Search
Search results
Hazel (1853 KP) rated This Secret We're Keeping in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
A pupil and a teacher. Is it ever right to break the rules?</i> This is the dilemma which debut author Rebecca Done basis her novel on. <i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> is set seventeen years after a maths teacher began an inappropriate relationship with a schoolgirl; but did he really deserve what happened to him, after all he loved her and she loved him?
Jess has never got over her love for the teacher she ran away with when she was fifteen. Although she has got her life together: living in Norfolk, freelance catering business, a rich boyfriend; she cannot help but think back to way Mr. Landley, Matthew, made her feel. Suddenly, after a chance encounter, Matthew is back in her life with a new name, Will, and a girlfriend and daughter. Delighted to see each other again, it is not long before they fall back into their illicit affair, however the potential consequences are almost as bad as the previous time.
<i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> causes the reader to question strong personal beliefs, primarily whether a teacher-student relationship is as wrong as it sounds. If certain events in this novel were to be made public through the media, the majority would instantly hate Matthew, deem him a paedophile, and be satisfied with his punishment. However on reading the situation from his point of view, initial opinions begin to crumble. It appears he genuinely loved Jess, and she him; there were no abusive occurrences, and it was Jess that instigated the relationship in the first place. Did Matthew truly deserve to go to prison for something that would have been legal in a year’s time?
Matthew/Will’s narrative helps to show that it is virtually impossible to pinpoint a single moment that changes a life forever. At which point did he know that he had stepped over the line from right to wrong? In hindsight it is fairly obvious, but at the time the warning signs are not so clear.
Due to the challenging of preset judgments, <i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> can often be difficult to read. Whilst on the one hand logic will be screaming, “This is wrong!” Done plays with her readers’ sentimentalities to consider the other side of the argument. As the novel progresses it becomes easier to fall in line with Jess and Matthew/Will’s viewpoints, however a brief interaction towards the end forces readers to temporarily reconsider their forgone conclusion. After all, how much can a first person narrative really be trusted?
Having read the blurb I admit I was a bit wary about reading this book. For one, it falls under the genre of Chick Lit, which I am not all that fond of, but secondly the book’s theme appeared rather controversial. On the whole, <i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> was much better than I was anticipating, however I began to lose interest towards the end as nothing much had changed throughout the present day chapters, and it was already obvious how the past narrative would pan out. The ending is also frustratingly ambiguous, as we never find out whether either of the key characters gets a “happy ever after.”
If you are someone who enjoys Chick Lit, do not let the themes of the book put you off. <i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> is essentially a romance story, one that is written remarkably well for a first time author. Rebecca Done will be a name to look out for in the world of contemporary literature.
A pupil and a teacher. Is it ever right to break the rules?</i> This is the dilemma which debut author Rebecca Done basis her novel on. <i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> is set seventeen years after a maths teacher began an inappropriate relationship with a schoolgirl; but did he really deserve what happened to him, after all he loved her and she loved him?
Jess has never got over her love for the teacher she ran away with when she was fifteen. Although she has got her life together: living in Norfolk, freelance catering business, a rich boyfriend; she cannot help but think back to way Mr. Landley, Matthew, made her feel. Suddenly, after a chance encounter, Matthew is back in her life with a new name, Will, and a girlfriend and daughter. Delighted to see each other again, it is not long before they fall back into their illicit affair, however the potential consequences are almost as bad as the previous time.
<i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> causes the reader to question strong personal beliefs, primarily whether a teacher-student relationship is as wrong as it sounds. If certain events in this novel were to be made public through the media, the majority would instantly hate Matthew, deem him a paedophile, and be satisfied with his punishment. However on reading the situation from his point of view, initial opinions begin to crumble. It appears he genuinely loved Jess, and she him; there were no abusive occurrences, and it was Jess that instigated the relationship in the first place. Did Matthew truly deserve to go to prison for something that would have been legal in a year’s time?
Matthew/Will’s narrative helps to show that it is virtually impossible to pinpoint a single moment that changes a life forever. At which point did he know that he had stepped over the line from right to wrong? In hindsight it is fairly obvious, but at the time the warning signs are not so clear.
Due to the challenging of preset judgments, <i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> can often be difficult to read. Whilst on the one hand logic will be screaming, “This is wrong!” Done plays with her readers’ sentimentalities to consider the other side of the argument. As the novel progresses it becomes easier to fall in line with Jess and Matthew/Will’s viewpoints, however a brief interaction towards the end forces readers to temporarily reconsider their forgone conclusion. After all, how much can a first person narrative really be trusted?
Having read the blurb I admit I was a bit wary about reading this book. For one, it falls under the genre of Chick Lit, which I am not all that fond of, but secondly the book’s theme appeared rather controversial. On the whole, <i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> was much better than I was anticipating, however I began to lose interest towards the end as nothing much had changed throughout the present day chapters, and it was already obvious how the past narrative would pan out. The ending is also frustratingly ambiguous, as we never find out whether either of the key characters gets a “happy ever after.”
If you are someone who enjoys Chick Lit, do not let the themes of the book put you off. <i>This Secret We’re Keeping</i> is essentially a romance story, one that is written remarkably well for a first time author. Rebecca Done will be a name to look out for in the world of contemporary literature.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Jan 24, 2019 (Updated Jan 24, 2019)
A very funny, heartwarming drama about adoption
On paper, you'd be forgiven for thinking that Instant Family is going to be just like so many other movies you've seen over the years. A couple without children of their own decides to adopt and end up with three troubled siblings of varying ages. And when you read that it's from director/co-writer Sean Anders, along with Mark Wahlberg, who worked together on both of the 'Daddy's Home' movies, you'll think you've got a pretty good idea of the tone and direction this movie is going to follow. Luckily though, while there are some genuinely very funny moments in this movie, it also manages to successfully blend it with some serious human drama and emotion and a fantastic set of characters.
Instant Family is based on the real life experience of the director Sean Anders and the adoption process he went through with his wife. In the movie, the couple are called Pete and Ellie (Mark Wahlberg and Rose Byrne), who earn their living by flipping houses (buy, renovate, sell). After Ellie has an argument with her sister regarding kids, they begin thinking about having children of their own. Worried about their age, they begin looking into fostering, with a view to eventually adopting an older child.
