JacketFlap connects you to the work of more than 200,000 authors, illustrators, publishers and other creators of books for Children and Young Adults. The site is updated daily with information about every book, author, illustrator, and publisher in the children's / young adult book industry. Members include published authors and illustrators, librarians, agents, editors, publicists, booksellers, publishers and fans. Join now (it's free).
Login or Register for free to create your own customized page of blog posts from your favorite blogs. You can also add blogs by clicking the "Add to MyJacketFlap" links next to the blog name in each post.
Blog Posts by Tag
In the past 7 days
Blog Posts by Date
Click days in this calendar to see posts by day or month
Viewing: Blog Posts Tagged with: movie review, Most Recent at Top [Help]
Results 26 - 40 of 40
How to use this Page
You are viewing the most recent posts tagged with the words: movie review in the JacketFlap blog reader. What is a tag? Think of a tag as a keyword or category label. Tags can both help you find posts on JacketFlap.com as well as provide an easy way for you to "remember" and classify posts for later recall. Try adding a tag yourself by clicking "Add a tag" below a post's header. Scroll down through the list of Recent Posts in the left column and click on a post title that sounds interesting. You can view all posts from a specific blog by clicking the Blog name in the right column, or you can click a 'More Posts from this Blog' link in any individual post.
Today I'll be sharing my thoughts on TWO adaptations of Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre, both adaptations are from the 1970s, but they are so DIFFERENT from one another. One I'd definitely recommend, the other, well, not so much.
I'll start with the one I wouldn't really recommend, the 1970 adaptation starring George C. Scott and Susannah York. The only thing that *may* save this one from being the worst Jane Eyre ever it is my recent discovery of the 1949 TV episode adaptation of Jane Eyre starring Charlton Heston and Mary Sinclair. And then there is always the 1934 adaptation with Colin Clive and Virginia Bruce. So it would not be an easy automatic decision.
What can I say about this adaptation of Jane Eyre? Susannah York did NOT make a convincing Jane Eyre. While this couple managed to still have a twelve year age difference, it wasn't because she was so young, quite the reverse. She was over thirty and trying to play a young woman of eighteen, nineteen, or twenty. It did NOT work well. In my opinion. She was not convincing in her role as a young, plain governess. And I had a hard time believing in the romance of this couple. George C. Scott, likewise, did not make a convincing Mr. Rochester. In fact, none of the actors--at least the human ones--were quite believable in their roles in this movie. (The horses and Pilot did okay for the most part.) Now, some did better than others. I won't lie. Not everyone was equally horrible. And part of the trouble could have been the script. (The Rivers family are not her cousins, she doesn't receive an inheritance, etc. Also the Reed family does not appear at all.)
I believe there are some issues with some DVD productions being extremely low quality--in terms of picture quality, sound quality, etc. And I do believe that played a role in why I found this one so painful to watch. But only partly. Because better sound quality wouldn't necessarily have made me appreciate the score to this film any better. I found it very intrusive. It just didn't feel like it was written for this movie.
The second adaptation I will be discussing is the BBC adaptation of 1973. This adaptation is shorter than the 1983 adaptation starring Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. But. It is faithful--quite faithful--to the book. A few might even say more faithful. Then again a few might say it wasn't as faithful as it might first appear to be. (For example, this one does have Mr. Rochester dressing up as a gypsy and telling fortunes! However, this Jane is not fooled for even half a second. Before she even goes to see the gypsy, before she even hears him speak, she claims to have known it was Mr. Rochester all along. He's not able to really talk with her in disguise at all. The scene is not as vulnerable perhaps. So on the one hand, Jane's "cleverness" is maintained and she never loses control, but, is that a good thing? Is this interpretation the best one? Here's the 1983 one for comparison.)
Is this adaptation for every viewer? Probably not. It is just over four hours in lengt
5 Comments on Jane in the Seventies, last added: 6/23/2012
Michael Jayston, Yes! This is my Jane Eyre! The version I mentioned in an earlier comment. I'm glad you liked it! The only version I have (or vever will) watch. Jayston is Rochester and because I was so young the first time Cusack suffices as Jane for me. But watching it again as an adult I can see how she may not have been a perfect Jane, but close enough. To me this adaptation is more like a play, than a movie/TV mini series due to the staging of the indoor scenes.
I am *so glad* you recommended this version of Jane Eyre. I guess I hadn't heard of it before and didn't know it was an option :) I definitely LOVED, LOVED, LOVED Jayston as Rochester. It doesn't make me love Timothy Dalton any less, instead, it gives me two Mr. Rochesters to love! I don't think I could have only one version of Jane Eyre to love. But this one definitely makes my top three.
The relationship between a brother and sister is perhaps the only relation next to parents that expects nothing materialistic from the relationship. A look inside www.rakhiworldwide.comlets the visitor find the perfect gift for this sacred event.
George C. Scott looks like Grandpa Rochester in that first picture. I've only seen the recent movie with Michael Fassbender as Rochester, and I thought it was interesting the way it mixed the chronology of the events in the book. From your reviews of the Jane Eyre movies it seems like there aren't very many good adaptations out there.
That isn't my intent to say that there aren't many good adaptations out there. :) Is there one adaptation that is perfectly perfect and will please every viewer young and old--probably not. Will most people find one from among many to enjoy and claim as their particular favorite...I think so. (For me, it would go 1983, 1973, 1944).
