Welcome back to my countdown. Sorry it took so long, I had a few school things to do and sort out. In other words, do the stuff that I find important and dump the other stuff that I don't think is important. So let's skip the intro and cut to the chase.
3. To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee.
Now most of us know this book. Some of us have seen the film other than read the novel. It's in the views of a little girl nicknamed Scout who is the daughter of a lawyer who is trying to defend an African-American who was framed for raping a white woman. Now we know about this; rascism is bad but the novel is different because it's in the views of a little girl, someone who doesn't fully understand rascism. Which is actually a pretty good idea. The part in the book I really wanted to read was the trial. I wanted to see the evidence that the African-American was innocent. Now I liked Scout and I did like her other advetures she experienced. Even though they were technically fillers, it was still pretty interesting. Like the time she meets the new teacher who doesn't want her to read and write very well, the new old woman who is snobbish and she and her brother finding things in a tree. Now I'm not sure about the film. The only difference I noticed so far was the father Atticus was the main character not his daughter. I'm not sure if I want to watch it; I loved the book and everyone loves the film. I just don't want to watch dramas on TV, reading books is different even though there both dramas. I don't know, I can't figure out why I don't want to see the film, I know the ending is good. Oh well, I change my mind and might watch it, but don't worry I won't make a comparison between the film and the book. I'll just talk about the ones that's completly different from each other.
2. Kensuke's Kingdom - Michael Morpurgo.
Michael Morpurgo is one of the greatest children's authors in the world. I remembered in Primary school the teacher read the story "The Butterfly lion". Yes another drama book but it's also an adventure. Kensuke's Kingdom is a wonderful book about a boy called Michael who got washed out of his parents boat and he and his pet dog find themselves in another island. A modernish Robinson Crusoe but when Michael starts getting hungry, the next morning he sees food and water. He starts to learn that an old Japanese man called Kensuke is stranded on the island as well. Kensuke no bits of English and has some kind of friendship with orangutans. Michael and Kensuke start to become friends; working together to survive, Kensuke teaching Michael a bit of Japanese and other things. Kensuke starts explaining more about his past and how he became friends with the orangutans. But what is great about this book is the climax. We now that Michael misses his parents but it is hard since he made great friends with Kensuke and later on Kensuke admits Michael is like a son to him. Not much to give away but the ending is lovely, sad but lovely. Try and read this book, it's quite a surpise if you never heard of Michael Morpurgo or read his books before.
And the number 1 favourite book is...
Unhooking the moon - Gregory Hughes.
This is a beautiful book, believe me it is. It's a classic road trip book about two prairie kids who are now orphans and are on there way to New York and find their uncle and live with him. Their mother died along time ago and their father died after a school play he wasn't at at the time. The chief was thinking of sending the kids to a home so they could get foster parents but they didn't want to. Now I know it's stupid that these kids don't want foster parents even though they are basically parents. But remember they're kids, they don't know a lot of things, they just don't want foster parents because...they just don't want any. They want to be raised by their uncle even though they were told he was a drug dealer. Wow. So yeah it's just a basic road trip adventure but the surprise is the main character, Marie-Claire Debillier or as she is nicknamed The Rat. She is addressed as The Rat from her brother Bob (the narrator) because of her ratty features like her pointed ears. She is awesome! She's obsessed with soccer (football), rapping and skateboarding. Yeah most girl book characters are like that but The Rat does good impressions and she always has these feelings like knowing is something bad is going to happen and who is good or bad. She has a strange insight in death; When her father dies she doesn't kneel next to him and weep uncontrolably like her brother but just rushes to the phone and calls the chief and doesn't even shed a tear. She's like that because she knows her father is up in heaven with his wife. She was sad but she was happy that he was in heaven. She has these spontaneous spasm attacks which pass by at times. Her father was always there to comfort her and bring her back from her spasms but since he was dead I wanted to see how Bob dealed with it. Bob is only 12 and is more mild-mannered than his little sister, but he isn't always strong and followed his sister everywhere. Their father is incredibly nice. He is always having fun with his daughter, always waking them up early when it's not a school day, a Frank Sinatra lover and is always great drunk or sober. And he does have good parenting skills, when The Rat has a nightmare of a Native American monster about to attack her, her father warns her that there are monsters in real life called paedophiles which The Rat calls "goddamn paedophiles". And that's a good idea; parents should warn their children about paedophiles, it really does explain why they must never to talk to strangers. The kids make friends on the way: A cigar smuggler, a hustler and a famous rapper. Yeah, those are weird friends but The Rat knows whose good and who isn't. But the book has a lot of heart, she sometimes has a vision in her spasms and says she is in a white room all alone which some people asume it's not the home. Bob says that even if she is in the craziest part of an asylum, he is still proud to be her brother. That...is beautiful. But what is great is the ending which we needn't go into, all I'm going to say is it is bitter sweet, that's it. Go and read this book; its a wonderful adventure with a lot of heart and a ending that comes out of nowhere.
And that's the countdown, I know that's a lot to talk about for the number 1 spot but that's because it was so good. I know it's strange that "Catcher in the Rye" and "To kill a Mockingbird" is not in the number 1 spot since they're big hits, but it's my countdown. Plus "Unhooking the moon" is brilliant, go and rent it or buy it from a library. If they don't have it make a order. If the order doesn't arrive, use Amazon.com.
09/03/2011
01/03/2011
Top 7 favourite books. Part 1.
I love books! I really do, I used to care more about films and got bored just reading the first couple of pages from books. here were times I did read through and entire book but I didn't feel quite that over whelmed when I finished it. Even if it had a good ending I didn't care about it. So what made me a book-lover? Well a long time ago, during the holidays, I saw a trailer on the TV and it was called "Percy Jackson and the Lightning thief". I was so hyped up to see it. It had monsters, action, Greek myths and a race against time. I wanted to see it, but my mum found out it was based on a book, so bought that for me. I didn't care since I wasn't a book fan then, but I decided to give it a try and see what it's like. And I found myself reading on and on, non-stop. It seemed much cooler, it felt more like a 12 year old actually did write it. I thought it was good because you get confused at the beginning and you want to know what's going on. It wasn't just that book that brought me into the book series and made me interested in Greek myths, but other books. I read quite alot of books now, so I decided to type a blog about my top 7 favourite books, aside from Percy Jackson. So let's dive in.
7. The seven fabulous wonders, book 4. The Mausoleum Murder - written by Katherine Roberts.
OK, technically it's cheating that it's from a series, so I should include the other books. But the book are usually different. It's based on the 7 fabulous wonders so the books always set in another country with different characters, different beliefs and different magic. The Mausoleum murder is about a Greek boy called Alexis born in Halicarnassus during the war between Halicarnassus and Macedonia. Alexis has the gift to turn statues (with gold in side or coating it) into real people. He really summons a lost soul and sends the soul into the statue. His friend and stepmother were statues before and they can stay still very well and are incredibly strong. His stepmother is always wanting him to erase his powers by asking help from the river god. He finds out his long lost father had appeared in the streets was murdered before and he suspects his stepmother to have done it. He befriended the princess but they find out she was kidnapped; her father suggests that it was the Macedonians. So Alexis has to save the princess and proof that his stepmother did kill his father. But as it progresses, we find out more about how Alexis got his powers and who his stepmother really was before. I do like this book mainly because it drawed me in more than the other books, I just didn't like the others, like the book about a girl who is the daughter of a mortal and a sea demon called a telkhine. The problem is, Mausoleum murder and the other books are a bit rushed, like we have to accept the fact that Alexis can do this. But I think it's cool that he can do this; he uses this ability when he msakes a statue of his father and tries to transmit his father's soul into the statue and does the same with a statue of the Chimaera which the princess suggested. But what makes it better is the twist at the end, which we needn't talk about. No clues, you might have to read the book. Don't worry you don't need to read the series to understand what's going on, it's always different, just with magic and unsuspected characters.
