Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Jem and the Holograms (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Being a teenager is a confusing time, we want to be accepted, popular, and, at times, invisible. In a world where you feel overlooked and ignored, it is gratifying to have a voice, an identity, some special aspect that is going to make you stand out and be accepted. Jem and the Holograms attempts to make this a theme. Creating your identity and having the ability to shape and form it into a way that it becomes your own shield against the ills of the world. It is a very promising concept and idea when attempting to update the series for today’s audience. Unfortunately there isn’t much substance to the film. The substance that is apparent is quite shallow and undeveloped.
Instead of sticking with the original premise and backstory of the popular cartoon series of the 1980s, it tries to modernize itself in a way that holds onto little of its origin other than the name of some of the characters. There is no heart with this film, there is no feeling driving the movie that makes you want to cheer for the characters to become successful. This is mainly due to the film not giving audiences a chance to like the characters or even learn who they really are. The film makes everything look so easy within the music industry. The basic understanding is that if you post a video online, you might be discovered and are immediately offered a recording contract. This storyline will resonate with many of the “Generation Me” and “Kardashian Culture” crowd that is filled dreams of becoming famous for doing little to nothing.
The story is beyond far-fetched in that it every problem, riddle, issue, and negative moment is resolved in the next scene. There is no struggle for any of the characters other than the possibility that their aunt and foster mother may lose their house, but even this is solved within two minutes.
The one shining light in the film is Juliette Lewis as Erica Raymond, CEO of Starlight Records who gives Jem and her sisters the opportunity to take over the spotlight. She is not only the comic relief, but serves the role as a conniving, manipulative recording manager. This is pretty much the only similarity that exists between this film and the original series. Erica prompts older audiences to think of the Misfits (the nemesis to the Holograms) who were continuously trying to sabotage their careers. The rest of the cast, leaves one not feeling connected to them or their storylines. There is no development for any of the people throughout the film. It almost seems as though when making the film, the production team sat around thinking, “It’s Jem, the music will carry the story.” Unfortunately, the music that is included goes no further than being the typical pop music similar to that which is on every station today. There is nothing that stands out about the music, as catchy as it is, that makes you feel as though you should become invested in who these girls are or even that they have something that makes them stand out. With the time that has passed since the cartoon appeared on television, there should have been more investment in who these girls are and why we should care about them. Audiences don’t have that opportunity, as they become famous, seemingly overnight. It almost makes one want to root against them.
There is a real opportunity missed with this film to combine the original show, catering to older audiences who watched the show as children, and update it for a newer generation. The film would have been much better served with inclusion of many of the elements that made the series have such appeal. The approach is very juvenile and rushed. The original show was more than music, it was about the relationships formed by many of the characters and the various adventures that they would pursue. There were stories with depth and continuity which reinforced the aspects of working hard and achievement of goals. The whole movie looks like a diary entry of what an American tween would see as their life in entertainment. The one positive note about the film is the way that it incorporates social media in the development of the story. It demonstrates the connection that is and can be made through music and pop culture.
Sadly, in contrast to the original series, the film demeans and belittles women. Its approach is short-sighted and does not deal with any aspect of reality that one would expect. Jem is nothing more than a manufactured pop music story. There is little that audiences could relate to. In a sense, it is anti-music, and anti-intellectual. The film itself, is filler and a corruption of the origin story and the time that has passed since it first debuted. Audiences of Jem the TV series may be appalled at what they witness, if they do decide to actually watch the film. For younger audiences, this film reinforces the belief that all kids should get participation trophies because they tried. There is the sense that if you just show up, the opportunity will be handed to you. There is no real work on the screen and it seems as though there was no real work or effort put into creating this film. Younger audiences will tout the music and friendship displayed. Older audiences who were fans of the television show will be soundly disappointed in what they witness on the screen. It is a bastardization of what Jem should be in a modern age. There is no soul to this film. Every note that it hits is flat.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/23/jem-and-the-holograms/
Instead of sticking with the original premise and backstory of the popular cartoon series of the 1980s, it tries to modernize itself in a way that holds onto little of its origin other than the name of some of the characters. There is no heart with this film, there is no feeling driving the movie that makes you want to cheer for the characters to become successful. This is mainly due to the film not giving audiences a chance to like the characters or even learn who they really are. The film makes everything look so easy within the music industry. The basic understanding is that if you post a video online, you might be discovered and are immediately offered a recording contract. This storyline will resonate with many of the “Generation Me” and “Kardashian Culture” crowd that is filled dreams of becoming famous for doing little to nothing.
The story is beyond far-fetched in that it every problem, riddle, issue, and negative moment is resolved in the next scene. There is no struggle for any of the characters other than the possibility that their aunt and foster mother may lose their house, but even this is solved within two minutes.
The one shining light in the film is Juliette Lewis as Erica Raymond, CEO of Starlight Records who gives Jem and her sisters the opportunity to take over the spotlight. She is not only the comic relief, but serves the role as a conniving, manipulative recording manager. This is pretty much the only similarity that exists between this film and the original series. Erica prompts older audiences to think of the Misfits (the nemesis to the Holograms) who were continuously trying to sabotage their careers. The rest of the cast, leaves one not feeling connected to them or their storylines. There is no development for any of the people throughout the film. It almost seems as though when making the film, the production team sat around thinking, “It’s Jem, the music will carry the story.” Unfortunately, the music that is included goes no further than being the typical pop music similar to that which is on every station today. There is nothing that stands out about the music, as catchy as it is, that makes you feel as though you should become invested in who these girls are or even that they have something that makes them stand out. With the time that has passed since the cartoon appeared on television, there should have been more investment in who these girls are and why we should care about them. Audiences don’t have that opportunity, as they become famous, seemingly overnight. It almost makes one want to root against them.
There is a real opportunity missed with this film to combine the original show, catering to older audiences who watched the show as children, and update it for a newer generation. The film would have been much better served with inclusion of many of the elements that made the series have such appeal. The approach is very juvenile and rushed. The original show was more than music, it was about the relationships formed by many of the characters and the various adventures that they would pursue. There were stories with depth and continuity which reinforced the aspects of working hard and achievement of goals. The whole movie looks like a diary entry of what an American tween would see as their life in entertainment. The one positive note about the film is the way that it incorporates social media in the development of the story. It demonstrates the connection that is and can be made through music and pop culture.
Sadly, in contrast to the original series, the film demeans and belittles women. Its approach is short-sighted and does not deal with any aspect of reality that one would expect. Jem is nothing more than a manufactured pop music story. There is little that audiences could relate to. In a sense, it is anti-music, and anti-intellectual. The film itself, is filler and a corruption of the origin story and the time that has passed since it first debuted. Audiences of Jem the TV series may be appalled at what they witness, if they do decide to actually watch the film. For younger audiences, this film reinforces the belief that all kids should get participation trophies because they tried. There is the sense that if you just show up, the opportunity will be handed to you. There is no real work on the screen and it seems as though there was no real work or effort put into creating this film. Younger audiences will tout the music and friendship displayed. Older audiences who were fans of the television show will be soundly disappointed in what they witness on the screen. It is a bastardization of what Jem should be in a modern age. There is no soul to this film. Every note that it hits is flat.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/23/jem-and-the-holograms/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Star Trek (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
With declining attendance at conventions and a dwindling audience for recent films and the last Star Trek series, Enterprise, Paramount was desperate to find a way to breathe new life into their franchise. So they pinned their hopes on director J.J. Abrams. Even with a string of hit movies and television series under his belt, some believed that Abrams was facing an uphill battle in trying to resuscitate Star Trek, with its legions of rabid fans obsessively protective of the series’ 40-plus years of established history.
While many fans were thrilled with the choice of Abrams, some of the casting choices of its beloved characters were met with doubt and skepticism. Thankfully, the man behind such motion picture hits as “Cloverfield”, “Mission Impossible 3”, and television series LOST, Alias and Fringe, was more than up to the task and has crafted a visually spectacular action film that combines the best of Trek with groundbreaking effects and creative vitality.
Using a script by Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman, the new film focuses on the early days of the crew, and how young James. T. Kirk (Chris Pine) went from being a joy-riding, bar-fighting hothead into captain of the Enterprise. Kirk is challenged by Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) to live up to the legacy of his father and make something of his life in Starfleet. Despite his cocky attitude, the young man is able to thrive at the academy despite his arrogant behavior and his womanizing ways.
At the same time, a threat has arisen in the form of a Romulan named Nero (Eric Bana), who seeks to cause massive death and destruction in his quest for vengeance. With danger looming, Kirk and his fellow classmates are pressed into action, and thanks to some skillful work from his friend Leonard Mc Coy (Karl Urban), Kirk finds himself onboard the new Federation flagship Enterprise.
En route to their destination, Kirk realizes they are heading into a trap and warns Captain Pike of his concerns. Naturally this does not sit well with some of the seasoned officers, especially Spock (Zachary Quinto), who sees the emotional Kirk as an unwanted reminder of his human half, which he tries to hide at all costs.
Eventually the Enterprise is confronted by Nero and in an impressive sequence of events Kirk and Sulu (John Cho), lead an orbital skydive mission to thwart Nero’s plot. Spock finds himself commanding the ship and he and Kirk, two polar opposites, disagree over a course of action. Citing insurbordination and dereliction, Spock expels Kirk from the ship onto a frigid and dangerous planet. What follows is an amazing and thrilling adventure that culminates in an impressive finale, that proves that Trek has got plenty of life left in it.
While I loved the film, I found that I had to detach myself from my love of classic Trek to fully enjoy it. The film covers changes in established cannon by setting events in an alternate timeline. Despite the different eras of the previous series and films, there was always a certain continuity to the ships, planets, and characters that always seemed to fit, which I found myself missing in this new incarnation.
In Abram’s version, the Enterprise engine room is awash in catwalks, pipes, and valves that seemed out of place on a ship set in the 23rd century. I also found myself asking why such strategically valuable planets such as Earth and Vulcan would not have massive defense fleets in orbit, and would task only a handful of ships for their defense. There was a suggestion, that the ships of the fleet were amassed elsewhere on another matter of importance, but that does not explain what would leave the planets relatively unguarded. Defense codes aside, I found it hard to believe that automated defenses would be all that was left behind, and that reinforcements were not available.
