Search
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Water Babies in Books
Oct 9, 2017
Worryingly Controversial
This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
This year (2017), Calla Editions are printing a new hardback version of the original 1863 children’s classic The Water Babies written by the Anglican clergyman, Charles Kingsley (1819-75). Subtitled “A Fairytale for a land-baby” the book was intended for Kingsley’s youngest son and therefore was targeted at a juvenile demographic. However, as a result of the 1800’s vernacular and particularly deep themes, it has become more appropriate for older readers. With full-colour illustrations by Jessie Wilcox Smith (1863-1935) from the height of the golden age of illustration, this edition promises to be a collector’s item.
Charles Kingsley, the founder of England’s Christian Socialist movement, was exceedingly interested in the plight of the working class, particularly of the abuse and protection of children. This is reflected in his story about Tom, the ten-year-old London chimney sweep, who suffers ill-treatment at the hands of his employer. Tom, who has known nothing but the sooty streets of London, is embarrassed after scaring a beautiful young girl with his grimy appearance. Running away through a countryside he is unfamiliar with, Tom dives into a river to wash, however, falls asleep in the water.
On awakening, Tom discovers he has been transformed into a water baby; he can live and breathe amongst all the fishes and other mystical water creatures. Forgetting his horrible past, Tom is soon frolicking with the characters he meets, teasing and provoking unsuspecting individuals. But the fairies in charge of water babies are determined to teach him many lessons about truth, mercy, justice and courage.
The Water Babies is a morality fable with fairy-tale-like qualities. It educates young readers about the consequences of their actions but also enlightens them about the cruelty of some adults. Kingsley often talks to the reader (in this instance his son), drawing them into the story and making the scenarios as relatable as possible. The magical underwater setting is merely a veil to hide the lessons Kingsley is attempting to preach.
For the adult reader, Kingsley has a much more political message. Written at the time of political and scientific advancement, particularly in respect to the concept of natural selection, Kingsley attempts to ridicule the ideas of thinkers such as Charles Darwin by producing a satirical narrative. He suggests that scientists are fools who use unnecessarily long and foreign terms, evidenced by his use of the made-up subject of Necrobioneopalæonthydrochthonanthropopithekology. He also goes as far as to mock the majority of adults and appears to be completely anti-Irish people.
In some instances, Charles Kingsley goes too far in his satire, resulting in something that would not be accepted by publishers today. In order for Tom to be the hero of the story, adults need to be viewed as less than good – people who need to be punished for their discourteous treatment of children, which in this instance, they are, and quite graphically. But the most controversial theme explored is death. The more naïve may not cotton on to the fact that Tom falling asleep in the river equates to drowning, yet that is exactly what happened. Only through death can one become a water baby. To make matters slightly more alarming, Kingsley does not see this death as a bad thing; he describes Tom’s new life as something far better than life on earth – coming from a clergyman this is understandable – which suggests that death is better than living for an abused child.
Despite these controversies, Kingsley’s prose is humorous and entertaining - far more mind-boggling than you may initially expect. With characters named Mrs Bedonebyasyoudid and Professor Ptthmllnsprts, there is plenty to make readers laugh. Some of the hilarities may go above the heads of children since the jargon is no longer used in today’s society, however, adults will be able to appreciate the comical aspect.
Over 150 years old, The Water Babies has remained a classic. It reveals the political, scientific and social situations of the mid-1800s, yet it contains wisdom that is still relevant today. As Kingsley’s daughter Rose says in the introduction, “What a fine thing it is to love truth, mercy, justice, courage, and all things noble and of good report.” No matter how peculiar this novel is, it says a lot about the virtues of our character.
This year (2017), Calla Editions are printing a new hardback version of the original 1863 children’s classic The Water Babies written by the Anglican clergyman, Charles Kingsley (1819-75). Subtitled “A Fairytale for a land-baby” the book was intended for Kingsley’s youngest son and therefore was targeted at a juvenile demographic. However, as a result of the 1800’s vernacular and particularly deep themes, it has become more appropriate for older readers. With full-colour illustrations by Jessie Wilcox Smith (1863-1935) from the height of the golden age of illustration, this edition promises to be a collector’s item.
Charles Kingsley, the founder of England’s Christian Socialist movement, was exceedingly interested in the plight of the working class, particularly of the abuse and protection of children. This is reflected in his story about Tom, the ten-year-old London chimney sweep, who suffers ill-treatment at the hands of his employer. Tom, who has known nothing but the sooty streets of London, is embarrassed after scaring a beautiful young girl with his grimy appearance. Running away through a countryside he is unfamiliar with, Tom dives into a river to wash, however, falls asleep in the water.
On awakening, Tom discovers he has been transformed into a water baby; he can live and breathe amongst all the fishes and other mystical water creatures. Forgetting his horrible past, Tom is soon frolicking with the characters he meets, teasing and provoking unsuspecting individuals. But the fairies in charge of water babies are determined to teach him many lessons about truth, mercy, justice and courage.
The Water Babies is a morality fable with fairy-tale-like qualities. It educates young readers about the consequences of their actions but also enlightens them about the cruelty of some adults. Kingsley often talks to the reader (in this instance his son), drawing them into the story and making the scenarios as relatable as possible. The magical underwater setting is merely a veil to hide the lessons Kingsley is attempting to preach.
For the adult reader, Kingsley has a much more political message. Written at the time of political and scientific advancement, particularly in respect to the concept of natural selection, Kingsley attempts to ridicule the ideas of thinkers such as Charles Darwin by producing a satirical narrative. He suggests that scientists are fools who use unnecessarily long and foreign terms, evidenced by his use of the made-up subject of Necrobioneopalæonthydrochthonanthropopithekology. He also goes as far as to mock the majority of adults and appears to be completely anti-Irish people.
In some instances, Charles Kingsley goes too far in his satire, resulting in something that would not be accepted by publishers today. In order for Tom to be the hero of the story, adults need to be viewed as less than good – people who need to be punished for their discourteous treatment of children, which in this instance, they are, and quite graphically. But the most controversial theme explored is death. The more naïve may not cotton on to the fact that Tom falling asleep in the river equates to drowning, yet that is exactly what happened. Only through death can one become a water baby. To make matters slightly more alarming, Kingsley does not see this death as a bad thing; he describes Tom’s new life as something far better than life on earth – coming from a clergyman this is understandable – which suggests that death is better than living for an abused child.
Despite these controversies, Kingsley’s prose is humorous and entertaining - far more mind-boggling than you may initially expect. With characters named Mrs Bedonebyasyoudid and Professor Ptthmllnsprts, there is plenty to make readers laugh. Some of the hilarities may go above the heads of children since the jargon is no longer used in today’s society, however, adults will be able to appreciate the comical aspect.
Over 150 years old, The Water Babies has remained a classic. It reveals the political, scientific and social situations of the mid-1800s, yet it contains wisdom that is still relevant today. As Kingsley’s daughter Rose says in the introduction, “What a fine thing it is to love truth, mercy, justice, courage, and all things noble and of good report.” No matter how peculiar this novel is, it says a lot about the virtues of our character.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
This little film has big shoes to fill
Alexander Payne was clearly vying for Oscars attention when it came to penning the screenplay for Downsizing. And why not, he’s certainly got form in the awards department. A two-time Oscar winner with a further three nominations, his films have been bold and topical.
That topical trademark shows no signs of dissipating with Downsizing, as Payne takes on the themes of overpopulation and the effects it’ll have on us in the future. But is the resulting film one of his best works? Or are we looking at a bit of a dud?
When scientists discover how to shrink humans to five inches tall as a solution to overpopulation, Paul (Matt Damon) and his wife Audrey (Kristen Wiig) decide to abandon their cash-strapped and stressed lives in order to get small and move to a new downsized community — a choice that triggers life-changing adventures in more ways than one.
The film certainly gets off to a good start before it even begins. Just look at the cast! With Matt Damon, Kristen Wiig, Laura Dern, Christoph Waltz, Neil Patrick Harris and Jason Sudeikis being just some of the actors on the roster here, there’s certainly a lot of talent about. And things continue to look very good indeed.
Downsizing starts out great. In fact, it has one of the best first acts of any film I’ve seen as we are introduced to the concept of downsizing and the lives in which its partakers lead. Damon is a magnetic leading presence and oozes charm throughout the film. It’s also genuinely funny with a script that knows how to garner laughs from the audience without delving into unnecessary slapstick.