6. The road of the dead - written by Kevin Brooks.
This is a mystery book about Ruben and Cole who are half gypsy who find out there sister was murdered. They really want to find out who killed her saw the police finds the culprit and Cole and Ruben and their mother could have a proper burial. Ruben is 14 years old and the narrater. He is quiet and observant and has the ability to "feel" what other people feel. His brother, Cole is a devil angel who doesn't smile alot and always fights with others. He doesn't care if he dies or lives but he loves his little brother. It has an esscence of prejudice since the brothers are half gypsy and quite alot of people hate them especially a small group of gypsies who Cole befriends. It brings you into the book to find out who killed te sister and why was she killed. And it has one of the scariest vilaains. Sean Redman or Red is a slimy creep who acts all nice to the brothers, especially Ruben but when he's angry, man is he scary. He even enjoys it near the end when he starts beating Ruben up. Dude, he's 14, what an a-hole. When I found out the reason for the murder, my heart felt like it just stopped. It's really good, with a good twist. Cole is...insane. He uses a gun quite frequently and doesn't really hesitate to use it, unless the villain has Ruben. The villain, aside from Red, is a greedy land owner who would do anything to get hold of the land. Nothing much to say but, dang that is a creepy baddy.
5. Push - written by Sapphire.
This is a very disturbing book. About 16 year old Claireece Jones or Precious who is pregnant for the second time after being raped by her father, for the second time! That, is so wrong! She can't read nor write and she gets expelled from her school after being pregnant and goes to an alternative school when Precious starts to excape her tormenting life and finally reach to happiness thanks to her kind teacher, Mrs Blue Rain. Her mother, is a bitch! I mean it, anyone who saw the film "Precious" or read the book knows what I'm talking about. Mary Lee Johnston swears at her daughter, beats her up with a frying pan or other things and when she is down, she carries on kicking poor Precious in the face. Sometimes Mary commits incest as well but rarely does it. I don't know what drew me into this book; it was about incest, rape, child abuse, teen pregnancy and AIDs/HIV. But I guess I wanted to know what was going to happen to her. Plus, I watched the trailer and saw a clip of Precious fighting back against her mother, so I wanted to see Precious beat that monster of a mother. Mary Lee Johnston is worse than József Barsi (look him up) I mean she keeps blaming Precious for making her husband leave her. Hello, he raped your daughter, and you're blaming her!? I pray you shall rot in hell you fat arsed bitch. The style of writing shows that Precious really was illiterate before but is learning, she usually involves her own dialect, like "chile" or "nuffin'"and. My opinion, probably read the book, the film might be good, but usually the book is better than the film.
4. The Catcher in the Rye - J.D Salinger.
An adventure of Holden Caulfield who's a 16 year old boy who recently got expelled from 4 schools, but after all that,he decides to run away and decide to live on his own and has adventures in the city. OK, he is a liar who keeps calling himself different names and about his age. But he is a normal guy who acts like most 16 year olds, he's just immature. All in all, he's an OK guy; he befriends people like a few nuns and a little kid. He does some stupid things but he's just a teen and most teens make a lot of mistakes. Adults make a few mistakes but they plan ahead. Though to be honest the stupidest mistake he made was pretending to be an adult (though he looks like one and has half his hair grey) and he was almost about to make out with a prostitute. OK, that was a bad idea for a 16 year old to do, but he doesn't really want to act older and sometimes acts like a 13 year old, sometimes he is hoarsing around. I like him, mainly because he's a nice guy and he isn't afraid to make his own decisions. It's not just about rebellionism but it also has a message on how we should make our decisions. The reason why it's called "Catcher in the Rye" because Holden mistakes the name of a poem a little boy starts humming which he believes is called "If a body catch a body coming through the Rye" though his sister corrected him and told him it was "If a body caught a body coming through the Rye" which was written by Robert Burns. (I just thought it would be nice to explain the title). So all in all, great book, great(ish) character and great premise.
Join in for part 2, because I'm still needing to think about explaining the books without revealing the ending. Plus, I'm still thinking of arranging the other numbers. But I'm still sticking with the number 1 spot, nothing can top that book.
7. The seven fabulous wonders, book 4. The Mausoleum Murder - written by Katherine Roberts.
OK, technically it's cheating that it's from a series, so I should include the other books. But the book are usually different. It's based on the 7 fabulous wonders so the books always set in another country with different characters, different beliefs and different magic. The Mausoleum murder is about a Greek boy called Alexis born in Halicarnassus during the war between Halicarnassus and Macedonia. Alexis has the gift to turn statues (with gold in side or coating it) into real people. He really summons a lost soul and sends the soul into the statue. His friend and stepmother were statues before and they can stay still very well and are incredibly strong. His stepmother is always wanting him to erase his powers by asking help from the river god. He finds out his long lost father had appeared in the streets was murdered before and he suspects his stepmother to have done it. He befriended the princess but they find out she was kidnapped; her father suggests that it was the Macedonians. So Alexis has to save the princess and proof that his stepmother did kill his father. But as it progresses, we find out more about how Alexis got his powers and who his stepmother really was before. I do like this book mainly because it drawed me in more than the other books, I just didn't like the others, like the book about a girl who is the daughter of a mortal and a sea demon called a telkhine. The problem is, Mausoleum murder and the other books are a bit rushed, like we have to accept the fact that Alexis can do this. But I think it's cool that he can do this; he uses this ability when he msakes a statue of his father and tries to transmit his father's soul into the statue and does the same with a statue of the Chimaera which the princess suggested. But what makes it better is the twist at the end, which we needn't talk about. No clues, you might have to read the book. Don't worry you don't need to read the series to understand what's going on, it's always different, just with magic and unsuspected characters.
6. The road of the dead - written by Kevin Brooks.
This is a mystery book about Ruben and Cole who are half gypsy who find out there sister was murdered. They really want to find out who killed her saw the police finds the culprit and Cole and Ruben and their mother could have a proper burial. Ruben is 14 years old and the narrater. He is quiet and observant and has the ability to "feel" what other people feel. His brother, Cole is a devil angel who doesn't smile alot and always fights with others. He doesn't care if he dies or lives but he loves his little brother. It has an esscence of prejudice since the brothers are half gypsy and quite alot of people hate them especially a small group of gypsies who Cole befriends. It brings you into the book to find out who killed te sister and why was she killed. And it has one of the scariest vilaains. Sean Redman or Red is a slimy creep who acts all nice to the brothers, especially Ruben but when he's angry, man is he scary. He even enjoys it near the end when he starts beating Ruben up. Dude, he's 14, what an a-hole. When I found out the reason for the murder, my heart felt like it just stopped. It's really good, with a good twist. Cole is...insane. He uses a gun quite frequently and doesn't really hesitate to use it, unless the villain has Ruben. The villain, aside from Red, is a greedy land owner who would do anything to get hold of the land. Nothing much to say but, dang that is a creepy baddy.
5. Push - written by Sapphire.
This is a very disturbing book. About 16 year old Claireece Jones or Precious who is pregnant for the second time after being raped by her father, for the second time! That, is so wrong! She can't read nor write and she gets expelled from her school after being pregnant and goes to an alternative school when Precious starts to excape her tormenting life and finally reach to happiness thanks to her kind teacher, Mrs Blue Rain. Her mother, is a bitch! I mean it, anyone who saw the film "Precious" or read the book knows what I'm talking about. Mary Lee Johnston swears at her daughter, beats her up with a frying pan or other things and when she is down, she carries on kicking poor Precious in the face. Sometimes Mary commits incest as well but rarely does it. I don't know what drew me into this book; it was about incest, rape, child abuse, teen pregnancy and AIDs/HIV. But I guess I wanted to know what was going to happen to her. Plus, I watched the trailer and saw a clip of Precious fighting back against her mother, so I wanted to see Precious beat that monster of a mother. Mary Lee Johnston is worse than József Barsi (look him up) I mean she keeps blaming Precious for making her husband leave her. Hello, he raped your daughter, and you're blaming her!? I pray you shall rot in hell you fat arsed bitch. The style of writing shows that Precious really was illiterate before but is learning, she usually involves her own dialect, like "chile" or "nuffin'"and. My opinion, probably read the book, the film might be good, but usually the book is better than the film.