I also had an issue with what Nero was supposedly doing for 25 years and how he kept such a low profile while he plotted his revenge. The final issue I had was with product placement as I found it hard to believe that Nokia and its familiar ringtone and Budweiser would be around as Trek lore is based on the planet narrowly surviving a nuclear war in the past that nearly destroyed everything. While this may seem like minor criticism, from the perspective of a long time Star Trek fan, it contradicts much of what had been established.
Thankfully, Abrams and crew take the series in a new direction without totally losing sight of where it came from. There are many nods to the series and Abrams clearly respects the original material enough to let fans know that their beloved Trek is still there in the original timeline, with its history intact. By cleverly establishing a different timeline, Abrams has creative freedom to go in any direction he desires.
The cast is strong, with Chris Pine’s Kirk as cocky and entertaining as his predecessor. I loved Anton Yelchin as Chekov and his struggles with the English language, Simon Pegg’s quick quips as Scotty, and the sassy attitude Zoe Saldana’s injects into her Uhura. The amazing visuals and designs of the film are breathtaking and it was clear that the Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) crew pushed themselves to bring everything they had to the film. In the end, Star Trek is a remarkable film that, despite some issues, has a solid new lease on life. Abrams boldly, and triumphantly, goes where fans, old and new, will gladly follow.
While many fans were thrilled with the choice of Abrams, some of the casting choices of its beloved characters were met with doubt and skepticism. Thankfully, the man behind such motion picture hits as “Cloverfield”, “Mission Impossible 3”, and television series LOST, Alias and Fringe, was more than up to the task and has crafted a visually spectacular action film that combines the best of Trek with groundbreaking effects and creative vitality.
Using a script by Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman, the new film focuses on the early days of the crew, and how young James. T. Kirk (Chris Pine) went from being a joy-riding, bar-fighting hothead into captain of the Enterprise. Kirk is challenged by Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) to live up to the legacy of his father and make something of his life in Starfleet. Despite his cocky attitude, the young man is able to thrive at the academy despite his arrogant behavior and his womanizing ways.
At the same time, a threat has arisen in the form of a Romulan named Nero (Eric Bana), who seeks to cause massive death and destruction in his quest for vengeance. With danger looming, Kirk and his fellow classmates are pressed into action, and thanks to some skillful work from his friend Leonard Mc Coy (Karl Urban), Kirk finds himself onboard the new Federation flagship Enterprise.
En route to their destination, Kirk realizes they are heading into a trap and warns Captain Pike of his concerns. Naturally this does not sit well with some of the seasoned officers, especially Spock (Zachary Quinto), who sees the emotional Kirk as an unwanted reminder of his human half, which he tries to hide at all costs.
Eventually the Enterprise is confronted by Nero and in an impressive sequence of events Kirk and Sulu (John Cho), lead an orbital skydive mission to thwart Nero’s plot. Spock finds himself commanding the ship and he and Kirk, two polar opposites, disagree over a course of action. Citing insurbordination and dereliction, Spock expels Kirk from the ship onto a frigid and dangerous planet. What follows is an amazing and thrilling adventure that culminates in an impressive finale, that proves that Trek has got plenty of life left in it.
While I loved the film, I found that I had to detach myself from my love of classic Trek to fully enjoy it. The film covers changes in established cannon by setting events in an alternate timeline. Despite the different eras of the previous series and films, there was always a certain continuity to the ships, planets, and characters that always seemed to fit, which I found myself missing in this new incarnation.
In Abram’s version, the Enterprise engine room is awash in catwalks, pipes, and valves that seemed out of place on a ship set in the 23rd century. I also found myself asking why such strategically valuable planets such as Earth and Vulcan would not have massive defense fleets in orbit, and would task only a handful of ships for their defense. There was a suggestion, that the ships of the fleet were amassed elsewhere on another matter of importance, but that does not explain what would leave the planets relatively unguarded. Defense codes aside, I found it hard to believe that automated defenses would be all that was left behind, and that reinforcements were not available.
I also had an issue with what Nero was supposedly doing for 25 years and how he kept such a low profile while he plotted his revenge. The final issue I had was with product placement as I found it hard to believe that Nokia and its familiar ringtone and Budweiser would be around as Trek lore is based on the planet narrowly surviving a nuclear war in the past that nearly destroyed everything. While this may seem like minor criticism, from the perspective of a long time Star Trek fan, it contradicts much of what had been established.
Thankfully, Abrams and crew take the series in a new direction without totally losing sight of where it came from. There are many nods to the series and Abrams clearly respects the original material enough to let fans know that their beloved Trek is still there in the original timeline, with its history intact. By cleverly establishing a different timeline, Abrams has creative freedom to go in any direction he desires.
The cast is strong, with Chris Pine’s Kirk as cocky and entertaining as his predecessor. I loved Anton Yelchin as Chekov and his struggles with the English language, Simon Pegg’s quick quips as Scotty, and the sassy attitude Zoe Saldana’s injects into her Uhura. The amazing visuals and designs of the film are breathtaking and it was clear that the Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) crew pushed themselves to bring everything they had to the film. In the end, Star Trek is a remarkable film that, despite some issues, has a solid new lease on life. Abrams boldly, and triumphantly, goes where fans, old and new, will gladly follow.
