Milu (Pere David's Deer)

This is a semi-aquatic deer found in China. Between its description and its origin story, it's rather interesting.

Cultural Description

Milu are referred to as '' meaning 'four not-alike'. That is, they have features similar to, but not the same as, four animals. These are ox hooves, deer antlers, a donkey tail, and a horse head (although this is sometimes listed as a camel neck).

Anatomical Features

So what does it actually look like? 

          The tines of its antlers point backwards. Their coat is red by summer and grey by winter. Turning woolly when cold, its coat has wavy guard hairs. 

          A long tail (that ends with a dark tuft) is connected to the mane on its neck by a black dorsal stripe. Lastly, its spreading hooves are large.

Origin Story

A horse, donkey, ox and deer meditate in a forest cave. Awaking in the form of humans, they learnt thst the King had executed Bigan. 

          The four animals, wanting justice, decided to seek help. They became one being, the milu, having the strength of an ox, the agility of a deer, the direction of a donkey and the speed of a horse. 

          The Jade Pure One/Primordial Celestial agreed with their quest and sent them to Jiang Ziya. This nobleman rode the milu and defeated the King to start the Zhou Dynasty.

          The milu settled along the Yangtze River to bring good fortune to future emperors.

Horse verses Camel

So, horse or camel? 

          When looking at a milu, its neck is instantly similar to that of a camel. Plus, milu heads are the same shape and proportion as other deer and nothing like a horse. 

          Yet within the story, a camel taking the role and qualities of the horse (the same qualities essential to the story) makes no sense. I suppose one could say horses have manes, but horse manes are different to the camel-like manes that milu sport.

          But hey, these animals could not only join into one being but they could also transform into humans. So why wouldn't the horse be able to shapeshift into a camel?

Critique: Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole (Film)

*****SPOILERS*****

The animation was fantastic. The feathers behaved and looked like they should in flight, when groomed, when in the rain. The way that the beaks moved made convincing shapes for words.

 

It felt like it should have been two, maybe three films. It didn’t feel overly crowded or rushed and the characters were developed fully. But its timeframe spanned over years and there were distinct story arcs within the plot. More films wouldn’t have gone amiss.

 

Many owls gathered from, presumably (if the different habitats and species are to go by) the whole world. Yet they all spoke the same language. A language they shared with the nurse-snake. Unless they all learn it as a lingua franca I don’t find that believable. Humans are the same species and even people from the same part of the world speak completely different languages. There’s no reason why the rules of linguistics wouldn’t play out in owl society, too.

 

Why judges shouldn't use emotive language in their judgements

A judge's job is to objectively interpret the law. Being swayed by subjective emotions and opinions is bad practice. These things have nothing to do with the law so they should have nothing to do with interpreting the law. 

Yet when judges give their judgements, they often use emotive language. Yes, some cases are highly emotional, but that's about people's reaction to the facts of the case. A judge's ruling should be about the law's application to the facts of the case. 

Emotions cloud objectivity. It's unnecessary, unprofessional and puts their objectivity in doubt. Using emotive language is no way to build confidence in the judiciary; instead it can only lower the public's trust in the justice system.

Critique: Rampage (Film)

*****SPOILERS*****

 

As monster movies go, this one was a lot of fun. I did worry at first that the mutant gorilla would make it feel too King Kong-y but I needn’t have, for this films identity was firmly separate and distinct.

 

The mutant wolf has porcupine quills, making it look exactly like a calopus (a medieval wolf-porcupine creature).

 

There were only three mutant creatures. I wanted more (In fiction, I love them and always want to see more.) However, this would take time away from George and this film was his story. Objectively, I do think they got the right balance.

 

The relationship between George and the Rock was intimate, personal and so bloody funny! With all the awful things happening in the film, this relationship brought some levity, just the right amount.

The gorilla is called George. Every time the Rock said his name, it came out as ‘Jawrrrrrrjjjj’ which made me laugh. [It’s now become an (admittedly awful) in joke between myself and my brother.]

At the beginning, George pretends to be dead as a joke on the Rock. At the end of the film, George looks dead again. After the massively brutal conflict we just witnessed and all the injuries George sustains, it was believable. But it was just another joke. That had me crack up.

 

 

Critique: I am Dragon

Meraslava, youngest daughter of the Duke, is marrying Igor, grandson of the Dragonslayer. Weddings mirror the ceremony of sacrificing girls to the dragons: husbands pull their boat-bound brides across the lake. This was a beautiful detail.

 

*****SPOILERS*****

 

Meraslava is taken by the dragon to its cave. Igor comes to rescue her. There’s a guy in the cave who Meraslava names Arman.

When she protests that Arman watches her undress (to treat her wounds), he says, “I look at birds. Why can’t I look at you?” The naivety and innocence is almost cute but it shows he hasn’t socialised with many people.