4. The Catcher in the Rye - J.D Salinger.
An adventure of Holden Caulfield who's a 16 year old boy who recently got expelled from 4 schools, but after all that,he decides to run away and decide to live on his own and has adventures in the city. OK, he is a liar who keeps calling himself different names and about his age. But he is a normal guy who acts like most 16 year olds, he's just immature. All in all, he's an OK guy; he befriends people like a few nuns and a little kid. He does some stupid things but he's just a teen and most teens make a lot of mistakes. Adults make a few mistakes but they plan ahead. Though to be honest the stupidest mistake he made was pretending to be an adult (though he looks like one and has half his hair grey) and he was almost about to make out with a prostitute. OK, that was a bad idea for a 16 year old to do, but he doesn't really want to act older and sometimes acts like a 13 year old, sometimes he is hoarsing around. I like him, mainly because he's a nice guy and he isn't afraid to make his own decisions. It's not just about rebellionism but it also has a message on how we should make our decisions. The reason why it's called "Catcher in the Rye" because Holden mistakes the name of a poem a little boy starts humming which he believes is called "If a body catch a body coming through the Rye" though his sister corrected him and told him it was "If a body caught a body coming through the Rye" which was written by Robert Burns. (I just thought it would be nice to explain the title). So all in all, great book, great(ish) character and great premise.
Join in for part 2, because I'm still needing to think about explaining the books without revealing the ending. Plus, I'm still thinking of arranging the other numbers. But I'm still sticking with the number 1 spot, nothing can top that book.
25/02/2011
The Land Before Time sequels
"Land before time" was one of the greatest children's films of all time. For the ones who didn't see this film (shame on you) it's a film which sets in the Prehistoric times which has anthropomorphic dinosaurs, the land they live in starts to run out of vegetation so all the dinosaurs migrate to a place called the Great Valley which is said to have lush and vertile land with enough vegetation for all the plant eating dinosaurs. It focuses on a group of young dinosaurs who are separated from their parents by an earthquake so they journey on their own, facing deadly obstacles from tar pits to meat eating dinosaurs. The characters are Littlefoot (voiced by Gabriel Damon) who is called a Longneck (Apatosaurus)who is orphaned since his mother died after she protected her son and his friend from a Sharptooth (T-rex) so all he has is his grandparents. Cera (voiced by Candace Hutson) who is a Three-horn (Triceratops) who is tomboyish, strong and boastful. Ducky (voiced by late Judith Barsi(you don't want to know what happened)) a Big-mouth (Parasaurolophus) who is perky, innocent, sweet and big-hearted. Petrie (voiced by Will Ryan)who is a Flyer (Pteranodon) who was afraid of heights and couldn't fly at first until later on. He is very talkative but speaks in a broken English. Finaly Spike who is a Spike-tail (Stegosaurus)doesn't really talk because Ducky just found him when he hatched from his egg. The film is about prejudice, courage and friendship. We know there is prejudism in it when we hear that dinosaur children aren't aloud to talk to other dinosaur children from other races. It isn't a happy go-lucky film since half way through Littlefoot and Cera fight each other when they arrive to a fork in the path. The fighting scene is very brutal, we see silhouettes most of the times but when we see them actually fighting you just want to turn away. It's no surprise why it's so good; it was made by Don Bluth,Stephen Spielberg and George Lucas who are famous people in film making. The end credits is also beautiful as it is sang by Diana Ross and the title is fiting with this film, "If we hold on together" (check it out on YouTube). And the child voice actors are really good, you rarely get films with children as the main characters, can you? "Land before time" is the most wonderful film in history, there is no denying it. There is no problems in this at all, but there was one problem. The sequels. Gah! This is awful! There's not much to say since sequels always ruin it's predecessor, apart from "The Rescuers 2". But there is mainly 7 sequels for big Blockbuster films, but this film had 12 sequels. 12 SEQUELS!!!! What's wrong with the sequels? Well let's take a look.
The second film,"The Great Valley adventure" introduces a new character. A baby dinosaur,Chomper, who is obviously a baby Shaprtooth takes part in this new series. Now that's not bad, but here's the thing in all the other film. There is songs in it....Yes, this has now become...a musical. NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Why did you make it a musical!? It was never a musical! Don Bluth are you mad!? But it's worse than that; the sequels aren't written by Don Bluth nor the other 2. I would say that is plagirism, but it's not really since they added songs, changed the characters personality and kept making it look like the dinosaur kids don't like being treated like kids. When they are!!! And the effects are too cartoony; the 1st film was realistic, gritty and dark at times. Oh, and I found out that some of the sequels aren't always exploring and fighting dangerous animals but sometimes it's introducing new characters and is too childish other than serious. But wait, it get's worse, not only the songs are made, but the singing is awful. The father of Cera sings in "The Time of the Great Giving" and he makes Jedward look like great singers. (Oh yes, I went there). But wait, listen to the title of the 11 film. "Invasion of the Tinysaurus"...I really wish I made that up. Tiny dinosaurs start to come out and the Littlefoot and Cera are fighting over a...delicious plant called "Treesweets". *sob sob sob sob* And it gets worse than that, the 13th film (empathise on 13) has a new dinosaur species with bouncing yellow bellies (bouncing bellies, I can't believe this f**k)non of the other dinosaurs knew about. (If you want to know it's realistic name, it Beipiaosaurus). And they are trying to find there way to Berry Valley, so Little foot and his friends help the unintelligent creatures get there. Yes, and there is not many dangers on the way. So it's mostly happy go-lucky...FU...!
*dew to the technilogical problems after Agria Agori smashed the laptop after a tantrum, this might be delayed*
Sorry, I was busy crying and taking therapy after the death of children's classical film after seeing trailers and clips from the other sequels. I mean...It's so bad I can't type this into words. I know this is a massive disappointment because you lot probably want to know what else about the sequels killed the "Land before time". But, I will type up quotes and scenes from the 1st film and it's sequels and put them together back to back and you'll see why.:-
Death of Littlefoot's mother-
M- Dear sweet Littlefoot...do you remember the way to the Great Valley?
L- *sniffing* I guess so. But why do I have to go when you're not going to be with me?
M- I'll be with you...even if you can't see me.
L- What do you mean can't see you? I can always see you.
M- Littlefoot...let your heart guide you...it whispers...*quietly*so listen closely.
*pause*
L- Mother? Mother?
The Great Valley adventure (II)-
*singing*
Group- We're family and you're one of us now! We're family and you're one of us now!
Cera and Littlefoot fight-
L- But it's the wrong way!
C- Who says?
L- My mother!
C- Then she was the stupid Longneck to!
The Mysterious island(V)-
*singing*
Group- Don't want to be friends for dinner. Don't want to be friends, for dinner.
D- We'd rather stick in the mud.
P- Fall out of a tree.
C- Fall like a rock slide into the sea.
Group- One thing we don't want to be is friends for dinner!
"If we hold on together" lyrics (some of it)-
When we are out there in the dark,
We'll dream about the sun,
In the dark we'll feel the light,
Warm our hearts everyone
If we hold on together,
I know are dreams will never die,
Dreams see us through to forever,
As high, as souls can fly,
The clouds roll by for you and I.
Wisdom of friends (XIII)-
*singing*
Doofah- Come on and try!
Loofah- Come on and try!
P- Me no good on the ground need to do better in the sky!
Lo- Ducky?
D- We do not dance.
P- We not like you.
C- You look so silly.
Lo- Thanks! Silly's what we do!
Well *sigh* do they fit together? Do you think they fit together? I don't think it fits together! So it doesn't fit together!!!! SHAME ON THOU SEQUELS! SHAME ON THOU!!! I just can't believe this! Doofah and Loofah? Are you serious? And the worst thing is, Doofah is voiced by Cuba Gooding Jr who was in "A Murder of Crows", "Men of Honour", "Pearl Harbour", and "Radio", and those are serious films! And the voice actress of Loofah is Golden Globe winning acteress Sandra Oh, who was in "The Red violin", "3 Needles", "The Night Listener" and "Sideways" which were also serious films! I know it's OK for actors and actresses to have a sence of humour and take part in children's films, but Cuba Gooding Jr and Sandra Oh are mostly in serious drama films, this is just ruining their image. Come on, there isn't any sad scenes? There are said scenes in "Up" for crying out loud! It would be better if Littlefoot kept sighing because he's still depressed about the death of his mother! You think it was easy to quote from the sequels? It wasn't; the singing was awful, especially "Wisdom of Friends", you can't believe how bad Petrie's singing was. The child voice actors aren't as good as the ones in the 1st film. Jodith Barsi was really good, she has done a good job when she was in the crying scene. And no, I'm not gonna tell you how she died, it is depressing, look it up on Wikipedia or YouTube. (FYI, you might have to have tissues with you). Bottom line, the sequels suck. The songs, adventures, names, characteristics are awful. My advice, buy the 1st film, it is considered a box office success, buy it and forget that it had sequels. Oh, and don't you think I'm gonna talk about the TV series, the sequels were bad enough!