I will be reviewing the 2006, 1996, and 1997 adaptations in the next few weeks. And after I've reviewed them all, I'll post a more comprehensive post that covers ALL ten versions :)
Do I have thoughts and opinions on the newest adaptation of Jane Eyre? Of course, I do!!! But they have calmed down a little since my first viewing of the film last fall. My first impression was that it was a horrible adaptation. It felt like they shuffled the pages of the script and didn't care to sort them out properly again. I just didn't understand why anyone would want to play around with the timeline and pacing. Why start the movie with Jane Eyre on the run? Why put viewers on the same page with the Rivers family? Why start there?! If you've never read Jane Eyre--never seen a movie version--it could prove VERY confusing to say the least. And I can only guess that it would influence one's impression of Mr. Rochester when we do finally meet him. Knowing from the start that this love story ends badly--with tears, angst, desperation, she's RUNNING away, etc.
Would this movie make any sense at all if you'd never read Jane? Is there enough of a story there for viewers to piece together the proper story? I can never answer that because I've read Jane Eyre and I've seen Jane Eyre countless times. I didn't necessarily find it confusing--in terms of story--more puzzling in terms of WHY did they choose to interpret it this way? The two are not the same, I know!!! The story does feel rushed, in a way, especially if you're more accustomed to a longer adaptation (2006, 1983, 1973). But it doesn't feel AS rushed as it used to feel to me since I've seen other adaptations that were comparable in length (1944, 1996, 1997, 1970). And compared to the hour-long adaptations I've seen (1934, 1949) this one was so much better.
My first impression of Michael Fassbender in the role of Mr. Rochester was not favorable. Seeing it again, I've softened a little. At first, I thought he got so little time on screen that it would be absolutely impossible to like him--or love him--for his character, personality, charisma, whatever you want to call it. But. Now that I've seen some other (shorter) Jane Eyre adaptations, I realize that it's not so horrible after all. Other adaptations--longer adaptations--give you MORE to love, perhaps. They may add different dimensions to the character of Mr. Rochester--for better or worse--and have their own way of interpreting Mr. Rochester, bringing him to life from the pages of a novel. But I think he does try. One reason why I had such a strong dislike for this portrayal was in how he chose to "react" to Jane's resolution to leave. His anger, his violence, his temper was SO out of control, so over the top. But having seen the 1997 film starring Ciaran Hinds, I have a different perspective. His rage doesn't seem as over-the-top to me because Hinds performance was even worse. Granted, I still don't "like" this scene; it still makes me uncomfortable. But I've seen worse now.
My first impression of Mia Wasikowska in the role of
11 Comments on Watching Jane Eyre (2011), last added: 6/25/2012
So overall would you recommend this version? I heard about it and although have recently thought Michael Fassbender has done amazingly well in other films I didn't want to watch his version of Mr Rochester in case my impressions of him and of the story changed.
It's hard for me to say really. Because I can see some strengths to it--filming, costumes, soundtrack--but I also see weaknesses too. For viewers who want a Mr. Rochester to say everything and do everything he does in the book itself, they will probably be disappointed. I would say approached with low expectations, this one could work for you. Don't expect it to be the best Jane Eyre ever, ever, ever, ever...and you'll enjoy it for what it is instead of seeing it for what it isn't.
I was disappointed -- the acting was fine, but I hated the abrupt ending and I felt like they left so much out of the book. Judi Dench was the best thing about it.
I haven't seen the Ciaran Hinds version, but I'm disappointed that he wasn't a good Rochester. I've loved him in so many other things, especially Persuasion, my favorite Jane Austen adaptation. Too bad.
This is personally the worst adaptation I've seen, but I haven't watched the others you mentioned (except the Ciaran Hinds version). I thought it was HORRIBLE, and I hated Fassbender. What about the scene where he practically strangles Jane? RIDICULOUS.
Tasha. I thought the 2011 adaptation was definitely disappointing. I thought Fassbender was violent and out of control after the big reveal, it was a very shocking interpretation to me actually. I never would have thought of that! Then I watched Ciaran Hinds' adaptation, and it felt even worse to me than Fassbender's. (Though they could be about the same. Still, both are very inappropriate.) The good news, however, is that watching the 2011 film made me pick up the book again (it had been about two or three years since I read it), and it also made me ORDER the 1983 adaptation. Which was one of the best decisions ever!!! Because of this horrible adaptation, I found one of the best adaptations!
I think *if* that one scene had been interpreted differently, I think the 2011 adaptation wouldn't be so not-for-me. (That, and I think it needs an actual ENDING.)
This is the only version of Jane Eyre I have actually seen. It was not the best thing ever, but I did enjoy it. One day I will have to check out some earlier versions.
Mandy, I actually liked it a little better the second time around. This could be because my expectations were already lowered and I knew not to expect it to be oh-so-magical. I tried to look for what they did right instead of focusing solely on what they got wrong. It also helps that I viewed this one after watching so many other versions, when the only other versions you've seen are good--like the 2006 one, or, the 1983 one--then this one seems so awful in comparison.
