A big baby 😮
Amy Smit was ‘shocked’ when she first saw the size of her 12lbs 9oz newborn son.
Ad72% of retail CFD accounts lose money. Plus500 enables traders to enjoy cross-device CFD trading with 0 commission.The WrapAll 19 Disney Live-Action Versions of Classic Animated Characters, Ranked from Worst to Best (Photos)Over the last decade, Disney has found itself dipping increasingly into its own well of nostalgic favorites. Specifically, they’ve been taking their beloved animated classics, remaking them in live-action (or mostly live-action), and producing one blockbuster smash after another. Not all of these live-action Disney remakes are good, and some of the bad ones have unexpectedly interesting ideas. And some of them actually predate the current (and seemingly never-ending) wave. Let’s take a look at all of the live-action remakes of Disney’s animated classics, going all the way back to the 1990s, to explore which films improved on the original and which ones came up short. 19. “The Jungle Book” (1994) The first live-action Disney remake of an animated Disney classic is, somehow, still the worst. Stephen Sommers (“The Mummy”) directs this frustratingly inert take on Rudyard Kipling’s stories, which strips the animals of their characterizations and highlights instead the bland experiences of British colonizers, who condescend to Mowgli (Jason Scott Lee) at every turn. Some of the supporting performances, especially by Cary Elwes and Lena Headey, are noteworthy, but the rest of the movie is a sloppy throwback to a mercifully bygone era of adventure filmmaking, full of backwards mentalities and underwhelming action. 18. “Christopher Robin” (2018) The beloved stories of A.A. Milne have been previously adapted by Disney into several beautifully animated and heartwarming motion pictures. So it’s especially cloying that Marc Forster’s “Christopher Robin” just plops these timeless characters into a tepid and cookie-cutter family flick about a dad who — gasp! — spends too much time at work, and rediscovers his inner child thanks to the return of his old, magical friends. Ewan McGregor shines as the adult version of Christopher Robin, but the melancholy cinematography, underdeveloped screenplay and creepy VFX renditions of Pooh and his friends make “Christopher Robin” a rough slog. 17. “Alice Through the Looking Glass” (2016) James Bobin’s sequel to “Alice in Wonderland” certainly looks like an improvement on the original, with vibrant production design and weird visual effects, and a tone that’s mercifully less grim. But the time-travel storyline, which sends Alice back to the early days of Wonderland (sorry, “Underland”) to become the cause of all its miseries (including a genocide), retroactively injures the original film, which had a boatload of problems in the first place. 16. “Beauty and the Beast” (2017) Despite the excellent source material and a decent cast, Bill Condon’s remake of “Beauty and the Beast” has the unfortunate distinction of being the only live-action Disney remake that has absolutely no new interpretation of its material. It’s just the exact same story but longer, and only because of unnecessary additions that arbitrarily pad the running time, confuse the characters’ motivations, and shoot holes in the already thin plot. Add in some ugly character designs and an utterly forgettable new song, and you’ve got a film which made Disney a lot of money, but artistically has no particular reason to exist. 15. “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil” (2019) Maleficent is back, and this time she’s meeting Aurora’s future mother-in-law, Queen Ingrith (Michelle Pfeiffer), who frames the sorceress for an attempted assassination attempt and tries to commit genocide against Maleficent’s fairy kind. Jolie is as sharp as ever but the movie gives her precious little to do or even say. The plot is a leaden bore that’s just an excuse to end in a big climactic battle (which gets hastily brushed off) and at the center of it all is the dumbest pipe-organ solo in cinema history. “Mistress of Evil” would make “Maleficent” look good if it didn’t, right at the end, completely contradict the story and message of the original, making both films worse as a result. 