The second film,"The Great Valley adventure" introduces a new character. A baby dinosaur,Chomper, who is obviously a baby Shaprtooth takes part in this new series. Now that's not bad, but here's the thing in all the other film. There is songs in it....Yes, this has now become...a musical. NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Why did you make it a musical!? It was never a musical! Don Bluth are you mad!? But it's worse than that; the sequels aren't written by Don Bluth nor the other 2. I would say that is plagirism, but it's not really since they added songs, changed the characters personality and kept making it look like the dinosaur kids don't like being treated like kids. When they are!!! And the effects are too cartoony; the 1st film was realistic, gritty and dark at times. Oh, and I found out that some of the sequels aren't always exploring and fighting dangerous animals but sometimes it's introducing new characters and is too childish other than serious. But wait, it get's worse, not only the songs are made, but the singing is awful. The father of Cera sings in "The Time of the Great Giving" and he makes Jedward look like great singers. (Oh yes, I went there). But wait, listen to the title of the 11 film. "Invasion of the Tinysaurus"...I really wish I made that up. Tiny dinosaurs start to come out and the Littlefoot and Cera are fighting over a...delicious plant called "Treesweets". *sob sob sob sob* And it gets worse than that, the 13th film (empathise on 13) has a new dinosaur species with bouncing yellow bellies (bouncing bellies, I can't believe this f**k)non of the other dinosaurs knew about. (If you want to know it's realistic name, it Beipiaosaurus). And they are trying to find there way to Berry Valley, so Little foot and his friends help the unintelligent creatures get there. Yes, and there is not many dangers on the way. So it's mostly happy go-lucky...FU...!
*dew to the technilogical problems after Agria Agori smashed the laptop after a tantrum, this might be delayed*
Sorry, I was busy crying and taking therapy after the death of children's classical film after seeing trailers and clips from the other sequels. I mean...It's so bad I can't type this into words. I know this is a massive disappointment because you lot probably want to know what else about the sequels killed the "Land before time". But, I will type up quotes and scenes from the 1st film and it's sequels and put them together back to back and you'll see why.:-
Death of Littlefoot's mother-
M- Dear sweet Littlefoot...do you remember the way to the Great Valley?
L- *sniffing* I guess so. But why do I have to go when you're not going to be with me?
M- I'll be with you...even if you can't see me.
L- What do you mean can't see you? I can always see you.
M- Littlefoot...let your heart guide you...it whispers...*quietly*so listen closely.
*pause*
L- Mother? Mother?
The Great Valley adventure (II)-
*singing*
Group- We're family and you're one of us now! We're family and you're one of us now!
Cera and Littlefoot fight-
L- But it's the wrong way!
C- Who says?
L- My mother!
C- Then she was the stupid Longneck to!
The Mysterious island(V)-
*singing*
Group- Don't want to be friends for dinner. Don't want to be friends, for dinner.
D- We'd rather stick in the mud.
P- Fall out of a tree.
C- Fall like a rock slide into the sea.
Group- One thing we don't want to be is friends for dinner!
"If we hold on together" lyrics (some of it)-
When we are out there in the dark,
We'll dream about the sun,
In the dark we'll feel the light,
Warm our hearts everyone
If we hold on together,
I know are dreams will never die,
Dreams see us through to forever,
As high, as souls can fly,
The clouds roll by for you and I.
Wisdom of friends (XIII)-
*singing*
Doofah- Come on and try!
Loofah- Come on and try!
P- Me no good on the ground need to do better in the sky!
Lo- Ducky?
D- We do not dance.
P- We not like you.
C- You look so silly.
Lo- Thanks! Silly's what we do!
Well *sigh* do they fit together? Do you think they fit together? I don't think it fits together! So it doesn't fit together!!!! SHAME ON THOU SEQUELS! SHAME ON THOU!!! I just can't believe this! Doofah and Loofah? Are you serious? And the worst thing is, Doofah is voiced by Cuba Gooding Jr who was in "A Murder of Crows", "Men of Honour", "Pearl Harbour", and "Radio", and those are serious films! And the voice actress of Loofah is Golden Globe winning acteress Sandra Oh, who was in "The Red violin", "3 Needles", "The Night Listener" and "Sideways" which were also serious films! I know it's OK for actors and actresses to have a sence of humour and take part in children's films, but Cuba Gooding Jr and Sandra Oh are mostly in serious drama films, this is just ruining their image. Come on, there isn't any sad scenes? There are said scenes in "Up" for crying out loud! It would be better if Littlefoot kept sighing because he's still depressed about the death of his mother! You think it was easy to quote from the sequels? It wasn't; the singing was awful, especially "Wisdom of Friends", you can't believe how bad Petrie's singing was. The child voice actors aren't as good as the ones in the 1st film. Jodith Barsi was really good, she has done a good job when she was in the crying scene. And no, I'm not gonna tell you how she died, it is depressing, look it up on Wikipedia or YouTube. (FYI, you might have to have tissues with you). Bottom line, the sequels suck. The songs, adventures, names, characteristics are awful. My advice, buy the 1st film, it is considered a box office success, buy it and forget that it had sequels. Oh, and don't you think I'm gonna talk about the TV series, the sequels were bad enough!
23/02/2011
Response to Future 5 comics
I promise this will be the last blog about comics and the last blog about something someone else criticised. But the reason why I do this is because the Batman: Fortunate son was just stupid, Brain Drain was horrendously stupid but this one I'm typing about is very offensive. Future 5 is supposed to be an educational comic book series about a group of college educated adults fighting against a guy called Dr Know who is trying to take over the world. Sound simple enough? Well Dr Know's method is trying to stop people to go to college so he'll be smarter than anyone else in the world, thus making him rich and powerful. And there is a message in the comic book series; they're saying that if you don't go to college, you will ruin you life forever and regret it. No! That is just offensive! You do need college for a job but a college degree does not guarantee success and all that. OK, I'm choosing to go to college to be a researcher for the media but here me out; I really want to be an author, the researcher part is my second job. I already have plans for my book series, in fact I'm writing a book already and I'm still in High School, and I don't even have this "precious college education". OK, I know college is a useful thing in life and I do need a higher English education to complete that dream. But, the thing is, in my theory, you don't just need good grammar, you need a good inspiration and have to make sure the story makes sense. It doesn't have to be something original, if you make the book something people wouldn't want to put down, you life will be a success. And if you make it a first person view and the character is a kid, it doesn't matter what the words are like, it's OK because it looks like an actual kid wrote it. (Which is why all my books (if possible) are going to have the main character as kids or teens). Look at Sapphire's book "Push", some of the words are misspelled but that looks like it really was written by someone learning to write, but I digress.
So, yeah, the writer of Future 5 thinks that people without college education are going to be complete failures. Oh thanks a lot! That would make more people fell upset and offended. Now don't get me wrong, if you want to take college, fine I don't care, I'm just saying that this is offensive. And the writer did make a good list of famous people and what they succeeded at. Here is a list of some of them I looked up :-
Barack Obama Tom Hanks
Donald Trump J. Craig Ventor(scientist)
Tiger Woods Oprah Winfrey
Maya Lin(architect) Brad Pitt
Martin Luther King Jr Harry Hill
Rita Mae Brown(astronaut) Michael McIntyre
Yeah that's a good list of people but there is a little problem, I done some research and found out even more famous people were successful when some of them didn't go to college or dropped out of college. Here is the list of people who didn't get their college degrees:-
Walt Disney Sean Connery
Simon Cowell John D. Rockefeller(oil magnate)
Wolfgang Puck(chef) Halle Berry(actress) Michael J. Fox(actor) Johnny Depp
Here is the people who dropped out of high school/college:-
Stephen Spielberg Michael Dell Bill Gates Christina Aguilera Woody Allen Louis Armstrong Boy George Jim Carrey
Robert De Nero(Oscar-winning actor) Snoop Dog Joe DiMaggio(baseball player) Zac Efron Eminem
And here is my favourite, the 9 presidents who didn't go to college, see if you recognize some of them:-
Abraham Lincoln George Washington Andrew Jackson Martina Van Buren Zachary Taylor Millord Filmore
So, yeah I bet you didn't expect that, did you?