Karen K, I had HIGH expectations for Ciaran Hinds. I really, truly did. I thought he was PERFECT, absolutely PERFECT in Persuasion. I mean he was so giddy-making as Captain Wentworth, and I thought he would be a swoon-worthy Rochester. It didn't work for me personally, he says the right words, perhaps, but he seems to almost be yelling his lines. And he tried a little too hard, perhaps, to be mean and grouchy. And then there is one scene that just ruined his portrayal for me. It may not ruin other viewers, however, remember it is all completely subjective, and you may love HInds as Rochester if you get the chance to watch it. I do recommend still watching that adaptation because Samantha Morton is absolutely wonderful as Jane!!!
Oh, about the ending, I HATED the ending, I absolutely HATED the non-ending. I think of it now as the blink-and-you'll-miss-it-ending. Truly not deserving, in my opinion. There are some great endings out there, this was about as bad as it could get. The only one that comes close to matching it is the 1970 ending.
Kailana, I think it is enjoyable enough, in a way. I've now watched Jane Eyre ten times--eight which I'd feel comfortable recommending, though maybe just seven when all is said and done. And almost every adaptation has something enjoyable about it to offer viewers. It may change things, it may not be as faithful as possible. But if you look for the strengths in each adaptation instead of focusing only on the weaknesses, you'll find something positive to say about each one.
Becky, who is in the 1983 version again? Timothy Dalton? Darn, I'm sure I've seen it, but so long ago that all I can really see is Dalton's smile in my mind!
I agree that Mia W. in the role of Jane in the 2011 version is a little weak - and like I said last week, I hated how they cut up her time in the orphanage. She seemed so passive at times, so restrained, and yet that's not Jane in the book at all. Plus she lets Simon tell her what to do, which Jane doesn't like. I thought Michael Fassbender did well in this role. I'll have to go hunt for a copy of the 1983 version to compare to this one again, to see which one is a better Rochester :-)
I liked the Ciaran HInds version very much until I saw William Hurt (gosh, is that the 1983 or 1976 version) and realized that he was over the top, because Hurt was so restrained. Samantha Morton for me has been the best Jane, of all of them.
I was also really confused as to why you would wish to change the structure of the movie! The novel is so brilliant at building suspense and by letting the audience know from the start it doesn't end well you create a dreadful feeling of misery and watching Jane and Rochester together is nowhere near as endearing as it could be.
I do agree that Fassbender was a bit aggressive in that scene but I somehow liked it. Rochester there loses what he sees as his redemption and I therefore understand his interpretation. I thought Mia Wasikowska was a bit bland, especially in the 'I have as much soul' scene. It just seemed to placid and quiet. But this might also be due to the fact that I thought the colour scheme for the movie was to grey and white. This might not be accurate at all, but for me, that is the impression that remains!
Susan, You'll have to let me know what you think of the 1983 version!!! I really enjoyed the 1996 (William Hurt) adaptation. I just LOVED the beautiful soundtrack. And I really enjoyed both Charlotte Gainsbourg and William Hurt. While it did take some liberties with the plot--for example, having Thornfield burn down literally within minutes of Jane Eyre leaving Mr. Rochester and having Mr. Rochester have to choose between returning to his burning home or chasing the carriage carrying Jane--I thought it was a good film. Much more enjoyable, in my opinion, than the 2011 film. But that could be just me, I know. I do think the 1997 adaptation is worth watching just for Samantha Morton!!!! She is very nearly perfect in the role!
Juli, I agree! I think it kills the suspense and doesn't allow it to build properly. And I do think it taints the impression of Mr. Rochester. Mia isn't my favorite Jane, though her clothes are lovely in this film.
Warning: Spoilers of the book and movie are below, read at your own risk.
Synopsis: Set in a future where the Capitol selects a boy and girl from the twelve districts to fight to the death on live television, Katniss Everdeen volunteers to take her younger sister's place for the latest match.
Movie Review by Kate
I haven't done a movie review in a while, but since this series is near and dear to me, I wanted to write about how much I loved it. No, I will not bash the movie saying how different it is from the book because, every single book to movie adaptation IS different. Since The Hunger Games was released two days ago there have been numerous negative reviews because "it just wasn't the same!!" DUH! Please name one adaptation that was exactly the same as the book, you can't! Okay, now that that's out of the way, onto the review.
Since the book was in Katniss's POV I wondered if they would keep it that way or give a better rounded view of Panem/The Hunger Games, and they did, very successfully! I think those who have not read the book will be able to understand through the movie about how these games affect the people in the Districts. We got to see Seneca Crane (played by Wes Bentley) and President Snow's (played by Donald Sutherland) conversations while the games went on, Seneca Crane and all the Capital workers who watched and created the games while they were happening (AMAZING special effects and really fun scenes!), the people in the Districts watching the games from their homes and at work, and Haymitch getting sponsors for Katniss. The most powerful scene not from Katniss's POV was when Rue died and they showed District 11 in an uproar. Definitely a tear-jerker!!
