book review on any types of popular book like tom gates books
Answers
Answered by
0
Book: Hamlet Author: William Shakespeare
Hamlet is a revenge story that is perhaps like any other- a son's quest for avenging his father's murder. But it has been said that nothing is new under the sun. All stories are old and familiar, and it is the telling that raises it to the level of a masterpiece. Love, lust and hatred, those indispensable elements of every story, are discovered anew in this timeless classic. The drama pulls the reader into an intimate engagement and Hamlet's tragedy becomes the tragedy of every individual. No nation is a stranger to political intrigues and love affairs. Scandals in the court are scintillating without being surprising. With the words "something is rotten in the state of Denmark", Shakespeare underlines the universality of 'rotten'-ness. The king of Denmark is killed by his brother, who lusts after the crown and the queen. Hamlet, the prince, comes to know about this and vows revenge.Hamlet was probably written between 1599 and 1601. The story is based on popular legend, but in spite of being completely embedded in the 16th century, it is a tale that has a universal reach- across boundaries of time and space. Shakespeare tries to communicate a message- and thoughts of staging a performance with ease take a backseat, which is why this play is regarded as the ultimate challenge for any actor. Hamlet has even entered the English language and is a part of public memory- people quote from the play unknowingly. Shakespeare takes the old tale of a hero who sacrifices himself in the cause of justice and turns it on its head. Hamlet is hardly the popular hero- he is confused and indecisive, he is unable to act and he procrastinates. He achieves something only when some external calamity forces him to react. He is preoccupied with thoughts of death and suicide. His intellect and erudition are very unusual for a royal personage. He is no weakling- but his fencing skills are hardly of any use while his anger is misdirected. Hamlet is not a revenge story at heart, it is a quest for identity and self-knowledge.
Hamlet is a revenge story that is perhaps like any other- a son's quest for avenging his father's murder. But it has been said that nothing is new under the sun. All stories are old and familiar, and it is the telling that raises it to the level of a masterpiece. Love, lust and hatred, those indispensable elements of every story, are discovered anew in this timeless classic. The drama pulls the reader into an intimate engagement and Hamlet's tragedy becomes the tragedy of every individual. No nation is a stranger to political intrigues and love affairs. Scandals in the court are scintillating without being surprising. With the words "something is rotten in the state of Denmark", Shakespeare underlines the universality of 'rotten'-ness. The king of Denmark is killed by his brother, who lusts after the crown and the queen. Hamlet, the prince, comes to know about this and vows revenge.Hamlet was probably written between 1599 and 1601. The story is based on popular legend, but in spite of being completely embedded in the 16th century, it is a tale that has a universal reach- across boundaries of time and space. Shakespeare tries to communicate a message- and thoughts of staging a performance with ease take a backseat, which is why this play is regarded as the ultimate challenge for any actor. Hamlet has even entered the English language and is a part of public memory- people quote from the play unknowingly. Shakespeare takes the old tale of a hero who sacrifices himself in the cause of justice and turns it on its head. Hamlet is hardly the popular hero- he is confused and indecisive, he is unable to act and he procrastinates. He achieves something only when some external calamity forces him to react. He is preoccupied with thoughts of death and suicide. His intellect and erudition are very unusual for a royal personage. He is no weakling- but his fencing skills are hardly of any use while his anger is misdirected. Hamlet is not a revenge story at heart, it is a quest for identity and self-knowledge.
Attachments:
envinci1256:
thank you for your answer
it would help me in my holiday homework
you are most welcome
Answered by
1
Somewhere in downtown Los Angeles, there is a deep, dark jungle where a boy called Mowgli lives among animals. The animals themselves speak in menacing tones of Idris Elba, hold you under their spell in the sultry voice of Scarlett Johansson and sing exactly like Bill Murray. (If you are planning to watch the film in Hindi, make it Priyanka Chopra, Irrfan Khan and Nana Patekar). Probably they got coaching from director Jon Favreau on how to emote for the camera, or maybe they are just natural.
Read: India gives much love to Jungle Book, earns Rs 10 crore in one day
Before you think I have taken leave of my senses while writing The Jungle Book movie review, here’s the gist: The film is great but the CGI is even greater. Neel Sethi’s Mowgli may be the only living, breathing entity in this live action-CGI stew but you would consider Bagheera, Baloo, Shere Khan and party equally real by the time the show’s over.
Neel Sethi’s Mowgli may be the only living, breathing being in the film but by the time The Jungle Book ends, the animals will feel equally real to you.
Favreau and his team of tech wizards don’t just give you CGI for the heck of it, they make it an integral part of the storytelling. This film would never have been the same without the present day technology and it can only be compared with, say, Avatar. The film is an eye-popping spectacle where the jungle breathes and animals emote with their eyes. The wizardry is overwhelmingly successful in the portrayal of the animals. They are so real – from the way they talk to their loping, sinuous walk to even their eyes – that you eventually forget that some graphic artist just made them up.
Read: This is not the Mowgli you know
Just like the animals, the director turns jungle into a place of fear and, yet, home. From a burst of sunlight and colour in its happy moments, it seamlessly turns into a mist-filled horror with predators lurking at every corner when the mood takes it. Every little detail in this film is rendered with such precision and love that though dangerous, it has enough joie de vivre to carry you along.
The story of the film mostly is true to Rudyard Kipling’s timeless tale – abandoned ‘man-cub’ Mowgli was found by the wise panther Bagheera years ago. He brought the child to a pack of wolves which is headed by Akela (Giancarlo Esposito) and mother wolf Raksha (Lupita Nyong’o) brings him up with her other cubs.
