Daniel Craig, Liev Schreiber and Jamie Bell star as the Bielski brothers, Polish Jews fleeing Nazi persecution and taking other refugees under their care as they go. Daniel and Liev were both wonderful to watch and listen to. I’m a fan of both of these actors, particularly Liev and this was an excellent role for him.

The story moved along at a good pace with plenty of time for character development. The strain between the two elder brothers as they struggled for self-definition was realistic. It was interesting to see them approach survival from the different angles of their personalities and the conflict that arose between them because of it. Inevitably though, the bonds of brothers are stronger than any other outward demand and together, the Bielski brothers are responsible for saving the lives of over 1000 people.

I went to this movie with a friend of mine who is also a Studio Ghibli devotee, but I don’t think you need to be a fan of Miyazaki’s to appreciate this film on its own merit.
As one review that I read claimed, the storyline is loosely based on the Little Mermaid, but instead of a mermaid, we have a goldfish (although as my friend and I agreed, a goldfish with a face and a thicket of red, unruly hair would be a little unnerving in real life). The appeal of the film is not only in the fluidity and simplicity of the art, but also in the goodness of the characters and the story itself. The movie reminds you of yourself when you were still young and filled with awe and innocence before that was all traded in for the hard price of experience. It invites you to believe in better things for a little while, in a lighter world that makes your heart swell with glee and giggles.
I would have liked some elements of the story better developed, but just for my own curiousity, not really because it was necessary to the plot, such as who exactly was Ponyo’s father and how did he come to live in an air-filled castle under the sea? Some elements were probably lost in translation, but the voice actors chosen for the English speaking version were excellent choices and didn’t jar the senses like can sometimes happen when you hear Japanese characters speaking with American accents.

If you are a fan of Audrey Tatou, you must see this movie, not because it stars her, but because it has that same quirky, light-hearted charm that most of her movies have. It’s one of those movie that you feel like a better human being after watching.

Maybe it’s because I’m an old drama club geek, but I love, love, love the stage. I love the traditions and the superstitions. It’s like salmon swimming instintcly upstream to return to the place they were born (this is not to imply that I perform my mating rituals onstage), just that I am led by a strong, primal urge to be eternally enchanted with the theatre. Plus, I’m also a fan of period movies, foreign films and musicals. This movie combines all of my favorite themes in one gorgeous package. There’s nothing too deep here, no ponderous statements on the condition of human nature or relationships, nothing to bog the brain down, just a sumptuous snack of beauty in all its guises.

I did see the original movie when I was a child, but it was so long ago, I don’t remember it well enough to compare the two.
The 1-liners were funny, the kids were believably otherworldly and who doesn’t like a good eye-full of the main actor, Dwayne Johnson?? Although I have to say, if my name was Dwayne, I’d probably continue calling myself the Rock even after leaving wrestling.
The thing I like and respect about D.J. is that he actually does have an ounce of acting ability, or at least the ability to draw you in sufficiently to the story line. He’s not as wooden and artificial as some former athletes who tried to make the crossover (cough, cough, Shaq).
The bottom line was it was a good movie for family night with enough humor to keep the adults engaged and plenty of action to impress the younger audience, without much real violence.

I believe in many of the tenets of attachment parenting. My baby sleeps in the bed with us, rides in a sling or a harness more than a stroller and is raised at home instead of a daycare center. I want her to grow up feeling well-loved and knowing her own importance; however, I have seen many children, especially those raised in this manner who seem to feel their own importance trumps everything and everyone else. In short, they’re horrid little creatures who I might accidently mistake for trolls in search of a nice bridge to live under. What I have observed is that the “we don’t believe in discipline” parenting model usually means something like “we’re afraid of our children”.
More Secrets of Happy Children is the happy medium that (mostly)keeps the chaos out of child-rearing. It is my intention to never strike my child as a form of punishment. Having been raised with corporal punishment myself, I’m not keen to continue the cycle, but I don’t want anyone mistaking my children for feral animals either. In one of the first chapters, the definition of discipline is addressed. For many people, the word conjures a sense of almost martial law, harsh, “don’t spare the rod” kind of thinking, but discipline is actually to teach. In the case of parenting, it’s teaching your children the natural consequence of their choices so that when they grow up, they will be able to successfully interact with their peers, bosses, family members and whatever other various members of society they relate to. Children should be disciplined as much for their own benefit as for any other immediate reason.
The most important discipline practice suggested in this book is “Stand and Think” in which a child is told to stand in a corner and not to come out until they’re ready to talk about why they’re there. An apology is expected, but so is a discussion between parent and child as to why that particular behavior is not allowed. The method is adjusted depending on the age of the child. My synopsis of it is very basic. To really get a good idea of it, you’d need to read the book. I like the balance it strikes between parenting styles that are too permissive and those that are too heavy-handed.