The dragon and Arman are never shown together, and Arman is always naked, so it’s clear that Arman is the dragon.

 

The plot had plenty of problems.

The Duke says that Meraslava will become Duchess. But this would only happen if Igor became Duke. This seems unlikely considering all of Meraslava’s older sisters are alive so all of them would have to die for Meraslava to become Duchess. Unless the rules of inheritance don’t work that way in this duchy. (If this were the case, there would have to be a mention of it to clear up unnecessary uncertainty.)

At the start, the story isn’t linear. It splits between the wedding ceremony, the ride from the duchy to the dragon’s island, and Meraslava in the cave. It does nothing for the story other than confuse it unnecessarily. If there is going to splits in time, it needs to be done well and be pertinent to the story.

When the dragon picks up Meraslava, he flies near the Duke, hovering in the air before flying away. Why didn’t the Duke try to save his daughter that was right there in front of him?

Meraslava learns to enjoy her time with Arman but packs a bag, just in case. A very short time later, Arman finds out. This gap should have been longer, not only to build the suspense but give the impression that Meraslava forgot about the bag because she didn’t want to leave any more.

The only way a human can find the dragon island is if their loved one is on the island, their heart acting as a beacon. I’m sorry but give me a break!

 

There are generic problems, too.

Meraslava’s climbing noises were dreadfully unrealistic. And her snuffling, too. They were overemphasised to the point of distraction.

When Meraslava pulls Arman from the sea, she pulls him by the neck. What on Earth is that about?

The island is made from the bones of a giant dragon. Now, its neck and snout point up, its chin left and its ribcage right: this is such an unnatural position. To die like that then somehow be preserved is rather odd. The dead dragon’s tongue is also preserved whereas none of the other organs/flesh/tissues are.

Arman says he doesn’t have dreams then asks what they’re about. How does he know what dreams are? How does he know they’re about anything?

Arman can read. I can’t imagine his father spent the time teaching him.

When Meraslava rides the dragon, she is sat halfway up his neck. This means her dangling legs don’t obscure the wings. However, the neck needs to be free to move and I doubt having a human sat on your neck allows for that.

 

Though good bits did exist.

People stood together and made, for bird’s-eye-view, the pattern of a dragon. This was pretty, especially as the background of snow was not messy. (Realistically, the snow would have been churned up unless they stood there long enough for the snow to cover their tracks.)

“They had tears where their eyes should have been.”

In the dragon’s cave is an aye-aye cat thing that makes jackal noises.

Meraslava is covered in scratches from where the dragon caught her. This is a clever detail.

The dragon moves like a bat along the walls and ceiling of the cave.

Meraslava carries Arman back to his home and says, “When you wake up, you can carry me home.”

They eat dragon fruit. That’s amusing.

Arman calls fireworks ‘celestial flowers’. That’s so poetic.

Meraslava falls in love with the dragon Arman and they live happily ever after. A story about outcastes being accepted for who and what they are is always moving. I know some people say this copies ‘Beauty and the Beast’ but if that’s the case, every romance story has ‘copied’ the ones before it, every princess film has ‘copied’ those done previously. It’s not a sustainable argument.

 

This film had a few good bits but they aren’t plentiful enough to support all the mistakes in the film. This isn’t one I’d recommend people to watch.

 

Critique: The Sound of Music

Yes, I’m aware this has been out for decades. Products with such high popularity and praise can often be underwhelming and simply disappointing. This had made me a tad reluctant to watch it but I bit the bullet and went for it. It was much better than I anticipated.

 

There were so many positive elements.

Every kiss took place in the pavilion: such a nice detail.

All the songs were so clever, particularly the first two. Musicals usually only contain a single wow song but this film was wow from start to end.

Maria found out that the curtains were being thrown out and the children had no clothes to play in, I knew she’d make play clothes for them from the curtains. So it was so satisfying when they trooped out the gates in there curtain clothing.

The baroness manipulating Maria to leave was amazing. Obviously horrible but the way the baroness went about it was imaginative and opportunistic. Then Maria left! This left me confused because we were only halfway through the film. (I didn’t realise there was an intermission.)

 

Only one thing disappointed me: Maria saying she loved the captain from ‘ “the first time you blew that silly whistle.” ’ Um, no, you didn’t. Maria was clearly disgusted with the captain’s behaviour towards his children. Yes love at first sight is lovely but for Maria and the captain’s love to slowly develop is what gave the film a great storyline. To suddenly make it love at first sight degrades the value of their relationship and its formation.

 

Despite its length, at no point did the film drag. The story line, characters and songs kept me interested throughout. Despite its length, I’d watch it again in a heartbeat. It truly deserves all the praise and success it received. (However much being the ‘best musical of all time’ grates on people’s nerves.)

 

Why the reason not to get an old dog is actually the reason you should get an old dog

People say they can't get an older dog because it costs more money to look after than a younger dog.

