Tuesdays With Morrie - Summary

Mitch is disappointed man for failing his carrier as musician. So, he becomes well paid journalist for a newspaper. His uncle dies of pancreatic cancer. On this occasion, Mitch sees his professor’s interview on television and becomes shocked because he has seen his professor after long time. He reunions with professor Morrie and admits his frustration about his life. They decide to meet every Tuesday to talk about “The Meaning of Life”. This lesson will be taught by Morrie. In their early meetings Mitch realizes that his professor suffers by ALS disease (Motor Neuron Death). Every week Mitch brings Morrie food to eat. Morrie’s death is happening in a slow manner. Day by day he becomes weak but not in his attitude.

          In the meantime Morrie’s childhood days are portrayed. Morrie did several jobs from childhood and was helping his family financially. Mitch recalls his college days that how his professor was active in those days. Mitch records their conversations with Morrie so that he may complete notes to write a book ‘Tuesdays with Morrie’. Morrie continually tells Mitch that he wants to share his stories with the world; the book will allow him to do that.

         

          Mitch tells to Morrie that his brother is living alone who is suffered by pancreatic cancer (like his uncle). His brother Peter refused to reconcile with him and family. After many phone calls and letters Morrie receives a reply from his brother, “I am fine”. That’s all the response from his brother. He tells Morrie that he missed his brother so much. Morrie prophecies that he will be reconcile with his brother. Morrie’s life comes to an end. After Morrie’s death, Mitch recalls his promise to continue his conversation even after his death so the silent communication between them is happening. This silent communication becomes more natural than he had ever expected.

Life is challenges

Give a little love to a child, and you get a great deal back.
- John Ruskin


Life comes with many challenges. The ones that should not scare us are the ones we can take on and take control of.
- Angelina Jolie


Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.
- Winston Churchill


The traveller has to knock at every alien door to come to his own, and one has to wander through all the outer worlds to reach the innermost shrine at the end.
- Rabindranath Tagore


In three words I can sum up everything I’ve learned about life: it goes on.
- Robert Frost.

The words of kindness are more healing to a dropping heart than balm or honey.
- Sarah Fielding

Adultery by Paulo Coehlo

The meaning for Adultery is "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their spouse."

Sometimes it may be described as "engages in sexual intercourse with another person at a time when he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living spouse."

There is close relationship between the term Adultery and Freudian theory. 

Recently there is a novel which titled Adultery (from the author of Alchemist). Yes, you got it. He is the author (Paulo Coehlo).

This novel deals from the woman's narration of her sexual desires, her dream, her dissatisfaction of life. From her point other people's life seems perfect. For her something is missed. Her ex boy friend once again interrupts in her life. She explores her desire for him and volunteerly involved with him. This is the plot of the novel. I can relate this theme into Freudian theory and some motion pictures. The thirty aged woman mind's analysis is the beautiful part in this novel. In 272 pages.. major part of the novel deals with analysis and exploration of her psychological analysis. Twenty percent of description seems vague but it can't be edited or avoided somewhat important fro the plot. From my point of view this novels is decent to read but not good as like Alchemist. 

Alice through the looking glass - Pre Review

Alice Through the Looking Glass is an upcoming American adventure-fantasy film directed by James Bobin, written by Linda Woolverton and produced by Tim Burton. It is based on Through the Looking-Glass by Lewis Carroll and is the sequel to the 2010 film Alice in Wonderland. The film stars Johnny Depp, Anne Hathaway, Mia Wasikowska, Helena Bonham Carter, and Sacha Baron Cohen. The film is set to be released by Walt Disney Pictures on May 27, 2016.

Alice Kingsleigh has spent the past few years following in her father’s footsteps and sailing the high seas. Upon her return to London, she comes across a magical looking glass and returns to the fantastical realm of Wonderland and her friends the White Rabbit, Absolem, the Cheshire Cat and the Mad Hatter, who is not himself. The Hatter has lost his Muchness, so Mirana, the White Queen, sends Alice on a quest to borrow the Chronosphere, a metallic globe inside the chamber of the Grand Clock which powers all time. Returning to the past, she comes across friends – and enemies – at different points in their lives, and embarks on a perilous race to save the Hatter before time runs out

Let's rock through the glass but dont try to go inside on it

Thanks to WIKIPEDIA

PAN 2015 - Critic's Review

The Boy Who Wouldn’t Grow Up’ was how J.M. Barrie introduced his most famous creation in the title of his 1904 stage play – and in Joe Wright’s Pan, that guarantee has pretty much held firm. 