In terms of the character adaptations I thought the casting was spectacular. There is no question in my mind that Jennifer Lawrence is and forever will be Katniss Everdeen. She embodied the spirit of a girl with no hope for her future, one that lives day to day for survival. Liam Helmsworth did a great job as Gale and I found it hard to tear my eyes away from the screen when he was on it. Gale is supposed to be a drop dead gorgeous hunk of man and that is definitely true for Liam. A little bit of foreshadowing with his mindset was given (for those who know where his character goes in Mockingjay) and I am anxious for the other adaptations to see how his character progresses. My biggest issue with the casting, initially, was Peeta Mellark (played by Josh Hutcherson) anyone who has talked to me about the series knows my immediate love for the boy with the bread. Everyone 'sees' differently when reading the book and Hutcherson never crossed my mind for the role. But in all fairness, I gave him a chance and suffice to say I was in the wrong. Hutcherson wholly embraced Peeta. He wore his heart on his s
4 Comments on The Hunger Games Movie: Review, last added: 3/27/2012
Pretty much everything you said I agree with. I would've loved to see more of Katniss struggling to find water and food because it would have shown how the games really are and why they are called The Hunger Games. I felt like the movie needed a bit more, some type of spice but maybe it's because I had such high hopes for it and I set the bar higher than was possible but overall it's
I absolutely LOVED the movie!<br />Katniss and Peeta were amazing. I really loved how Peeta showed his love for Katniss. He really did adore her and that was truly amazing on the actor's part.<br />check out my review here: http://ariannecruz07.blogspot.com/2012/03/movie-review-hunger-games.html<br /><br />I'm gonna see it again!
I think we all set the bar high with such an amazing book but I loved the adaptation that resulted. I knew Suzanne Collins approved of everything and as the creator I felt better knowing that she would tell her story right. I feel like they cut scenes with Katniss finding water (for time sake since it was at 2:30 already) because they had Haymitch make a point of it. Hopefully there will be more
Ypulse was lucky enough to host an advance screening of “The Hunger Games” yesterday, and the response from the crowded theater was unanimous — the film is amazing!
As many readers would be, I was nervous to see one of my favorite books of... Read the rest of this post
No need to wait until the end of February for the complete list. Here it is–plan ahead! Click on the link above, and also follows us on Facebook at Litland Reviews http://facebook.com/Litlandreviews
0 Comments on BOOK OF THE DAY: February 2012 List as of 1/1/1900
Here it is! The book of the day challenge, to recommend a new book or related media every day in 2012. January is complete, and attached for handy download–just click on the above link. February is on the way! “Friend” Litland Reviews on Facebook to see daily recommendations as they post. http://facebook.com/Litlandreviews
0 Comments on BOOK OF THE DAY: The January list! as of 1/1/1900
I recently watched the 1935 adaptation of David Copperfield. And from the start, I knew it was going to be very interesting! I must say I just LOVED the introduction of Aunt Betsey played by Edna May Oliver. It was such a comical scene. Just a delight. And it's surprisingly faithful to the book, I think!
The book is so very, very, LONG and complex. The movie is much simpler, more direct. Which isn't a bad thing. It eliminates many, many things, it's true. And this does effect the characterization. But. I felt it was just one interpretation of events.
In the novel, readers sometimes see things that the young David can't see, can't understand. Readers pick up on things--some small clues, some very, very big clues--about the people in David's life. The movie portrays them exactly as David imagines--or first imagines--them to be.
Dickens' characters were very human, very complex. Many characters had strengths and weaknesses. They weren't all good; they weren't all bad. They had flaws and quirks. In the movie, the characters tended to be less complex. We didn't see their strengths and weaknesses. There just wasn't time to get to know them.
This adaptation just isn't as good as the book. It can't really replace the book...at all. It has its enjoyable moments though!
Gifts are the symbolic expressions for your inner emotions that your heart has preserved with utmost care. A gift from you indirectly brings your presence within the grasp of your loved ones. When the occasions or the special events are on the way, your gifts add a different dimension to them. It’s just a trip to www.sendgiftsindia.com that will make this possible.
Gifts are the symbolic expressions for your inner emotions that your heart has preserved with utmost care. A gift from you indirectly brings your presence within the grasp of your loved ones. When the occasions or the special events are on the way, your gifts add a different dimension to them. It’s just a trip to www.sendgiftsindia.com that will make this possible.
Like many children growing up in the 70s, I thank Disney for the introduction to the timeless, classic children's book character Winnie the Pooh. My brother and I listened to our Winnie the Pooh vinyl record and followed along with the accompanying storybook over and over and over. I still can sing the Winnie the Pooh theme song from memory. It's a sweet as honey tune that sticks in your head, one you never forget.
Those fond childhood memories are one of the reasons I'm so excited that Disney has released an all-new, animated film based on the loveable bear all stuffed with fluff. The new Winnie the Pooh movie, first shown in theaters this summer, is now available for purchase on DVD and Blu-ray Combo pack. Amidst the flurry of new movie releases, including Cars 2 and the final Harry Potter film, Winnie the Pooh is a welcome and familiar return to the basics, a movie full of quiet humor and heartwarming charm.
On an ordinary day, Pooh sets out to find some honey but gets sidetracked and ends up helping out his friends. Pooh discovers that poor Eeyore has lost his tail and the all the friends -- Tigger, Rabbit, Piglet, Kanga and Roo -- engage in a contest searching for a replacement. The group suggests all sorts of silly and inadequate replacement tails including a cuckoo clock, accordion, and dart board but nothing suffices. While thinking of a way to win the contest, Pooh discovers a note from Christopher Robin but, unable to read it himself, he takes it to Owl. Owl misinterprets the note, “Gone out. Busy. Back soon.” With great concern, he remarks that Christopher Robin has been captured by a "Backson." The group then switches their focus on a way to capture the Backson, and Eeyore's tail eventually turns up.