Now I have to repeat this, I'm not against college, it's your choice, go to college if you want to, I'm just saying people who don't go to college aren't immediate failures. This comic book series is just bringing people down, thinking they are ruining their lives. Now, my sister is taking college and I don't care(much), she chose it, it's OK, it's her life. Oh, and if this comic couldn't get any more offensive, it's suggesting people who work in a fast-food restaurants like McDonalds, are beneath college graduates. Do you know what "inconsiderate" means you brainless eejits!?
So, yeah, the writer of Future 5 thinks that people without college education are going to be complete failures. Oh thanks a lot! That would make more people fell upset and offended. Now don't get me wrong, if you want to take college, fine I don't care, I'm just saying that this is offensive. And the writer did make a good list of famous people and what they succeeded at. Here is a list of some of them I looked up :-
Barack Obama Tom Hanks
Donald Trump J. Craig Ventor(scientist)
Tiger Woods Oprah Winfrey
Maya Lin(architect) Brad Pitt
Martin Luther King Jr Harry Hill
Rita Mae Brown(astronaut) Michael McIntyre
Yeah that's a good list of people but there is a little problem, I done some research and found out even more famous people were successful when some of them didn't go to college or dropped out of college. Here is the list of people who didn't get their college degrees:-
Walt Disney Sean Connery
Simon Cowell John D. Rockefeller(oil magnate)
Wolfgang Puck(chef) Halle Berry(actress) Michael J. Fox(actor) Johnny Depp
Here is the people who dropped out of high school/college:-
Stephen Spielberg Michael Dell Bill Gates Christina Aguilera Woody Allen Louis Armstrong Boy George Jim Carrey
Robert De Nero(Oscar-winning actor) Snoop Dog Joe DiMaggio(baseball player) Zac Efron Eminem
And here is my favourite, the 9 presidents who didn't go to college, see if you recognize some of them:-
Abraham Lincoln George Washington Andrew Jackson Martina Van Buren Zachary Taylor Millord Filmore
So, yeah I bet you didn't expect that, did you?
Now I have to repeat this, I'm not against college, it's your choice, go to college if you want to, I'm just saying people who don't go to college aren't immediate failures. This comic book series is just bringing people down, thinking they are ruining their lives. Now, my sister is taking college and I don't care(much), she chose it, it's OK, it's her life. Oh, and if this comic couldn't get any more offensive, it's suggesting people who work in a fast-food restaurants like McDonalds, are beneath college graduates. Do you know what "inconsiderate" means you brainless eejits!?
22/02/2011
Response to Spider man and the Fantastic 4 in...Brain drain
OMG, THIS IS THE WORST THING I EVER HEARD OF!!!!! I'm dead serious, I was mad with Batman: Fortunate son, but this comic is the stupidest, worst f**king thing I ever had the misfortune of hearing! It's going to be so bad since you're gonna see me have a lot of censored swears, and I don't wanta swear a lot in my blogs, but we can do anything in these blogs. Again Linkara criticised this but there are points that I thought of and he didn't think of! (OK, he probably thought of this and mentioned the first one, but the rest he didn't mention) So, what's wrong with this comic? What's wrong with it!? I'll tell you what's f**king wrong with this comic!
Aparently, the smartest students are getting there brain erased so they forget everything what they have learned from their teachers. Reed suspects that Dr Doom is behind it since Spidey saw a Doombot. And the teachers are trying to help the Fantastic 4, I mean they our their students after all. Speaking (or typing) of which, why the teachers? I know the parents would blame them but I think the parents would be concerned as well. Oh, and Susan actually says that they could tag along. WHAT!? There just normal teachers! What could they do!? Anyway, Reed is thinking of tracking Doom with some tracking device since the robots are functioning with wireless technology. OK, that sounds OK, but the stupidest thing is this comic is advertising for a shop that sells items for school work, and (I'm not kidding here) the teachers suggest to use the supplies from the shop to track down Doom....WHAAAAAAATTTT?! They used school supplies to track down Doom when Reeds could have used his technology or I dunno, go to Latveria. You know, the country Doom is the monarch of! And if that's not stupid enough, they were actually able to find Doom with compasses, maps, calculators, pencils, paper et cetera. How the heck were they able to track the signal with things I would have used for Maths and Geography!? It's impossible! Reed is a bloomin' physicist who fought Doom and actually travelled to other dimensions! He would have found Doom without using a damn map!
And there is the stupidest plan Doom has ever came up with. He wanted to make kids stupid because since people say the students are the future leaders of the world, Doom didn't want that to happen since he wanted to take over the world. Err, sorry to mention this Doomsie but when the kids grow older, you'd be an old man or possibly dead! How would they possibly become future world leaders!? Yes, there are some students in the world that might possibly be politicians or presidents. But not all of them! Some students actually want to leave school and the rest want to get other jobs. Scientists, teachers, policemen, journalists, engineers et cetera. How would they be a threat to you? They could get other jobs than become world leaders! Take me for example, I want to be an author and write fantasy, adventure and possibly drama books/book series/novels. Does that make me sound like a threat to a powerful monarch? I THINK NOT!!!
Aside from those two (yes, it's that bad it makes the other points look minor than major) they actually...make the teachers...look like the super...heroes....ARE YOU F**KING KIDDING ME!!!!??? THEY'RE JUST PEOPLE WHO F**KING TEACH OTHER STUDENTS ABOUT STUFF THEY SHOULD F**KING KNOW!!!! AND THEY ARE THE ONES WHO DEFEAT DOOM!!?? BULLSH*T!!!THAT JUST PROOVES THAT DOOM IS THE SH*TIEST AND WIMPIEST SUPER VILLAIN IN COMIC BOOK HISTORY,EVAH!!!!Yes, teachers can be useful to help students, BUT NOT STOP A SUPER VILLAIN/MONARCH!!!! And just to make this even more worse, when they do defeat Doom (*groan*) they find out there is no way to reverse the effects of the brain drain (the name of machine(love the creativity there)) so when they return to the Baxter building, Reed theorises that the teachers should re-teach the students....ISN'T THAT THE F**KING POINT OF TEACHING!!!???TO TEACH STUDENTS AGAIN AND AGAIN FOR IMPORTANT REASONS!!?? WHY DIDN'T THE DAMN TEACHERS THINK OF THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!??...I...I don't get this. THERE WAS NO F**KING POINT ON TRACKING DOOM, MUCH LESS FIGHTING HIM, WHEN THEY COULD HAVE JUST RE-TAUGHT THE STUDENTS!!!??WHY DID THEY CREATE THIS!? WHY DID THEY PUBLISH THIS!? WHERE DID THEY GET THIS IDEA!? WHAT MADE THEM THINK THIS WAS A GOOD PSE COMIC!? WHY THE HELL AM I TELLING YOU THIS!? SOMEBODY KILL ME!!! GAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ooookay, I think I've calmed down now...a little. Though I think I should take a month of therapy. Thank you, the writer...whoever you are. I think it's annoying that the writer thinks the Thing enjoys being inhuman and creepy looking when the Thing hates being the Thing. Who is this writer anyway?...Tom Defalco? The guy who is the former editer and chief of Marvel comics?..................GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!