But buying a young dog means you have to pay for them the rest of their life, including when their old. Or, in other words, you have to pay for an old dog on top of a young dog.

That is, getting an older dog is actually cheaper than getting a younger dog.

So the 'old dogs cost more' argument has a faulty premise, leading to a conclusion that's the direct opposite of what was intended. If someone wants a younger dog and not an older one, they should be truthful and own that decision.

Critique: Minotaur

Theo is one of the youths taken to be given to the minotaur in the labyrinth.

 

*****SPOILERS*****

 

There were many elements that were clearly thought through really well.

The baby minotaur was done well. It didn’t look like a human with a bovine head mushed together but it looked like one coherent being.

The narrating was perfect. Often narrations in films feel odd and unnecessary but in this film it definitely felt essential.

The minotaur symbol was well-designed. The quality was such that I’d only expect it with a big budget company.

The royals breathe in fumes via a bull skull. That’s such a creative idea.

The king has a nose ring, like a bull. Nice touch.

 

Sometimes there were moments that were puzzling.

Only eight youths from the village were taken. I thought maybe the other youths (to bring it up to twelve boys and girls each, as per legend) would be taken from other villages but no such luck. Realistically, twenty-four characters in the labyrinth together would have been too much.

The princess licks the bottom of the sacrifices’ noses. An odd detail but not problematic. Why wouldn’t a royal have a bizarre foible?

The Minoans hardly wear any clothing. Is this a heat thing? A hedonistic lifestyle thing? A we-need-to-make-some-characters-look-sexy thing?

One child hissed like a snake when aggravated. Why? Who decided that was a good idea?

The pronunciation of ‘minotaur’ is weird in this film. The first bit is said in the American way (minnuh) but the second bit is said in the British way (tor). Either pick the American (minnuh-taar) or British (my-nuh-tor).

The princess wears white clothes yet they turn brown after she goes in the water. The water doesn’t appear dirty enough to do that.

 

Being the star of the production, details about the minotaur were very important to get right. Unfortunately they weren’t.

            The minotaur looks like a bull with a skull head. That’s great. But when it’s born, it’s a human baby with a bull head. How, when and why did the human body become a bull body? If there were some kind of metamorphosis, it should have been at least mentioned.

            There is a lack of size consistency. The most glaring example is when the minotaur dies, appearing much, much smaller in death than it did in life. Maybe what was being animated was Theo’s perception of the minotaur. However, if this were the case, Theo would have to say something like, ‘It’s so much smaller in death’. As there was no acknowledgement of Theo’s perspective, it can’t be assumed.

 

Goodness there were so many problems with this film.

            All the screaming in this film was unrealistic. Whether that’s down to bad acting, bad directed or both I’ll never know.

When Theo’s hit in the bottom of the neck by a blow dart, his hand shoots to the side of his neck… nowhere near the dart’s actual location.

One girl keeps on screaming when she’s put in the labyrinth. She knows the minotaur is there so why do anything to advertise your presence?

The soldiers wore masks with horns. This was a nice idea until you realise the horns were from antelopes, not bovines. (Minotaurs are part-bull which is a male bovine.)

There is a locked door between the palace and the labyrinth. How can that keep the minotaur in the labyrinth? Also, the door’s not guarded, so anyone could come and open the door and let out a homicidal monster.

There are skeletons in the labyrinth. But how could it have stripped bones with those teeth and no hands? Rats, maybe, but considering the whole plot is the minotaur trying to eat the humans, we can safely assume the film makers were indicating the minotaur stripped those humans of flesh.

Instead of running to a hiding place that he knew existed, Danu lets the minotaur get him. Why? It’s clear everyone had time to hide so no distraction (like Danu being caught) was needed.

Gas suddenly appeared everywhere in the labyrinth, exactly when it was needed to attack the minotaur. How convenient!

Theo uses the minotaur’s broken horn to kill it. In this process, he was pressed tightly against the wall by the minotaur. He then pulls the broken horn free of the wound but in reality he wouldn’t have had the room to pull the horn free.

 

This film definitely isn’t one of the greats. There were so many issues that I’m dumbfounded they weren’t noticed. But there were some brilliant, creative ideas that deserve to be celebrated. Hopefully this film served as a stepping stone to better things.

 

Critique: Once

 This film was an interesting experience.

 

*****SPOILERS*****

 

The filming was jittery and not stable whatsoever, especially at the beginning. Perhaps it was filmed on a home camera? People can only work within their budget so this was more unfortunate than problematic.

 

The characterisation of the female lead character

The main female lead kept on pushing the male lead about the girl he wrote a song for. She only just met him yet she not only wants to get personal but to broach a topic he clearly doesn’t want to speak about? That’s not normal behaviour. Plus she keeps on pushing for him to get back with his ex, even though it’s clearly over. Her behaviour is not believable.