Returning to the style of the original Disney Pooh featurettes, this new movie has that same hand-drawn animation look with the classic warm watercolor backgrounds. Additionally, the movie opens with live scene set, a view of Christopher Robin's bedroom filled with toys. But what I appreciate the most is the storybook narration and wonderful integration of the book pages into the film. The characters interact with the text; they climb on the letters and walk on the pages of the book while the narrator (John Cleese) talks. It feels exactly as if the story has come to life. And there's enough subtle humor to amuse adults as well as children. Some of the hilarious scenes come directly from Milne's book like one where owl says they must "issue a reward" and Pooh thinks owl is sneezing. I think the film brings something special to the banterin
2 Comments on Winnie the Pooh - DVD + Blu-ray Combo Pack Review, last added: 11/8/2011
We decided to take my 2 1/2 year old to see this movie in the theater. It was his first movie and we set him up with pooh stuffed animals and a sippy cup to watch Pooh. I thought the short length of the film was a plus, at least for us, because we stayed interested and enjoyed the film thoroughly. I agree especially with 2 of your points: The integration of story book pages was especially nice, and the song sequences were a bit odd, although not unpleasant.
I haven't seen the new Winnie the Pooh movie but who doesn't love that "silly old bear." I'll have to check out that movie. I'm sure my little ones would enjoy it.
Recently we saw Super 8. I had been completely intrigued since seeing the trailers and the movie did NOT let me down. It was perfect. JJ Abrams wrote and directed this film about a group of middle schoolers who live in a small town, go to school together, crush on one another and are making a film. Then something disastrous happens and they have to save the day. It was THE PERFECT Middle Grade story. The dialogue was exactly what I used to hear in the classroom—jumping from one thought to another and back again, some cutting in, others staying aloof. The action was written exactly the way I’ve learned to write for a middle grade audience. And most importantly, the KIDS save the day. Anyone who writes for Middle Grade audience MUST see this flick. It was entertaining, the kids are cute, the characters are charming and the writing and direction are superb. And speaking of the direction. JJ Abrams is the master of suspense in this movie. He doesn’t throw the images in your face early on just for shock value. He tickles and teases until the suspense can’t be held any longer. Perfection! Continue reading →
Five Children and It. BBC. 1991. Six thirty minute episodes.
So after reading The Story of the Amulet, I didn't want the adventure to be over. So I decided to begin again! I decided to reread Five Children and It. And in my searching of the library catalog, I discovered that they had a BBC production of this one filmed in 1991. So I braved it.
I watched it this weekend, and, for the most part, I liked it.
I liked it it because it was very faithful to the novel. Yes, two wishes have switched places with one another. And yes, one wish has been left out completely--a choice that I feel was best since it was the "I wish there were Red Indians in England, just the right size for us to fight..." wish. Which leads to this nonsense in the book:
It is wonderful how like an Indian you can make yourselves with blankets and feathers and coloured scarves. Of course none of the children happened to have long black hair, but there was a lot of black calico that had been got to cover school-books with. They cut strips of this into a sort of fine fringe, and fastened it round their heads with the amber-coloured ribbons off the girls' Sunday dresses. Then they stuck turkeys' feathers in the ribbons. The calico looked very like long hair, especially when the strips began to curl up a bit. 'But our faces,' said Anthea, 'they're not at all the right colour. We're all rather pale, and I'm sure I don't know why, but Cyril is the colour of putty.' 'I'm not,' said Cyril. 'The real Indians outside seem to be brownish,' said Robert hastily. 'I think we ought to be really red -- it's sort of superior to have a red skin, if you are one.' The red ochre cook used for the kitchen bricks seemed to be about the reddest thing in the house. The children mixed some in a saucer with milk, as they had seen cook do for the kitchen floor. Then they carefully painted each other's faces and hands with it, till they were quite as red as any Red Indian need be -- if not redder. (213-14)
So the adventures were very much from the book, and the dialogue, in many places, seemed to come directly from the book. So that was nice.
I liked this adaptation in spite of the bad, bad, bad music. The opening credits and the end credits were especially AWFUL. The end credits had the Sand Fairy singing a song, I was so worried that this song would find its way into my head--into my memory--that I fast forwarded them for the most part. Nothing gets me grabbing for the remote faster than a singing Psammead!!!
As for the special effects, well, I didn't mind the way the Psammead was portrayed. It could have been much, much worse! There were moments I found his interactions with the children charming and just right--in a match the mood/tone of the book way. But then there were moments that annoyed me too. Like the way he "breathed" out his wishes and wiggled his arms. But. For the most part, I was pleased with this aspect of the adaptation.
The other special effects, well, they could have been better perhaps. Or should that be would have been better if they'd been filmed a decade or two later. (I'm thinking of Robert's growing-into-a-giant and the wish for wings.) But the special effects didn't keep me from liking this one. If I had to choose between amazingly wonderful special effects with a script that barely resembled E. Nesbit's book, a script that shares the name and not much else with the novel, then I'd choose the poorer special effects any day.