To look at, Downsizing is really rather lovely. Filled with clever special effects, it’s a pleasure to watch and fascinating to sit there and think about all the camera trickery required to pull it off. Watching a miniature ship pull bottles of vodka is strangely satisfying.
And then, about 45 minutes in, things start to go rapidly downhill. So downhill that I left the cinema wondering how on earth a movie that began so positively, could result in a middle and final act so disappointingly ordinary. On the journey home, I used that time to think of the reasons.
That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end
Firstly, that talented cast I spoke about earlier is completely and utterly wasted. Outside of Damon, each of the brilliant actors is given a glorified cameo that makes little-to-no difference on the final outcome. Laura Dern is in the film for less than 3 minutes – in fact, her scene is exactly what you see in the trailer. Christoph Waltz plays a bizarre Serbian playboy who is funny and irritating in equal measure and the less said about Kristen Wiig’s part the better.
Secondly, the story just doesn’t do enough with its fascinating premise. We get a vague environmental message about the beauty of nature and the fragility of life, but the idea of downsizing and the beautiful residences of “Leisureland” are merely a shell for Damon to go from scene to scene. His adventures with Hong Chau, which make up the bulk of the overstuffed 132-minute runtime, are pleasant enough, but we want to see more of the people who have decided to shrink themselves.
Thirdly, the tone is an absolute mess. Is it a comedy? What about a drama? Perhaps a rom-com? Who knows! That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end.
Finally, the ending is absolutely dreadful and one of the worst ever put to film. I’m not sure if Payne thought it would be a good idea to leave the movie open to a sequel but there is absolutely no payoff to the previous 130-or-so minutes whatsoever. It just falls flat.
Overall, Downsizing has a brilliant premise and a wonderfully talented cast, but each of those is wasted and that’s unforgivable. What starts out as a clever piece of social commentary about the issues we, as a species, currently face, ends up becoming one of the most ordinary films you’ll ever see and a bit of a misstep for the usually superb Alexander Payne. It’s certainly his worst film to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/27/downsizing-review-this-little-film-has-big-shoes-to-fill/
That topical trademark shows no signs of dissipating with Downsizing, as Payne takes on the themes of overpopulation and the effects it’ll have on us in the future. But is the resulting film one of his best works? Or are we looking at a bit of a dud?
When scientists discover how to shrink humans to five inches tall as a solution to overpopulation, Paul (Matt Damon) and his wife Audrey (Kristen Wiig) decide to abandon their cash-strapped and stressed lives in order to get small and move to a new downsized community — a choice that triggers life-changing adventures in more ways than one.
The film certainly gets off to a good start before it even begins. Just look at the cast! With Matt Damon, Kristen Wiig, Laura Dern, Christoph Waltz, Neil Patrick Harris and Jason Sudeikis being just some of the actors on the roster here, there’s certainly a lot of talent about. And things continue to look very good indeed.
Downsizing starts out great. In fact, it has one of the best first acts of any film I’ve seen as we are introduced to the concept of downsizing and the lives in which its partakers lead. Damon is a magnetic leading presence and oozes charm throughout the film. It’s also genuinely funny with a script that knows how to garner laughs from the audience without delving into unnecessary slapstick.
To look at, Downsizing is really rather lovely. Filled with clever special effects, it’s a pleasure to watch and fascinating to sit there and think about all the camera trickery required to pull it off. Watching a miniature ship pull bottles of vodka is strangely satisfying.
And then, about 45 minutes in, things start to go rapidly downhill. So downhill that I left the cinema wondering how on earth a movie that began so positively, could result in a middle and final act so disappointingly ordinary. On the journey home, I used that time to think of the reasons.
That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end
Firstly, that talented cast I spoke about earlier is completely and utterly wasted. Outside of Damon, each of the brilliant actors is given a glorified cameo that makes little-to-no difference on the final outcome. Laura Dern is in the film for less than 3 minutes – in fact, her scene is exactly what you see in the trailer. Christoph Waltz plays a bizarre Serbian playboy who is funny and irritating in equal measure and the less said about Kristen Wiig’s part the better.
Secondly, the story just doesn’t do enough with its fascinating premise. We get a vague environmental message about the beauty of nature and the fragility of life, but the idea of downsizing and the beautiful residences of “Leisureland” are merely a shell for Damon to go from scene to scene. His adventures with Hong Chau, which make up the bulk of the overstuffed 132-minute runtime, are pleasant enough, but we want to see more of the people who have decided to shrink themselves.
Thirdly, the tone is an absolute mess. Is it a comedy? What about a drama? Perhaps a rom-com? Who knows! That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end.
Finally, the ending is absolutely dreadful and one of the worst ever put to film. I’m not sure if Payne thought it would be a good idea to leave the movie open to a sequel but there is absolutely no payoff to the previous 130-or-so minutes whatsoever. It just falls flat.
Overall, Downsizing has a brilliant premise and a wonderfully talented cast, but each of those is wasted and that’s unforgivable. What starts out as a clever piece of social commentary about the issues we, as a species, currently face, ends up becoming one of the most ordinary films you’ll ever see and a bit of a misstep for the usually superb Alexander Payne. It’s certainly his worst film to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/27/downsizing-review-this-little-film-has-big-shoes-to-fill/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Network (1976) in Movies
Feb 9, 2018
All time classic
"I'M MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!"
One of the most famous lines in film history is as impactful today as it was when it was first uttered by fictitious news anchor Howard Beale in Paddy Chayefsky's (seemingly) parody of where TV and TV news is heading, 1976's NETWORK.
The astonishing thing about this terrific motion picture is how prescient it is. News is now entertainment. Appeal to the disaffected masses. Drive our message to the viewers. Be provocative. The 6:00 news had "less than 1 minute of hard news, the rest was sex, scandal, brutal crime sports, children with incurable diseases and lost puppies."
Sound familiar? This isn't from today, it came from this movie that was made 42 years ago as a cautionary tale of what might happen.
Besides the social ramifications, how does this film hold up? Quite well, indeed. A rare 10 star BankofMarquis film. Starting with the great Paddy Chayefsky's Oscar winning Screenplay. This was the capper on a brilliant career from Chayefsky - who also won Oscar's for his screenplay for 1972's THE HOSPITAL (I'll have to check that one out) and 1956's MARTY.
What does a terrific screenplay do? It attracts top-level talent clamoring to be in this - and they all deliver. Start with Faye Dunaway who won the Lead Actress Oscar for her role as Entertainment Head Diane Christensen - a driven, work hard, play hard individual who has the idea to make news "entertainment". Lost in the fog of time (and MOMMIE DEAREST) is the fact that in the mid-1970's, Dunaway was, perhaps, the greatest leading actress of the day and her skills are in sharp display in this film.
Joining Dunaway in terrific supporting turns are Robert Duvall, following his turns as Tom Hagen in GODFATHER I and II, as network head, Frank Hackett, Ned Beatty as Ned Jennings, President of the company that owns the network - he has a speech towards the tail end of this film that is as good - both in performance and in the way that it is shot - as anything put upon the screen - it was masterful. Speaking of masterful, Beatrice Straight won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in one of the shortest performances to ever win. She is in this film for about 6 minutes in total - but she won her Oscar for a 5 minute scene that is, most definately Oscar-worthy.
And then there are the leading men. William Holden gives one of the last great performances of his extraordinary career as the "voice of reason in this film". He is our everyman caught up in the bizarre, absurd circumstances that evolve around him. It is his effort to try to make sense of this insanity that jumps off the screen. Holden was, deservedly, nominated for a Best Actor in a Leading Role Oscar, but lost (rightfully so) to Peter Finch's turn as crazed newsman turned prophet, Howard Beale. His maniacal (but not over the top) turn is one for the ages. If you do nothing else, see this film for his performance (but there is so, so much more to love here). Unfortunately, Finch passed away from a heart attack in between his Oscar nomination and win, and was the first posthumous winner in an acting role (sadly, Heath Ledger would join this "club" years later).
Finally, enough cannot be said about Sidney Lumet's direction. A movie like this would not succeed without a sure, steady and seasoned hand at the helm - and this is how I would describe Lumet's direction. He lets the camera roll and lets the actors and the screenplay take center stage, not drawing attention away, but adding to the themes of the film throughout - especially in Beatty's speech at the end.