The female lead plays a piano piece for the male lead. It was nothing special yet he makes this big show about being impressed. Either his standards are low or he’s blinded by his desire to bang her.

She’s Czech and she hasn’t picked up an Irish accent in its entirety. That’s fine and linguistically makes sense. Words that are noticeable Irish are ones with ‘th’ that become ‘t’ like in ‘thousand’ and ‘father’. Yet oddly she doesn’t pronounce all her ‘th’ like this (for example, she doesn’t pronounce ‘three’ as ‘tree’). This part doesn’t quite make sense.

 

There were two standout moments.

The female lead says, “Mum, speak English,” and the mother replies, “No, thank you.” That made me howl.

When the male lead puts on a suit, he asks how he looks and the old store manager says (with a straight face) “You look gorgeous.”

 

I only watched this film because my friend was a background character. If me watching this film didn’t make her happy, I would be a bit more peeved I didn’t spend my time doing something else. I think, however, this film would resonate with aspiring musicians and film makers.

 

Critique: Pete’s Dragon (2016 Film)

*****SPOILERS*****

 

There’s nothing I would do to change this film. The acting, animation, speech and plot were all brilliant. It was internally consistent. It’s by no means my favourite film (obviously as an adult I’m not its intended audience) but it is the best film I’ve seen. For me of all people to not want to change or criticise anything is odd in the extreme.

 

The dragon’s shape was interesting. Its snout was shorter and blunter than the typical image of a dragon. The fact that it was furred was so interesting, as opposed to scales. Plus its capacity to camouflage itself like a chameleon, even going invisible, was an interesting aside.

 

At the end you think it’s goodbye for Pete and the dragon but then you see them reuniting when the human family goes to the mountains and the dragon appears with his own family. That was really gratifying.

Critique: Newsies (Film)

This musical was rather interesting. It’s about ‘newsies’ (paper boys) fighting for better pay based on real events in New York. This action is led by Jack and David. This is achieved through protests and the publication of the ‘Newsies Banner’, a paper printed by newsies themselves.

 

There was an abundance of humour that didn’t detract from the seriousness of the plot. A character on crutches complains that there are so many ‘fake cripples’ that the real ones are struggling. Someone can’t count to twenty with their shoes on.

 

Three areas in particular just didn’t work.

David is a classical good boy. Yet he trespasses a lot. It didn’t fit his character.

Jack’s romance seems completely unnecessary to the story. The only positive is that, otherwise, there is a complete lack of female characters in the story. But I don’t think that justifies an unnecessary plot point. Romance can add to a story but only when done correctly, in a way sympathetic to the plot.

One boy throws a bunch of Newsies Banners in the air so they scatter, landing on the floor and looking like litter. This makes for a good shot. But people don’t generally pick stuff up off the floor though, especially if it looks like litter. Thus throwing papers in the air is ineffective for the plot.

 

Four areas were thought provoking.

All the ‘er’ sounds come out as ‘oi’. From a linguistic viewpoint that’s fascinating. I’ve heard it before but I can never find out which New York accent to which it belongs.

Even though it looks like Jack betrays his fellow newsies, Jack agrees to work for the paper to keep the newsies out of jailed. I don’t understand why he doesn’t explain the situation, particularly to David: it’s clear the newsies would understand. Instead Jack just insults David, another action that makes no sense. I’m not criticising this as a plot point because it’s realistic behaviour, but it’s confusing realistic behaviour that I fail to understand.

The ‘Once and For All’ song was very moving. The rest of the soundtrack was mediocre at best yet this song hit the nail on the head. One line in particular stayed with me: ‘This is for the kids who shine shoes without having shoes of their own.’ It’s just so sad that so many people around the world provide a service for others when they can’t afford the thing being serviced.

One protest sign says, ‘We aynt slaves’. Now, I know that it should be spelt ‘ain’t’. however, ‘aynt’ makes a lot more sense grammatically. Apostrophes are either for possession or contraction, neither of which apply to ‘ain’t’. The ‘correct’ spelling of ‘ain’t’ is, in fact, grammatically incorrect.

 

The synopsis didn’t do anything for me but I’d been looking for a new musical to watch for a while. I was pleasantly surprised, even if it didn’t wow me.

Critique: Brokeback Mountain

Ellis and Jack both work on this mountain and fall in love. The film follows their marriages to women as they continue trying to be in each other’s lives. They meet up one or twice a year, somehow keeping their relationship alive.

 

*****SPOILERS*****

 

When Ellis was nine, there was a homophobic death near his home. This clearly traumatised Ellis so no wonder he’s reluctant to shack up with Jack.

Later we’re told Jack died in an accident but we see a flashback of Jack being killed in a homophobic attack. The parallels with Ellis’ trauma were really potent.