What a coincidence! We just watched the movie version (from 2004). The kids really liked it and wanted more. I thought it was a little weird, but O.K. I'm going to look for these "episodes" though (for the kids). I hadn't realized it was based on a book by Nesbit, so that's what I really want to check out!
Becky, I read this book when I was a little girl living in Beirut, Lebanon and attending a British school. I loved it so much, but somewhere through the years I've lost my copy of it. I'm strongly considering buying another one. It's been years since I read it!
I'd love for you to participate in a new bloghop, Bookish Images Monday. Stop by my blog to find out more... Cindy @ Cindy's Book Club
I know I'm probably behind the times with this, but I just recently watched the movie "The Secret of Kells" and wanted to give it a shout out on St. Patrick's Day. If you haven't seen this movie, rent it, or better yet, buy it! The story is good, but the visuals are so over-the-top awesome.
It's based on the story (folklore?) of how The Book of Kells was created. The beautiful graphic nature of the images just blows me away - as I'm both a children's illustrator and graphic artist, they just give me goosebumps! I don't know much about The Book of Kells, but I've seen glimpes of the art, and it looks gorgeous!
Here are some images from the movie – aren't they awesome?
0 Comments on Happy St. Patty's Day! as of 1/1/1900
It's been almost a week since I finished reading Elizabeth Gaskell's North and South. But I haven't stopped thinking about the story. If you're already a fan of the book--or of the movie--that probably isn't too surprising. After all, Mr. Thornton is hard to forget.
The audio book. You might think that listening to an audio book (especially so soon after completing the book-book) would be a bit silly. After all, I do know what happens now. Why continue? Well, it is only now in the comfort of knowing that I'm able to completely give myself over to the experience of listening. Knowing how it ends, frees me to really care, to really give it my time, my focus. A great book like this one can only be improved by closer examination.
The audio production I am listening to is by Naxos. The narrator is Clare Wille. And I would definitely recommend it if you listen to audio books.
The movie. Wow. Wow. Wow. I just finished watching this one a few hours ago. And oh-that-ending. Wow. Of course, I loved the ending from the book too. I think the book had a really great, really memorable last line. I thought it was perfectly suited to the characters, to their relationship. But I loved the movie ending as well. It was giddy-making.
There are other differences between the book and the movie. There were definitely changes throughout the movie. But instead of complaining about them, I think I'll choose to appreciate them instead. Because when I think about it, there is nothing negative that I could ever say that would even begin to outweigh the positive. The music. The acting. The quality of the production. The chemistry between John and Margaret. Everything was oh-so-magical.
I would definitely recommend the movie! I think I'll be watching this one again very soon!
It's time to name a few of my favorite toys from the 80's: Strawberry Shortcake, Cabbage Patch Kids, Care Bears, Barbie and the Rockers and ... My Little Pony. Over my childhood years I collected several of the colorful, chunky ponies and even a few baby ponies. My mom kept them tucked safely away and now my daughter enjoys playing make believe with my original ponies and a few of her own newer models. First introduced in 1983, the My Little Pony line has stood the test of time.
Yesterday, Oct. 13th, Twinkle Wish Adventure, a new winter-themed My Little Pony DVD released in stores and online. In this adventure, the Ponyville ponies are making preparations for the upcoming Winter Wishes Festival. The pony friends participate in an ornament making contest. The winner of the contest gets the honor of placing Twinkle Wish, a wishing star, on top of the ever forevergreen tree. But due to a jealous act, the wishing star ends up in the hands of a dragon named Whimsy that lives on Willy Nilly Mountain. The seven ponies -- Pinkie Pie, Rainbow Dash, Scootaloo, Toola-Roola, Cheerilee, Sweetie Belle and Starsong -- work together to recover the star in time for the festival and end up learning an important lesson about friendship.
I don't recall watching any of the My Little Pony animated shows as a kid, but apparently several have been produced. Even though it is a new production, the movie has that same enduring/a little bit cheesy 1980's classic animated feel. This is definitely a girly movie. My preschool daughter intently watched the adventure unfold and especially liked all the cute, catchy songs. The DVD sparked her imagination and she now takes her own ponies on their own adventures. I imagine Santa will put at least one of the pony characters from the show in her Christmas stocking this year. She remarked after watching the movie that "all the ponies have lovely hair." My Little Pony: Twinkle Wish Adventure received the Dove "Family-Approved" seal for all ages and includes messages about friendship, making the right choices and sibling rivalry.
The bonus features include: • Six Sing-along songs • "Waiting For The Winter Wishes Festival" - A Prequel • "Elefun and Friends" - A New Animated Short • Downloadable Activities: Coloring Sheet, Pony Note to Santa, How to Make a Snowman and Cut-out Pony Ornaments
I also just learned that from October 23rd through November 12th McDonalds will feature My Little Pony characters in Happy Meals.
