well, although I certainly don’t see it being as fascinating if it was done in any other way. There is a lot to love in this movie, and the character portrayals deserve the Oscar buzz that is certainly right around the corner. It’s a movie that is far easier to experience then to explain in a review, so I encourage those with even a little bit of curiosity to take the plunge and experience it for yourself.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Feb 23, 2020
A complete mess, but kids will probably love it.
With the words of Mark Kermode's review ringing in my ears ("It's shockingly poor... and that's the same in any language") I was bracing myself when I went to see this latest incarnation of Hugh Lofting's famous animal-chatting character. And I have to agree that it is a shocking mess of a film, given $175 million was poured into this thing. But, and I say this cautiously without first-hand empirical evidence, I *think* this is a movie that kids in the 6 to 10 age range might fall in love with.
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Daisy's Vintage Cornish Camper Van in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<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://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Book-Review-Banner-40.png"/>;
Daisy's Vintage Cornish Camper Van by Ali McNamara is exactly the book I thought I needed to put me in a better mood!
When Ana inherits a camper van from her best friend, she needs to go to Cornwall to get it. A nice sea air and fish and chips are enver a bad choice.
But when she arrives, she realises that the camper van is in a much worse state than she imagined. The fixing will take longer than she anticipated. On top of this, Ana finds a series of unsent postcards dating back to the 1940s, hidden in the van. This is a sign and Ana wants to make sure the postcards are delivered.
And while the camper van is restored and Ana is helping other people be happy, she may eventually notice she is finding her way back to happiness again.
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
Daisy's Vintage Cornish Camper Van got my attention from the moment I saw that beautiful cover. Then, I read the synopsis and I was sold.
For me, both camper vans and postcards have a big importance in my life. I have always wanted to have a camper van and be able to go on a road trips and experience that freedom. Even though I was lucky to be able to travel the world, it is never enough.
<b><i>"Yes, there's definitely something about a camper van that makes people smile. They're a happy vehicle, so people enjoy seeing them as much as their owners enjoy driving them."</i></b>
And postcards were always a way to travel without living my home. Get to meet other places and cultures, meet other people. It is extraordinary how many things I have learned about the world and the people from other countries just by reading their postcards.
<b><i>"Deltiology - it's the name for the study and collection of postcards. It comes from the Greek word deltios, which means "writing tablet" or "letter"."</i></b>
Ana is working in London, busy in her day-to-day job. When her best friend Daisy dies, she is completely lost. Daisy was everything she had, and now she is gone. When she inherits this van, Ana is eager to pick the van up and return to her normal London routine. She is not really a fan of travel, camper vans or camping. But Daisy was, and if she wanted for Ana to have this van and that was her last wish, this is the least Ana can do for her.
<b><i>"These old vehicles are very sensitive - especially camper vans. They're the worst, very temperamental they can be."</i></b>
Throughout her stay, Ana meets Malachi, the mechanic, who sold the van to Daisy and who will help Ana restore it. He is a very interesting character with an interesting point of view on life.
He was my favourite character in the book.
<b><i>"People pay a lot of money these days to find themselves. They're not really finding themselves, they're finding a version of themselves they feel happy to be for a while."
"We all change through our lives, and what you're happy to be when you're twenty is unlikely to be what you're happy being when you're older."</i></b>
Malachi also has a camper van himself. He always tells Ana why camper vans are amazing. If you are a fan of camper van, this book will be a favourite by default.
<b><i>"But... you'd be mad not to at least try camping in her. It's a wonderful experience. You can drive where you like, set up camp and cook your dinner in the open air, even bed down under the stars if you're lucky. The freedom is amazing."</i></b>
I loved everything about this book. The story was beautiful. All the characters were likeable and real. They all had their stories and points of development. It was nice to see Ana finally healing and learning to be happy again. Malachi's story was beautiful and it was the perfect closure to his mission. Noah's personal story was also heartwarming, as he learns to accept what happened in the past and be able to move on. I also really want to talk about the mystery couple from the postcards, but I won't, in fear that I will spoil anything. But the development on that story was amazing and it helped Ana in many ways to heal herself, which was magical!
<b><i>"If something is worth doing, Ana - I hear one of her favourite sayings echo in my ears - it's worth doing well."</i></b>
To summarize - Daisy's Vintage Cornish Camper Van is my new favorite!