NETWORK was nominated for (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Film of 1976. Did it lose out to other nominees ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN or TAXI DRIVER? Nope, it lost to ROCKY.
Let that sink in.
If you get a chance to watch (or rewatch) this film, I highly recommend you do so. For me, it was GREAT to watch this on the big screen with an audience, one of the reasons I love - and will continue to attend - the SECRET CINEMA series of films.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
One of the most famous lines in film history is as impactful today as it was when it was first uttered by fictitious news anchor Howard Beale in Paddy Chayefsky's (seemingly) parody of where TV and TV news is heading, 1976's NETWORK.
The astonishing thing about this terrific motion picture is how prescient it is. News is now entertainment. Appeal to the disaffected masses. Drive our message to the viewers. Be provocative. The 6:00 news had "less than 1 minute of hard news, the rest was sex, scandal, brutal crime sports, children with incurable diseases and lost puppies."
Sound familiar? This isn't from today, it came from this movie that was made 42 years ago as a cautionary tale of what might happen.
Besides the social ramifications, how does this film hold up? Quite well, indeed. A rare 10 star BankofMarquis film. Starting with the great Paddy Chayefsky's Oscar winning Screenplay. This was the capper on a brilliant career from Chayefsky - who also won Oscar's for his screenplay for 1972's THE HOSPITAL (I'll have to check that one out) and 1956's MARTY.
What does a terrific screenplay do? It attracts top-level talent clamoring to be in this - and they all deliver. Start with Faye Dunaway who won the Lead Actress Oscar for her role as Entertainment Head Diane Christensen - a driven, work hard, play hard individual who has the idea to make news "entertainment". Lost in the fog of time (and MOMMIE DEAREST) is the fact that in the mid-1970's, Dunaway was, perhaps, the greatest leading actress of the day and her skills are in sharp display in this film.
Joining Dunaway in terrific supporting turns are Robert Duvall, following his turns as Tom Hagen in GODFATHER I and II, as network head, Frank Hackett, Ned Beatty as Ned Jennings, President of the company that owns the network - he has a speech towards the tail end of this film that is as good - both in performance and in the way that it is shot - as anything put upon the screen - it was masterful. Speaking of masterful, Beatrice Straight won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in one of the shortest performances to ever win. She is in this film for about 6 minutes in total - but she won her Oscar for a 5 minute scene that is, most definately Oscar-worthy.
And then there are the leading men. William Holden gives one of the last great performances of his extraordinary career as the "voice of reason in this film". He is our everyman caught up in the bizarre, absurd circumstances that evolve around him. It is his effort to try to make sense of this insanity that jumps off the screen. Holden was, deservedly, nominated for a Best Actor in a Leading Role Oscar, but lost (rightfully so) to Peter Finch's turn as crazed newsman turned prophet, Howard Beale. His maniacal (but not over the top) turn is one for the ages. If you do nothing else, see this film for his performance (but there is so, so much more to love here). Unfortunately, Finch passed away from a heart attack in between his Oscar nomination and win, and was the first posthumous winner in an acting role (sadly, Heath Ledger would join this "club" years later).
Finally, enough cannot be said about Sidney Lumet's direction. A movie like this would not succeed without a sure, steady and seasoned hand at the helm - and this is how I would describe Lumet's direction. He lets the camera roll and lets the actors and the screenplay take center stage, not drawing attention away, but adding to the themes of the film throughout - especially in Beatty's speech at the end.
NETWORK was nominated for (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Film of 1976. Did it lose out to other nominees ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN or TAXI DRIVER? Nope, it lost to ROCKY.
Let that sink in.
If you get a chance to watch (or rewatch) this film, I highly recommend you do so. For me, it was GREAT to watch this on the big screen with an audience, one of the reasons I love - and will continue to attend - the SECRET CINEMA series of films.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Water Babies in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
This year (2017), Calla Editions are printing a new hardback version of the original 1863 children’s classic <i>The Water Babies</i> written by the Anglican clergyman, Charles Kingsley (1819-75). Subtitled “<i>A Fairytale for a land-baby</i>” the book was intended for Kingsley’s youngest son and therefore was targeted at a juvenile demographic. However, as a result of the 1800’s vernacular and particularly deep themes, it has become more appropriate for older readers. With full-colour illustrations by Jessie Wilcox Smith (1863-1935) from the height of the golden age of illustration, this edition promises to be a collector’s item.
Charles Kingsley, the founder of England’s Christian Socialist movement, was exceedingly interested in the plight of the working class, particularly of the abuse and protection of children. This is reflected in his story about Tom, the ten-year-old London chimney sweep, who suffers ill-treatment at the hands of his employer. Tom, who has known nothing but the sooty streets of London, is embarrassed after scaring a beautiful young girl with his grimy appearance. Running away through a countryside he is unfamiliar with, Tom dives into a river to wash, however, falls asleep in the water.
On awakening, Tom discovers he has been transformed into a water baby; he can live and breathe amongst all the fishes and other mystical water creatures. Forgetting his horrible past, Tom is soon frolicking with the characters he meets, teasing and provoking unsuspecting individuals. But the fairies in charge of water babies are determined to teach him many lessons about truth, mercy, justice and courage.
<i>The Water Babies</i> is a morality fable with fairy-tale-like qualities. It educates young readers about the consequences of their actions but also enlightens them about the cruelty of some adults. Kingsley often talks to the reader (in this instance his son), drawing them into the story and making the scenarios as relatable as possible. The magical underwater setting is merely a veil to hide the lessons Kingsley is attempting to preach.
For the adult reader, Kingsley has a much more political message. Written at the time of political and scientific advancement, particularly in respect to the concept of natural selection, Kingsley attempts to ridicule the ideas of thinkers such as Charles Darwin by producing a satirical narrative. He suggests that scientists are fools who use unnecessarily long and foreign terms, evidenced by his use of the made-up subject of <i>Necrobioneopalæonthydrochthonanthropopithekology</i>. He also goes as far as to mock the majority of adults and appears to be completely anti-Irish people.
In some instances, Charles Kingsley goes too far in his satire, resulting in something that would not be accepted by publishers today. In order for Tom to be the hero of the story, adults need to be viewed as less than good – people who need to be punished for their discourteous treatment of children, which in this instance, they are, and quite graphically. But the most controversial theme explored is death. The more naïve may not cotton on to the fact that Tom falling asleep in the river equates to drowning, yet that is exactly what happened. Only through death can one become a water baby. To make matters slightly more alarming, Kingsley does not see this death as a bad thing; he describes Tom’s new life as something far better than life on earth – coming from a clergyman this is understandable – which suggests that death is better than living for an abused child.
Despite these controversies, Kingsley’s prose is humorous and entertaining - far more mind-boggling than you may initially expect. With characters named Mrs Bedonebyasyoudid and Professor Ptthmllnsprts, there is plenty to make readers laugh. Some of the hilarities may go above the heads of children since the jargon is no longer used in today’s society, however, adults will be able to appreciate the comical aspect.
Over 150 years old, <i>The Water Babies</i> has remained a classic. It reveals the political, scientific and social situations of the mid-1800s, yet it contains wisdom that is still relevant today. As Kingsley’s daughter Rose says in the introduction, “What a fine thing it is to love truth, mercy, justice, courage, and all things noble and of good report.” No matter how peculiar this novel is, it says a lot about the virtues of our character.
This year (2017), Calla Editions are printing a new hardback version of the original 1863 children’s classic <i>The Water Babies</i> written by the Anglican clergyman, Charles Kingsley (1819-75). Subtitled “<i>A Fairytale for a land-baby</i>” the book was intended for Kingsley’s youngest son and therefore was targeted at a juvenile demographic. However, as a result of the 1800’s vernacular and particularly deep themes, it has become more appropriate for older readers. With full-colour illustrations by Jessie Wilcox Smith (1863-1935) from the height of the golden age of illustration, this edition promises to be a collector’s item.
Charles Kingsley, the founder of England’s Christian Socialist movement, was exceedingly interested in the plight of the working class, particularly of the abuse and protection of children. This is reflected in his story about Tom, the ten-year-old London chimney sweep, who suffers ill-treatment at the hands of his employer. Tom, who has known nothing but the sooty streets of London, is embarrassed after scaring a beautiful young girl with his grimy appearance. Running away through a countryside he is unfamiliar with, Tom dives into a river to wash, however, falls asleep in the water.