• For contact purposes, if you are a non-blogger or your email is not accessible in your blog profile, please leave a valid email address within the comment section. • Contest is open to US • Contest ends on Monday, October 26th, 2009 at 11:59 PM CST. • Winner will be chosen at random
Four ways to gain extra entries (Maximum total entries is 5 - leave a separate comment for each entry): 1st extra entry: Visit Hasbro (Meet the Ponies) and leave a comment with the name of your favorite pony. 2nd extra entry: Follow Me! or subscribe by email or RSS reader 3rd extra entry: Blog about this contest then post your link in the comment section. 4th extra entry: Follow me on twitter (iambrimful) and tweet about the contest.
Thanks to Shout! Factory for this review opportunity and for providing a free Twinkle Wish Adventure DVD for my family to review. (View my full disclosure statement for more information about my reviews.)
21 Comments on My Little Pony: Twinkle Wish Adventure - DVD Review and Giveaway, last added: 10/16/2009
I don't remember watching My Little Pony at all as a child. My daughter LOVES My Little Pony and plays with her ponies every day. She would love this DVD!
My favorite pony is Rainbow Dash, but my daughter likes Pinkie Pie. I'm so glad you directed me to the Meet the Ponies section of the Hasbro website because my daughter is always asking me their names. Now, I can just check the website! Thanks.
I remember watching Ponies what I was little, and now my niece loves them too. Sounds like they send a lot of great messages! mommastaci33(at)yahoo(dot)com
I don’t usually go to movies on opening weekend. It takes a very special movie for me to brave the crowds, wait in line, and be up that late (I think I got home around 4:30 am). But Star Trek definitely qualified. I saw it Friday night with a group of friends at an Imax in New York. And if you haven’t seen it yet, I would definitely recommend seeing it at the Imax—the already explosive action is truly amazing.
A little while ago, I wrote a post on the OUPblog about my favorite terminology from Star Trek. I promised to do a follow up with how, if at all, those terms appear in the new movie. Because this is about the reboot, there will probably be spoilers, so if you haven’t seen it yet, go see it first and then come back and read!
There were several words that didn’t appear in the movie in any way, shape, or form. Surprisingly, tricorder wasn’t mentioned once. Or did I just miss it? I’m fairly sure tricorders were used, at least in the medical sense, but the word itself was not. Holodeck is a Next Generation term, so I wasn’t expecting it to appear, and sure enough, it didn’t. Neither did Prime Directive or cloaking device, although the Klingons had a brief off-screen role and the Romulans were the villains.
Despite having just knocked four words off my original list of ten (okay, eleven) words, there’s still plenty to talk about, starting with phasers. “Fire all phasers!” is one of the first clear phrases you hear in the opening sequence, as George Kirk battles a massive Romulan ship in order to save the fleeing crew of the USS Kelvin. As a weapon, the phaser is great: it comes in both a large format (on the ships themselves) and small format (pocket sized!); and there are no worries about reloading or recharging when Kirk and Spock get in a phaser battle on Nero’s ship. Spock utters one of my favorite phrases, “Set phasers to stun,” when telling the Enterprise security team to capture Kirk and Scotty. I’ll admit though, that my favorite weapon moment wasn’t using a phaser; it was when Kirk gasps “Got your gun!” as he shoots a Romulan who has been choking him. Such a Kirk moment!
The transporter plays a big role in the movie. When the Enterprise jumps into Vulcan space, they expect a trap. What they don’t expect is to have all their communications and transporter abilities shut down due to “signal interference,” necessitating Kirk, Sulu, and Olsen’s jump to the mining platform to save the day. (I’m not sure why they’re not expecting this. Doesn’t it seem fairly obvious? None of the other ships were able to communicate with the Enterprise before they were destroyed, so obviously communications were down, right?)
My favorite part about the transporter in the movie, however, was how it was portrayed, once again, as a difficult technology. It was a source of endless amusement in the original series (see the episode Mirror, Mirror for a great example). In this movie, the transporter has trouble locking on to anyone who is moving too quickly, which seems like a fairly realistic problem for a fantastic piece of technology. Kirk and Sulu almost splatter on the rocks of Vulcan before Chekov is able to save them, and Spock’s mother is lost as the cliff crumbles underneath her as they’re fleeing the exploding planet, leading to major internal conflict for poor Spock.
Stardate was actually my least favorite term on the original list, and it remains so now, because it’s just not nearly as glamorous. But it is a necessary device, because changing the dates from our own Gregorian calendar gives a sense of the future in ways beyond the technology of Star Trek. It shows a complete change from a system that has been known and accepted in our modern world since 1582.
I learned something new about the Vulcan mind-meld in this movie—it’s probably something everyone else already knew, but if I did, I had forgotten it. Not only can you use the mind-meld to give or take information, but if you’re sharing a sequence of events, as future Spock does with Kirk, the mind-meld also comes with emotional transference. I don’t know if I’d want to know the depth of pain Spock felt at watching his home planet blow up. Although, that transfer of emotion is what clued Kirk in to the fact that young Spock does, in fact, feel emotion, and must be in complete turmoil after seeing his home destroyed and his mother killed. Well, it hinted, anyway. Kirk also required a slightly more direct hint from future Spock.