As Goldilocks would say “this one is just right”.

The book is set up in a question and answer format, organized into chapters that deal with individual anxiety disorders.

The Anxiety Answer book is exactly that. In this age when people’s attention spans are shrinking rapidly, offering vital information in paragraph long bites is the way to go. This book will not help resolve a reader’s issues with anxiety, but it will answer many common and troubling questions and give you a variety of next-step options.

When I say finished, I mean that I had my fill, not really that I read every sentence from front to back. Although I found the author’s writing style very accessible and engaging, I think I would have enjoyed her more as a fiction writer.

I get the impression that Chesler is a someone with a capital S in feminist circles and so maybe it’s the ferociousness of her fans that earn positive criticism for this book. Personally, I didn’t find that she had much logic to back up the sweeping claims tha she made, very few sources cited, just the power of her own words. I also found her analysis of the inequality between genders to be too heavily reliant on examples from the past instead of a contemporary focus. Basically, this book will be popular with those who are fond of setting up soap boxes and railing against the masculine social institution, particularly those who feel the need to earn their intellectual and liberal badges.
Somewhere in the middle of the second chapter, I just said the hell with it. I’m not intelligent and bitter enough to decipher this nonsense. The one interesting thought that I did bring away from it was that it makes sense that the psychiatric field would be skewed in favor of the masculine since the foundations of the field were developed during a time period when women didn’t actively intellectually contribute to society. Still, Chesler’s persistence in dismissing many female therapists as “brainwashed” by the psychiatric institution contradicts her assertion that women are equal individuals, capable of autonomous thought. To be truly equal, women have to be willing to step away from the wailing wall of the past’s indignities and move forward. Bemoaning the past and expecting special treatment as compensation is not equality.

When I picked up this book at the library, I thought it was a book about coping with OCD, not a memoir from someone who lived with the disorder. I decided to give it a shot anyway since it can be interesting to learn from other people’s experiences.
First of all, I do have to commend the author for having the courage to expose herself so completely in this book, although I’m not certain it’s courage so much as an act of self-indulgence. The author is well-educated and intelligent, but the book reads like the scattered journal entries of a self-centered adolescent. The writer’s picture is on the back of the book and I literally wanted to slap her around a little after finishing this.

Often, reading someone’s story can impart new perspectives or deeper understanding of some component of life. Don’t look for any of that here. The pages are just the confetti of the author’s pity party. What I was left with after finishing this book was a vague disgust that I had wasted approximately 6 hours of my life with this nonsense. The narrative is extremely choppy, repetitive and bland. She blames all her problems on her mother, goes through years of therapy, never really cooperating or making much attempt at improvement and then concludes the story as she began, with the statement that she will always be ill.
Since I deal with OCD as well, it annoys me to read about someone who takes no personal accountability for their lives or their treatment. The author wrote this as a cry to the world “I’m sick, please feel sorry for me”, well, I have to tell you Ms. Gius, after reading your memoir, it seems to me that the main reason you’re so ill is because you insist on remaining so and that’s a terrible waste and a shame.

I rented it under peer pressure and enjoyed it more than anyone decently should have.
I loved the Brit rock star character. He was very glib and hilarious. I thought it was interesting that the main character wasn’t the typical hollywood profile. He looked like an actual human being, believably a little out of his league with the super-plastic arm candy, vapid girlfriend. The character development was authentic in as much as he didn’t just immediately fall for the next girl who came along. I was literally holding my breath in the scene where his ex tries to seduce him again, wondering which kind of movie this was going to turn out to be. I won’t reveal the outcome because I think you should see it for youself.

It’s been some time since I saw this movie, but it inspired me to find out more about the trade in blood diamonds and it was very eye-opening. The movie itself was really intense and emotional and I think it’s a good starting point to get dialogue rolling about the topic of foreign affairs.