On awakening, Tom discovers he has been transformed into a water baby; he can live and breathe amongst all the fishes and other mystical water creatures. Forgetting his horrible past, Tom is soon frolicking with the characters he meets, teasing and provoking unsuspecting individuals. But the fairies in charge of water babies are determined to teach him many lessons about truth, mercy, justice and courage.
<i>The Water Babies</i> is a morality fable with fairy-tale-like qualities. It educates young readers about the consequences of their actions but also enlightens them about the cruelty of some adults. Kingsley often talks to the reader (in this instance his son), drawing them into the story and making the scenarios as relatable as possible. The magical underwater setting is merely a veil to hide the lessons Kingsley is attempting to preach.
For the adult reader, Kingsley has a much more political message. Written at the time of political and scientific advancement, particularly in respect to the concept of natural selection, Kingsley attempts to ridicule the ideas of thinkers such as Charles Darwin by producing a satirical narrative. He suggests that scientists are fools who use unnecessarily long and foreign terms, evidenced by his use of the made-up subject of <i>Necrobioneopalæonthydrochthonanthropopithekology</i>. He also goes as far as to mock the majority of adults and appears to be completely anti-Irish people.
In some instances, Charles Kingsley goes too far in his satire, resulting in something that would not be accepted by publishers today. In order for Tom to be the hero of the story, adults need to be viewed as less than good – people who need to be punished for their discourteous treatment of children, which in this instance, they are, and quite graphically. But the most controversial theme explored is death. The more naïve may not cotton on to the fact that Tom falling asleep in the river equates to drowning, yet that is exactly what happened. Only through death can one become a water baby. To make matters slightly more alarming, Kingsley does not see this death as a bad thing; he describes Tom’s new life as something far better than life on earth – coming from a clergyman this is understandable – which suggests that death is better than living for an abused child.
Despite these controversies, Kingsley’s prose is humorous and entertaining - far more mind-boggling than you may initially expect. With characters named Mrs Bedonebyasyoudid and Professor Ptthmllnsprts, there is plenty to make readers laugh. Some of the hilarities may go above the heads of children since the jargon is no longer used in today’s society, however, adults will be able to appreciate the comical aspect.
Over 150 years old, <i>The Water Babies</i> has remained a classic. It reveals the political, scientific and social situations of the mid-1800s, yet it contains wisdom that is still relevant today. As Kingsley’s daughter Rose says in the introduction, “What a fine thing it is to love truth, mercy, justice, courage, and all things noble and of good report.” No matter how peculiar this novel is, it says a lot about the virtues of our character.
When it is a director’s second, or sophomore movie, if you like, there is a lot of unfair pressure that finds people comparing the new work to the first one. Especially if that first work has set you up as the saviour of a particular genre, as was the case with Jordan Peele. Get Out was an excellent film for its type – a breath of fresh air, so they say, that subverted what a modern horror movie is and can be.
I actually don’t think Get Out deserves all the praise it gets, to be honest. Because Peele is not on his own in resurrecting dead ideas of what disturbs us, and I prefer both his main sophomore competitors: Ari Aster and Robert Eggers, of Hereditary/Midsommar and The Witch/The Lighthouse fame respectively. The Wasteland has already well documented this triumvirate of chillers, and perhaps only the man who produces the best third film will win the argument…
Not that Get Out isn’t great, in its way. It is. It has a lot to say in terms of social commentary, and plays very satisfyingly for tone, pace and momentum. It also has some wonderful performances at its heart. Which is the main thing that it shares with the less impressive, but equally ambitious Us.
Elisabeth Moss, who is racking up some very nice credits in recent years, is very watchable and sympathetic as the heroine of the tale forced into a survival situation. But it is the consistently superlative Lupito Nyong’o who shines most. Her ability to hold a moment is extraordinary! She has a chameleon quality as an actress, which when you see and understand the theme of this film is indispensable.
In the pivotal and most memorable early scene, her sheer presence and incredible voice fill the screen with dread and eerieness to an almost unbearable degree. It is a wow moment that lasts about 5 minutes. In that part of the film I was prepared to see something very special indeed. Sadly, the tension built so superbly is not maintained for long. In fact it is somewhat thrown away, and diluted by predictable tropes and simple chase scenes, rather than more moments of unique suspense, as it needed.
Note that I am not saying anything about the plot or the premise in any way here – on this occasion, even to explain the basic idea would be to spoil the experience from the start. Peele wants you to discover his themes as The “white” family are discovering them, to increase the creepiness and anxiety of it all. This works to a degree, but all too soon, I found, it becomes a mere slasher chase film, with little extra to say. Anything great about it happens in the first half hour. After that it is still watchable, just not amazing. Even the conclusion is a little flat, which is a rookie mistake if ever there was one.
I think Peele will have learned a lot from this film. Mostly that he can’t just create magic by willing it to exist. He has to hold the reigns a little tighter to create something of equal meaning to Get Out again. Perhaps it is a scripting issue as much as a directing issue, but he wrote it too, so there is no escaping the blame! Saying this, he still retains a lot of potential to go on and fix the things that didn’t work next time. And if he manages to string a good run together then this film will be very interesting to look back on as a cult movie that just misses the mark.
One thing I do like is how he uses images and names and colours etc. to create a larger puzzle within the film. The idea being that every detail is part of a bigger meaning. When reading about the film afterwards, I was surprised and thrilled to learn there were so many intentional nods to a theme and mythology beyond what I had already grasped. Something that is also true of Aster and Eggers, as if this approach is what the new Horror movement is based on – enough background detail to be able to revisit many times and geek out over later on fan forums.
The first thing to debate, and perhaps the last, is the title. Now that does deserve a round of applause. Let’s talk about that privately later… See this movie for Moss and especially Nyong’o, and that one astonishing scene early on. Otherwise it’s a take it or leave it kind of thing.
I actually don’t think Get Out deserves all the praise it gets, to be honest. Because Peele is not on his own in resurrecting dead ideas of what disturbs us, and I prefer both his main sophomore competitors: Ari Aster and Robert Eggers, of Hereditary/Midsommar and The Witch/The Lighthouse fame respectively. The Wasteland has already well documented this triumvirate of chillers, and perhaps only the man who produces the best third film will win the argument…
Not that Get Out isn’t great, in its way. It is. It has a lot to say in terms of social commentary, and plays very satisfyingly for tone, pace and momentum. It also has some wonderful performances at its heart. Which is the main thing that it shares with the less impressive, but equally ambitious Us.
Elisabeth Moss, who is racking up some very nice credits in recent years, is very watchable and sympathetic as the heroine of the tale forced into a survival situation. But it is the consistently superlative Lupito Nyong’o who shines most. Her ability to hold a moment is extraordinary! She has a chameleon quality as an actress, which when you see and understand the theme of this film is indispensable.
In the pivotal and most memorable early scene, her sheer presence and incredible voice fill the screen with dread and eerieness to an almost unbearable degree. It is a wow moment that lasts about 5 minutes. In that part of the film I was prepared to see something very special indeed. Sadly, the tension built so superbly is not maintained for long. In fact it is somewhat thrown away, and diluted by predictable tropes and simple chase scenes, rather than more moments of unique suspense, as it needed.
Note that I am not saying anything about the plot or the premise in any way here – on this occasion, even to explain the basic idea would be to spoil the experience from the start. Peele wants you to discover his themes as The “white” family are discovering them, to increase the creepiness and anxiety of it all. This works to a degree, but all too soon, I found, it becomes a mere slasher chase film, with little extra to say. Anything great about it happens in the first half hour. After that it is still watchable, just not amazing. Even the conclusion is a little flat, which is a rookie mistake if ever there was one.
I think Peele will have learned a lot from this film. Mostly that he can’t just create magic by willing it to exist. He has to hold the reigns a little tighter to create something of equal meaning to Get Out again. Perhaps it is a scripting issue as much as a directing issue, but he wrote it too, so there is no escaping the blame! Saying this, he still retains a lot of potential to go on and fix the things that didn’t work next time. And if he manages to string a good run together then this film will be very interesting to look back on as a cult movie that just misses the mark.