They visit an adoption agency, where they are joined by a number of other couples and single parents all looking to find out more and begin their journey to becoming parents. Octavia Spencer and Tig Notaro are social workers, there to guide them all through the process. A very funny double act, providing a lot of the movies hilariously well timed lines. In fact, all of the other potential adopters are well written and funny, continuing to crop up throughout the movie as we revisit how everyone is getting on with their fostered children. None of this is zany, particularly goofy or over the top though - it's made very clear that many of the children in the foster system have had a pretty awful life so far, and this honest piece of reality is never downplayed.
At a meet-and-greet with potential adoptive children, organised as an outdoor event in a park, Pete and Ellie are drawn to Lizzie (Isabela Moner), a fiery teenage girl who is hanging out with the other older kids - separated from the main gathering, having resigned themselves to the notion that they're never going to get chosen by the prospective parents. When the couple mark her down as a potential for fostering, they learn that she actually comes as part of a package, having a younger brother Juan and even younger sister Lita. Pete and Ellie decide to go for it and foster all three, convinced they can make a difference in these kids lives.
There follows a period of new parents being thrown in at the deep end - the stressful night time routine, the problems with getting kids to eat and dress properly, problems at school etc. But again, it's not over the top - rooted in reality and successfully managing to walk the line between comedy and drama without resorting to exaggerated comedy set pieces. The problems experienced are made all the more challenging as the couple trying to care for and raise children who haven't had a great start in life, and have been used to a very particular way of living. Made even more difficult when the children's birth mother appears on the scene later in the movie.
I wasn't expecting to enjoy this movie as much as I did. There are more laugh out loud moments than any movie I've seen in recent years that bills itself as a comedy, but at the same time it's also a really heartwarming feel-good drama. So many enjoyable characters too, and with a sharp script that brings out the best in them all. Hugely enjoyable.
Instant Family is based on the real life experience of the director Sean Anders and the adoption process he went through with his wife. In the movie, the couple are called Pete and Ellie (Mark Wahlberg and Rose Byrne), who earn their living by flipping houses (buy, renovate, sell). After Ellie has an argument with her sister regarding kids, they begin thinking about having children of their own. Worried about their age, they begin looking into fostering, with a view to eventually adopting an older child.
They visit an adoption agency, where they are joined by a number of other couples and single parents all looking to find out more and begin their journey to becoming parents. Octavia Spencer and Tig Notaro are social workers, there to guide them all through the process. A very funny double act, providing a lot of the movies hilariously well timed lines. In fact, all of the other potential adopters are well written and funny, continuing to crop up throughout the movie as we revisit how everyone is getting on with their fostered children. None of this is zany, particularly goofy or over the top though - it's made very clear that many of the children in the foster system have had a pretty awful life so far, and this honest piece of reality is never downplayed.
At a meet-and-greet with potential adoptive children, organised as an outdoor event in a park, Pete and Ellie are drawn to Lizzie (Isabela Moner), a fiery teenage girl who is hanging out with the other older kids - separated from the main gathering, having resigned themselves to the notion that they're never going to get chosen by the prospective parents. When the couple mark her down as a potential for fostering, they learn that she actually comes as part of a package, having a younger brother Juan and even younger sister Lita. Pete and Ellie decide to go for it and foster all three, convinced they can make a difference in these kids lives.
There follows a period of new parents being thrown in at the deep end - the stressful night time routine, the problems with getting kids to eat and dress properly, problems at school etc. But again, it's not over the top - rooted in reality and successfully managing to walk the line between comedy and drama without resorting to exaggerated comedy set pieces. The problems experienced are made all the more challenging as the couple trying to care for and raise children who haven't had a great start in life, and have been used to a very particular way of living. Made even more difficult when the children's birth mother appears on the scene later in the movie.
I wasn't expecting to enjoy this movie as much as I did. There are more laugh out loud moments than any movie I've seen in recent years that bills itself as a comedy, but at the same time it's also a really heartwarming feel-good drama. So many enjoyable characters too, and with a sharp script that brings out the best in them all. Hugely enjoyable.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Sweeping up a few older films that I wanted to see but missed at the cinema in the last few years. My current IMDb watch list sits at 488, and, unlike this movie, never seems to shrink! There is a lot to keep up with. Bad reviews have kept me away from Alexander Payne’s Downsizing until now. I have to say, without the burden of expectation, it is a lot better than I thought it would be.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Miles Ahead (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
If you’ve ever found yourself in a coffee shop, bookstore, or perhaps even a jazz club in the 21st century you can’t NOT have heard either the name ‘Miles Davis’, his music, or perhaps both. If you’ve been living under a rock your whole life and by some miracle you have a smartphone, computer, or a radio find a jazz station and it’s almost a sure thing you’ll here his music within minutes. The man is no myth although the man and his music are so legendary there is almost a mythical presence to him. He is one of the greats. No question. No argument.
‘Miles Ahead’ is a biopic about the legendary jazz musician directed by and staring Don Cheadle who also co-wrote the film with Steven Baigelman, Christopher Wilkinson, and Steven J. Rivele.
Emayatzy Corinealdi, Ewan McGregor, Michael Stuhlbarg, and Keith Stanfield. Rather than focus on the entire life of the great jazz musician which could encompass several films and take up an entire archive, the film focuses mainly on a period in Davis’s life where he is living in relative seclusion in his home in New York City after having retreated from the public spotlight five years previously. Miles endeavors to begin recording and playing music once again after combating addictions to alcohol and cocaine which he indulged in to deal with his wife leaving him and the heavy stress brought upon him by a loss of inspiration to compose music. At about this same time ‘Rolling Stone’ reporter Dave Braden (McGregor), a borderline paparazzi of the time but not quite, calls upon Davis begging him to let him write about Davis’s great comeback. After several futile attempts on the part of Braden, Davis reluctantly agrees after Braden introduces him to a new dealer willing to supply him with high-grade cocaine. What follows is something thats almost out of a Hunter S. Thompson book as the two attempt to recover a demo tape of Davis’s most recent recordings from a low level gangster/manager/agent who stole the from Davis’s home. Amongst the drugs and the booze and the gun fights and car chases there are brief flashbacks into Miles’s past where he relives times good and bad with his wife Frances (Corinealdi). How they met, how they lived, and how she inspired some of his greatest works through her graceful dancing and their mutual love for classical music like Eric Satie, Chopin, and Stravinsky and how he eventually lost her due to his addictions and indulgences.