Aparently, the smartest students are getting there brain erased so they forget everything what they have learned from their teachers. Reed suspects that Dr Doom is behind it since Spidey saw a Doombot. And the teachers are trying to help the Fantastic 4, I mean they our their students after all. Speaking (or typing) of which, why the teachers? I know the parents would blame them but I think the parents would be concerned as well. Oh, and Susan actually says that they could tag along. WHAT!? There just normal teachers! What could they do!? Anyway, Reed is thinking of tracking Doom with some tracking device since the robots are functioning with wireless technology. OK, that sounds OK, but the stupidest thing is this comic is advertising for a shop that sells items for school work, and (I'm not kidding here) the teachers suggest to use the supplies from the shop to track down Doom....WHAAAAAAATTTT?! They used school supplies to track down Doom when Reeds could have used his technology or I dunno, go to Latveria. You know, the country Doom is the monarch of! And if that's not stupid enough, they were actually able to find Doom with compasses, maps, calculators, pencils, paper et cetera. How the heck were they able to track the signal with things I would have used for Maths and Geography!? It's impossible! Reed is a bloomin' physicist who fought Doom and actually travelled to other dimensions! He would have found Doom without using a damn map!
And there is the stupidest plan Doom has ever came up with. He wanted to make kids stupid because since people say the students are the future leaders of the world, Doom didn't want that to happen since he wanted to take over the world. Err, sorry to mention this Doomsie but when the kids grow older, you'd be an old man or possibly dead! How would they possibly become future world leaders!? Yes, there are some students in the world that might possibly be politicians or presidents. But not all of them! Some students actually want to leave school and the rest want to get other jobs. Scientists, teachers, policemen, journalists, engineers et cetera. How would they be a threat to you? They could get other jobs than become world leaders! Take me for example, I want to be an author and write fantasy, adventure and possibly drama books/book series/novels. Does that make me sound like a threat to a powerful monarch? I THINK NOT!!!
Aside from those two (yes, it's that bad it makes the other points look minor than major) they actually...make the teachers...look like the super...heroes....ARE YOU F**KING KIDDING ME!!!!??? THEY'RE JUST PEOPLE WHO F**KING TEACH OTHER STUDENTS ABOUT STUFF THEY SHOULD F**KING KNOW!!!! AND THEY ARE THE ONES WHO DEFEAT DOOM!!?? BULLSH*T!!!THAT JUST PROOVES THAT DOOM IS THE SH*TIEST AND WIMPIEST SUPER VILLAIN IN COMIC BOOK HISTORY,EVAH!!!!Yes, teachers can be useful to help students, BUT NOT STOP A SUPER VILLAIN/MONARCH!!!! And just to make this even more worse, when they do defeat Doom (*groan*) they find out there is no way to reverse the effects of the brain drain (the name of machine(love the creativity there)) so when they return to the Baxter building, Reed theorises that the teachers should re-teach the students....ISN'T THAT THE F**KING POINT OF TEACHING!!!???TO TEACH STUDENTS AGAIN AND AGAIN FOR IMPORTANT REASONS!!?? WHY DIDN'T THE DAMN TEACHERS THINK OF THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!??...I...I don't get this. THERE WAS NO F**KING POINT ON TRACKING DOOM, MUCH LESS FIGHTING HIM, WHEN THEY COULD HAVE JUST RE-TAUGHT THE STUDENTS!!!??WHY DID THEY CREATE THIS!? WHY DID THEY PUBLISH THIS!? WHERE DID THEY GET THIS IDEA!? WHAT MADE THEM THINK THIS WAS A GOOD PSE COMIC!? WHY THE HELL AM I TELLING YOU THIS!? SOMEBODY KILL ME!!! GAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ooookay, I think I've calmed down now...a little. Though I think I should take a month of therapy. Thank you, the writer...whoever you are. I think it's annoying that the writer thinks the Thing enjoys being inhuman and creepy looking when the Thing hates being the Thing. Who is this writer anyway?...Tom Defalco? The guy who is the former editer and chief of Marvel comics?..................GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!
09/02/2011
Top 5 stupidest villain moments.
Villains always are creepy, devious and at times goofy, like the villain from 'Dungeons and dragons' or the Joker from most of the Batman cartoons. But sometimes the villains do some of the most stupidest scenes, they sometimes chew the scenery who doesn't really intimidate us except annoy us. (I'm looking at you Terl from 'Battlefield Earth'!)So here is the countdown of the top 5 stupidest moments of villans in film and TV history.
5. White witch's persuasion with Edmund from the the 1988 BBC TV series 'Chronicles of Narnia'.
Don't get me wrong, Barbara Kellerman's acting for the white witch was OK, by OK I mean over the top. I know she's the villainess and she has to act all snotty since she thinks she is a queen, but if you look for the scene of her meeting Edmund in the first place, she is just ruining it. She's supposed to gain Edmund's trust, admittedly she does the gainig trust thing pretty well, she just acts more high and mighty at times. In the 2005 film, the actress acts all comforting and gentle towards Edmund (bad touch alert) and she acts all nonchalantly and smiling sometimes being all mother-like. That is how a villain/villainess is supposed to gain the hero's trust, they need to be kinder and gentle, not act more high and mighty, its more likely to make the hero not trust the villain. Plus, what the white witch looks like in the 1988 TV series is just pathetic, her crown is far to large and ridiculous, in the 2005 film, she looks pretty so that also makes the hero trust the villain some more. So all in all, Barbara Kellerman is an OK actress, not so good characteristics.
4. Prometheus's name.
OK, so not a villain moment nor a film or TV series villain but a comic book villain, I just want to mention this. Prometheus is supposed to be an anti-Batman except Batman is a intelligent detective, Prometheus is smart because of a helmet he designed which enables him to plan ahead. What I find to be a problem is that his name doesn't make sense. I know in myth Prometheus is the titan of forethought therefore meaning planning ahead. But, most people know Prometheus was the one who stole fire from the gods and gave it to mankind. Also, Prometheus was the one who taught mankind, he helped mankind, HE LOVED MANKIND, WHY WOULD A VILLAIN CHOOSE A NAME OF A DEITY WHO LOVED MANKIND!? In 'JLA cry for justice' they said he is the enemy of justice itself. Er...how? I already mentioned he loved mankind so he really can't be against justice. It's like a hero being the son of the devil...oh wait Hellboy. Well maybe a heroine with some abilities of sorcery and has a name of a deadly hag who follows the devil...wait Scarlet witch. Well maybe a hero turning into a villain. Wait, Green Lantern, Scarlet witch, the Atom...forget it.
3. Two face from 'Batman forever'.
Yeah this was pretty obvious. The villains in 'Batman forever' was weird. The Riddler made sense because he is also one of Batman's crazy villains, but Two face in the comics and cartoon is serious, sinister and scary, in 'Batman forever' he is insane, flamboyant and...insane. And the funny thing is the actor, Tommy Lee Jones is the one who played Agent K from 'Men in Black' and some other serious films like 'No country for old men', 'The missing', 'JFK' and 'The fugitive'. And he is the one who plays this pathetic excuse of a intimidating villain? My gosh he was hilarious though, but I still think he was better from the Batman cartoons.
2. Hades from the 'Percy Jackson and the lightning thief' film.
Even though I admitted that I didn't watch the film, but I saw it on the big screen in HMV, even though I couldn't hear it, I could see what the characters were like, like from a black'n'white silent film. And I saw a clip of him from YouTube. And you know what, he was stupid! In the book, he was sinister and was actually scary in the first place, he only smiles in the last book, the last book! He despised Percy when he entered the underworld and he literally radiated power. In the film, he was...flamboyant like Two face, but that is not how I imagined the ruler of the underworld, even the ones who didn't read the book would know that the characteristics for Hades was pathetic. And the form was pathetic,he had black robes that was weaved with the souls of the damned for cryin' out loud in the book! That is what I think of a ruler of the underworld, sinister and I also think he should be quiet and stealthy. Not flamboyant!
And the number 1 stupidest villain moments is...
Thulsa Doom persuading Conan from 'Conan the barbarian'.