BBC Drama
This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
Many people in Britain may have recently watched the drama series Our Zoo on BBC1 about the Mottershead family who moved to Oakfield, Upton in 1930 with the aim of building a zoo without bars. Based on a true story the drama over exaggerated the difficulties the family faced in developing what became to be the famous Chester Zoo. Until 2010 when TV producer Adam Kemp approached her, June Mottershead had never thought about making her history available to the public. As the truth had to be bent slightly for the television production with the removal of certain characters and added romance, and, of course, the laws preventing chimpanzees from being filmed, June Mottershead has penned the true story, also called Our Zoo, which is just as fascinating as what was shown on screen.
June was only four when she moved to Upton with her parents, grandparents, and her fourteen-year-old sister Muriel as well as a selection of animals. The BBC1 drama only showed up until the point that her father, George, had finally been given permission to build his zoo despite the petition against it. In the book, however, this occurs within the first few chapters and then continues on until June’s marriage to her husband Fred Williams in 1949. In fact the time period of the narrative jumps around depending on the animals or events that June is describing.
A large chunk of the book is focused on the effect the Second World War had on the zoo. As can be expected the rationings of vital products took its toll on the animals’ diets and, although the zoo never took a direct hit, the Liverpool blitz caused havoc by destroying the glass tanks in the aquarium. On the other hand, the amount of animals rapidly grew, as it was not just humans that became refugees during the war.
It was a delight to read about June’s relationships with some of the animals, particularly Mary the chimpanzee who was also June’s best friend as a child and behaved in a humanlike manner. Alas, as well as the happy moments there were the inevitable upsetting accounts of the deaths some of the animals, either from old age, illness or accidents.
While Our Zoo cannot be described as a novel, it neither has the feel of an autobiography. The conversational tone of the writing made it a pleasure to read and easy to visualize (admittedly watching the televised version had already provided a certain image).
This easy to read book is a strong recommendation for those who enjoyed the BBC adaptation and wish to find out what happened next. It does not matter if you have not watched the drama, as it is overall a fascinating story to read.
Many people in Britain may have recently watched the drama series Our Zoo on BBC1 about the Mottershead family who moved to Oakfield, Upton in 1930 with the aim of building a zoo without bars. Based on a true story the drama over exaggerated the difficulties the family faced in developing what became to be the famous Chester Zoo. Until 2010 when TV producer Adam Kemp approached her, June Mottershead had never thought about making her history available to the public. As the truth had to be bent slightly for the television production with the removal of certain characters and added romance, and, of course, the laws preventing chimpanzees from being filmed, June Mottershead has penned the true story, also called Our Zoo, which is just as fascinating as what was shown on screen.
June was only four when she moved to Upton with her parents, grandparents, and her fourteen-year-old sister Muriel as well as a selection of animals. The BBC1 drama only showed up until the point that her father, George, had finally been given permission to build his zoo despite the petition against it. In the book, however, this occurs within the first few chapters and then continues on until June’s marriage to her husband Fred Williams in 1949. In fact the time period of the narrative jumps around depending on the animals or events that June is describing.
A large chunk of the book is focused on the effect the Second World War had on the zoo. As can be expected the rationings of vital products took its toll on the animals’ diets and, although the zoo never took a direct hit, the Liverpool blitz caused havoc by destroying the glass tanks in the aquarium. On the other hand, the amount of animals rapidly grew, as it was not just humans that became refugees during the war.
It was a delight to read about June’s relationships with some of the animals, particularly Mary the chimpanzee who was also June’s best friend as a child and behaved in a humanlike manner. Alas, as well as the happy moments there were the inevitable upsetting accounts of the deaths some of the animals, either from old age, illness or accidents.
While Our Zoo cannot be described as a novel, it neither has the feel of an autobiography. The conversational tone of the writing made it a pleasure to read and easy to visualize (admittedly watching the televised version had already provided a certain image).
This easy to read book is a strong recommendation for those who enjoyed the BBC adaptation and wish to find out what happened next. It does not matter if you have not watched the drama, as it is overall a fascinating story to read.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Blast from the Past (Where Are They Now? #3) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
In this third entry into the Where Are They Now? series, Tilda Harper finds herself doubting her abilities as a journalist after two unfortunate incidents go awry. Invited to meet and interview the star of the movie, which itself is based on a comic from the eighties that is now a cult classic, Tilda sets off. As she interviews the star, John Laryea, who was also in a musical-adventure television show as a teen, and various others involved with the film project, she witnesses the hit-and-run of Laryea and his assistant. While she discovers who was behind that "accident" and works to clear the main suspect's name, she also is hired to find out who Leviathan, the mysterious creator of the classic comic book series, Pharos, actually is.