For such a brief glimpse into the life of one of music’s greatest, the movie was quite well done. It was clearly a labor of love for Mr. Cheadle who had his hands in nearly every aspect of the movie and went so far as to learn to play the trumpet so he could actually play the music himself in the movie. The actor, who is amongst the best and most underrated of our time, reportedly spent six years making this film. The background music is mostly comprised of tracks from arguably one of Davis’s best albums ‘Sketches Of Spain’ and selections of his work is played by Cheadle himself. It’s sometimes difficult to tell whether the movie is more about the music or the man himself. Does it honestly matter though? In many ways, they’re one in the same are they not? The movie is rated R for scenes with violence, adult language, and intimate scenes. I’d give it 4 out of 5 stars. The only negative thing I have to say about is that I wish there had been more about the life of the man. His beginnings. Like when he was accepted into the Juilliard School of Music in New York only to drop out. His days spent jamming with Charlie Parker. Again, that would encompass far more time than one would consider ‘feasible’ for a movie.
‘Miles Ahead’ is a biopic about the legendary jazz musician directed by and staring Don Cheadle who also co-wrote the film with Steven Baigelman, Christopher Wilkinson, and Steven J. Rivele.
Emayatzy Corinealdi, Ewan McGregor, Michael Stuhlbarg, and Keith Stanfield. Rather than focus on the entire life of the great jazz musician which could encompass several films and take up an entire archive, the film focuses mainly on a period in Davis’s life where he is living in relative seclusion in his home in New York City after having retreated from the public spotlight five years previously. Miles endeavors to begin recording and playing music once again after combating addictions to alcohol and cocaine which he indulged in to deal with his wife leaving him and the heavy stress brought upon him by a loss of inspiration to compose music. At about this same time ‘Rolling Stone’ reporter Dave Braden (McGregor), a borderline paparazzi of the time but not quite, calls upon Davis begging him to let him write about Davis’s great comeback. After several futile attempts on the part of Braden, Davis reluctantly agrees after Braden introduces him to a new dealer willing to supply him with high-grade cocaine. What follows is something thats almost out of a Hunter S. Thompson book as the two attempt to recover a demo tape of Davis’s most recent recordings from a low level gangster/manager/agent who stole the from Davis’s home. Amongst the drugs and the booze and the gun fights and car chases there are brief flashbacks into Miles’s past where he relives times good and bad with his wife Frances (Corinealdi). How they met, how they lived, and how she inspired some of his greatest works through her graceful dancing and their mutual love for classical music like Eric Satie, Chopin, and Stravinsky and how he eventually lost her due to his addictions and indulgences.
For such a brief glimpse into the life of one of music’s greatest, the movie was quite well done. It was clearly a labor of love for Mr. Cheadle who had his hands in nearly every aspect of the movie and went so far as to learn to play the trumpet so he could actually play the music himself in the movie. The actor, who is amongst the best and most underrated of our time, reportedly spent six years making this film. The background music is mostly comprised of tracks from arguably one of Davis’s best albums ‘Sketches Of Spain’ and selections of his work is played by Cheadle himself. It’s sometimes difficult to tell whether the movie is more about the music or the man himself. Does it honestly matter though? In many ways, they’re one in the same are they not? The movie is rated R for scenes with violence, adult language, and intimate scenes. I’d give it 4 out of 5 stars. The only negative thing I have to say about is that I wish there had been more about the life of the man. His beginnings. Like when he was accepted into the Juilliard School of Music in New York only to drop out. His days spent jamming with Charlie Parker. Again, that would encompass far more time than one would consider ‘feasible’ for a movie.
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Clock Dance in Books
Aug 11, 2018
Clock Dance was the second pick for Barnes & Noble's nation-wide Book Club. (The first was Meg Wolitzer's The Female Persuasion, back in May.) Like the first one, it was contemporary fiction, which I'm pretty meh about. When I learned it was set mostly in Baltimore, and written by a local author, I became more interested. I'm originally from Oregon, but Baltimore has become my home, and I enjoy reading about it. We had a slightly larger group than last time, but I was the only returning attendee besides the store employee, Sam, who led the discussion.
Sam opened the discussion with the same question that she started the last one with - "Did you like the main character?" It's an interesting question because most people ask "Did you like the book?" which can have a different answer. I don't usually read books in which I don't like the main character, but that's usually because I choose my books. I'm not choosing my Book Club books, so it's a good question. Unlike last time, I did like Willa. I disagreed with her judgment when it came to husbands, but I still sympathized with her. I mentioned that I didn't like that she just floated through most of her life without any real ambition, but to be honest, I've done that too. I'm not a very ambitious person - or my ambitions are quite low. I think that, perhaps, is the difference. I find a lot of fulfillment in being, effectively, my husband's personal assistant. It's fun. Willa did not seem to find it fulfilling, she just - didn't want to rock the boat.
I like how we saw each of Willa's "defining moments" - the book opens on her as a child, her volatile mother having stormed out of the house during an argument. Her mother really does a number on her as a child. I think it's why she hates to rock the boat so much. From here, we fast forward to college, and Willa's boyfriend proposing to her after gaslighting her about an event that happened on the plane. Willa's mother disapproves. Vehemently. I think that's part of why Willa accepts. Our next view of Willa's life is the accident that takes her husband's life, and its aftermath.
Then we finally start into the real meat of the book, twenty years after the death of her first husband. Her sons have grown and moved away, she has remarried, and both of her parents have passed. Her husband is a little distant, and she seems rather untethered. Then she gets the strangest phone call. It turns out her eldest son lived with a woman (Denise) and her daughter for a little while in Baltimore; he has since moved on, but "Sean's mother" is still a phone number on Denise's emergency contact list. So when Denise is shot in the leg and put in the hospital, a neighbor lady sees it, assumes Willa is the grandmother of the child, and calls her to come take care of her. It's a little convoluted, and Willa can't even adequately explain to her husband why she's decided to fly to Baltimore to take care of a child she has no relation to, but she does so anyway.
This is where we get to Baltimore, and, in Anne Tyler's own words, "when her story changes to Technicolor."
I actually live just outside Baltimore myself, but one of my best friends lives in Charles Village, and I could SO EASILY envision Willa's neighborhood as a street of rowhomes. (Turns out it's probably based on a neighborhood in Hamilton, according to the Baltimore Sun.) I was even mapping locations in Willa's house to my friend's rowhome! Anne Tyler really captures the spirit of Baltimore, and now I want to read more of her books, even if they are contemporary fiction!