One thing I do like is how he uses images and names and colours etc. to create a larger puzzle within the film. The idea being that every detail is part of a bigger meaning. When reading about the film afterwards, I was surprised and thrilled to learn there were so many intentional nods to a theme and mythology beyond what I had already grasped. Something that is also true of Aster and Eggers, as if this approach is what the new Horror movement is based on – enough background detail to be able to revisit many times and geek out over later on fan forums.
The first thing to debate, and perhaps the last, is the title. Now that does deserve a round of applause. Let’s talk about that privately later… See this movie for Moss and especially Nyong’o, and that one astonishing scene early on. Otherwise it’s a take it or leave it kind of thing.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Colossal (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A Marvel-ous Indie Movie
Well!! I’ve been really surprised (in a good way) by two films this year, and both have involved monsters (the first being “A Monster Calls” back in January).
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Crimes & Capers: High School Hijinks in Tabletop Games
Jan 20, 2022
High School. While many have horrible memories of that time period of life, I personally did not have many negative experiences. However, I do remember the different cliques, and those that could and could not be trusted. So when I heard about the new Crimes & Capers series from Renegade Game Studios, and that one of the options was a high school, I knew we had to take a look at it. Come see why we enjoy it.
A popular student among many different social circles is in trouble and it is up to her friends (the players) to suss out the entire situation armed with merely small pieces of information. Each player takes on the role of one such student, and their information is vital to the overall story behind these High School Hijinks.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover everything, but will describe the overall game flow so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth coverage, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, each player chooses a character, receives the corresponding booklet of information, and the padlocked locker is placed on the table. The locker contains more vital information, and it is up to the players to arrive at the correct combination to unlock it. Open the envelope entitled, “Opening Materials,” and the game is on!
Now, there is so much to this game that I wish I could relay to you, the reader, but without spoiling anything, my hands are almost literally tied. I wish I could explain what kind of information is found in each player’s materials, and what the locker contains, and even a little of the story, but in doing so I fear I would spoil at least SOMETHING. That’s not what I’m about, so unfortunately, this portion of the review will need to remain a mystery. Apologies, but it benefits you this way.
Components. Inside this box is a bunch of folios and envelopes and one of the coolest components I’ve ever seen in a game box: a fully-formed and padlocked personal locker. Yes, one could easily tear the cardboard locker apart to get to the materials inside, but what kind of monster would do such a thing? I have no problems with any of the components, and the artwork throughout is excellent.
The game itself is also incredibly solid. We really had no idea what to expect going into this one, but were pleasantly surprised with the included puzzles and deductions. There were many times when we just HAD to exchange folios and information belonging to the individual player because we just needed a second set of eyes on it. There is a lot of stuff going on in this box, and it definitely was a great time playing.
However, this game is one of those that is a one-and-done play, because once you have played through it, it is impossible to replay with the same components. Renegade Games does provide a recharge pack, of sorts, so that the game may be enjoyed by another group, but I have not checked into that, so I will not comment on it. I believe our scores are indicative of the great time we had, but the fact that we are unable to play it again, and that is both a very very cool feature, but also very saddening. We would love to be able to salvage some components and have a different scenario be made from them, but alas, we are not designers, so we have not yet figured out how.
The official recommendation here is that everyone should definitely try this one. If you are a fan of mystery games and games that have interesting themes and mechanics working together, then this is a no-brainer. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a nostalgic 12 / 18. If it were replayable in any fashion that would not rehash the same story, this would easily earn a higher rating from us. That said, we are very much looking forward to trying the other game(s) in the series as they release. So come on back to high school and join your friends for the High School Hijinks that are certain to be a good time.
A popular student among many different social circles is in trouble and it is up to her friends (the players) to suss out the entire situation armed with merely small pieces of information. Each player takes on the role of one such student, and their information is vital to the overall story behind these High School Hijinks.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I do not intend to cover everything, but will describe the overall game flow so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth coverage, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, each player chooses a character, receives the corresponding booklet of information, and the padlocked locker is placed on the table. The locker contains more vital information, and it is up to the players to arrive at the correct combination to unlock it. Open the envelope entitled, “Opening Materials,” and the game is on!
Now, there is so much to this game that I wish I could relay to you, the reader, but without spoiling anything, my hands are almost literally tied. I wish I could explain what kind of information is found in each player’s materials, and what the locker contains, and even a little of the story, but in doing so I fear I would spoil at least SOMETHING. That’s not what I’m about, so unfortunately, this portion of the review will need to remain a mystery. Apologies, but it benefits you this way.
Components. Inside this box is a bunch of folios and envelopes and one of the coolest components I’ve ever seen in a game box: a fully-formed and padlocked personal locker. Yes, one could easily tear the cardboard locker apart to get to the materials inside, but what kind of monster would do such a thing? I have no problems with any of the components, and the artwork throughout is excellent.
The game itself is also incredibly solid. We really had no idea what to expect going into this one, but were pleasantly surprised with the included puzzles and deductions. There were many times when we just HAD to exchange folios and information belonging to the individual player because we just needed a second set of eyes on it. There is a lot of stuff going on in this box, and it definitely was a great time playing.
However, this game is one of those that is a one-and-done play, because once you have played through it, it is impossible to replay with the same components. Renegade Games does provide a recharge pack, of sorts, so that the game may be enjoyed by another group, but I have not checked into that, so I will not comment on it. I believe our scores are indicative of the great time we had, but the fact that we are unable to play it again, and that is both a very very cool feature, but also very saddening. We would love to be able to salvage some components and have a different scenario be made from them, but alas, we are not designers, so we have not yet figured out how.
The official recommendation here is that everyone should definitely try this one. If you are a fan of mystery games and games that have interesting themes and mechanics working together, then this is a no-brainer. Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a nostalgic 12 / 18. If it were replayable in any fashion that would not rehash the same story, this would easily earn a higher rating from us. That said, we are very much looking forward to trying the other game(s) in the series as they release. So come on back to high school and join your friends for the High School Hijinks that are certain to be a good time.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated the PC version of BioShock Infinite in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
After a few delays the third game in the Bioshock series has arrived from 2K Games and he continues the amazing legacy of the series in grand style. Playing as Booker DeWitt players embark on an epic rescue adventure to the floating city of Columbia in the early 1900s.
Booker is anxious to erase his massive gambling debts and has been told that recovering a girl named Elizabeth from the floating city will clear his accounts. Upon arrival, Booker notes the grand spectacle of the city as well as the Steampunk themes that combine technology, science, and fiction.
Playing from a first person perspective, Booker is able to interact with his environment from looting ammunition, food, health, power ups, money, and other items necessary for survival in a hostile city. Booker can also obtain needed supplies from various mechanical vending machines located throughout the city.
This is a very good thing as despite the beauty of Columbia, it is rife with all manner of dangers as the self-proclaimed savior Comstock has an endless supply of enemies to throw at you to keep you from recovering Elizabeth.
The narration of the story kicks into high gear once you encounter Elizabeth as many of the missions become escort and protect in nature but the back story of the central characters as well as the social strife in Columbia become more and more evident.
An underlying tone of racial tension and labor unrest is threatening the status quo and Booker finds himself squarely in the middle of both factions.
Elizabeth has some amazing abilities of her own such as being able to open tears in time and space which would explain Comstock’s obsession with her. Aside from an arsenal of weapons which includes pistols, shotguns, machine guns, rocket launchers, and various rifles, Booker can gain special powers through the use of vigors that are located throughout the game. While only able to wield to it time, the ability to telekinetic please send enemies flying, blast them with water, fry them to a crisp, and other spectacular feats are absolutely essential to the game as well is highly satisfying. In order to power the special powers, Booker must constantly replenish assault supply which adds a new element to the game strategy.
One of the greatest features of the game was the magnetic melee weapon which also doubles as a magnetic hook. This allows Booker to travel via rail Skyway by taking spectacular leaps and sliding along the rails. The sheer rush of whipping through the city especially during combat situations is a remarkable achievement from both a visual and gameplay perspective.
Graphically the game is fantastic as the amount of detail is simply breathtaking. If one was to nitpick they could state that the character facial animations seem a bit dated but they are definitely in keeping with the previous two games and in my opinion do not detract from the game in any way shape or form.
When death happens in the game, players are able to be resurrected at a nearby point for little bit of their money which allows for a smoother gameplay experience. Some moments the game on normal setting were quite difficult and for gamers who need a break, players can choose to lower or raise the difficulty setting in game.