14. “Alice in Wonderland” (2010) Tim Burton’s blockbuster retelling of “Alice in Wonderland” is unnecessarily murky and violent, and — worst of all — devoid of Lewis Carroll’s signature wit. Mia Wasikowska stars as Alice, who has forgotten all about Wonderland (sorry, “Underland”) and returns years later, only to find it taken over by darkness, a problem that can be solved only by more war. The film comes across like a cynical attempt to make a classic story edgy and marketable, but at least there’s an interesting attempt to transform Alice into a modern and active heroine, and the film’s ensemble cast boasts some real highlights, including Helena Bonham Carter as the Red Queen, Anne Hathaway as the White Queen, and Stephen Fry as the Cheshire Cat. 13. “The Lion King” (2019) Unlike “The Jungle Book” — which has at least one human character — the new “Lion King” couldn’t even be considered “live-action” in the most generous use of the term, but for the sake of conversation we’ll include it anyway. This is an ambitious visual spectacle, re-creating the African savanna of the original 2D-animated movie in photorealistic CG detail as it tells the story of a lion cub who avenges his father’s murder and brings order back to the ecosystem. When Jon Favreau’s film works, it’s a visual marvel. But when it fails, which is most of the time, it’s because the film’s literalist animation style is directly at odds with the arch, fantastical story and characters. Style may be the selling point, but too often, it gets in the way of the substance. 12. Mulan (2020) Niki Caro’s adaptation of “Mulan” sands down the queer edges of the original Disney classic, transforming a tale with a distinct and relatable point of view into a generic action spectacle. The wit is absent, the commentary is rote, the protagonist’s plight is more easily digestible than ever, and although the film boasts detailed art direction and costume design, the epic action is undone by humdrum editing which rarely gives the action the space it needs to impress. A frustratingly Americanized, mediocre presentation of a classic tale. 11. Cruella (2021) This revisionist prequel to the “101 Dalmatians” movies reimagines attempted puppy mass-murderer Cruella de Vil into an eccentric and precocious young woman, whose journey from obscurity to fashion celebrity borrows liberally from “The Devil Wears Prada,” “The Count of Monte Cristo,” and Mannequin” It should be fun — Emma Stone and Emma Thompson sure seem to be having a lot of it — but the film’s hypocritical appropriation of 1970s punk aesthetics only calls attention to how conformist the story is. “Cruella” gives Disney characters credit for an artistic movement which couldn’t be more anti-Disney if it tried, superficially evoking images of rebellion while never being anything more than mass-marketable. 10. “102 Dalmatians” (2000) Kevin Lima’s sequel to the hit “101 Dalmatians” remake is strange and cartoony but, in its defense, completely unapologetic. Glenn Close returns as the despicable Cruella de Vil, now rehabilitated via brainwashing and eager to rescue puppies instead of murdering them. When her programming wears off, she resumes her wicked ways. There’s not much more to it than that, but the film’s astounding costume design and Close’s pitch-perfect performance make “102 Dalmatians” an amiable, if shallow, piece of children’s entertainment. 9. “Maleficent” (2014) Disney’s “Maleficent” isn’t so much an adaptation of “Sleeping Beauty” as it is quasi-family-friendly riff on Abel Ferrara’s “Ms .45.” Angelina Jolie stars as a fairy who gets betrayed and violated by her human lover and left physically and emotionally scarred, so she plots her revenge against him by cursing his daughter, played by Elle Fanning. The cinematography is hard to make out a lot of the time — and once you do get a good look at some of the CGI creatures, you’ll wish it stayed that way — but the bold new interpretation of the source material and Jolie’s exceptional performance elevate “Maleficent” above its shoddy VFX and extremely sloppy storytelling. 8. “Aladdin” (2019) Guy Ritchie’s remake of “Aladdin” sucks out all the personality the filmmaker could have possibly brought to the project, instead simply rehashing the original in a mediocre but mildly enjoyable way. Mena Massoud and Naomi Scott are wonderful as Aladdin and Jasmine, and Will Smith plays the Genie like he’s the ultimate fantasy wingman. It’s like watching the original “Aladdin” acted out in the middle of a parade: Cheerful, well-intentioned, and fleeting. 7. “Lady and the Tramp” (2019) Take away all the animated magic of “Lady and the Tramp,” and all you’ve got left is two dogs making goo-goo eyes at each other. And it turns out, in Charlie Bean’s modest remake, that’s just fine. Tessa Thompson and Justin Theroux are amiable mismatched lead voices, the story of love crossing class divides is just as simple and effective as ever and Bean’s new film makes the whole story more inclusive (and wisely jettisons one of Disney’s most problematic songs). The CG animation on the dog’s faces, to make them talk more like humans, is distractingly subpar, but everything else is sweet. Unambitious, but sweet. 