Overall I enjoyed Clock Dance; Anne Tyler is very good at subtle character growth, which is quite realistic. People don't often change all at once. Sometimes it takes a lifetime of being told what to do before finally waking up to what you WANT to do.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Sam opened the discussion with the same question that she started the last one with - "Did you like the main character?" It's an interesting question because most people ask "Did you like the book?" which can have a different answer. I don't usually read books in which I don't like the main character, but that's usually because I choose my books. I'm not choosing my Book Club books, so it's a good question. Unlike last time, I did like Willa. I disagreed with her judgment when it came to husbands, but I still sympathized with her. I mentioned that I didn't like that she just floated through most of her life without any real ambition, but to be honest, I've done that too. I'm not a very ambitious person - or my ambitions are quite low. I think that, perhaps, is the difference. I find a lot of fulfillment in being, effectively, my husband's personal assistant. It's fun. Willa did not seem to find it fulfilling, she just - didn't want to rock the boat.
I like how we saw each of Willa's "defining moments" - the book opens on her as a child, her volatile mother having stormed out of the house during an argument. Her mother really does a number on her as a child. I think it's why she hates to rock the boat so much. From here, we fast forward to college, and Willa's boyfriend proposing to her after gaslighting her about an event that happened on the plane. Willa's mother disapproves. Vehemently. I think that's part of why Willa accepts. Our next view of Willa's life is the accident that takes her husband's life, and its aftermath.
Then we finally start into the real meat of the book, twenty years after the death of her first husband. Her sons have grown and moved away, she has remarried, and both of her parents have passed. Her husband is a little distant, and she seems rather untethered. Then she gets the strangest phone call. It turns out her eldest son lived with a woman (Denise) and her daughter for a little while in Baltimore; he has since moved on, but "Sean's mother" is still a phone number on Denise's emergency contact list. So when Denise is shot in the leg and put in the hospital, a neighbor lady sees it, assumes Willa is the grandmother of the child, and calls her to come take care of her. It's a little convoluted, and Willa can't even adequately explain to her husband why she's decided to fly to Baltimore to take care of a child she has no relation to, but she does so anyway.
This is where we get to Baltimore, and, in Anne Tyler's own words, "when her story changes to Technicolor."
I actually live just outside Baltimore myself, but one of my best friends lives in Charles Village, and I could SO EASILY envision Willa's neighborhood as a street of rowhomes. (Turns out it's probably based on a neighborhood in Hamilton, according to the Baltimore Sun.) I was even mapping locations in Willa's house to my friend's rowhome! Anne Tyler really captures the spirit of Baltimore, and now I want to read more of her books, even if they are contemporary fiction!
Overall I enjoyed Clock Dance; Anne Tyler is very good at subtle character growth, which is quite realistic. People don't often change all at once. Sometimes it takes a lifetime of being told what to do before finally waking up to what you WANT to do.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Darren (1599 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Dec 28, 2019
Verdict: Interesting Courtroom Drama
Story: Denial starts when acclaimed writer and historian Deborah Lipstadt (Weisz) has her latest book about the horrors of the Holocaust being released, only her in her book to slams historian and renowned denier David Irving (Spall). David Irving has built up a reputation for being able to fight his case and decides to sue Deborah for libel.
After the years or preparation Deborah watches how Anthony Julius (Scott) and Richard Rampton (Wilkinson) look to make a trial where Deborah will win, without having to put the holocaust on trial, they want to keep it together for argument, with the case being about proving David’s research, rather than whether the holocaust happened.
Thoughts on Denial
Characters – Deborah Lipstadt is an acclaimed author that has made her career out of writing about the horrors around the holocaust, this has created an enemy in David Irving, that she has always been denying the holocaust happened. She must defend her own accusation against him, putting her trust in a group of lawyers to fight the case, despite the fact she would like to put the spotlight on the events, over the facts being disputed. Richard Rampton is the lawyer that is running the case in the courtroom, he has methods that Deborah doesn’t like, until she sees how he has truly been planning the case. Anthony Julius runs the case behind the scenes, he has a huge reputation with his previous work which made headlines and must be strict towards Deborah over what she wants to happen in the case. David Irving is the famous Holocaust denier, he has made a career out of his theories, which has given him a huge following, he decides to sue Deborah for criticising his beliefs, where he uses his natural charisma to get people behind him, despite his anti-Semitic behaviour being clear to see.
Performances – Rachel Weisz in the leading role is great to see, she shows just how helpless Deborah looks during the case, that puts her own reputation on the line. Timothy Spall steals the show with his depiction of David Irving, showing how he is the more colourful character in the case. Tom Wilkinson shows he will always be able to bring a quiet character to life in the moments he needs to shine, while Andrew Scott proves that his rising star will get involved in the major performances.
Story – The story here follows Deborah Lipstadt who has her own book sued for libel by holocaust denier David Irving, forcing them into a court case, which will be about whether he has been making up the truth for his own benefit or whether she had the right to question his beliefs. The story is an interesting one to follow, seeing an conspiracy theorist being put in a courtroom to prove his fictional story about the truth is fascinating to see, having a court case just about whether something as horrific as the holocaust is bad enough, but seeing how everybody seemed to have a fine balance between who could win, was also interesting. The story does struggling to start with, because of the large number of time jumps, with it starting in 1994, before the case happening in 2000, with small scenes in the build up to the case, through the years, but once we get into the courtroom, we are grasp by the story.
Biopic – The biopic side of the story focuses more on the case, rather than the people involved, which could take away just how much the case did take out of the people involved.
Settings – The film does use the courtroom as the main location for the story to move forward, with most of the external locations being ideas of where the story could end up going, with most being office, apart from the haunting trip to Auschwitz.
Scene of the Movie – The court case.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The early time jumps, we seem to have one scene, then jump two more years down the line.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting courtroom drama, that shows how the truth managed to get all the way to a courtroom, when it was clear it happened, showing even conspiracy theorist could challenge the truth.
Overall: Interesting, but not Intense drama.
Story: Denial starts when acclaimed writer and historian Deborah Lipstadt (Weisz) has her latest book about the horrors of the Holocaust being released, only her in her book to slams historian and renowned denier David Irving (Spall). David Irving has built up a reputation for being able to fight his case and decides to sue Deborah for libel.
After the years or preparation Deborah watches how Anthony Julius (Scott) and Richard Rampton (Wilkinson) look to make a trial where Deborah will win, without having to put the holocaust on trial, they want to keep it together for argument, with the case being about proving David’s research, rather than whether the holocaust happened.