Arnold Schwarzenegar plays a barbaric warrior who tries to fight the evil tyrant, Thulsa Doom. (Seriously, they have to call him Doom to empathise he's a villain?)When Conan finally comes to Thulsa and was trying to kill, Thulsa actually tries to persuade Conan that he was doing good things to the world. OK, he did allow Conan to live as a child so that does mean he can persuade him easily. But there's one problem with your persuasion Thulsa, what's that problem excactly?...Oh yeah, YOU KILLED HIS MOTHER WHEN HE WAS LITTLE, WHY SHOULD HE LISTEN TO YOU!? I know villains can persuade heroes but the villain needs to be comforting and gentle, like I mentioned in the number 5 spot, but they also have to know the hero's back story, their weak spots and desires. That is the best way for the villain to persuade the hero. I kind of do like those types of villains, I don't know why, I like the way they use words instead of force on the hero. But Thulsa was the one who killed Conan's mother, that doesn't mean the hero will trust you, if the mother was evil like the mother from 'Push' (the novel not the film) then the hero will trust you, not when she is kind like most mothers are.
And that's the countdown, and maybe I might do the stupidest hero moments, just to level the countdowns.
5. White witch's persuasion with Edmund from the the 1988 BBC TV series 'Chronicles of Narnia'.
Don't get me wrong, Barbara Kellerman's acting for the white witch was OK, by OK I mean over the top. I know she's the villainess and she has to act all snotty since she thinks she is a queen, but if you look for the scene of her meeting Edmund in the first place, she is just ruining it. She's supposed to gain Edmund's trust, admittedly she does the gainig trust thing pretty well, she just acts more high and mighty at times. In the 2005 film, the actress acts all comforting and gentle towards Edmund (bad touch alert) and she acts all nonchalantly and smiling sometimes being all mother-like. That is how a villain/villainess is supposed to gain the hero's trust, they need to be kinder and gentle, not act more high and mighty, its more likely to make the hero not trust the villain. Plus, what the white witch looks like in the 1988 TV series is just pathetic, her crown is far to large and ridiculous, in the 2005 film, she looks pretty so that also makes the hero trust the villain some more. So all in all, Barbara Kellerman is an OK actress, not so good characteristics.
4. Prometheus's name.
OK, so not a villain moment nor a film or TV series villain but a comic book villain, I just want to mention this. Prometheus is supposed to be an anti-Batman except Batman is a intelligent detective, Prometheus is smart because of a helmet he designed which enables him to plan ahead. What I find to be a problem is that his name doesn't make sense. I know in myth Prometheus is the titan of forethought therefore meaning planning ahead. But, most people know Prometheus was the one who stole fire from the gods and gave it to mankind. Also, Prometheus was the one who taught mankind, he helped mankind, HE LOVED MANKIND, WHY WOULD A VILLAIN CHOOSE A NAME OF A DEITY WHO LOVED MANKIND!? In 'JLA cry for justice' they said he is the enemy of justice itself. Er...how? I already mentioned he loved mankind so he really can't be against justice. It's like a hero being the son of the devil...oh wait Hellboy. Well maybe a heroine with some abilities of sorcery and has a name of a deadly hag who follows the devil...wait Scarlet witch. Well maybe a hero turning into a villain. Wait, Green Lantern, Scarlet witch, the Atom...forget it.
3. Two face from 'Batman forever'.
Yeah this was pretty obvious. The villains in 'Batman forever' was weird. The Riddler made sense because he is also one of Batman's crazy villains, but Two face in the comics and cartoon is serious, sinister and scary, in 'Batman forever' he is insane, flamboyant and...insane. And the funny thing is the actor, Tommy Lee Jones is the one who played Agent K from 'Men in Black' and some other serious films like 'No country for old men', 'The missing', 'JFK' and 'The fugitive'. And he is the one who plays this pathetic excuse of a intimidating villain? My gosh he was hilarious though, but I still think he was better from the Batman cartoons.
2. Hades from the 'Percy Jackson and the lightning thief' film.
Even though I admitted that I didn't watch the film, but I saw it on the big screen in HMV, even though I couldn't hear it, I could see what the characters were like, like from a black'n'white silent film. And I saw a clip of him from YouTube. And you know what, he was stupid! In the book, he was sinister and was actually scary in the first place, he only smiles in the last book, the last book! He despised Percy when he entered the underworld and he literally radiated power. In the film, he was...flamboyant like Two face, but that is not how I imagined the ruler of the underworld, even the ones who didn't read the book would know that the characteristics for Hades was pathetic. And the form was pathetic,he had black robes that was weaved with the souls of the damned for cryin' out loud in the book! That is what I think of a ruler of the underworld, sinister and I also think he should be quiet and stealthy. Not flamboyant!
And the number 1 stupidest villain moments is...
Thulsa Doom persuading Conan from 'Conan the barbarian'.
Arnold Schwarzenegar plays a barbaric warrior who tries to fight the evil tyrant, Thulsa Doom. (Seriously, they have to call him Doom to empathise he's a villain?)When Conan finally comes to Thulsa and was trying to kill, Thulsa actually tries to persuade Conan that he was doing good things to the world. OK, he did allow Conan to live as a child so that does mean he can persuade him easily. But there's one problem with your persuasion Thulsa, what's that problem excactly?...Oh yeah, YOU KILLED HIS MOTHER WHEN HE WAS LITTLE, WHY SHOULD HE LISTEN TO YOU!? I know villains can persuade heroes but the villain needs to be comforting and gentle, like I mentioned in the number 5 spot, but they also have to know the hero's back story, their weak spots and desires. That is the best way for the villain to persuade the hero. I kind of do like those types of villains, I don't know why, I like the way they use words instead of force on the hero. But Thulsa was the one who killed Conan's mother, that doesn't mean the hero will trust you, if the mother was evil like the mother from 'Push' (the novel not the film) then the hero will trust you, not when she is kind like most mothers are.
And that's the countdown, and maybe I might do the stupidest hero moments, just to level the countdowns.
07/02/2011
Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory
I DON'T HATE THIS FILM!! I remember this to be a childhood classic, I enjoyed it when I was little. But I did read the book after a couple years after I saw it. I didn't really see the problems and didn't know if there were any problems turning books into films. I know everyone saw this and loved it, but apparently Roald Dahl didn't like it. But since I'm older, I know the problems and I prefer books over films, not all the time but I prefer the books other than the film that was based upon the book. So I'm more likely to talk about the problems I learned. Don't get me wrong, some other critics made a good point that Charlie in the film seemed more like a kid while in the book he's just gets the factory because he didn't touch anything. So the Charlie in the film wins a point. Anyway, here's the problems with the film.
1. The title.
This is a bit of a minor thing. In the book it was 'Charlie and the chocolate factory'. What ruins it is the that the people would think it's focused on Wonka, not Charlie. I know in the film we find out it isn't, but it's about how you address the film. If you use Wonka's name, people would take it the wrong way.
2. The story of Prince Pondicherry isn't mentioned.
I know the part in the book about Pondicherry is technically a waste of paper so it would be filler in the film. But, the story of Pondicherry also explains how wonderful Wonka is, he was able to make a palace out of chocolate, so they should have mentioned or shown this in the film. I wish they did show this in the film, so I'm glad they did show us this in the remake.
3. The geese.
In the book it was squirrels that choose which is the good nut and used in the chocolate bar (the nuts, not the squirrels)but instead of squirels, it's geese. OK, so it has a bit of an excuse, I mean I don't think it would be possible to train squirrels to attack a girl and shove down the garbage chute. (Boy that was something I didn't expect to type) it can only be done by computer animation so it has an excuse to use geese instead.
4. The visuals.
It's weak. We do see the basics of the factory, the TV room, the entrance, the inventing room et cetera. But in the book, it mentions more about the wonderous features in the factories. The square sweets that look round (which I admit in the book it's a surprise what they meant) isn't mentioned or much less seen. I wanted to see more about the factory, don't just mention them. And the visuals of the oompa loompas were weird. I know they're supposed to be weird creatures but in the book, they were just normal people who looked smaller, nothing needs to be changed. I know its interesting how they invisioned the oompa loompas but Roald Dahl imagined them to look like people, so they should look like people.
5. The songs.
All the songs actually turn this into a musical. I know there's nothing wrong with musicals, but in the book the only songs there is, is when the oompa loompas start singing, that's it, you don't have to add any songs. And even though they do make the oompa loompas sing, it completely different from the lyrics in the book! All they do is use the chorus "Oompa loompa doopidy doo' (wow, the creativity of the lyrics is outstanding) and add other lyrics to the songs in different scenes but that's it. In the book they're also explaining a story in the songs, in the film it's completely different. I know the songs are classical but that is not how Roald Dahl wrote it.