Unlike the previous games the storyline is more linear and your decisions do not drastically change the outcome of the game unless you are playing the game in the optional 1999 mode where decisions can in deed change the outcome of the game including placing the character in no-win situations.
The voice acting and sound of the game are first rate and I especially enjoyed the nostalgic music and primitive recording and playback devices the time which added a very unique perspective to the game. There is no multiplayer aspect of the game so players who complete the game will have to look forward to the planned DLC content which will be offered in the future.
The immersive factor of the game really captured me and in my opinion sets a new standard for storytelling and player interaction. While enemies tended to be for the most part mindless foes who charged headlong to their doom, this did change as the game went along as some enemies presented some real challenges and displayed some very interesting and clever strategies.
Upon completion of the game, I found myself pausing to reflect on the twist and turns of the storyline as well as look ahead with great anticipation for the next installment of this epic series. Bioshock Infinite is a must own for fans of the series as well as action games and is definitely an early candidate for game of the year awards.
http://sknr.net/2013/04/02/bioshock-infinite/
Booker is anxious to erase his massive gambling debts and has been told that recovering a girl named Elizabeth from the floating city will clear his accounts. Upon arrival, Booker notes the grand spectacle of the city as well as the Steampunk themes that combine technology, science, and fiction.
Playing from a first person perspective, Booker is able to interact with his environment from looting ammunition, food, health, power ups, money, and other items necessary for survival in a hostile city. Booker can also obtain needed supplies from various mechanical vending machines located throughout the city.
This is a very good thing as despite the beauty of Columbia, it is rife with all manner of dangers as the self-proclaimed savior Comstock has an endless supply of enemies to throw at you to keep you from recovering Elizabeth.
The narration of the story kicks into high gear once you encounter Elizabeth as many of the missions become escort and protect in nature but the back story of the central characters as well as the social strife in Columbia become more and more evident.
An underlying tone of racial tension and labor unrest is threatening the status quo and Booker finds himself squarely in the middle of both factions.
Elizabeth has some amazing abilities of her own such as being able to open tears in time and space which would explain Comstock’s obsession with her. Aside from an arsenal of weapons which includes pistols, shotguns, machine guns, rocket launchers, and various rifles, Booker can gain special powers through the use of vigors that are located throughout the game. While only able to wield to it time, the ability to telekinetic please send enemies flying, blast them with water, fry them to a crisp, and other spectacular feats are absolutely essential to the game as well is highly satisfying. In order to power the special powers, Booker must constantly replenish assault supply which adds a new element to the game strategy.
One of the greatest features of the game was the magnetic melee weapon which also doubles as a magnetic hook. This allows Booker to travel via rail Skyway by taking spectacular leaps and sliding along the rails. The sheer rush of whipping through the city especially during combat situations is a remarkable achievement from both a visual and gameplay perspective.
Graphically the game is fantastic as the amount of detail is simply breathtaking. If one was to nitpick they could state that the character facial animations seem a bit dated but they are definitely in keeping with the previous two games and in my opinion do not detract from the game in any way shape or form.
When death happens in the game, players are able to be resurrected at a nearby point for little bit of their money which allows for a smoother gameplay experience. Some moments the game on normal setting were quite difficult and for gamers who need a break, players can choose to lower or raise the difficulty setting in game.
Unlike the previous games the storyline is more linear and your decisions do not drastically change the outcome of the game unless you are playing the game in the optional 1999 mode where decisions can in deed change the outcome of the game including placing the character in no-win situations.
The voice acting and sound of the game are first rate and I especially enjoyed the nostalgic music and primitive recording and playback devices the time which added a very unique perspective to the game. There is no multiplayer aspect of the game so players who complete the game will have to look forward to the planned DLC content which will be offered in the future.
The immersive factor of the game really captured me and in my opinion sets a new standard for storytelling and player interaction. While enemies tended to be for the most part mindless foes who charged headlong to their doom, this did change as the game went along as some enemies presented some real challenges and displayed some very interesting and clever strategies.
Upon completion of the game, I found myself pausing to reflect on the twist and turns of the storyline as well as look ahead with great anticipation for the next installment of this epic series. Bioshock Infinite is a must own for fans of the series as well as action games and is definitely an early candidate for game of the year awards.
http://sknr.net/2013/04/02/bioshock-infinite/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Parasite (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
Hello there! It’s been six weeks since my last post – Covid 19 related restriction issues sent me to a very odd place mentally and it has taken me a while to snap out of it enough to have the energy and will to keep writing these reviews. But what better way to recomense than with the history making Best Picture film from earlier in this strange year of 2020, before all the things that changed our way of thinking began?
The hype surrounding this movie in January was immense, for a film coming from Korea out of the blue, with an image and plot that didn’t fit into any of the normal marketing boxes. Every review ranged from this is incredible to… just see it for yourself. Nothing could have been more intriguing. I was certainly hooked on the idea, although by the time the Oscars came around I still hadn’t managed to see it at the cinema.
I found it fascinating that the academy had chosen 2020 as the year to change the dodgy sounding “Best Foreign Language film” to “Best International film”. It was about time, really, to acknowledge the us and them philosophy of world cinema didn’t really wash. And as the sublime Roma had paved the way for non English films to be considered again in all the main categories as serious contenders, I just had a feeling this was the year Oscar would make a statement with this film.
And so it turned out to be. It was a strong year. At the time I was a huge Joker advocate, having not yet seen 1917 either. Looking back now, I think, although not as perfect as Roma the year before, Parasite certainly deserves the praise and accolades it garnered from all around the world. Although any of those 3 films (Parasite, 1917 and Joker) would have been obvious winners in any other less competitive year.
So what is it about Parasite that raises it above the masses? Well, for a start it looks both beautiful and awe inspiring in every shot. Each image is designed and framed expertly to create a montage of mood and form that holds the multi-layered storytelling in place. Rarely have I seen such a well balanced and crisp visual design for a film, of any kind. Even with the subtitles off there is plenty to engage the eye and mind here. But it’s real secret is how it draws you in to believing you are watching one kind of satirical drama for about 40 minutes and then punches you in the solar plexus with the revelation that it has mutated into something darker, weirder and more entertaining on every level.
The “twist” when it comes along is so well placed and unexpected, even if you are told to expect one, that it entirely transforms your experience. You have been engaging with social issues and a basic satire on the rich vs the poor, where true power is a good wifi signal, and then, blam, you are watching a modern horror story with truly disturbing ramifications. I found this gear shift riveting and striking in a way that I can’t remember from a film in a long time.
But, looking back on it after several months, is that tonal shift really a strength? Some criticism, however minor in the scheme of things, did point this out, that what we get with Parasite is an unfocused and confused mix of genres that doesn’t entirely cohere. I mean, I see that, but have to disagree, simply because the writing at every point is too intelligent and sharp to give a damn about staying still and balanced on just one idea. Parasite is an exercise in energetic chaos that juggles many balls, all as interesting as one another, without dropping any of them.
Poverty, class, elitism, generational gaps, vanity, work ethics and morality, roles within a family unit, loyalty, weakness, revenge and bitterness are all themes here, and many more. Start going down the alley of one conversation that Parasite starts and end up somewhere entirely different in just a few sentences. And that is why it is worth seeing, several times. And that is why it works and was rewarded.
Is it a film I will be keen to see over again as the years pass? Yes and no. I’d probably be most interested to see it with someone who hasn’t seen it, to see their reaction. But I’m much less likely to give it multiple watches than the previous mentioned Joker and 1917, or indeed Roma, which I just can’t help comparing it to, even though they have virtually nothing in common, as I wish it had been Roma that made history at the awards rather than this. Of course, it is personal taste at that level of quality, but I believe Roma to be the better film.
If nothing else, however, Parasite marks the graduation of Bong Joon Ho, from a quirky filmmaker, whose interesting but not quite great near misses include The Host, Snowpiercer and Okja – all entertaining but flawed – to an auteur of considerable skill. Will the elements of his mind and vision ever align this well again. I hope so. I’ll be looking out for it, as will the rest of the world now.
The hype surrounding this movie in January was immense, for a film coming from Korea out of the blue, with an image and plot that didn’t fit into any of the normal marketing boxes. Every review ranged from this is incredible to… just see it for yourself. Nothing could have been more intriguing. I was certainly hooked on the idea, although by the time the Oscars came around I still hadn’t managed to see it at the cinema.