Dry season approaches and a water truce is called. As all animals drink at the river together, battle-scarred tiger Shere Khan demands that the man-cub should be given up as per law of the jungle. He makes it clear that he will attack the wolves if Mowgli doesn’t become his lunch. To save Mowgli, Bagheera decided to take him to the village where humans live. On the way, Mowgli will meet the laidback bear Baloo, the mysterious serpent Kaa and gigantopithecus (not orangutan) King Louie.
Shere Khan’s cruelty makes the jungle a terrifying, dark place. ( Disney )
The voice work is excellent all around. We hear Shere Khan before we see him and Elba brings an air of menace to the film. Khan is enjoying his cruelty and the actor shows it. Villain of the year, anyone? Ben Kingsley’s Bagheera, also the narrator, is a statesman-like figure, Mowgli’s father figure and the voice of sense. But the real winner is Murray’s Baloo. A slacker who is not above a bit of lying if it can get the job done, Baloo is the story’s comic relief. His relationship with Mowgli gives the film its heart and Favreau lets it breathe. The fact that he gets the film’s best dialogues also helps.
The duo also gets to sing the classic Bare Necessities together and that itself justifies the price of the ticket. The shaggy ambling sloth bear is a perfect fit for Murray and Murray’s lazy dialogue-delivery is a perfect fit for Baloo. All in all, a casting choice made in heaven.
Bill Murray plays the slacker Baloo who brings the much needed comedic break. ( Disney )
That brings us to Neel Sethi, our Mowgli and a difficult find if the director is to be believed. The Indian American boy has a natural screen presence and brings an infectious energy to the role. He does particularly well in the action scenes – running towards or away from danger. He does rush through his lines at places but then, the boy was basically acting opposite tennis balls.
Scarlett Johansson and Christopher Walken are stupendous in their roles and we would have loved to see more of them, especially Johansson’s hypnotic Kaa.
Read: India gives much love to Jungle Book, earns Rs 10 crore in one day
Before you think I have taken leave of my senses while writing The Jungle Book movie review, here’s the gist: The film is great but the CGI is even greater. Neel Sethi’s Mowgli may be the only living, breathing entity in this live action-CGI stew but you would consider Bagheera, Baloo, Shere Khan and party equally real by the time the show’s over.
Neel Sethi’s Mowgli may be the only living, breathing being in the film but by the time The Jungle Book ends, the animals will feel equally real to you.
Favreau and his team of tech wizards don’t just give you CGI for the heck of it, they make it an integral part of the storytelling. This film would never have been the same without the present day technology and it can only be compared with, say, Avatar. The film is an eye-popping spectacle where the jungle breathes and animals emote with their eyes. The wizardry is overwhelmingly successful in the portrayal of the animals. They are so real – from the way they talk to their loping, sinuous walk to even their eyes – that you eventually forget that some graphic artist just made them up.
Read: This is not the Mowgli you know
Just like the animals, the director turns jungle into a place of fear and, yet, home. From a burst of sunlight and colour in its happy moments, it seamlessly turns into a mist-filled horror with predators lurking at every corner when the mood takes it. Every little detail in this film is rendered with such precision and love that though dangerous, it has enough joie de vivre to carry you along.
The story of the film mostly is true to Rudyard Kipling’s timeless tale – abandoned ‘man-cub’ Mowgli was found by the wise panther Bagheera years ago. He brought the child to a pack of wolves which is headed by Akela (Giancarlo Esposito) and mother wolf Raksha (Lupita Nyong’o) brings him up with her other cubs.
Dry season approaches and a water truce is called. As all animals drink at the river together, battle-scarred tiger Shere Khan demands that the man-cub should be given up as per law of the jungle. He makes it clear that he will attack the wolves if Mowgli doesn’t become his lunch. To save Mowgli, Bagheera decided to take him to the village where humans live. On the way, Mowgli will meet the laidback bear Baloo, the mysterious serpent Kaa and gigantopithecus (not orangutan) King Louie.
Shere Khan’s cruelty makes the jungle a terrifying, dark place. ( Disney )
The voice work is excellent all around. We hear Shere Khan before we see him and Elba brings an air of menace to the film. Khan is enjoying his cruelty and the actor shows it. Villain of the year, anyone? Ben Kingsley’s Bagheera, also the narrator, is a statesman-like figure, Mowgli’s father figure and the voice of sense. But the real winner is Murray’s Baloo. A slacker who is not above a bit of lying if it can get the job done, Baloo is the story’s comic relief. His relationship with Mowgli gives the film its heart and Favreau lets it breathe. The fact that he gets the film’s best dialogues also helps.
The duo also gets to sing the classic Bare Necessities together and that itself justifies the price of the ticket. The shaggy ambling sloth bear is a perfect fit for Murray and Murray’s lazy dialogue-delivery is a perfect fit for Baloo. All in all, a casting choice made in heaven.
Bill Murray plays the slacker Baloo who brings the much needed comedic break. ( Disney )
That brings us to Neel Sethi, our Mowgli and a difficult find if the director is to be believed. The Indian American boy has a natural screen presence and brings an infectious energy to the role. He does particularly well in the action scenes – running towards or away from danger. He does rush through his lines at places but then, the boy was basically acting opposite tennis balls.
Scarlett Johansson and Christopher Walken are stupendous in their roles and we would have loved to see more of them, especially Johansson’s hypnotic Kaa.
good one
thanks
brainlest pls
Similar questions