6. Slugworth.
This is a major mistake in the film. Slugworth was only mentioned in the book, for one page! We just know Slugworth used the stolen recipe from Wonka and made bubblegum that can make the largest bubbles but that's it! We never see Slugworth at all in the book, just mentioned. And for some reason in the film he is like some kind of antagonist who was apparenlty used as some part of Wonka's plan to make sure who to choose to take control of the factory. WHY!? I know it seems to be an interesting part in the film but they shouldn't have done that! Roald Dahl only mentioned him so they shoudln't expand the character. They should follow on how the book goes but that's it. OK they can do a few changes but no major changes.
7. Charlie and Grandpa Joe get in trouble.
In the film, after the group leaves the fizzy drink room, Charlie and Grandpa Joe are fascinated by the drink which makes people float. But unfortunetly they start to float too high when they drink and nearly cut to shreds because of the massive fan in the ceiling. Thankfully they were able to float down safely by burping. They decided to join the group afterwards. WHERE DID THEY GET THE IDEA FROM!? It never happened in the gosh-darn book. This is a major change to the plot and technically filler, so don't add a new scene when there was no chapter about it!
8. The outburst at the end.
This is a scene I truly didn't like, I don't like yelling, especially in children's films. Wonka finds out that Grandpa Joe and Charlie drink the fizzy drink and is angered by this. In the book (including the part that didn't happen in the book at number 6) he actually is pleased that Charlie didn't touch any of the products and explains why he wanted children to take control the factory. Why did they avoid that? OK, he does explain but it didn't go the same way it was mentioned in the book!
9. Wonka.
This is another major point that's wrong. In the film I do like how he seems mysterious and looks like he has things planned out. But when the children take the products he doesn't even care what happens. I know the kids were annoying and greedy but it could have been because of bad parenting skills. Have you seen the father of Veruca Salt? Seriously he needs to act more like the head of the household. Even though the consequences didn't seem so bad for Mike Teavee and Violet Beauregarde but it definetly was for Veruca Salt and Augustus Gloop. But in the book he was actually worried on what happened to the kids. In the book, he is a flamboyant character and he is telling Violet to stop chewing the gum and is anxious for her to stop. In the film however, he let's her, even though he tell her to stop, it dosen't work since he says it nonchalantly. She is going to have side effects, stop her! I know it doesn't sound that bad swelling up with blueberry juice, but it makes a heck of an embarrassment. He should worry, the parents can sue, he should have stopped them. In the book he wasn't able to but he was concerned about the children's safety.
And that's the list. And I'm not sure if Roald Dahl would like the remake, and I'm not sure either; it was almost there but just went a bit wrong, especially the fact when we get to see more about Wonka rather than Charlie. Now I might make some more comparisons between books and the films that was based on the book, I'm not sure. I might do Percy Jackson and the Lightning thief, but I read the book, but didn't see the film. Though I did see the plot in Wikipedia and some of the images so I know it's just rubbish. In do time people, in do time.
1. The title.
This is a bit of a minor thing. In the book it was 'Charlie and the chocolate factory'. What ruins it is the that the people would think it's focused on Wonka, not Charlie. I know in the film we find out it isn't, but it's about how you address the film. If you use Wonka's name, people would take it the wrong way.
2. The story of Prince Pondicherry isn't mentioned.
I know the part in the book about Pondicherry is technically a waste of paper so it would be filler in the film. But, the story of Pondicherry also explains how wonderful Wonka is, he was able to make a palace out of chocolate, so they should have mentioned or shown this in the film. I wish they did show this in the film, so I'm glad they did show us this in the remake.
3. The geese.
In the book it was squirrels that choose which is the good nut and used in the chocolate bar (the nuts, not the squirrels)but instead of squirels, it's geese. OK, so it has a bit of an excuse, I mean I don't think it would be possible to train squirrels to attack a girl and shove down the garbage chute. (Boy that was something I didn't expect to type) it can only be done by computer animation so it has an excuse to use geese instead.
4. The visuals.
It's weak. We do see the basics of the factory, the TV room, the entrance, the inventing room et cetera. But in the book, it mentions more about the wonderous features in the factories. The square sweets that look round (which I admit in the book it's a surprise what they meant) isn't mentioned or much less seen. I wanted to see more about the factory, don't just mention them. And the visuals of the oompa loompas were weird. I know they're supposed to be weird creatures but in the book, they were just normal people who looked smaller, nothing needs to be changed. I know its interesting how they invisioned the oompa loompas but Roald Dahl imagined them to look like people, so they should look like people.
5. The songs.
All the songs actually turn this into a musical. I know there's nothing wrong with musicals, but in the book the only songs there is, is when the oompa loompas start singing, that's it, you don't have to add any songs. And even though they do make the oompa loompas sing, it completely different from the lyrics in the book! All they do is use the chorus "Oompa loompa doopidy doo' (wow, the creativity of the lyrics is outstanding) and add other lyrics to the songs in different scenes but that's it. In the book they're also explaining a story in the songs, in the film it's completely different. I know the songs are classical but that is not how Roald Dahl wrote it.
6. Slugworth.
This is a major mistake in the film. Slugworth was only mentioned in the book, for one page! We just know Slugworth used the stolen recipe from Wonka and made bubblegum that can make the largest bubbles but that's it! We never see Slugworth at all in the book, just mentioned. And for some reason in the film he is like some kind of antagonist who was apparenlty used as some part of Wonka's plan to make sure who to choose to take control of the factory. WHY!? I know it seems to be an interesting part in the film but they shouldn't have done that! Roald Dahl only mentioned him so they shoudln't expand the character. They should follow on how the book goes but that's it. OK they can do a few changes but no major changes.
7. Charlie and Grandpa Joe get in trouble.
In the film, after the group leaves the fizzy drink room, Charlie and Grandpa Joe are fascinated by the drink which makes people float. But unfortunetly they start to float too high when they drink and nearly cut to shreds because of the massive fan in the ceiling. Thankfully they were able to float down safely by burping. They decided to join the group afterwards. WHERE DID THEY GET THE IDEA FROM!? It never happened in the gosh-darn book. This is a major change to the plot and technically filler, so don't add a new scene when there was no chapter about it!
8. The outburst at the end.
This is a scene I truly didn't like, I don't like yelling, especially in children's films. Wonka finds out that Grandpa Joe and Charlie drink the fizzy drink and is angered by this. In the book (including the part that didn't happen in the book at number 6) he actually is pleased that Charlie didn't touch any of the products and explains why he wanted children to take control the factory. Why did they avoid that? OK, he does explain but it didn't go the same way it was mentioned in the book!
9. Wonka.
This is another major point that's wrong. In the film I do like how he seems mysterious and looks like he has things planned out. But when the children take the products he doesn't even care what happens. I know the kids were annoying and greedy but it could have been because of bad parenting skills. Have you seen the father of Veruca Salt? Seriously he needs to act more like the head of the household. Even though the consequences didn't seem so bad for Mike Teavee and Violet Beauregarde but it definetly was for Veruca Salt and Augustus Gloop. But in the book he was actually worried on what happened to the kids. In the book, he is a flamboyant character and he is telling Violet to stop chewing the gum and is anxious for her to stop. In the film however, he let's her, even though he tell her to stop, it dosen't work since he says it nonchalantly. She is going to have side effects, stop her! I know it doesn't sound that bad swelling up with blueberry juice, but it makes a heck of an embarrassment. He should worry, the parents can sue, he should have stopped them. In the book he wasn't able to but he was concerned about the children's safety.
And that's the list. And I'm not sure if Roald Dahl would like the remake, and I'm not sure either; it was almost there but just went a bit wrong, especially the fact when we get to see more about Wonka rather than Charlie. Now I might make some more comparisons between books and the films that was based on the book, I'm not sure. I might do Percy Jackson and the Lightning thief, but I read the book, but didn't see the film. Though I did see the plot in Wikipedia and some of the images so I know it's just rubbish. In do time people, in do time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)