Ellis gets mad with his wife Alma when she doesn’t want to get pregnant, maybe because it’s his way of proving he’s not gay, it’s his way of protecting himself. Ellis is also mad at Alma when she reveals she knows about him and Jack because this gives Alma the power to ruin Ellis’ life. This scares Ellis. No wonder he resists Jack’s attempts at being together on a permanent basis.

Are they bi? Are they using their wives as their beards? Some people suggest Jack is bi, leaning more towards being gay and that Ellis is bi, leaning more towards being straight. But due to Ellis’ humour, he knows what happens to cohabiting gays (i.e. death) so he never would live with Jack. He’s frightened for himself and for Jack. So using his unwillingness to shack up as evidence that Ellis is more straight than gay is redundant.

 

Ellis accepting himself as gay must have been awful considering his trauma but he sticks with it anyway.

            Ellis was portrayed as a strong, not-wearing-his-heart-on-his-sleeve character. But we see him breakdown after they leave the mountain when Jack drives away. Ellis is the one who presses a kiss into the lips of the visiting Jack. So we know that Ellis wants Jack.

He had plenty of opportunities to give up but he doesn’t. The first night the pair had sex, a sheep got killed by a coyote. I thought this would push Ellis into no more fooling around. I’m glad it didn’t.

Then there’s the fact Ellis won’t get married again because he’s in love with Jack. This was never stated but the implication seems clear to me. So even though Ellis won’t live with Jack, he was still clearly committed to their relationship.

 

There were a few problems.          

            This a gay love story yet we only see one gay sex scene. But then we get three male-female sex scenes! What’s up with that ratio.

            Ellis and Jack have a massive argument. Ellis threatens Jack but all that info would incriminate Ellis as well. Such a fool. Especially as being exposed as gay is his biggest fear in life.

Ellis was a mumbler. This would have been fine if he wasn’t the main character. But as main characters speak the most, they should really be clear speakers (unless there is a specific reason for them not to be). I could only understand Ellis when I had the subtitles on: luckily I don’t mind this but others do. If you can’t understand the main character, you can’t really understand the plot.

Jack and Ellis’ boss wouldn’t give Jack work again because he figured out Jack and Ellis was shagging. I don’t believe that. The only evidence he had was watching them topless wrestle and chase each other. They were both young so chasing and wrestling are normal activities. When fit and healthy men are hot or working hard, it’s common to take their tops off. So neither of the boss’ clues were actually clues.

 

There are other things of note.

When Ellis visits Jack’s parents, they tell him that Brokeback Mountain was Jack’s favourite place. Also, they said Jack thought he’d one day run the farm with Ellis. Considering this happened after Ellis and Jack’s big fight, this must have been reassuring for Ellis. But then Jack’s dad said Jack wanted a different man with him recently. This must have hurt Ellis. Was this done out of spite? Because he knew Ellis hurt Jack? Because he couldn’t punish Jack for being gay but he could punish Ellis for it instead?

Jack was angry in the argument, saying he can’t get by on ‘one or two fucks a year’. This is why he says he goes to Mexico. But we then see him drive to Mexico after his argument with Ellis in the same clothes and a face of thunder: he’s clearly going to Mexico on this occasion because he is pissed. It’s spiteful but so was the argument.

Jack eventually stands up to his father-in-law over his parenting style. Considering how his father-in-law had been treating him, this would good to see. It even made his wife smile! That could have easily induced an argument between the couple.

The last time we see Ellis and Jack together, Jack says he’s having an affair with a woman. Seeing as the lady’s husband made eyes and clear sexual advances to Jack, I think Jack probably had the affair with the husband. Jack seems so committed to him and Ellis but then does things like this!

When Ellis visits Jack’s parents, he notices the shirt he lost on Brokeback Mountain was in Jack’s childhood wardrobe. The film’s final shot was of Ellis hugging this shirt. That was so moving.

 

For a film to show how gay people live under the radar is really powerful, especially considering when this film was made.

It could have received a lot of industry pushbacks but it came forth anyway. That’s an amazing achievement. But this ground-breaking business aside, the plot, dialogue and characterisations were all executed really well.

At school, people described it as a forbidden film full of sex but ‘Brokeback Mountain’ had a meaning far deeper, a meaning far more important.

Not only is it sad that the pair never got to live together but, even more so, they didn’t get to reconcile before Jack was murdered.

 

 

Critique: Once Upon a Mattress

This musical is about Prince Dauntless and Princess Winnifred getting engaged. The queen, Dauntless’ mother, tries to thwart it from happening. She still treats her son like a child, after all, even though he looks middle aged.

                                                        *****SPOILERS*****

 

There are so many good, creative moments. Such as a dismembered hand holding the keyring.

            Princess Winnifred makes a massive entrance in front of a large crowd about how shy she is. So unfortunate for her but the irony (am I using that right?) of the situation is amusing.