A smart main character, Tilda may make some mistakes but she's never dumb and never annoying. She goes about her work in a very professional way even if she may have some sarcastic thoughts about someone or something. I really do like her, she's not a silly nitwit who gets by on luck or relies on a guy. The cast of characters are, as usual, interesting and incorporated very well into the plot. Along with the new faces, some familiar ones are here as well. Cooper, Tilda's best friend who always brings some lightheartedness, isn't as prominent in this book as he has been in the others, I believe it's only through phone conversations, but luckily the book doesn't suffer because of this. Tilda's sister, June is in it for a short amount of time that doesn't diminish her repartee with Tilda. Nick (Tilda's former and maybe future love interest) and his dad, Dom, are the two who feature predominantly since Dom's company is in charge of the film's security. Following the pattern of each book, a new roommate is introduced, though I'm sure she'll be gone by the next outing, this time the roommate is an animal collector, the latest being a snake Tilda's not too fond of.
The two plots are well-paced and complement each other nicely. Pretty much every page of the book was interesting, with clues so subtly embedded I didn't always pick up on them, that it held my attention to the very end. I love the concept of this series and while I liked the previous books, I believe this may just be the best one to date and hope there are many more to come.
Series order:
[b:Curse of the Kissing Cousins|2384227|Curse of the Kissing Cousins (Where are They Now?, #1)|Toni L.P. Kelner|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1266777949s/2384227.jpg|2391239]
[b:Who Killed the Pinup Queen?|7518303|Who Killed the Pinup Queen? (Where are They Now?, #2)|Toni L.P. Kelner|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1277167352s/7518303.jpg|9733117]
[b:Blast from the Past|8592435|Blast from the Past (Where Are They Now? #3)|Toni L. P. Kelner|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1327922876s/8592435.jpg|13462058]
A smart main character, Tilda may make some mistakes but she's never dumb and never annoying. She goes about her work in a very professional way even if she may have some sarcastic thoughts about someone or something. I really do like her, she's not a silly nitwit who gets by on luck or relies on a guy. The cast of characters are, as usual, interesting and incorporated very well into the plot. Along with the new faces, some familiar ones are here as well. Cooper, Tilda's best friend who always brings some lightheartedness, isn't as prominent in this book as he has been in the others, I believe it's only through phone conversations, but luckily the book doesn't suffer because of this. Tilda's sister, June is in it for a short amount of time that doesn't diminish her repartee with Tilda. Nick (Tilda's former and maybe future love interest) and his dad, Dom, are the two who feature predominantly since Dom's company is in charge of the film's security. Following the pattern of each book, a new roommate is introduced, though I'm sure she'll be gone by the next outing, this time the roommate is an animal collector, the latest being a snake Tilda's not too fond of.
The two plots are well-paced and complement each other nicely. Pretty much every page of the book was interesting, with clues so subtly embedded I didn't always pick up on them, that it held my attention to the very end. I love the concept of this series and while I liked the previous books, I believe this may just be the best one to date and hope there are many more to come.
Series order:
[b:Curse of the Kissing Cousins|2384227|Curse of the Kissing Cousins (Where are They Now?, #1)|Toni L.P. Kelner|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1266777949s/2384227.jpg|2391239]
[b:Who Killed the Pinup Queen?|7518303|Who Killed the Pinup Queen? (Where are They Now?, #2)|Toni L.P. Kelner|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1277167352s/7518303.jpg|9733117]
[b:Blast from the Past|8592435|Blast from the Past (Where Are They Now? #3)|Toni L. P. Kelner|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1327922876s/8592435.jpg|13462058]
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review</i>
Many people in Britain may have recently watched the drama series <i>Our Zoo</i> on BBC1 about the Mottershead family who moved to Oakfield, Upton in 1930 with the aim of building a zoo without bars. Based on a true story the drama over exaggerated the difficulties the family faced in developing what became to be the famous Chester Zoo. Until 2010 when TV producer Adam Kemp approached her, June Mottershead had never thought about making her history available to the public. As the truth had to be bent slightly for the television production with the removal of certain characters and added romance, and, of course, the laws preventing chimpanzees from being filmed, June Mottershead has penned the true story, also called <i>Our Zoo</i>, which is just as fascinating as what was shown on screen.
June was only four when she moved to Upton with her parents, grandparents, and her fourteen-year-old sister Muriel as well as a selection of animals. The BBC1 drama only showed up until the point that her father, George, had finally been given permission to build his zoo despite the petition against it. In the book, however, this occurs within the first few chapters and then continues on until June’s marriage to her husband Fred Williams in 1949. In fact the time period of the narrative jumps around depending on the animals or events that June is describing.
A large chunk of the book is focused on the effect the Second World War had on the zoo. As can be expected the rationings of vital products took its toll on the animals’ diets and, although the zoo never took a direct hit, the Liverpool blitz caused havoc by destroying the glass tanks in the aquarium. On the other hand, the amount of animals rapidly grew, as it was not just humans that became refugees during the war.
It was a delight to read about June’s relationships with some of the animals, particularly Mary the chimpanzee who was also June’s best friend as a child and behaved in a humanlike manner. Alas, as well as the happy moments there were the inevitable upsetting accounts of the deaths some of the animals, either from old age, illness or accidents.
While <i>Our Zoo</i> cannot be described as a novel, it neither has the feel of an autobiography. The conversational tone of the writing made it a pleasure to read and easy to visualize (admittedly watching the televised version had already provided a certain image).
This easy to read book is a strong recommendation for those who enjoyed the BBC adaptation and wish to find out what happened next. It does not matter if you have not watched the drama, as it is overall a fascinating story to read.
Many people in Britain may have recently watched the drama series <i>Our Zoo</i> on BBC1 about the Mottershead family who moved to Oakfield, Upton in 1930 with the aim of building a zoo without bars. Based on a true story the drama over exaggerated the difficulties the family faced in developing what became to be the famous Chester Zoo. Until 2010 when TV producer Adam Kemp approached her, June Mottershead had never thought about making her history available to the public. As the truth had to be bent slightly for the television production with the removal of certain characters and added romance, and, of course, the laws preventing chimpanzees from being filmed, June Mottershead has penned the true story, also called <i>Our Zoo</i>, which is just as fascinating as what was shown on screen.
June was only four when she moved to Upton with her parents, grandparents, and her fourteen-year-old sister Muriel as well as a selection of animals. The BBC1 drama only showed up until the point that her father, George, had finally been given permission to build his zoo despite the petition against it. In the book, however, this occurs within the first few chapters and then continues on until June’s marriage to her husband Fred Williams in 1949. In fact the time period of the narrative jumps around depending on the animals or events that June is describing.
A large chunk of the book is focused on the effect the Second World War had on the zoo. As can be expected the rationings of vital products took its toll on the animals’ diets and, although the zoo never took a direct hit, the Liverpool blitz caused havoc by destroying the glass tanks in the aquarium. On the other hand, the amount of animals rapidly grew, as it was not just humans that became refugees during the war.
It was a delight to read about June’s relationships with some of the animals, particularly Mary the chimpanzee who was also June’s best friend as a child and behaved in a humanlike manner. Alas, as well as the happy moments there were the inevitable upsetting accounts of the deaths some of the animals, either from old age, illness or accidents.
While <i>Our Zoo</i> cannot be described as a novel, it neither has the feel of an autobiography. The conversational tone of the writing made it a pleasure to read and easy to visualize (admittedly watching the televised version had already provided a certain image).
This easy to read book is a strong recommendation for those who enjoyed the BBC adaptation and wish to find out what happened next. It does not matter if you have not watched the drama, as it is overall a fascinating story to read.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Sherlock Holmes (2009) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
The stories of master detective Sherlock Holmes have delighted readers, listeners, and viewers for well over a century. The tales have grown from the stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to include radio, television, and film. Director Guy Ritchie casts Robert Downey Jr. as a slightly dysfunctional but brilliant Holmes who, along with his partner Dr. Watson (Jude Law), have just stopped a bizarre ceremony and ended a murder spree in the process.
The people of London are grateful to be free of the terror induced by Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), but solving the mystery leaves Holmes somewhat despondent and uninterested in solving other mysteries. Most likely because Watson is moving out of their home and office to complete his pending marriage plans. The lack of complexity in the cases Holmes is requested to take leaves him abundant time to sulk in his study and scare the housing staff with his bizarre behavior and inventions.
The monotony of Holmes’s life is abruptly ended when Blackwood summons him shortly before his scheduled execution for his crimes. Blackwood indicates that a dark plot is in the works and though his claims are dismissed by the authorities as the desperate ravings of a madman about to be executed, Holmes begins to think there is more to the case than meets the eye. Things take a bizarre turn when Blackwood appears to rise from the dead and starts a new wave of terror over the city. Pressed into action, Holmes and Watson uncover a series of clues that reveal a diabolic plot that will alter the balance of power in England.
In a race against time, Holmes and Watson must also deal with their unresolved issues regarding Watson’s pending marriage as well as a mysterious, seductive woman from Holmes’s past (Rachel Mc Adams). What follows is a winning combination of comedy, action, mystery, and a touch of romance Ritchie knows he has a strong cast and gives Downey, Law, and Mc Adams ample room to explore their characters yet keeps them within the story.
The plot of the film may be the weakest point and at times its uncertain if it is an action buddy film or a caper picture. It attempts to blend the two but often comes up short, lacking enough action for my taste. The plot may also be confusing to some as it lacks a cohesive structure and seems to be a free roaming entity that exists within a general framework.
Downey and Law work well with one another and Downey gives a strong, clever performance in a role that requires both physical and cerebral dexterity. Mc Adams is good as the love interest in the film but would have benefited from more time to better expand her character which I hope will happen in future films.
While the film may not come across as a traditional American studio film, there is a lot to like about this new Holmes and the new franchise it launches for fans old and new.
The people of London are grateful to be free of the terror induced by Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), but solving the mystery leaves Holmes somewhat despondent and uninterested in solving other mysteries. Most likely because Watson is moving out of their home and office to complete his pending marriage plans. The lack of complexity in the cases Holmes is requested to take leaves him abundant time to sulk in his study and scare the housing staff with his bizarre behavior and inventions.