Technically, this is a prequel to Barrie’s Peter Pan stories – although for the most part, the kind of revamping, reverse-engineering and postmodern horseplay that prequel-making normally entails is in short supply. In fact, aside from a couple of pirate sing-alongs to Nirvana and Ramones songs, Wright’s film is jubilantly uncool. Perhaps one of the best compliments you could pay it is that it could have been written 100 years ago. 

The tone owes a little more to the adventure novels of Jules Verne than it does Barrie, while its opening scenes, which take place in a Blitz-battered London orphanage, are inescapably similar to early chapters of C.S. Lewis’s The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, with their shared backdrops of hardship during wartime and tantalising rumours of magic behind locked doors.

It was on the doorstep of this forbidding establishment that Peter (played by the first-time actor Levi Miller) was left when he was a baby, and where he has since been under the care of Kathy Burke’s Mother Barnabas, the Miss Trunchbull-like gargoyle in charge.

Every morning when he wakes up, another few beds in the dormitory are empty, and Peter’s convinced that something funny is afoot. The boys assume evacuation is to blame, but it transpires that Mother Barnabas is selling them to a crew of Neverland pirates who need cheap labour for their mining operation. 

They swoop by every night in their flying galleon, drop through the skylights on ropes and pull the children from their beds like hunting spiders – an image of almost Roald Dahl-like shiveriness that Wright stages as a kind of lunatic circus act. One such raid leads to what’s indisputably Pan’s finest sequence: a bombastic pitched battle between the flying ship and a squadron of Spitfires above the London rooftops. The cherry on this particular trifle is Mission Control, which is manned by a roomful of identical radio operators: think Kim Hunter in A Matter of Life and Death, except blonde, and multiplied by 20.

Though Jason Fuchs’s script isn’t particularly beholden to Barrie’s work, some of its big ideas have been spun off from throwaway lines in it. The biggest one is its villain. In Barrie’s 1911 novel Peter and Wendy, John Darling reveals that Captain James Hook was once “Blackbeard’s bo’sun” – and so here we meet Blackbeard himself, who’s played by a typically charismatic though not immediately recognisable Hugh Jackman, and is marshalling a search for life-sustaining fairy dust, or ‘pixum’, in Neverland’s mines.

With a certain thudding inevitability, it turns out that a prophesy foretold all this: briefly, Peter is destined to lead a revolt against Blackbeard and free the children, using a latent ability to fly which he possesses thanks to his parentage. This is all tied up perfectly neatly as the film progresses, but it seems unnecessary, particularly as part of the early charm of Peter’s character is his apparent lack of a pre-ordained advantage beyond his nose for adventure. (A lovely, thought-provoking detail I wish the film had made a little more of: he’s dyslexic.)

Far more intriguing is the new fedora-wearing friend he makes down the mines, James Hook himself – who is, ingeniously, nothing at all like the familiar Disney version of the character. He's not a captain, but a rakish adventurer, a genuinely nice guy, and still has the full complement of hands.

Hook played by Garrett Hedlund as a stack of matinee-idol tics: imagine Hedlund playing Armie Hammer playing Harrison Ford playing Indiana Jones, and that’s more or less his act. In league with Mr. Smee (Adeel Akhtar, enjoyably dopey), Hook and Peter hot-wire a flying galleon and scud across the sky towards the Neverwood, while Blackbeard plots his next move.

This is all refreshingly out of step with to the usual prequel MO, where the stage-setting for the original work can be so fussy, and the narrative so heavy with various omens and foreshadowings, that in and of itself, the new film can be as good as meaningless. (Which was what went wrong with Sam Raimi’s Oz the Great and Powerful – and, arguably, Star Wars Episodes I-III.)

Instead, Pan just tells a rollicking story of its own, without worrying too much about getting the pieces in place for Barrie’s own work, or the much-loved Disney animation it also inspired. (Though if this film is successful enough to prompt a sequel, expect that to do much more along those lines.)

The only significant detail from the books to be seriously reworked is Neverland’s “Piccaninny tribe”, led by the princess Tiger Lily (a commendably kick-ass Rooney Mara), who here are a rainbow nation of actors of every imaginable caste and creed. (When the pirates attack their treetop village – the soft furnishings in which, it should be said, put Anthropolgie’s homeware department to shame – the rainbow becomes literal, and they vanish in clouds of multi-coloured dust.) It’s a fudge, but a necessary one, and stylishly pulled off.

Occasionally things get a little overcrowded, particularly during a sticky final act, but Pan has a certain timeless buoyancy that keeps it bouncing back. It’s a tale full of trapdoors, hidden switches and secret passageways, where flashbacks are told through animated wood carvings, and fairy dust is buried in its bedrock. The phrase "an eight-year-old could have thought of it" sounds like it should be an insult. But it isn’t here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/pan/review/

thanks to ROBBIE COLLIN