I’m very dubious about this book. The story is about a nine year old boy, Bruno, who in 1942 moves with his family to a place he calles Out With where his father is Commandant. He is bored because there is no one to play with, but out the window he sees fences and behind the fences he sees a lot of people, so one day he goes exploring along the fence and he meets a boy names Shmuel, which he becomes friends with.

The story is told from the boys point of view (sort of) so we see the world through a 9 year olds eyes. I think this is an interesting perspective. In times the repetitiveness of certain remarks gets a bit tiresome, but in general I think the tone of the story is interesting and unique. It gives the story a sort of fairy tale feel, a myth. In some ways it reminded me of Pan’s Labyrinth (which I adore).

There’s a catch though. Or actually there’s two. The first is a knowledge thing. Some settings I just know to be wrong, or at least highly unlikely. Most children were gassed on arrival. And the ones that did remain were there either to work or be experimented upon. Shmuel however sits with Bruno at the edge of the fence almost every afternoon. It feels as if Auschwitz Birkenau is merely a place where people were confined and sat around, but we know this is not the case. Besides this there’s also many small incosistencies, like Shmuel gets away with stealing from the Commandant.

Now, all of this I think I could overlook, since the tone of the story is that of a myth and it’s told from a boy who doesn’t grasp what Auschwitz is about. However, where it gets itchy for me, is that I don’t really believe either Bruno or Shmuels perspective. Bruno seems completely innocent and unaware. It’s hard for us grown ups to remember what the world looked like at nine. But around that time, I do remember organising some events in school to help people in Afrika. So I think this is the age when you start to slowly become aware of the bigger picture. And even if you’re a late bloomer, what impacts children at a very young age is the feeling of a place, the athmosphere. For instance, when I was 6, my grandfather died very suddenly. I don’t remember much about that day itself. But thinking back on that, even more than 20 years later, still makes me sad. I think a 9 year old, living that close to a death camp, would have felt that something was very wrong about this place. Also, Shmuel at some point can’t find his father anymore. He wants to go look for him. Even Anne Frank who was in hiding in Amsterdam had heard the rumours about the crematoria. I just don’t believe that a boy who lives only a few hundred miles from those crematoria, who can smell it, who breathes in the ashes, does not understand what’s going on.

The writing is simple so it’s a very easy book to read. I finished it in a few days. And the story is definitely worth the little effort it takes to read. But I think my conclusion would have to be that storytelling wise it’s a little stuck. It should have either been set up as a real myth, so with no reference to Hitler or Auschwitz. But because that reference is there, I feel the author should have been more carefull about the details. I get the feeling he’s never been to Auschwitz Birkenau. I think that if he had been, he would have written a very different story.

The book in Europa consists of about 1100 pages, which will deter a lot of readers. Which is a waste because it’s a great book on the history of Europe from 1900 to 2000.

It’s not fun reading. the last century was an exceptionaly brutal one, with 2 world wars, the holocaust, the seperation between west and east (kapitalism and communism) and some genocide in Jugoslavia to end with. What the book does though is tell the stories of individuals who experienced these events, or the aftermath of them. It’s not just about numbers and years, it’s about people and how they were effected. The risk of this is of course that you highlight one event out of a multitude of events and create a crooked view. Even though the book is well balanced and thought out, I understand how people see this as a risk. I prefer to look at In Europa as illustration of all those numbers and dates you remember.

Also it’s a reflection on how people deal with history. How every country has their own myth for WWII for instance. How Auschwitz was depicted as a place of death for Sovjet soldiers and the Jews were not even mentioned until 20 or 30 years later. How an inhabitant of Auschwitz had no idea she was living in a former death camp until her Dutch husband told het so. These are such bizar twists and I’m really glad I’m more aware of these things now. It’ll help me to better reflect on the history of my continent and to better understand the people I share it with.

I did like Shark Tale, the music’s good and there’s some witty diaglogue… But for some reason I couldn’t really get into the story and the characters. I think it’s because of the animation of the fish mostly. It’s well done, but it’s not my style. What I really liked about Finding Nemo was that they put a lot of thought into how to make the fish express themselves but stay true to their fishy selves. So no fins getting hand-shaped and stuff like that. Shark Tale is not so picky about this.

As for the story itself: it’s not bad, but it’s the stereotypical blundering fool doesn’t know when to quit, gets himself into a whole heap of trouble, then fesses up and gets the girl kinda routine. I know it’s a classic, but still… Originality scores extra points with me.

I felt sorta iffy checking the ‘consumed this’ box, because I didn’t get past half an hour of this movie.

I just… didn’t get it. I get this a lot with oscar winning movies, I have to say. All I saw was some guy shooting pretty much everything that moves. And then there’s some other guy who finds some dead guys who have a bag full of money and takes off with it.

There is some sort of weird tension thing going on which is vaguely interesting, but it just didn’t tickle me enough to keep on looking. I think people who like pulp fiction type movies probably like this one too. But it ain’t my cuppa tea.

I always thought I’d love this movie, and aparently I know myself extremely well, because I thought it was lovely. All the actors are great, the use of language is great, the story is well set up… It’s not that anything spectacular happens or there is some big lesson that needs to be learned or anything. It’s just a very entertaining bit of storytelling with some very interesting characters.

A very enjoyable movie, I have to say. It didn’t leave me crying or rolling on the floor laughing or anything, but I love the insanity of the plot… In short, it’s kind of like this: there’s this family of 4 with a live in granddad, who takes in the mother’s brother who’s just tried to kill himself. At the dinertable they get a call that the young daughter won a spot in this interstate beauty pagant. So they all get up, get into this VW minivan and drive across the country.

Now, this sounds like a lame road movie or something. But it’s not. Every character is busy with his or her own issues, which range from a broken gay heart, cocaine use, lost dreams and wether or not beauty queens can eat icecream (yes, they can!)

The VW minivan is almost a character on it’s own, slowly falling to shreds. When finally you think there´s little more that can happen to the car, the carhorn starts beeping on it´s own. Brilliant.

Deugniet is a drinkable beer, but I thought it was quite soft for a tripel.

Okay, so this is totally not my genre. I´m scared of my own shadow (admittedly, I have a terrifying shadow, but still).

The coffin covers a legend from Thailand, where you kind of fake your death. You lie in a coffin, get nailed in, a deathchant is spoken. And then, when you get out of the coffin again, suddenly your cancer is gone or a loved one heals miraculously. And when you try to cheat death though, guess what happens…? That’s right, you start seeing shapes in mirrors, things move on their own and there’s some woman with half her face dripping off her chin waiting just behind that door or around that corner.

Like I said, this is not my type of movie. It scared the bejesus out of me, which is what it’s supposed to do, so I guess it’s good in that respect. My friend loves these types of movies and thought it was mediocre. So it’s hard for me to judge how good it really is. I did quite like the storyline, just because I love weird rituals and this one is quite intriguing. What I did not like at all was that the main character was called ‘Chris’. He totally was not a Chris. Also, the ending was kinda predictable.

As always with a Burton film, the look of the movie is nice and dark and dreary and the plot is lovely and gruesome. Unfortunately someone told me the best bits of the plot, I might have enjoyed it more if I hadn´t known. I didn´t think the singing was bad. Admittedly, we had subtitles, so maybe that helps. The songs weren´t very catchy though, there was just one that had me snickering.

All in all, quite entertainment to watch, but not a movie I´d put on a second time.

Bolt is a cute movie. Of course, it has a lot of that happy feel good disney vibe, which is usually nice, but can go a little over the top. But if you ignore the slightly predicable happy ending: the dog’s cute, mittens is cute and Rhino the hamster is fantastic.