Thoughts on Denial
Characters – Deborah Lipstadt is an acclaimed author that has made her career out of writing about the horrors around the holocaust, this has created an enemy in David Irving, that she has always been denying the holocaust happened. She must defend her own accusation against him, putting her trust in a group of lawyers to fight the case, despite the fact she would like to put the spotlight on the events, over the facts being disputed. Richard Rampton is the lawyer that is running the case in the courtroom, he has methods that Deborah doesn’t like, until she sees how he has truly been planning the case. Anthony Julius runs the case behind the scenes, he has a huge reputation with his previous work which made headlines and must be strict towards Deborah over what she wants to happen in the case. David Irving is the famous Holocaust denier, he has made a career out of his theories, which has given him a huge following, he decides to sue Deborah for criticising his beliefs, where he uses his natural charisma to get people behind him, despite his anti-Semitic behaviour being clear to see.
Performances – Rachel Weisz in the leading role is great to see, she shows just how helpless Deborah looks during the case, that puts her own reputation on the line. Timothy Spall steals the show with his depiction of David Irving, showing how he is the more colourful character in the case. Tom Wilkinson shows he will always be able to bring a quiet character to life in the moments he needs to shine, while Andrew Scott proves that his rising star will get involved in the major performances.
Story – The story here follows Deborah Lipstadt who has her own book sued for libel by holocaust denier David Irving, forcing them into a court case, which will be about whether he has been making up the truth for his own benefit or whether she had the right to question his beliefs. The story is an interesting one to follow, seeing an conspiracy theorist being put in a courtroom to prove his fictional story about the truth is fascinating to see, having a court case just about whether something as horrific as the holocaust is bad enough, but seeing how everybody seemed to have a fine balance between who could win, was also interesting. The story does struggling to start with, because of the large number of time jumps, with it starting in 1994, before the case happening in 2000, with small scenes in the build up to the case, through the years, but once we get into the courtroom, we are grasp by the story.
Biopic – The biopic side of the story focuses more on the case, rather than the people involved, which could take away just how much the case did take out of the people involved.
Settings – The film does use the courtroom as the main location for the story to move forward, with most of the external locations being ideas of where the story could end up going, with most being office, apart from the haunting trip to Auschwitz.
Scene of the Movie – The court case.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The early time jumps, we seem to have one scene, then jump two more years down the line.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting courtroom drama, that shows how the truth managed to get all the way to a courtroom, when it was clear it happened, showing even conspiracy theorist could challenge the truth.
Overall: Interesting, but not Intense drama.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Loveless (2017) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Speaking as someone who grew up in the United States, prides themselves on having a vast and diverse movie library, and only leaves the confines of the greater Seattle-area on very rare occasions .. I’m the first to admit that there are times when I don’t fully appreciate the films produced in other countries. It’s amazing how different they can be based on even differences in other cultures. Take films made in Russia for example. Perhaps it’s the cold and bleakness of the country but Russian filmmakers are amongst the best when it comes to tragedies. I imagine it’s a ‘carry over’ in part from the great literary masterpieces to come out of that country. Not to give it all away right from the beginning but if you’re like me, you need to prepare yourself for a good tragedy and that’s exactly what the film is that is up for your consideration.
‘Loveless’ is a 2017 Russian tragedy from noted director Andrey Zvyaginstev and co-written by Zvyaginstev and Oleg Negin. As with Zvyaginstev’s 2014 tragedy ‘Leviathan’, ‘Loveless’ has quickly risen to critical acclaim and already won several accolades including the Jury Prize at 2017 Cannes Film Festival and was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 90th Academy Awards.
‘Loveless’ stars Maryana Spivak, Aleksey Rozin, and Matvey Novikov. It’s the end of the day for 12 year-old Alexey (Novikov). He says farewell to the few friends he has at school and takes the long way home through the woods following a river on the outskirts of Moscow. It’s a cold, dreary afternoon yet it’s preferable to what awaits him at home. His parents Zhenya (Spivak) and Boris (Rozin) are separated and engaged in bitter divorce proceedings but to both, the marriage was over long ago. The only difference is now are that they are living separately and they’re also trying to shrug parental responsibilities off on one another. They seem to have no issue vocalizing their mutual belief that having Alexey was a mistake. Their only real concerns seem to be getting their son out of their lives so they can move on with their new spouses and each begin a whole new family obliterating any connection they ever had or made. All this in a country that that is engaged in a war against its own people and against the Ukraine. The destruction of a family with parents at war with one another leaving the child as the innocent victim.
Zhenya returns to her apartment after spending time with her new lover to find Alexey gone and messages from his school stating he had not been there in two days. She calls Boris in an attempt to locate Alexey and after another argument over the phone finally decides to call in the police. After starting to show the smallest amount of concern for Alexey and disgust over the low priority that the police are assigning their son’s case, Zhenya and Boris call in a special volunteer unit specializing in searching for missing persons. While the parents actively participate in searching for their son, they continue to fight and engage in hostilities towards one another showing such selfishness and a blatant disregard for their son’s well being that you begin to wonder how far they can take it.
Although the film isn’t my ‘normal cup of tea’, i’m going to give it 4 out of 5 stars Zvyaginstev has crafted another tragic masterpiece putting ‘Loveless’ almost on par with ‘Leviathan’. The film highlights the lack of empathy displayed by families in modern society. Although the film has a ‘predictability’ given Zvyaginstev’s past work it is beautifully shot and well written. Watching the downward spiral of the family in this film is almost like reading a piece sheet music. It’s ominous. It’s not just name calling and insults … it’s as though it’s being disassembled piece by piece which although dark and bleak is still quite intriguing. I’d personally recommend you catch it in an independent movie theater or a small art house theater. It’s a 2 hour movie so I’d recommend catching it at a small theater.
‘Loveless’ is a 2017 Russian tragedy from noted director Andrey Zvyaginstev and co-written by Zvyaginstev and Oleg Negin. As with Zvyaginstev’s 2014 tragedy ‘Leviathan’, ‘Loveless’ has quickly risen to critical acclaim and already won several accolades including the Jury Prize at 2017 Cannes Film Festival and was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 90th Academy Awards.
‘Loveless’ stars Maryana Spivak, Aleksey Rozin, and Matvey Novikov. It’s the end of the day for 12 year-old Alexey (Novikov). He says farewell to the few friends he has at school and takes the long way home through the woods following a river on the outskirts of Moscow. It’s a cold, dreary afternoon yet it’s preferable to what awaits him at home. His parents Zhenya (Spivak) and Boris (Rozin) are separated and engaged in bitter divorce proceedings but to both, the marriage was over long ago. The only difference is now are that they are living separately and they’re also trying to shrug parental responsibilities off on one another. They seem to have no issue vocalizing their mutual belief that having Alexey was a mistake. Their only real concerns seem to be getting their son out of their lives so they can move on with their new spouses and each begin a whole new family obliterating any connection they ever had or made. All this in a country that that is engaged in a war against its own people and against the Ukraine. The destruction of a family with parents at war with one another leaving the child as the innocent victim.