Beautiful and heartwarming. It will make you want to go on a road trip. I definitely recommend Daisy's Vintage Cornish Camper Van. And as with every book, I love learning random things, and here are some things I learned:
<b><i>"Did you know the phrase "dilly-dally" is commonly attributed to the English music hall singer Marie Lloyd, but was actually in use much earlier than her 1918 song, as far back as the seventeenth century?"
"A Splitty. It's what we call a split screen camper van. All pre-1967 camper vans have a windscreen split in two. After that the new models all had the solid bay windows."</i></b>
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<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>;
<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://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Book-Review-Banner-40.png"/>;
Daisy's Vintage Cornish Camper Van by Ali McNamara is exactly the book I thought I needed to put me in a better mood!
When Ana inherits a camper van from her best friend, she needs to go to Cornwall to get it. A nice sea air and fish and chips are enver a bad choice.
But when she arrives, she realises that the camper van is in a much worse state than she imagined. The fixing will take longer than she anticipated. On top of this, Ana finds a series of unsent postcards dating back to the 1940s, hidden in the van. This is a sign and Ana wants to make sure the postcards are delivered.
And while the camper van is restored and Ana is helping other people be happy, she may eventually notice she is finding her way back to happiness again.
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
Daisy's Vintage Cornish Camper Van got my attention from the moment I saw that beautiful cover. Then, I read the synopsis and I was sold.
For me, both camper vans and postcards have a big importance in my life. I have always wanted to have a camper van and be able to go on a road trips and experience that freedom. Even though I was lucky to be able to travel the world, it is never enough.
<b><i>"Yes, there's definitely something about a camper van that makes people smile. They're a happy vehicle, so people enjoy seeing them as much as their owners enjoy driving them."</i></b>
And postcards were always a way to travel without living my home. Get to meet other places and cultures, meet other people. It is extraordinary how many things I have learned about the world and the people from other countries just by reading their postcards.
<b><i>"Deltiology - it's the name for the study and collection of postcards. It comes from the Greek word deltios, which means "writing tablet" or "letter"."</i></b>
Ana is working in London, busy in her day-to-day job. When her best friend Daisy dies, she is completely lost. Daisy was everything she had, and now she is gone. When she inherits this van, Ana is eager to pick the van up and return to her normal London routine. She is not really a fan of travel, camper vans or camping. But Daisy was, and if she wanted for Ana to have this van and that was her last wish, this is the least Ana can do for her.
<b><i>"These old vehicles are very sensitive - especially camper vans. They're the worst, very temperamental they can be."</i></b>
Throughout her stay, Ana meets Malachi, the mechanic, who sold the van to Daisy and who will help Ana restore it. He is a very interesting character with an interesting point of view on life.
He was my favourite character in the book.
<b><i>"People pay a lot of money these days to find themselves. They're not really finding themselves, they're finding a version of themselves they feel happy to be for a while."
"We all change through our lives, and what you're happy to be when you're twenty is unlikely to be what you're happy being when you're older."</i></b>
Malachi also has a camper van himself. He always tells Ana why camper vans are amazing. If you are a fan of camper van, this book will be a favourite by default.
<b><i>"But... you'd be mad not to at least try camping in her. It's a wonderful experience. You can drive where you like, set up camp and cook your dinner in the open air, even bed down under the stars if you're lucky. The freedom is amazing."</i></b>
I loved everything about this book. The story was beautiful. All the characters were likeable and real. They all had their stories and points of development. It was nice to see Ana finally healing and learning to be happy again. Malachi's story was beautiful and it was the perfect closure to his mission. Noah's personal story was also heartwarming, as he learns to accept what happened in the past and be able to move on. I also really want to talk about the mystery couple from the postcards, but I won't, in fear that I will spoil anything. But the development on that story was amazing and it helped Ana in many ways to heal herself, which was magical!
<b><i>"If something is worth doing, Ana - I hear one of her favourite sayings echo in my ears - it's worth doing well."</i></b>
To summarize - Daisy's Vintage Cornish Camper Van is my new favorite!
Beautiful and heartwarming. It will make you want to go on a road trip. I definitely recommend Daisy's Vintage Cornish Camper Van. And as with every book, I love learning random things, and here are some things I learned:
<b><i>"Did you know the phrase "dilly-dally" is commonly attributed to the English music hall singer Marie Lloyd, but was actually in use much earlier than her 1918 song, as far back as the seventeenth century?"
"A Splitty. It's what we call a split screen camper van. All pre-1967 camper vans have a windscreen split in two. After that the new models all had the solid bay windows."</i></b>
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<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>;