Angry Birds 2: Best Sequel Of 2019?

https://www.flayrah.com/7695/angry-birds-2-best-sequel-2019

Angry Birds.jpgAngry Birds 2; was it angry? Did it birds? The answer may surprise you.

As the writer and of the first Angry Birds review, I have to note that I reviewed the first one a bit begrudgingly. Mostly I was trying to push back against another CGI film with anthropomorphic characters that came out that year that was getting way too much attention. The first film hasn't aged well and certainly wasn't a gem at the time.

I only remembered a sequel was coming out earlier this year, and so did most people I think given the reactions online. Why did this movie warrant a sequel? The movie based on an app? Why?

The film opened this past Tuesday, and so I of course had to see it on opening day with a group of friends I had dragged along to presumably suffer with me.

But to my surprise, it was actually good.

read more

Peter S. Beagle awarded $332,500 judgement in lawsuit against ex-manager

https://www.flayrah.com/7687/peter-s-beagle-awarded-332500-judgement-lawsuit-against-ex-manager

Peter S. Beagle, known for writing the classic fantasy novel The Last Unicorn, has finally been awarded $332,500 in a lawsuit against Connor Cochran. His lyrical language would need barbs for revisiting his career with Cochran, his ex-agent/publisher/business manager -- or whatever title was most profitable for the moment.

In the early 2000's, Cochran pitched himself as a savior to rescue Beagle from past mismanagement. As time went on it became clear that the manager's relationship was more vulturous than a healthy partnership. Beagle sued him in 2015. Four ugly years later, the ex-manager had been given a new title by the author's friends: convicted fraudster.

File770 covered the judgement, and Deborah Grabien, Beagle's friend and editor, wrote about the document on Facebook:

Below is the judge's final decision in Peter's suit... It's a thing of beauty. Peter won, flat out, on four of six causes. On at least one of the two Peter wasn't awarded, the judicial language makes it pretty damned clear that the only reason for that was lack of proof that Cochran did what he did with the intent to actively harm. Spread it far and wide, if the fancy so takes you. There's no chance of the dude in question going off on one of his patented "I WILL SUUUUUUUUE YUUUUUUU!" screeches, because this is the judge's final decision in this case.

The full statement of decision can be found here.

read more