            There’s one shot where it looks like they’re lying on grass but the shot pans out and the characters are actually leaning against a hedge. I like that.

            The queen says they need to test the princess and the wizard suggest a sensitivity test. The queen replies, ‘No. I know! Sensitivity. Sometimes my brilliance amazes even me.’ Firstly that last line is pure perfection. Secondly, I love it when a character dismisses another’s idea then repeats it, claiming it as their own. It happened on ‘Timone and Pumba’ a lot, and ‘Pinky and the Brain’ if I remember correctly.

            When Winnifred sings about the voice of the swamp, she keeps on repeating, ‘Luggo, luggo, luggo’ which had me chuckling. Then Dauntless does this unexpected high note at the end. Was this meant purely to amuse or did the producers/directors want to showcase the actor’s range?

Winnifred uses dust from a tapestry as chalk for lifting weights. That was rather creative! But really, the queen needs to hire cleaners that do their jobs.

In one song, it’s like the Twelve Days of Christmas: each time singing a new verse, they’d repeat all the ones that came before.

Winnifred sings about Rapunzel, wondering if she can escape with her hair. ‘No, it would bloody hurt.’ Amazing!

 

There were, of course, problems.

Larkin is pregnant with Sir Harry’s baby. (He says she had a moment of weakness. You what?) People can only marry once the prince is married so Sir Harry goes out to find a princess for the prince. Clearly with Larkin pregnant they’re in a rush yet they have the time to sing about it? You could at least on your way rather than doing it statically.

Dauntless calls his dad ‘Papa’. He pronounces it like ‘paapuh’ but the upper classes pronounce it as ‘pupaa’.

The queen rams her crown up Winnifred’s behind to get her up the ladder and into bed. Then Winnifred wears her crown to sleep. After this, Winnifred counts sheep but when she gets up in the morning, the amount of sheep she counted was far too small for an entire night. What is going on?

The song ‘Spanish Panic’ was a bit of a mess. It started with a Spanish intro but then lost all Iberian music, being left only with the pose. Then the Spanish element to the music returns, bringing with it a fan and a matador cape. This absence did nothing positive to the song. Then the weirdest thing happens: Winnifred jumps into a crouch then looks up, a rose appearing in her mouth out of nowhere. This seems like a really funny detail but added to the bizarreness of ‘Spanish Panic’.

 

This film makes for an easy watch with easy giggles. The queen’s outfits are truly spectacular yet the prince’s are bloody awful. It’s always interesting to see what Americans think royalty do!

 

Critique: Nailed It

This was so bloody funny! To have a baking show specifically for bad bakes, to create a comedy, was a brilliant idea. Nicole presenting the show was such a good decision.

 

*****SPOILERS*****

 

As all the contestants are awful bakers, they have very creative ways of messing up.

One contestant was so busy snacking that he had no time to bake. So instead his task for the baking show was an iced apple.

People kept on using the weighing scales to melt things. Obviously this failed.

One contestant slammed an egg into the tabletop with the flat palm of their hand. I’ve never seen anything like it.

Instead of using a knife, one contestant used their hand to slice through butter.

One person melted a glass jug in the microwave. HOW?!

 

The judges laugh at what the contestants make on a regular basis. So regular that them not laughing is off-putting. They also give us amazing one-liners.

A guest judge saw someone’s awful bake and says, “I don’t know why you’re so confident.”

Nicole said that one contestants baking was so bad that not even her dog would eat it. Ouch.

Jacques said, “That almost looks good.”

One contestant got Jacques help but when he sees the final product he says, “I don’t think you listened to me at all when you pressed your panic button.” Burn.

 

Whoever made the decisions for this show deserves some sort of medal.

The glittery golden baker’s cap/hat was a fun idea that didn’t get old.

The fifth series, ‘Double Trouble’ was a fun way to mix it. But if it had gone on any longer, it would’ve become stale. So keeping it to one series only was good.

The fact that Nicole kept on wearing cosy slippers with really stunning outfits was amazing.

In later series, each cooking station (and the bakers’ aprons) had their own colour. This was a good visual.

When the screen shows the names of Nicole, Jacque and the guest judge, there’s a little description underneath. So on a cold-themed episode, having Nicole declared a ‘muff lover’ was almost too much.

 

Series six episode one was my favourite by far.

A contestant used a spoon to cut cookies. When told to use something else, they use a spatula instead. It makes you wonder about their decision-making capabilities is general life.

This episode had many first times on the show: first hair in the baking; first swear; and first fly in the baking.

Then the guest judge said, “I know you have bad bakers but you saved the special ones for me.” I’d happily rewatch this episode.

 

Other things are worthy of note.

It’s amazing how watching this show has made my perspective on what’s a good cake/cookie/etc has deteriorated.

Jacque’s plurals are all over the place. He says ‘cakes/cookies’ when he talks about one cookie/cake and says ‘baker’ when he’s talking about all three bakers.