Zhenya returns to her apartment after spending time with her new lover to find Alexey gone and messages from his school stating he had not been there in two days. She calls Boris in an attempt to locate Alexey and after another argument over the phone finally decides to call in the police. After starting to show the smallest amount of concern for Alexey and disgust over the low priority that the police are assigning their son’s case, Zhenya and Boris call in a special volunteer unit specializing in searching for missing persons. While the parents actively participate in searching for their son, they continue to fight and engage in hostilities towards one another showing such selfishness and a blatant disregard for their son’s well being that you begin to wonder how far they can take it.
Although the film isn’t my ‘normal cup of tea’, i’m going to give it 4 out of 5 stars Zvyaginstev has crafted another tragic masterpiece putting ‘Loveless’ almost on par with ‘Leviathan’. The film highlights the lack of empathy displayed by families in modern society. Although the film has a ‘predictability’ given Zvyaginstev’s past work it is beautifully shot and well written. Watching the downward spiral of the family in this film is almost like reading a piece sheet music. It’s ominous. It’s not just name calling and insults … it’s as though it’s being disassembled piece by piece which although dark and bleak is still quite intriguing. I’d personally recommend you catch it in an independent movie theater or a small art house theater. It’s a 2 hour movie so I’d recommend catching it at a small theater.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Saint Maud (2020) in Movies
Oct 6, 2020
Morfydd Clark - astonishingly good as Maud (1 more)
Expert pacing from debut director Rose Glass
"My Little Saviour": Astonishing Saint Maud delivers psycho-religious chills
Saint Maud is the debut feature from writer/director Rose Glass, and it packs a punch. The film was first seen at last year's London Film Festival, but was due for broader nationwide release soon. What a crushing disappointment it must be for Ms Glass that so few people will likely get to see it in the current climate... at least, not for a while. Since it is an effective little chiller.
Maud (Morfydd Clark) is a palliative nurse looking after ex-choreographer Amanda (Jennifer Ehle). Maud is extremely religious and feels God move in her... regularly. Acting on His guidance, Maud sets out to save the soul of her ailing bohemian charge. But is Amanda beyond reach, and how will the zealot-like Maud react to that rejection?
Morfydd Clark appears so young in this film that you would think this was her debut film. But she's actually 30 years old and has quite an impressive filmography already. Although this is her movie-lead debut, she's had a substantial part alongside Kate Beckinsale in the excellent "Love and Friendship" and smaller parts in "Crawl", "The Personal History of David Copperfield" and the fun "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". She's likely to get more worldwide exposure soon as a young Galadriel in Amazon's new version of "Lord of the Rings".
As Maud she is simply superb - expressing such a range of joy, hurt and despair that you must think a BAFTA Rising Star nomination should be on the cards.
Clark is ably supported in the leading role by the splendid Jennifer Ehle, still so memorable to me as Elizabeth Bennett from the BBC's "Pride and Prejudice".
Scarborough is also a star of "Saint Maud". The Yorkshire seaside town is another star of the movie. Clearly filmed before lockdown, the rainy and windswept resort looks bleak and unwelcoming. And that's before Covid! Many of those struggling bars and amusement centres, as in other resorts all around the UK, are now on their last legs.
Adam Janota Bzowski supplies the impressively claustrophobic music, which deserves recognition. A scene with Maud, flicking a lighter rhythmically in time with the sonorous beat, is a masterpiece in musical choreography and editing (by Mark Towns).
At the heart of this horror-thriller is whether, following a Dawkins-style argument, fervent religious followers are less insightfully correct and more mentally unstable and misguided. When is the voice of God just the voice in your head? And how would you tell the difference anyway? Piecing together the plot and motivations of Maud was intellectually challenging and rewarding.
I always get a little tense and nervous when I see the word "horror" on a movie bill. I am NOT a great horror fan! But for me, as a 'horror movie', "Saint Maud" is of the 'horror-lite' variety. Highly watchable, it builds more in the way of creeping dread than cheap shocks. There were only a couple of jump-scares (but for me, the one in the finale was a doozy!).
A BBC interview with Rose Glass I just saw says she relates Maud's relationship with God as like many people's relationship with social media. Always looking for support, guidance and affirmation. Interesting.
This is also an obviously female-led picture. All the men are complete tools. no, really, literally they are. It makes me feel ashamed to be among their number.
Overall, "Saint Maud" is a minor classic. I didn't go in with great expectations of this one, but I was pleasantly surprised. As a small British movie, it packs a punch significantly above its weight. When I came out I was at about a 7* rating. But this is one that really stayed with me, and I've subconsciously thought about little else all day. So for that reason I am going to escalate my rating to something more appropriate.
You might struggle now to see it on the big screen, but if you can do so, it comes with a recommendation from me. I think this one could REALLY be a "Marmite film".... so if you see it, let me know what you thought with a comment on One Mann's Movies here https://rb.gy/9k93ck . (Thanks).
Maud (Morfydd Clark) is a palliative nurse looking after ex-choreographer Amanda (Jennifer Ehle). Maud is extremely religious and feels God move in her... regularly. Acting on His guidance, Maud sets out to save the soul of her ailing bohemian charge. But is Amanda beyond reach, and how will the zealot-like Maud react to that rejection?
Morfydd Clark appears so young in this film that you would think this was her debut film. But she's actually 30 years old and has quite an impressive filmography already. Although this is her movie-lead debut, she's had a substantial part alongside Kate Beckinsale in the excellent "Love and Friendship" and smaller parts in "Crawl", "The Personal History of David Copperfield" and the fun "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". She's likely to get more worldwide exposure soon as a young Galadriel in Amazon's new version of "Lord of the Rings".
As Maud she is simply superb - expressing such a range of joy, hurt and despair that you must think a BAFTA Rising Star nomination should be on the cards.
Clark is ably supported in the leading role by the splendid Jennifer Ehle, still so memorable to me as Elizabeth Bennett from the BBC's "Pride and Prejudice".
Scarborough is also a star of "Saint Maud". The Yorkshire seaside town is another star of the movie. Clearly filmed before lockdown, the rainy and windswept resort looks bleak and unwelcoming. And that's before Covid! Many of those struggling bars and amusement centres, as in other resorts all around the UK, are now on their last legs.