I found it fascinating that the academy had chosen 2020 as the year to change the dodgy sounding “Best Foreign Language film” to “Best International film”. It was about time, really, to acknowledge the us and them philosophy of world cinema didn’t really wash. And as the sublime Roma had paved the way for non English films to be considered again in all the main categories as serious contenders, I just had a feeling this was the year Oscar would make a statement with this film.
And so it turned out to be. It was a strong year. At the time I was a huge Joker advocate, having not yet seen 1917 either. Looking back now, I think, although not as perfect as Roma the year before, Parasite certainly deserves the praise and accolades it garnered from all around the world. Although any of those 3 films (Parasite, 1917 and Joker) would have been obvious winners in any other less competitive year.
So what is it about Parasite that raises it above the masses? Well, for a start it looks both beautiful and awe inspiring in every shot. Each image is designed and framed expertly to create a montage of mood and form that holds the multi-layered storytelling in place. Rarely have I seen such a well balanced and crisp visual design for a film, of any kind. Even with the subtitles off there is plenty to engage the eye and mind here. But it’s real secret is how it draws you in to believing you are watching one kind of satirical drama for about 40 minutes and then punches you in the solar plexus with the revelation that it has mutated into something darker, weirder and more entertaining on every level.
The “twist” when it comes along is so well placed and unexpected, even if you are told to expect one, that it entirely transforms your experience. You have been engaging with social issues and a basic satire on the rich vs the poor, where true power is a good wifi signal, and then, blam, you are watching a modern horror story with truly disturbing ramifications. I found this gear shift riveting and striking in a way that I can’t remember from a film in a long time.
But, looking back on it after several months, is that tonal shift really a strength? Some criticism, however minor in the scheme of things, did point this out, that what we get with Parasite is an unfocused and confused mix of genres that doesn’t entirely cohere. I mean, I see that, but have to disagree, simply because the writing at every point is too intelligent and sharp to give a damn about staying still and balanced on just one idea. Parasite is an exercise in energetic chaos that juggles many balls, all as interesting as one another, without dropping any of them.
Poverty, class, elitism, generational gaps, vanity, work ethics and morality, roles within a family unit, loyalty, weakness, revenge and bitterness are all themes here, and many more. Start going down the alley of one conversation that Parasite starts and end up somewhere entirely different in just a few sentences. And that is why it is worth seeing, several times. And that is why it works and was rewarded.
Is it a film I will be keen to see over again as the years pass? Yes and no. I’d probably be most interested to see it with someone who hasn’t seen it, to see their reaction. But I’m much less likely to give it multiple watches than the previous mentioned Joker and 1917, or indeed Roma, which I just can’t help comparing it to, even though they have virtually nothing in common, as I wish it had been Roma that made history at the awards rather than this. Of course, it is personal taste at that level of quality, but I believe Roma to be the better film.
If nothing else, however, Parasite marks the graduation of Bong Joon Ho, from a quirky filmmaker, whose interesting but not quite great near misses include The Host, Snowpiercer and Okja – all entertaining but flawed – to an auteur of considerable skill. Will the elements of his mind and vision ever align this well again. I hope so. I’ll be looking out for it, as will the rest of the world now.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
May 18, 2019
"I can save today, you can save the world"
Remember when some trickster claiming to be a former worker from Warner Bros. wrote an open letter saying that Wonder Woman was just another mess of a DC movie, et cetera? I remember how Patty Jenkins responded to that. She tweeted: "Just wait and you'll see".
Honestly, I don't know how anyone could even consider that there was the slightest chance of this movie not being good, and I'm gonna tell you why: this is the very first big female-led superhero movie, in which the title character also happens to be the greatest female superhero in history. If you really think that Patty Jenkins, also the first woman to ever direct a superhero movie of this caliber in a industry where women barely stand any chances to get to direct major blockbusters, would let this movie be anything less than great... You've got another thing coming, mate.
Wonder Woman is a traditional, oldschool superhero movie, but the first essentially feminist one at it, and they couldn't have chosen a better setting to tell this story, or a better character to star in it. The movie's social comments are strong and constantly present, but never forced, because it is only natural: by placing Diana, a princess raised in an island of warrior women, in the middle of the reality of World War I, the absurdities of the feminine role in the world - and so many other human corruptions - automatically come to light. The way Diana reacts to this world raises a great sense of awareness, with a touch of poignant humor to it. There is a very funny subtle arc of her wanting to take out her cloak, but not being able to because her armor is "barely any clothes", hinting not only at society's sexist feminine dressing code - which is still a thing today -, but also gradually adding power to the iconography of Wonder Woman in full costume; this is Wonder Woman's much awaited debut on the big screen in a solo movie, and like Superman and Batman before her, her first appearance needed to be something incredibly striking. Patty knew that, Gal knew that, and they made it happen. Even if we already saw her in BVS, the very first time Wonder Woman walks up in full costume here is undoubtedly one of the most iconic moments in superhero cinema.
Jenkins is extremely devoted to giving Wonder Woman the iconic debut film she deserves, and she nails it - there's quite a bit of remarkable shots and set pieces that let out the same imagetic power as in Donner's Superman, Burton's Batman or even Raimi's Spider-Man, and I must highlight the No Man's Land sequence. It's my favorite part of the movie; Jenkins and Heinberg carefully work on Diana's mindset as she first witness the horrors of human war, not being able to help everyone, horses being hurt so they can move faster, a mother and a child begging for help, and it all leads up to the powerful moment of a woman crossing the land no man could cross - and Heinberg's dialogue doesn't rely on obvious statements such as "fortunately I'm a woman" (I'm looking at you, Batwoman trailer), it simply lets the image strike us, because it is powerful enough by itself, and boy did that cause some serious goosebumps.
Speaking of dialogue... It's so terrific, so well written. The exchanges between Diana and Steve Trevor are very clever and funny, but most of all natural. All the characters are also extremely likable; Allan Heinberg's writing knows that not all of them can be given deep development, but nonetheless he gives them stories, personalities and purposes, and that - plus the charismatic performances - makes them very empathetic. The villains are not as remarkable as in some of the other DCEU films, but they didn't need to be; the movie doesn't require in-depth arcs from its villains. They have a strong presence when they're in scene and a well elaborated lore, and that's everything they need.
Contrary to the Nordic mythology depicted in the MCU, here we are talking about real gods, true deities, not superpowerful aliens that only strike a similar image - and that also brings a few narrative dangers along with it, after all, it was in greek mythological stories that the concept of Deus Ex Machina first appeared. Heinberg's screenplay, though, makes a few clever twists in that mythology to avoid easy solutions, which adds to the storytelling, the world building and the developing of the themes as well. The lore surrounding the God of War Ares, for example, is not a simple Diabolus Ex Machina as "he influences men to war and if you kill him every man goes back to being good and everything's alright", no, it's more narratively complicated and socially engaging than that.
And Gal Gadot... I'm at a loss for words. I'll confess right here that when she was first announced as Wonder Woman, I was one of the few who were very opposed to that casting. I've never been so wrong in my life, and I've never been so happy about it. She really is Wonder Woman. She's so graceful and adorable, but a major badass when she needs to be. The way she moves, the way she curiously looks at things, the way she speaks, and the way she incarnates Diana's evolving from her naive beginnings to the wise warrior... She's not only an icon, she's a true hero. Comparisons to Christopher Reeve's Superman were made for good reasons.
Chris Pine is also great, he walks perfectly in the line between funny and serious, Steve Trevor is a darling character and his chemistry with Gal is on point. Their relationship is very well constructed and becomes highly emotional by the end - there are scenes that filled my heart with joy, and others that made it ache.
The action is exciting and full of originality, and I like how Jenkins uses slow-motion differently than Zack Snyder. I know that Snyder helped her direct some of the action sequences, which is understandable since Jenkins had no experience with this type of movie, but you can tell it's not the same. In the fights themselves, there's this feel of sensibility to how these people react to Diana, and it's slightly different from the typical "regular people react to superhumans among them" trope. The cinematography is very keen on portraying the difference between Themyscira - an island of colors and natural beauty - and "jolly ol' London" - desaturated and smoggy, a scenario in which Diana's colorful armor shines in a most beautiful contrast.