The monotony of Holmes’s life is abruptly ended when Blackwood summons him shortly before his scheduled execution for his crimes. Blackwood indicates that a dark plot is in the works and though his claims are dismissed by the authorities as the desperate ravings of a madman about to be executed, Holmes begins to think there is more to the case than meets the eye. Things take a bizarre turn when Blackwood appears to rise from the dead and starts a new wave of terror over the city. Pressed into action, Holmes and Watson uncover a series of clues that reveal a diabolic plot that will alter the balance of power in England.
In a race against time, Holmes and Watson must also deal with their unresolved issues regarding Watson’s pending marriage as well as a mysterious, seductive woman from Holmes’s past (Rachel Mc Adams). What follows is a winning combination of comedy, action, mystery, and a touch of romance Ritchie knows he has a strong cast and gives Downey, Law, and Mc Adams ample room to explore their characters yet keeps them within the story.
The plot of the film may be the weakest point and at times its uncertain if it is an action buddy film or a caper picture. It attempts to blend the two but often comes up short, lacking enough action for my taste. The plot may also be confusing to some as it lacks a cohesive structure and seems to be a free roaming entity that exists within a general framework.
Downey and Law work well with one another and Downey gives a strong, clever performance in a role that requires both physical and cerebral dexterity. Mc Adams is good as the love interest in the film but would have benefited from more time to better expand her character which I hope will happen in future films.
While the film may not come across as a traditional American studio film, there is a lot to like about this new Holmes and the new franchise it launches for fans old and new.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Gosford Park (2001) in Movies
Mar 24, 2020
Underneath it all...and Altman film
Do you like DOWNTON ABBEY? Do you like Agatha Christie Murder Mysteries? Do you like the 1970's British television series UPSTAIRS DOWNSTAIRS? If your answer to any of these questions is yes, then do I have a film for you.
GOSFORD PARK is an English Murder Mystery, set in the 1920's, featuring an All Star Cast, Directed by a 7 time Oscar nominee. It received critical acclaim in the year it was released (2001), earned 7 Oscar nominations (including Best Picture) and won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay (Julian Fellowes...who would go on to create/write DOWNTON ABBEY).
Set in an English Country Manor, overseen by overbearing Lord William McCordle (Michael Gambon, the 2nd Albus Dumbledore in the Harry Potter films), GOSFORD PARK tells of the trials, tribulations, loves and death (yes, there's a murder) of a host of characters both Upstairs (the wealthy) and Downstairs (the servants).
And what a cast it is! Kristin Scott Thomas, Maggie Smith, Charles Dance, Jeremy Northam, Tom Hollander and Bob Balaban lead the group of the wealthy, while Helen Mirren, Alan Bates, Clive Owen, Kelly MacDonald, Eileen Atkins and Emily Watson head up the cast of servants below the stairs.
Both Maggie Smith and Helen Mirren were nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for their work in this film (both losing to Jennifer Connelly for A BEAUTIFUL MIND).
Directed by Robert Altman (M*A*S*H, NASHVILLE), GOSFORD PARK is much of what you would expect from an Altman film...many, many people living their lives, sometimes intersecting with others, often times just going off on their own, tied together by the circumstances of being in this giant manor house on a weekend of a murder.
It is an ambitious, "Oscar bait" film that succeeds for the most part. And, if you are into the costumes, sets, Interior Design and intimate scenes of people talking, then you will be richly rewarded by this film.
I loved this film when it first came out and was anxiously looking forward to re-visiting it.
While I still liked it during this viewing, I did find the pacing to be languid and I started finding myself being frustrated by threads and character direction that just sort of petered out or ended all together with no real resolution. I know this was on purpose, for Altman would argue that this is what happens in real life, but I found this frustrating.
But this film has much, much going for it and if you haven't seen this - or haven't seen this in awhile - and are a fan of these types of films, then GOSFORD PARK will be a very rewarding 2 hours and 11 minutes of a movie going experience.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
GOSFORD PARK is an English Murder Mystery, set in the 1920's, featuring an All Star Cast, Directed by a 7 time Oscar nominee. It received critical acclaim in the year it was released (2001), earned 7 Oscar nominations (including Best Picture) and won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay (Julian Fellowes...who would go on to create/write DOWNTON ABBEY).
Set in an English Country Manor, overseen by overbearing Lord William McCordle (Michael Gambon, the 2nd Albus Dumbledore in the Harry Potter films), GOSFORD PARK tells of the trials, tribulations, loves and death (yes, there's a murder) of a host of characters both Upstairs (the wealthy) and Downstairs (the servants).
And what a cast it is! Kristin Scott Thomas, Maggie Smith, Charles Dance, Jeremy Northam, Tom Hollander and Bob Balaban lead the group of the wealthy, while Helen Mirren, Alan Bates, Clive Owen, Kelly MacDonald, Eileen Atkins and Emily Watson head up the cast of servants below the stairs.
Both Maggie Smith and Helen Mirren were nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for their work in this film (both losing to Jennifer Connelly for A BEAUTIFUL MIND).
Directed by Robert Altman (M*A*S*H, NASHVILLE), GOSFORD PARK is much of what you would expect from an Altman film...many, many people living their lives, sometimes intersecting with others, often times just going off on their own, tied together by the circumstances of being in this giant manor house on a weekend of a murder.