Adam Janota Bzowski supplies the impressively claustrophobic music, which deserves recognition. A scene with Maud, flicking a lighter rhythmically in time with the sonorous beat, is a masterpiece in musical choreography and editing (by Mark Towns).
At the heart of this horror-thriller is whether, following a Dawkins-style argument, fervent religious followers are less insightfully correct and more mentally unstable and misguided. When is the voice of God just the voice in your head? And how would you tell the difference anyway? Piecing together the plot and motivations of Maud was intellectually challenging and rewarding.
I always get a little tense and nervous when I see the word "horror" on a movie bill. I am NOT a great horror fan! But for me, as a 'horror movie', "Saint Maud" is of the 'horror-lite' variety. Highly watchable, it builds more in the way of creeping dread than cheap shocks. There were only a couple of jump-scares (but for me, the one in the finale was a doozy!).
A BBC interview with Rose Glass I just saw says she relates Maud's relationship with God as like many people's relationship with social media. Always looking for support, guidance and affirmation. Interesting.
This is also an obviously female-led picture. All the men are complete tools. no, really, literally they are. It makes me feel ashamed to be among their number.
Overall, "Saint Maud" is a minor classic. I didn't go in with great expectations of this one, but I was pleasantly surprised. As a small British movie, it packs a punch significantly above its weight. When I came out I was at about a 7* rating. But this is one that really stayed with me, and I've subconsciously thought about little else all day. So for that reason I am going to escalate my rating to something more appropriate.
You might struggle now to see it on the big screen, but if you can do so, it comes with a recommendation from me. I think this one could REALLY be a "Marmite film".... so if you see it, let me know what you thought with a comment on One Mann's Movies here https://rb.gy/9k93ck . (Thanks).
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Let It Go: A Frozen Twisted Tale in Books
Aug 20, 2019
“What if Anna and Elsa never knew each other?”
I did it again! A new shiny twisted tale came out and I let it jump to the top of my TBR pile! I’m weak!
Let It Go is the latest instalment in the twisted tale’s series and explores how Anna and Elsa’s story would play out if a magical accident caused the two sisters to be cursed.
As always, Jen Calonita writes this very well: drip feeding us information by opening the novel on eighteen-year-old Elsa shadowing her parents’ royal duties and preparing to become a leader when she comes of age.
It is quite refreshing for the reader to meet the King and Queen of Arendelle: they didn’t have much depth in the movie but Jen Calonita presents an intimidating yet loving King with his kind and gentle Queen. They are both, however, marred by a melancholy which even Elsa cannot fathom; the Queen in particular has an air of sadness around her and has a habit of taking mysterious day trips, always alone.
Elsa is an adoring daughter and will clearly be a benevolent Queen as she follows in her father’s footsteps. She is, however, lonely and has always pined for someone of her own age for company: she has always wished for a sister. It isn’t until Elsa overhears an argument between her parents that she begins to question the life around her.
Unlike other books in the twisted tale’s franchise we aren’t introduced to any new characters apart from the King and Queen. There are a few servants who have minor roles but no one who has a real impact upon the story. Instead, Let It Go focuses on all the characters we already love: I really liked how Jen Calonita included everybody, even the irritating Duke of Weselton. True to form though, the characters don’t meet quite as they did in the movie. Hans and Olaf meet Elsa first whereas Anna and Kristoff are acquaintances in Anna’s “cursed” life. In truth I preferred Anna and Kristoff’s relationship in this novel as it seemed more realistic, with Kristoff being irritated by Anna’s stubbornness and incessant chatter.
Like I mentioned, Calonita isn’t forthcoming with information regarding the curse and it is only with the help of a certain troll that we learn the details of how Elsa and Anna were parted as well as the severity of the curse that has been placed upon them: if they come too close to each other Elsa’s powers will freeze Anna.
I did appreciate how Calonita didn’t just settle for a storyline that the girls had to be kept apart to avoid further accidents and the impossible, heat-wrenching decision for their parents is beautifully written. I also liked how the curse came about due to the sheer love between the sisters and specifically, Elsa’s defiance to lose their special bond and friendship.
In fact, I loved how the twist is all about the sister’s love for each other: the red herring of true love’s kiss is not even considered.
Unfortunately, my enthusiasm for the book didn’t continue all the way through to the conclusion as the second half seemed to mirror the film a lot. Don’t get me wrong I absolutely loved the little references to the film all the way through the book, as I do with all the twisted tales. However, towards the end Let It Go felt like it was just writing out the movie, with a few characters in different locations. For this reason, I did feel the ending was a little lacklustre.
Overall Let It Go is an enjoyable, easy read. Anna’s flashbacks provide an insight into the childhood of the princesses that we don’t get in the film and my favourite, Olaf, plays a more important role than that of dismembered tour guide. For me, the second half of the book was not as gripping and more of a retelling of the film but it is still a good addition to the twisted tale franchise.
I did it again! A new shiny twisted tale came out and I let it jump to the top of my TBR pile! I’m weak!
Let It Go is the latest instalment in the twisted tale’s series and explores how Anna and Elsa’s story would play out if a magical accident caused the two sisters to be cursed.
As always, Jen Calonita writes this very well: drip feeding us information by opening the novel on eighteen-year-old Elsa shadowing her parents’ royal duties and preparing to become a leader when she comes of age.
It is quite refreshing for the reader to meet the King and Queen of Arendelle: they didn’t have much depth in the movie but Jen Calonita presents an intimidating yet loving King with his kind and gentle Queen. They are both, however, marred by a melancholy which even Elsa cannot fathom; the Queen in particular has an air of sadness around her and has a habit of taking mysterious day trips, always alone.
Elsa is an adoring daughter and will clearly be a benevolent Queen as she follows in her father’s footsteps. She is, however, lonely and has always pined for someone of her own age for company: she has always wished for a sister. It isn’t until Elsa overhears an argument between her parents that she begins to question the life around her.
Unlike other books in the twisted tale’s franchise we aren’t introduced to any new characters apart from the King and Queen. There are a few servants who have minor roles but no one who has a real impact upon the story. Instead, Let It Go focuses on all the characters we already love: I really liked how Jen Calonita included everybody, even the irritating Duke of Weselton. True to form though, the characters don’t meet quite as they did in the movie. Hans and Olaf meet Elsa first whereas Anna and Kristoff are acquaintances in Anna’s “cursed” life. In truth I preferred Anna and Kristoff’s relationship in this novel as it seemed more realistic, with Kristoff being irritated by Anna’s stubbornness and incessant chatter.