Throughout all the series, contestants put too much flavouring in their baking. Apart from the butterscotch and chilli challenges: this time around they put in a smaller amount and they got told off for not using more. Wowza. It’s really unlike that the time contestants know not to use too much flavouring is the one time that this rule doesn’t apply.

I loved the theme music from series one to four. So much so that O would be happy to listen to it independently of the show. The theme music for series five and six were fine but so boring in comparison. If the new music had been for Double Trouble only, to really showcase its difference, that would’ve been better.

Across all the series, including the holiday specials, I only disagreed with the judges four times. Usually with competitions I disagree more than that in a single series! The judges also decide who failed the hardest in Round One and with these decisions I disagreed far more frequently.

 

This show was pure amazing brilliance. There aren’t enough superlatives to express how much I adore ‘Nailed It’.

 

Critique: Sparkle (2012)

I enjoyed every song in this musical. Usually only one or two do anything for me but really, the soundtrack blew me away. Sparkle and sisters Tammy and Dee are great singers.

 

*****SPOILERS*****

 

Honestly, this film could have easily been classed as a comedy and nobody would complain.

Sparkle asks if Stix will be her manager then comes out with the fantastic line, “Then you manage to get my sisters.”

Dee, the sister that goes to medical school, is so funny it’s painful. She’s so much funnier than the comedians in the film! I could have quoted her entire script to demonstrate but there was just so much to choose from.

A reverend goes on and on with his prayer before eating. Someone says, “Amen” and the reverend just continues on.

“I want to sign you but I need to see you waking up in the morning. Sorry, see you in the light of day is a better expression.” It’s the perfect mix of flirty and funny.

 

There are several occasions when people just seem plain cruel

Satin is so rude, even if his hair is glorious.

Tammy’s mother doesn’t approve of Tammy’s fiancé so Tammy says, “Just keeping a man is a whole lot better than you did.”

Their mother tells Sparkle she’s just “Another little girl with a dream, thinking she’s different from the rest.” I honestly understand that creative careers aren’t stable and parents want their children to have stable careers. But talking to your child like that?

Sparkle tries to talk to her mother when she moves out. Her mother ignores her then pointedly laughs. I honestly don’t understand this. How can anyone look at themselves after cutting their children from their lives? To ignore them like they don’t even exist?

 

There are other things to think about.

Stix asks Sparkle why she doesn’t sing. “I’m no Diana or Arethra.” Stix replies, “You right. You Sparkle.” You are your own person and that is more than worthwhile. Yes he’s thinking of it from a profit perspective but it’s still a nice comment.

When the sisters smoke, it forms a halo above their heads. I don’t know if that was intentional or accidental but choosing to have that in the film was a good creative decision.

When the sisters perform together, their dancing isn’t coordinated. I don’t know why somebody didn’t pick up on it and correct it.

We know that Sparkle has a good voice but we don’t hear its amazing power until the very end. One half of me wonders why she was holding back; the other half acknowledges that the shock factor works wonders.

Critique: The Old Guard (Film)

Well this was a surprise. A bloody brilliant one. I only played it because I thought my younger brother would enjoy it (which he did)! A little bit action, a little bit supernatural, and a whole lot of leading female protagonists.

 

The fight scenes were executed to perfection. It seamlessly blended physical combat and guns together. Whilst fighting different targets, the characters still had precise interactions to benefit each other, showing a high degree of general awareness and teamwork. The choreographers who coordinated these scenes are talented. I’m even tempted to say that the fight scenes were exciting.

 

Andy leads the immortals in fighting for just causes.

Andy is feeling disenfranchised because helping people no longer makes the world a better place. Then Nile, a young soldier, becomes the newest immortal just when a pharma company causes trouble.

Their immortality is based on amazingly fast healing and regeneration, meaning they can ‘die’ repeatedly and never age. They died as normal people but resurrect as immortals; their immortality can be lost as randomly as it was gained.

A pharma company wants to harness the immortals’ DNA in order to make money (excuse me, to save lives). But if it was DNA, one would expect immortality to show up in at least one of their families.

If DNA caused immorality, why does the fast regeneration only happen after death? An individual’s gene expression can change based on certain environmental factors/pressures and death, being stressful to the body, would count as an environmental pressure.

Perhaps the pharma company only thought it was DNA that contained the secrets of immortality. With such scientific minds, they would have to attribute immortality to something concrete and tangible like DNA.

 

Only one supernatural/magic element was in this story: the characters’ immortality.

Yet the film didn’t feel lacking for it. The immortality didn’t seem misplaced in a world without other magic. (Although having learned this was based on a comic, ‘superhero’ might be a better descriptor?)