And the soundtrack. Rupert Gregson-Williams made a beautiful score that brings out the best in every scene. It's heroic, very heartfelt, and loyal to the foundations of what makes superhero music so memorable. Gregson-Williams adds new themes to compose Wonder Woman's musical identity, but Hans Zimmer's main theme from BVS still lives, and it plays in some heart-pounding scenes. I love that they're dedicating that much attention to the musical continuity, because amongst Marvel's many qualities, they're doing a lousy job in that area. Wonder Woman's theme is the most catchy superhero theme in a long time, it quickly gained a lot of appreciation and by continuing on using it, Gregson-Williams collaborates to making Wonder Woman the strong cinematic icon she's setting out to be.
The irregular reception of previous DCEU movies also extols the impact of Wonder Woman, as do the distinct styles between the films. One of the DCEU's biggest virtues is that singularity of each film; be it a near disaster movie epic such as Man Of Steel, a complex deconstruction of heroic values such as Batman v Superman, an stylish chaos such as Suicide Squad or a traditional, graceful superhero film such as Wonder Woman, these movies are all in the same universe, and that very fact is an example of its richness. A lot of people will think Wonder Woman is the best DCEU movie of the lot, some will stick to BVS, others to MOS, maybe for some it's Shazam, but that's the fun of it: we can discuss this forever. Each of these movies mean different things to different people, we're way past simply labelling one as "better" and the other as "worse".
Wonder Woman, however, is not simply a movie about a very strong woman. It's an achievement for every woman. There were tons of girls dressed up as Wonder Woman in the theater, and just seeing how ecstatic they were after the movie brought me joy. There were tons of applause. It's a mark. Be that as it may, Wonder Woman will be remembered as the most impactful superhero film of its time. In 1978, Superman showed to the world how a man could fly; in 2017, Wonder Woman showed to the world how a woman can fight.
Honestly, I don't know how anyone could even consider that there was the slightest chance of this movie not being good, and I'm gonna tell you why: this is the very first big female-led superhero movie, in which the title character also happens to be the greatest female superhero in history. If you really think that Patty Jenkins, also the first woman to ever direct a superhero movie of this caliber in a industry where women barely stand any chances to get to direct major blockbusters, would let this movie be anything less than great... You've got another thing coming, mate.
Wonder Woman is a traditional, oldschool superhero movie, but the first essentially feminist one at it, and they couldn't have chosen a better setting to tell this story, or a better character to star in it. The movie's social comments are strong and constantly present, but never forced, because it is only natural: by placing Diana, a princess raised in an island of warrior women, in the middle of the reality of World War I, the absurdities of the feminine role in the world - and so many other human corruptions - automatically come to light. The way Diana reacts to this world raises a great sense of awareness, with a touch of poignant humor to it. There is a very funny subtle arc of her wanting to take out her cloak, but not being able to because her armor is "barely any clothes", hinting not only at society's sexist feminine dressing code - which is still a thing today -, but also gradually adding power to the iconography of Wonder Woman in full costume; this is Wonder Woman's much awaited debut on the big screen in a solo movie, and like Superman and Batman before her, her first appearance needed to be something incredibly striking. Patty knew that, Gal knew that, and they made it happen. Even if we already saw her in BVS, the very first time Wonder Woman walks up in full costume here is undoubtedly one of the most iconic moments in superhero cinema.
Jenkins is extremely devoted to giving Wonder Woman the iconic debut film she deserves, and she nails it - there's quite a bit of remarkable shots and set pieces that let out the same imagetic power as in Donner's Superman, Burton's Batman or even Raimi's Spider-Man, and I must highlight the No Man's Land sequence. It's my favorite part of the movie; Jenkins and Heinberg carefully work on Diana's mindset as she first witness the horrors of human war, not being able to help everyone, horses being hurt so they can move faster, a mother and a child begging for help, and it all leads up to the powerful moment of a woman crossing the land no man could cross - and Heinberg's dialogue doesn't rely on obvious statements such as "fortunately I'm a woman" (I'm looking at you, Batwoman trailer), it simply lets the image strike us, because it is powerful enough by itself, and boy did that cause some serious goosebumps.
Speaking of dialogue... It's so terrific, so well written. The exchanges between Diana and Steve Trevor are very clever and funny, but most of all natural. All the characters are also extremely likable; Allan Heinberg's writing knows that not all of them can be given deep development, but nonetheless he gives them stories, personalities and purposes, and that - plus the charismatic performances - makes them very empathetic. The villains are not as remarkable as in some of the other DCEU films, but they didn't need to be; the movie doesn't require in-depth arcs from its villains. They have a strong presence when they're in scene and a well elaborated lore, and that's everything they need.
Contrary to the Nordic mythology depicted in the MCU, here we are talking about real gods, true deities, not superpowerful aliens that only strike a similar image - and that also brings a few narrative dangers along with it, after all, it was in greek mythological stories that the concept of Deus Ex Machina first appeared. Heinberg's screenplay, though, makes a few clever twists in that mythology to avoid easy solutions, which adds to the storytelling, the world building and the developing of the themes as well. The lore surrounding the God of War Ares, for example, is not a simple Diabolus Ex Machina as "he influences men to war and if you kill him every man goes back to being good and everything's alright", no, it's more narratively complicated and socially engaging than that.
And Gal Gadot... I'm at a loss for words. I'll confess right here that when she was first announced as Wonder Woman, I was one of the few who were very opposed to that casting. I've never been so wrong in my life, and I've never been so happy about it. She really is Wonder Woman. She's so graceful and adorable, but a major badass when she needs to be. The way she moves, the way she curiously looks at things, the way she speaks, and the way she incarnates Diana's evolving from her naive beginnings to the wise warrior... She's not only an icon, she's a true hero. Comparisons to Christopher Reeve's Superman were made for good reasons.
Chris Pine is also great, he walks perfectly in the line between funny and serious, Steve Trevor is a darling character and his chemistry with Gal is on point. Their relationship is very well constructed and becomes highly emotional by the end - there are scenes that filled my heart with joy, and others that made it ache.
The action is exciting and full of originality, and I like how Jenkins uses slow-motion differently than Zack Snyder. I know that Snyder helped her direct some of the action sequences, which is understandable since Jenkins had no experience with this type of movie, but you can tell it's not the same. In the fights themselves, there's this feel of sensibility to how these people react to Diana, and it's slightly different from the typical "regular people react to superhumans among them" trope. The cinematography is very keen on portraying the difference between Themyscira - an island of colors and natural beauty - and "jolly ol' London" - desaturated and smoggy, a scenario in which Diana's colorful armor shines in a most beautiful contrast.
And the soundtrack. Rupert Gregson-Williams made a beautiful score that brings out the best in every scene. It's heroic, very heartfelt, and loyal to the foundations of what makes superhero music so memorable. Gregson-Williams adds new themes to compose Wonder Woman's musical identity, but Hans Zimmer's main theme from BVS still lives, and it plays in some heart-pounding scenes. I love that they're dedicating that much attention to the musical continuity, because amongst Marvel's many qualities, they're doing a lousy job in that area. Wonder Woman's theme is the most catchy superhero theme in a long time, it quickly gained a lot of appreciation and by continuing on using it, Gregson-Williams collaborates to making Wonder Woman the strong cinematic icon she's setting out to be.
The irregular reception of previous DCEU movies also extols the impact of Wonder Woman, as do the distinct styles between the films. One of the DCEU's biggest virtues is that singularity of each film; be it a near disaster movie epic such as Man Of Steel, a complex deconstruction of heroic values such as Batman v Superman, an stylish chaos such as Suicide Squad or a traditional, graceful superhero film such as Wonder Woman, these movies are all in the same universe, and that very fact is an example of its richness. A lot of people will think Wonder Woman is the best DCEU movie of the lot, some will stick to BVS, others to MOS, maybe for some it's Shazam, but that's the fun of it: we can discuss this forever. Each of these movies mean different things to different people, we're way past simply labelling one as "better" and the other as "worse".
Wonder Woman, however, is not simply a movie about a very strong woman. It's an achievement for every woman. There were tons of girls dressed up as Wonder Woman in the theater, and just seeing how ecstatic they were after the movie brought me joy. There were tons of applause. It's a mark. Be that as it may, Wonder Woman will be remembered as the most impactful superhero film of its time. In 1978, Superman showed to the world how a man could fly; in 2017, Wonder Woman showed to the world how a woman can fight.