Like I mentioned, Calonita isn’t forthcoming with information regarding the curse and it is only with the help of a certain troll that we learn the details of how Elsa and Anna were parted as well as the severity of the curse that has been placed upon them: if they come too close to each other Elsa’s powers will freeze Anna.
I did appreciate how Calonita didn’t just settle for a storyline that the girls had to be kept apart to avoid further accidents and the impossible, heat-wrenching decision for their parents is beautifully written. I also liked how the curse came about due to the sheer love between the sisters and specifically, Elsa’s defiance to lose their special bond and friendship.
In fact, I loved how the twist is all about the sister’s love for each other: the red herring of true love’s kiss is not even considered.
Unfortunately, my enthusiasm for the book didn’t continue all the way through to the conclusion as the second half seemed to mirror the film a lot. Don’t get me wrong I absolutely loved the little references to the film all the way through the book, as I do with all the twisted tales. However, towards the end Let It Go felt like it was just writing out the movie, with a few characters in different locations. For this reason, I did feel the ending was a little lacklustre.
Overall Let It Go is an enjoyable, easy read. Anna’s flashbacks provide an insight into the childhood of the princesses that we don’t get in the film and my favourite, Olaf, plays a more important role than that of dismembered tour guide. For me, the second half of the book was not as gripping and more of a retelling of the film but it is still a good addition to the twisted tale franchise.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Just My Luck in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://i1.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-47.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
<b><i>What would you do if you win the lottery?</i></b>
What happens when a person suddenly has a chance to be rich? Just My Luck by Adele Parks is a brutal book about bad luck, betrayals, friendships and most importantly – how life can change in just one moment.
For fifteen years, Lexi and Jake have played the same six numbers with their friends. Over dinners, they have discussed many important things over the years: kids, marriages, houses and jobs… But one Saturday night, there is an argument in the group. Someone is lying. And then, six numbers come up on the lottery that are about to change everything.
Lexi and Jake have the winning ticket for almost £18 million. And their friends want their share in it…
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
I dived into this book completely unprepared. I only knew that someone wins the lottery, but I wasn’t too familiar with the synopsis. And trust me – it was better for me to explore it all throughout the book.
We follow the story mostly focused on Lexi’s point of view, however, we also get a glimpse of other people’s stories as well, which I think for me was refreshing and kept the pace moving in a nice manner.
Not only do we meet different characters in this book, but we also meet different personalities, with different motivations, dreams and life goals. When Lexi and Jake realised they have won the lottery, they both behave in a very different way.
Lexi is the one that wants to keep things as normal as they are, plan for their future, have small luxuries and then keep the rest of the money mostly as savings, and donate some of it to charity and try to help other people.
Jake, on the other side, wants to enjoy the money they won, and spend it on a new house, new car, be part of the upper class and hire driver services for his children, when they move to a private school.
The relationship between Lexi and Jake will begin to change, as they both will change during this period. This book is a perfect summary of what money may actually do to people and relationships, and how it may help them or destroy them completely.
I loved the drama where the friends were involved as well, also when the children played their part as well into the whole situation. It is crazy to see how easily children can be manipulated by words and wealth too, in their own little worlds.
I really wished I have seen more of Toma’s story and point of view, and had a proper closure to his chapter. His story was definitely my favorite one for sure!
<b><i>If you are a fan of thrillers and drama, you will definitely enjoy this book. It will keep you on the edge until the very last chapter. And that last chapter will change everything! Let me know once you’ve read it, because I am dying to talk to someone about that last revelation!</i></b>
I am extremely lucky to be part of the blog tour organised by the amazing team at HQ! Thank you for this opportunity, and thank you for sending me this book in exchange for my review! Check out the other amazing participants of this blog tour as well:
<img src="https://i1.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/JUST-MY-LUCK-BTB.jpg?resize=594%2C1536&ssl=1"/>;
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://i1.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-47.png?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1"/>;
<b><i>What would you do if you win the lottery?</i></b>
What happens when a person suddenly has a chance to be rich? Just My Luck by Adele Parks is a brutal book about bad luck, betrayals, friendships and most importantly – how life can change in just one moment.
For fifteen years, Lexi and Jake have played the same six numbers with their friends. Over dinners, they have discussed many important things over the years: kids, marriages, houses and jobs… But one Saturday night, there is an argument in the group. Someone is lying. And then, six numbers come up on the lottery that are about to change everything.
Lexi and Jake have the winning ticket for almost £18 million. And their friends want their share in it…
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
I dived into this book completely unprepared. I only knew that someone wins the lottery, but I wasn’t too familiar with the synopsis. And trust me – it was better for me to explore it all throughout the book.
We follow the story mostly focused on Lexi’s point of view, however, we also get a glimpse of other people’s stories as well, which I think for me was refreshing and kept the pace moving in a nice manner.
Not only do we meet different characters in this book, but we also meet different personalities, with different motivations, dreams and life goals. When Lexi and Jake realised they have won the lottery, they both behave in a very different way.
Lexi is the one that wants to keep things as normal as they are, plan for their future, have small luxuries and then keep the rest of the money mostly as savings, and donate some of it to charity and try to help other people.
Jake, on the other side, wants to enjoy the money they won, and spend it on a new house, new car, be part of the upper class and hire driver services for his children, when they move to a private school.
The relationship between Lexi and Jake will begin to change, as they both will change during this period. This book is a perfect summary of what money may actually do to people and relationships, and how it may help them or destroy them completely.
I loved the drama where the friends were involved as well, also when the children played their part as well into the whole situation. It is crazy to see how easily children can be manipulated by words and wealth too, in their own little worlds.
I really wished I have seen more of Toma’s story and point of view, and had a proper closure to his chapter. His story was definitely my favorite one for sure!
<b><i>If you are a fan of thrillers and drama, you will definitely enjoy this book. It will keep you on the edge until the very last chapter. And that last chapter will change everything! Let me know once you’ve read it, because I am dying to talk to someone about that last revelation!</i></b>
I am extremely lucky to be part of the blog tour organised by the amazing team at HQ! Thank you for this opportunity, and thank you for sending me this book in exchange for my review! Check out the other amazing participants of this blog tour as well:
<img src="https://i1.wp.com/diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/JUST-MY-LUCK-BTB.jpg?resize=594%2C1536&ssl=1"/>;
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;