6. “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” (2010) Except for an obligatory scene with some dancing mops, Jon Turteltaub’s “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” has very little in common with the classic Mickey Mouse segment from “Fantasia.” Jay Baruchel stars as a young science nerd who is destined to become a sorcerer, and Nicolas Cage has to train him before evil sorcerers can raise an army and take over the world. It’s a perfectly watchable fantasy adventure, but nothing about “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” makes a lasting impact. It’s practically the textbook definition of “average.” 5. “101 Dalmatians” (1996) Stephen Herek directed a trio of live-action Disney hits in the 1990s — “The Mighty Ducks,” “The Three Musketeers,” and “101 Dalmatians” — and they’re all satisfying family-friendly romps. Jeff Daniels and Joely Richardson play humans whose dogs fall in love and have oodles of puppies, and Glenn Close portrays Cruella de Vil like a pitch-perfect 1960s “Batman” villain. The film devolves into brainless, non-stop “Home Alone” slapstick in the second half, but it’s never less than fun, and Close gives such a gloriously unhinged performance that she’s practically Oscar-worthy. 4. “Dumbo” (2019) Tim Burton’s second live-action remake of a Disney animated classic is more clever, more emotional and significantly more subversive than his “Alice in Wonderland.” It’s still the story of a baby circus elephant with giant ears that help him fly, but this time his circus is purchased by a theme-park entrepreneur played by Michael Keaton, who proceeds to lay off most of the workers after the merger and to exploit his newly acquired IP beyond reason. Disney has often turned heartless capitalists into their villains, but in “Dumbo,” the studio seems to be pointing the finger at itself, giving Burton’s richly realized fantasy an unexpected and impressive sting. 3. “The Jungle Book” (2016) Jon Favreau’s “The Jungle Book” uses so much CGI that calling it “live-action” is probably a misnomer; there’s only one character who isn’t motion-captured, and even the realistic environments were digitally rendered. But either way it’s an excellent film. Favreau eschews the laidback, episodic structure of the original in favor of a more focused adventure, with Mowgli (Neel Sethi) gradually taking responsibility for rescuing the jungle from the deadly Shere Khan (Idris Elba). An all-star cast of mo-cap animal characters keeps the film lively, although Christopher Walken is a distractingly strange choice for King Louie. 2. “Pete’s Dragon” (2016) Another nebulously defined “live-action remake,” since the original “Pete’s Dragon” was a mostly live-action musical fantasy with one animated title character. David Lowery’s remake does away with all the classic songs (which ranged from adorable to weirdly violent) and also throws out the wackier storylines. Instead he highlights the emotionally sincere story of a lost boy whose only friend is a giant dragon. When Pete is discovered and brought back to the human world, his dragon, Elliot, comes looking for him. Lowery makes room for comic shenanigans, but he’s mostly interested in exploring our contemporary capacity for wonder. He transforms a formerly eccentric tale into something beautiful and, possibly, timeless. 1. “Cinderella” (2015) Disney’s original “Cinderella” is a masterpiece of animation, but it’s also a narratively thin piece of wish-fulfillment. Kenneth Branagh’s live-action remake keeps the original, classic storyline in place but amplifies the characters, giving the wicked stepmother (Cate Blanchett) a meaningful motivation for her treatment of Cinderella (Lily James), giving Cinderella a set of clearly-defined principles that justifies her every decision, and giving the prince (John Madden) enough time with Cinderella that they can actually fall believably in love. Romantic, beautiful and — from a story perspective, at least — an undeniable improvement on the original, “Cinderella” is the crown jewel of Disney’s live-action remakes. For now. Read original story All 19 Disney Live-Action Versions of Classic Animated Characters, Ranked from Worst to Best (Photos) At TheWrap