Future Spock was there for more than just providing broad hints to Kirk, however. He also does a bit of time-tinkering when he gives Scotty an equation that, in a different time line, Scotty invented himself. The equation allows Kirk and Scotty to do what is supposedly impossible: transport themselves onto the Enterprise while it’s going at warp speed. It’s a nice showcase of how clueless, yet totally genius, Scotty is. The best warp scene, however, has to be when Sulu is trying to get the Enterprise underway on her maiden voyage. Captain Pike orders the ship to maximum warp, Sulu cranks it up… and nothing happens, until Spock reminds a slightly embarrassed Sulu to take off the external inertial dampeners. I have to say, Pike’s phrase “punch it” to take them into warp doesn’t stir my heart the way Picard’s calm “engage” does. But that’s a personal preference.
Last but most definitely not least, I loved the redshirt scene. Poor, poor Olsen. Now, I’ve heard some griping about this scene—that if the mining platform was so windy as to blow Olsen away, how could Kirk and Sulu then stand on it and engage in hand-to-hand combat? Well, if you watch the scene again, you’ll see that Olsen (handily visible in his bright red jump suit) pulls his parachute far too late, and doesn’t slow down enough to get hold of anything solid on the mining platform before he tumbles away. In true Star Trek redshirt fashion, not only is Olsen unknown and wearing red, he’s carrying one of the most important things required for the away team’s mission: the charges required to blow up the platform and restore communications and transporter functions. Of course, no one thinks to distribute these between all three men on the mission, just in case—but then, they couldn’t really do that and keep it a true redshirt moment. Olsen was doomed the minute we met him, and we all knew it.
Overall, I think the movie was fantastic. There are a ton of reviews out there now, if you want to check out what other people thought of the newest addition to the Star Trek cannon. I’m going to leave you with a few of the best phrases from the movie, courtesy of my favorite character, Dr. Bones McCoy. Not only does he manage to get the phrase “Damn it, man, I’m a doctor, not a physicist!” in there, he also calls Spock a “green-blooded hobgoblin,” which made me giggle like a schoolgirl. And I will swear up and down that he calls one of the nurses Nurse Chapel, which should please a lot of fans out there.
We are building a list of book dealers organized by speciality with links to their inventory or contact info if none is available online. If you’d like to be added simply fill in this contact form.
What can I say about this adaptation of Jane Eyre? Susannah York did NOT make a convincing Jane Eyre. While this couple managed to still have a twelve year age difference, it wasn't because she was so young, quite the reverse. She was over thirty and trying to play a young woman of eighteen, nineteen, or twenty. It did NOT work well. In my opinion. She was not convincing in her role as a young, plain governess. And I had a hard time believing in the romance of this couple. George C. Scott, likewise, did not make a convincing Mr. Rochester. In fact, none of the actors--at least the human ones--were quite believable in their roles in this movie. (The horses and Pilot did okay for the most part.) Now, some did better than others. I won't lie. Not everyone was equally horrible. And part of the trouble could have been the script. (The Rivers family are not her cousins, she doesn't receive an inheritance, etc. Also the Reed family does not appear at all.) 
movie, first shown in theaters this summer, is now available for purchase on DVD and Blu-ray Combo pack. Amidst the flurry of new movie releases, including 
, a new winter-themed My Little Pony DVD released in stores and online. In this adventure, the Ponyville ponies are making preparations for the upcoming Winter Wishes Festival. The pony friends participate in an ornament making contest. The winner of the contest gets the honor of placing Twinkle Wish, a wishing star, on top of the ever forevergreen tree. But due to a jealous act, the wishing star ends up in the hands of a dragon named Whimsy that lives on Willy Nilly Mountain. The seven ponies -- Pinkie Pie, Rainbow Dash, Scootaloo, Toola-Roola, Cheerilee, Sweetie Belle and Starsong -- work together to recover the star in time for the festival and end up learning an important lesson about friendship. 
Michael Jayston, Yes! This is my Jane Eyre! The version I mentioned in an earlier comment. I'm glad you liked it! The only version I have (or vever will) watch. Jayston is Rochester and because I was so young the first time Cusack suffices as Jane for me. But watching it again as an adult I can see how she may not have been a perfect Jane, but close enough. To me this adaptation is more like a play, than a movie/TV mini series due to the staging of the indoor scenes.
I am *so glad* you recommended this version of Jane Eyre. I guess I hadn't heard of it before and didn't know it was an option :) I definitely LOVED, LOVED, LOVED Jayston as Rochester. It doesn't make me love Timothy Dalton any less, instead, it gives me two Mr. Rochesters to love! I don't think I could have only one version of Jane Eyre to love. But this one definitely makes my top three.
The relationship between a brother and sister is perhaps the only relation next to parents that expects nothing materialistic from the relationship. A look inside www.rakhiworldwide.comlets the visitor find the perfect gift for this sacred event.
George C. Scott looks like Grandpa Rochester in that first picture. I've only seen the recent movie with Michael Fassbender as Rochester, and I thought it was interesting the way it mixed the chronology of the events in the book. From your reviews of the Jane Eyre movies it seems like there aren't very many good adaptations out there.
Chris,
That isn't my intent to say that there aren't many good adaptations out there. :) Is there one adaptation that is perfectly perfect and will please every viewer young and old--probably not. Will most people find one from among many to enjoy and claim as their particular favorite...I think so. (For me, it would go 1983, 1973, 1944).
I will be reviewing the 2006, 1996, and 1997 adaptations in the next few weeks. And after I've reviewed them all, I'll post a more comprehensive post that covers ALL ten versions :)