It is an ambitious, "Oscar bait" film that succeeds for the most part. And, if you are into the costumes, sets, Interior Design and intimate scenes of people talking, then you will be richly rewarded by this film.
I loved this film when it first came out and was anxiously looking forward to re-visiting it.
While I still liked it during this viewing, I did find the pacing to be languid and I started finding myself being frustrated by threads and character direction that just sort of petered out or ended all together with no real resolution. I know this was on purpose, for Altman would argue that this is what happens in real life, but I found this frustrating.
But this film has much, much going for it and if you haven't seen this - or haven't seen this in awhile - and are a fan of these types of films, then GOSFORD PARK will be a very rewarding 2 hours and 11 minutes of a movie going experience.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
As a fan of the Pride and Prejudice book by Jane Austen, I thought it was all kinds of wrong when I came across the parody novel Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, by Seth Grahame-Smith, that essentially Austen’s classic novel with elements of modern zombie fiction. Mainly because I’m not a fan of horror movies. So as we approached the theater where we were screening Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, I told my husband, “I really don’t want to watch this. I hate zombies.” He just laughed. “You hate zombies, but you watch Walking Dead. Just pretend it’s an episode of Walking dead. Just set near the Victorian era.” I admit, I do watch the Walking Dead but it’s the most stressful hour of television for me, and there are commercial breaks. This movie has a running time for this move was almost 2 hrs with no commercials.
But the movie got a giggle out of me in the first 5 minutes. And of course it made me gasp not long after. But Walking Dead has trained me well, and it wasn’t too long ago that I watched Hateful Eight, so I think I’m quite desensitized to blood and gore now, and in comparison, PPZ was relatively mild in that regard. It also had enough of the elements of the original story that fighting zombies actually became an entertaining digression. You know – beautiful young ladies, dashing young men, ballroom dancing, budding romance, zombie attack.
“To succeed in polite society, a young woman must be many things. Kind… well-read… and accomplished. But to survive in the world as WE know it, you’ll need… other qualities.” Those qualities include being skilled in the martial arts and weapons training, while wearing a corset –essentially making them Regency era bad-asses.
Because I don’t watch Downton Abbey, the last time I saw Lily James, who plays Elizabeth Bennett, she was brilliantly blond and sweetly keeping her promise to her mother to “have courage and be kind.” as Cinderella. In PPZ, she’s a fierce brunette who doesn’t take too kindly to Fitzwilliam Darcy, played by a sullen and haughty Sam Riley – another Disney alum, last seen as Diaval, Maleficent’s companion raven.
Where the Jane Austen’s Mr. Darcy is won over by Elizbeth’s charm and wit, PPZ’s Darcy is slowly won over by Elizabeth’s aggressive and bold battle skills. Adding the alternate history of how zombies came to be a part of Regency era England hurried the story along, so the romantic developments felt a bit rushed, but Riley’s Darcy was quite believable in his reluctant but growing admiration of Elizabeth.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this movie, zombies and all. When you can get guys to cheer for some undead’s head getting blown off, and still make the ladies sigh for the romance, you have a pretty perfect date movie. It may very well be my favorite period costume romantic zombie action film.
But the movie got a giggle out of me in the first 5 minutes. And of course it made me gasp not long after. But Walking Dead has trained me well, and it wasn’t too long ago that I watched Hateful Eight, so I think I’m quite desensitized to blood and gore now, and in comparison, PPZ was relatively mild in that regard. It also had enough of the elements of the original story that fighting zombies actually became an entertaining digression. You know – beautiful young ladies, dashing young men, ballroom dancing, budding romance, zombie attack.
“To succeed in polite society, a young woman must be many things. Kind… well-read… and accomplished. But to survive in the world as WE know it, you’ll need… other qualities.” Those qualities include being skilled in the martial arts and weapons training, while wearing a corset –essentially making them Regency era bad-asses.
Because I don’t watch Downton Abbey, the last time I saw Lily James, who plays Elizabeth Bennett, she was brilliantly blond and sweetly keeping her promise to her mother to “have courage and be kind.” as Cinderella. In PPZ, she’s a fierce brunette who doesn’t take too kindly to Fitzwilliam Darcy, played by a sullen and haughty Sam Riley – another Disney alum, last seen as Diaval, Maleficent’s companion raven.
Where the Jane Austen’s Mr. Darcy is won over by Elizbeth’s charm and wit, PPZ’s Darcy is slowly won over by Elizabeth’s aggressive and bold battle skills. Adding the alternate history of how zombies came to be a part of Regency era England hurried the story along, so the romantic developments felt a bit rushed, but Riley’s Darcy was quite believable in his reluctant but growing admiration of Elizabeth.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this movie, zombies and all. When you can get guys to cheer for some undead’s head getting blown off, and still make the ladies sigh for the romance, you have a pretty perfect date movie. It may very well be my favorite period costume romantic zombie action film.
Draw Along with Stella and Sam
Education and Games
App
(Description en français plus bas.) Draw along with Stella and Sam in this fun new art app. Pick a...
Learning Time with Timmy 1 – 1st words in English
Education and Entertainment
App
**MadeForMums Toy Awards 2016 Top Play App - Bronze Award** Timmy, your child’s favourite...