54 minutes ago‘Gossip Girl’ Reboot Teaser: Kristen Bell’s Narrator Returns to Torment a New Generation (Video)HBO Max has dropped the first teaser for its “Gossip Girl” reboot series, featuring a new crop of teenage Upper East-Siders being surveilled by the titular, mysterious blogger. You know you love her (already), because the voice is that of OG “Gossip Girl” narrator Kristen Bell, who is reprising the audio-only role for the updated take on The CW teen drama. “You’ve gotten so comfortable,” Bell’s Gossip Girl says over footage from the upcoming show, featuring stars Jordan Alexander, Eli Brown, Thomas Doherty, Tavi Gevinson, Emily Alyn Lind, Evan Mock, Zion Moreno, Whitney Peak and Savannah Lee Smith. “Thinking you’re in control of your image, your actions, the narrative, that you forgot one thing: I can see you. And before I’m through, I’ll make sure you see you, too. Xoxo, Gossip Girl.” Oh, crap. Per HBO Max, the new “Gossip Girl” is an “extension of the pop culture classic” that “takes us back to the Upper East Side finding a new generation of New York private school teens being introduced to social surveillance nine years after the original blogger’s website went dark.” The streaming series will explore “just how much social media — and the landscape of New York itself — has changed in the intervening years.” HBO Max’s “Gossip Girl” was developed by showrunner Joshua Safran, a writer and executive producer on the original CW series developed by Josh Schwartz & Stephanie Savage, which ran from 2007-2012 on The CW. The OG “Gossip Girl” and the reboot are based on the bestselling novels by Cecily von Ziegesar. The show starred Blake Lively, Leighton Meester, Penn Badgley, Chace Crawford, Ed Westwick, Kelly Rutherford and Matthew Settle. The new “Gossip Girl” series is written, executive produced and developed by Safran of Random Acts. Executive producers also include Schwartz and Savage of Fake Empire, and Leslie Morgenstein and Gina Girolamo of Alloy Entertainment. Lis Rowinski of Fake Empire serves as co-executive producer. Karena Evans directs two episodes and original costume designer Eric Daman rejoins the series. “Gossip Girl” is produced by Fake Empire and Alloy Entertainment in association with Warner Bros. Television and CBS Studios. The “Gossip Girl” reboot launches July 8 on HBO Max. Read original story ‘Gossip Girl’ Reboot Teaser: Kristen Bell’s Narrator Returns to Torment a New Generation (Video) At TheWrap
an hour agoTrump Says Fox News ‘Totally Lost Its Way,’ Blames Board Member Paul RyanFormer president Donald Trump continued his rant against various media outlets on Friday, turning his attention to former House Speaker Paul Ryan, who joined the Fox Corp. board after he left office. After calling him a RINO (Republican in name only), disparaging his record as a lawmaker and complaining that Ryan hasn’t joined in supporting the Big Lie that Democrats engaged in “cheating” in the 2020 election, he turned his attention to Fox News. “It was the day that Ryan went on the board of Fox (Fox will never be the same!) that Fox totally lost its way and became a much different place, with millions of its greatest supporters fleeing for good. Paul Ryan has been a curse to the Republican Party. He has no clue as to what needs to be done for our Country, was a weak and ineffective leader, and spends all of his time fighting Republicans as opposed to Democrats who are destroying our Country,” he wrote, dabbling in his signature arbitrary capitalization. Ryan, of course, is on the board of Fox Corp., Fox News Media’s parent company, which has no editorial oversight when it comes to the news network Trump has been attacking since at least 2015 — four years before Ryan joined the parent company’s board. Trump still regularly appears on Fox News Channel. Fox News, for what it’s worth, is doing well in the ratings, according to Nielsen Media Research ratings data. Second quarter to date, its total-day ratings average was 1.211 million, with 209,000 of those viewers in the advertiser-coveted age demographic of 25 to 54. By comparison, CNN’s total-day ratings average second quarter to date sits at 698,000 total viewers and 177,000 demo viewers while MSNBC’s average is 901,000 for total-day viewership and 124,000 in the demo. Trump’s comments came a day after Ryan gave a speech urging fellow Republicans not to rely on the “appeal of one personality.” He didn’t mention Trump, but headlines — including one from the Washington Post, which Trump also hit in a Friday statement — said he did, just “not by name.” Read original story Trump Says Fox News ‘Totally Lost Its Way,’ Blames Board Member Paul Ryan At TheWrap headtopics.comRead more: Yahoo Singapore »
UK woman installs locks on fridge and cupboards to prevent 10kg pet cat from stealing food
UNITED KINGDOM ― Pet owner Sara Matthews, 47, has resorted to extreme measures to help her obese cat Keith lose weight.