there is something unique about "Howl's Moving Castle" that either of its sequels can recreate, despite Sophie and Howl's return as secondary characters. I can't pinpoint what it is, though. Maybe it's their interaction, and that's why moving them to the sidelines makes the sequel fall flat? *disclaimer for not really knowing much about the book(s)*
while I'm still not a fan of the language and characters, I'm a fan of the world and politics. We share this, though sort of having come there from opposite directions, as to me the appreciation of the background, politics talk and such is what's left after the language began gradually growing old on me after loving it first, decades years back. :') I certainly wouldn't call myself a fan anymore, but I sure used to be one, long time ago.
A book about homosexualism in Vatican wasn't very surprising and clearly proves it's the system that's the problem, not "some black sheep".Hey, which one? "Sodoma"? I tried to get my hands on it, but queues are astonishing and I happen to know how the
( ... )
Maybe it's their interaction, and that's why moving them to the sidelines makes the sequel fall flat? I guess the sequels just didn't create memorable characters and they tell more conventional stories. "A quiet, obedient young woman gets changed into an old woman and it liberates her" story is more original than "a girl who's never helped at home gets a magic house to take care of" or "a boy falls in love with a princess" stories. You read the sequels and you have a feeling you've read them before, while the first book feels fresh and witty.
Hey, which one? "Sodoma"? Yes. It is quite popular, isn't it? I heard a lot about it, how it opens your eyes and everything, and I was like "good job with gathering the facts and writing it all down, huge ammount of work, but a third of the stories would easily prove the point, too".
"Contrary to what's commonly said that the Church is good but some people in it are bad, in fact it's the Church being bad, while some people in it are good." Yep, seems about right. Well said.
Yes. I want to see the movie, although I've read it can feel like only a half of a story if you're not familiar with the books, so maybe I'll read the first book afterwards. Or give the book a chance first? I heard it's a faithful adaptation, compared to popular adaptations of other stuff in recent years, that is. I suppose that might make the book-first approach the safer choice. Then again, maybe that also mean the movie took care to tell the same story even to those not knowing the books? *shrug* Your call, I don't think I'm interested in the movie enough to watch anyway. (But I'll be interested in your impressions! ;)
but emotionally, Tarantino doesn't work on me. Me, I love complex choreographies in fight and such, but I wouldn't watch a movie that has nothing but them. Add at least some funny lines... Tarantino fans seem to love those long dialogues, but I was mostly bored. I think he might be too "local", it's like an American trying to watch a PRL comedy and puzzled why other people laugh.
I'm afraid I'll ditch "Dune" after 100 pages and won't see the movie either. The movie approach is safer :) I'll read the reviews.
Tarantino fans seem to love those long dialogues, but I was mostly bored. Long dialogues are okay for me, if they are about something. The story also should be about something, not a collection of some references and "art" shots. I'm talking about "Kill Bill", I enjoyed "Once upon a time in Hollywood" better . It was so long though! But it had shirtless Brad Pitt, just saying....
I think he might be too "local", it's like an American trying to watch a PRL comedy and puzzled why other people laugh. I could be puzzled, too :D There's so many things I didn't understand in those movies, but I know how an American school bus looks like.
Like, people in the far past used over the top (by today standards) style for describing things that were awesomest they knew, but being very underwhelming by today standards.I think you may be right. And if someone couldn't get a picture and could only use words to
( ... )
Comments 9
Maybe it's their interaction, and that's why moving them to the sidelines makes the sequel fall flat? *disclaimer for not really knowing much about the book(s)*
while I'm still not a fan of the language and characters, I'm a fan of the world and politics.
We share this, though sort of having come there from opposite directions, as to me the appreciation of the background, politics talk and such is what's left after the language began gradually growing old on me after loving it first, decades years back. :') I certainly wouldn't call myself a fan anymore, but I sure used to be one, long time ago.
A book about homosexualism in Vatican wasn't very surprising and clearly proves it's the system that's the problem, not "some black sheep".Hey, which one? "Sodoma"? I tried to get my hands on it, but queues are astonishing and I happen to know how the ( ... )
Reply
I guess the sequels just didn't create memorable characters and they tell more conventional stories. "A quiet, obedient young woman gets changed into an old woman and it liberates her" story is more original than "a girl who's never helped at home gets a magic house to take care of" or "a boy falls in love with a princess" stories. You read the sequels and you have a feeling you've read them before, while the first book feels fresh and witty.
Hey, which one? "Sodoma"?
Yes. It is quite popular, isn't it? I heard a lot about it, how it opens your eyes and everything, and I was like "good job with gathering the facts and writing it all down, huge ammount of work, but a third of the stories would easily prove the point, too".
"Contrary to what's commonly said that the Church is good but some people in it are bad, in fact it's the Church being bad, while some people in it are good." Yep, seems about right.
Well said.
Are you ( ... )
Reply
I heard it's a faithful adaptation, compared to popular adaptations of other stuff in recent years, that is. I suppose that might make the book-first approach the safer choice. Then again, maybe that also mean the movie took care to tell the same story even to those not knowing the books? *shrug* Your call, I don't think I'm interested in the movie enough to watch anyway. (But I'll be interested in your impressions! ;)
but emotionally, Tarantino doesn't work on me.
Me, I love complex choreographies in fight and such, but I wouldn't watch a movie that has nothing but them. Add at least some funny lines... Tarantino fans seem to love those long dialogues, but I was mostly bored. I think he might be too "local", it's like an American trying to watch a PRL comedy and puzzled why other people laugh.
dark and horror are a big no for me ( ... )
Reply
Tarantino fans seem to love those long dialogues, but I was mostly bored.
Long dialogues are okay for me, if they are about something. The story also should be about something, not a collection of some references and "art" shots. I'm talking about "Kill Bill", I enjoyed "Once upon a time in Hollywood" better . It was so long though! But it had shirtless Brad Pitt, just saying....
I think he might be too "local", it's like an American trying to watch a PRL comedy and puzzled why other people laugh.
I could be puzzled, too :D There's so many things I didn't understand in those movies, but I know how an American school bus looks like.
Like, people in the far past used over the top (by today standards) style for describing things that were awesomest they knew, but being very underwhelming by today standards.I think you may be right. And if someone couldn't get a picture and could only use words to ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment