Review of The Cloud Atlas movie

The Cloud Atlas comes at you from every angle. Based on David Mitchell’s 2004 novel, it is a very ambitious film. Not only does it veer between epochs, it also manages to veer between character’s stories in a very convincing way. That is to characters appear and disappear, themselves somehow intact but in a different epoch, with different families and sometimes *gulp* in different bodies. How are we to discern who’s who? A tattoo, for one thing; there is a small comet with a trail that is etched on one character so that we can recognize him in different bodies and even at times in different genders. Whaaat?

This is a mind-bender of a "what would happen if" movie. Science fiction based on the concept of karma; if you do this in this lifetime, then something like this will happen to you next time. That you are not dead and over with is patently clear when characters return to reenact their problems with different settings...and what settings! Seoul Korea 2144 to the South Pacific 1849 to San Francisco 1973. Each time we are treated to an entirely different story with a different cast - except that these people have known one another in different lives. It gets a little tiring as the movie is around 3 hours long and we are treated at the end to a post apocalyptic scene in the Hawaiian Islands with Tom Hanks channeling Laurence Olivier using patois. I liked it for the same reason I hated it; Too ambitious, too long and too much information. Sounds a little like 2012 to me.

-Laurie Schut

March was a big month for the good doctor - you see,

"The Lorax," his movie, came out in 3-D!

Doctor Seuss you're so great! Shout children with glee -

I must borrow that book at my library!

With twisty-turny pipe-cleaners galore,

We cover the bookshelves, the ceilings and floor!

And if Doctor Seuss could help celebrate-

On his birthday, March fourth - he'd be one-hundred-and-eight!

So March was a big month for Dr. Seuss! His 3-D theatrical version of "The Lorax" came out on the 2nd and we celebrated his birthday on the 4th (perhaps you noticed our crazy-curly pipe-cleaners all over the children's area?)

This weekend I came across a really great crafty blog called Sweetopia that had fantastic Lorax cookie ideas, they looked like so much fun to try! Another crafty blog called Bakerella had cake pops of the Lorax! How much fun could you have celebrating Dr. Seuss's birthday? Answer: Too much!

We have a couple great books at the library on cake pops and fun to make sweets - and - wait for it - if you check out our online e-books (by going to the Library home page, then click on -->E-Library --> Books Authors & E-Books -->Overdrive Downloadable E-books & Audio Books --> and type in "cake pop") we actually have a book by Bakerella!! So exciting!! I've put my hold on and can't wait to try something out!

by Bakerella

By Laurie Schut

I was considering writing a blog on a book, after all a library is all about books, right? Wrong! At our branch, we see a lot of DVDs go out the door with customers. So... a blog about a movie. Shakespeare in fact. The movie in question, and it is in question, is called Anonymous, and it is questioning whether Shakespeare actually wrote all those plays, or whether someone called Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford did. In this political thriller is the court of Queen Elizabeth I and the Essex Rebellion, great sets and even better acting. The evidence piles up nicely in the movie; de Vere had intimate knowledge of the court of Queen Elizabeth I, was well educated, had been to battle, and had travelled abroad to Italy to see the plays. One starts to feel slightly, well, sheepish that one hadn’t the wit to see these facts before. Shakespeare was an actor, had very little schooling, and seemed, in the movie, a buffoon. So... I was swept away by the movie. By the end, I was convinced that Edward de Vere had in fact been Shakespeare, although why he would write under a pseudonym was a little sketchy, and then there were other pesky little facts like his dying and the plays still being written. Never mind, a good conspiracy theory is not to be prodded at too vigorously.

So... I went to work and promptly announced to my co-workers that Edward de Vere was probably (I did say probably, didn’t I, or did I say definitely?) Shakespeare. End of story. Not really. My co-worker Tyler began to do something quite odd. He began to grimace, then shake his head vigorously, then announced right back that I was unequivocally wrong. I believe he said it in no uncertain terms. I was taken aback. He hadn’t seen the movie, clearly. I stated that I had been to see Anonymous and that he should definitely see it. (I didn’t exactly have the facts at my fingertips that the movie had.) He emailed me an article by Stephen Marche of the NY Times and former Shakespeare prof, ( Wouldn't it Be Cool if Shakespeare Wasn't Shakespere? ) and I was chastened. I had to write back and pick up the gauntlet that I had tossed down so carelessly and tuck it back in my sleeve. (Is that what one does with gauntlets?) In the end, I came to this conclusion: the movie was wrong. Gasp. Shakespeare probably is, (should I say definitely?) Shakespeare.

A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. - William Shakespeare. (Really!)