This comes with a caveat. Whenever Andy saves someone, they, or their descendants, go on to do something great for humanity. So maybe when someone with potential needs helps, a supernatural force pulls Andy into helping them? Or perhaps being saved by an immortal passes on some supernatural-ness to the rescued person? This is only conjecture but, when a coincidence happens in fiction, you can be pretty certain it’s not actually a coincidence.

 

The plot isn’t by any means complex but it’s solid and believable. The characters were well defined and their actions/speech always made sense. (Not that they were easy to predict but no one acted/spoke out of character.) The Old Guard was a fully engrossing watch, something that I’d watch again. Not a bad feat for something I chose for someone else.

Critique: Encanto

The Madrigal family has gifts, powers that enable them to protect and help their community. They live in Casita, a magical house. Mirabel, the protagonist, is the only family member without a gift yet she’s the only one who can save the day.

 

*****SPOILERS*****

 

The animators did an amazing job.

The way Mirabel’s skirt was animated when it moved was amazing. It’s attention to detail that I honestly never expected to see.

I love how distinctive Abuela’s nose is! It also allows easy identification of Abuela in her flashbacks.

When Bruno has a vision, his eyes and the salt glows green. This was such an interesting way to animate a vision, rather that seeing flashes or blurry edges like most animated visions.

 

The songs in this musical were really something!

The first song introducing everyone was confusing because there were too many people in too short a time. In the movie, we see each member of the family one at a time using their powers so that introduced them fine. Having the confusing song detracts from how well the plot introduces the characters.

The ‘Don’t Talk about Bruno’ song. The lyric ‘don’t talk about Bruno, no, no, no’ was really clever. At the end of the song, loads of people sing at once. This could have been chaotic and messy. However, as these were refrains of the song’s earlier verses, it was really easy to follow the song.

The donkeys during Luisa’s song were the best thing about the film for me. First they were playing instruments which made me laugh. Then they rocked their choreography. After that they were flying unicorns. I didn’t ever expect donkeys to do any of those things. Utter brilliance.

 

There were a few things that were problematic.

If Mirabel’s mother can heal things, why does Mirabel wear glasses? Surely her mother would have healed her own daughters eyes?

If Bruno lived in the walls, why didn’t the family member with super-hearing hear him? Or is the whole ‘Don’t talk about Bruno’ meant to be ignore him completely? Why would you let your family member live in the walls with the rats? Or is the House’s power keeping Bruno from being heard?

Unlike the rest of her family, Mirabel doesn’t have any powers. Because of this, Abuela tells Mirabel to ‘leave the decorating to those who can be useful’. This makes no sense. Unless the power is the power of decorating (which none of the family has), whether someone has powers or not is immaterial to whether someone can be useful decorating. It’s discrimination, really. Also, Abuela doesn’t have powers so really she’s not one to talk (especially as Abuela is helping decorate!)

Isabela is really mean to Mirabel and we never get an answer as to why. We do get some wishy-washy twoddle before her song but it wasn’t convincing in the slightest.

When Mirabel shouts that Casita of cracking, Abuela tells the guests all is fine. This makes sense: no point causing mass panic. But Abuela could at least have told Mirabel she believed her, which we know she does because of what she says at the window that night. Making Mirabel feel like an idiot in front of the village is one thing, but lying to her face about the whole matter? Unacceptable.

 

Other things of note include the following.

During the film, Mirabel realises that all her family feel pressure over their gifts and the responsibility that entails. It means Mirabel no longer feels inadequate for lacking a gift.

I want to know who attacked the original village. It’s not important to the plot (just that it happened is all the necessary detail) but I’m curious all the same.

The reconciliation between Abuela and Mirabel at the end was lovely. Both admitted their faults (though Mirabel didn’t do anything wrong) and they empathised with each other’s perspectives. This unconditional forgiveness felt genuine. Usually fictional acceptance seems like a cop-out.

 

This was an amazing film. The plot was easy to follow yet had plenty of depth. There was Latino flair to every song and costume. The team did a good job.

 

Energy Price Cap; Tory Leadership Contest

If energy companies are getting record profits, they clearly don't need the energy price cap to be raised. Clearly, companies wouldn't suffer if the cap were frozen.

The solution that Lizz Truss puts forward? Tax cuts.

The less money one makes, the less tax one pays, thus the less money a tax cut puts back in one's pocket. 

People with lower incomes need help paying bills the most yet they're the people that will benefit the least from tax cuts. 

So Truss saying tax cuts will help with rising energy prices shows an utter lack of thought and understanding.

Truss is, after all, fighting to win the hearts of the Tory membership. Tax cuts are their bread and butter. 

Sunak's approach, however, differs: his policies are aimed to also appeal to the wider electorate. That is, Sunak's campaign is to win an election.

If Truss wins, she'd be less likely to win a general election than Sunak. So do I hope she wins so that the Conservatives are voted out of power? Does this long-term benefit outweigh the damage Truss' policies will do in the meantime?