Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Groupers (2019) in Movies
Sep 26, 2019
Greetings & Salutations Fellow Movie Fanatics!
It’s not often I see a film that is so good in my opinion, I actually look forward to writing about it and letting you folks know what’s what. In all honesty though, I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m the last person to see it. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that I have not heard or read anything about this movie already. How they managed to put everything together and create a film like this where the runtime is just a 1 hour and 49 minutes is beyond my comprehension. Yes, I said JUST and 1 and 49 minutes. Now that might seem a tad long on the tooth as far as movies go but once you watch it, I think you’ll understand my perception of it. I don’t think my review will do the movie justice but I want to tell you folks about in the hopes that you’ll immediately seek out a means of watching it.
‘Groupers’ is a dramatic comedy film written/directed by Anderson Cowan and stars Nicole Dambro, Jesse Pudles, Cameron Duckett, Peter Mayer-Klepchick, Max Reed III, Brian Loakimedes, Terrance Wentz, Travis Stanberry, Marqus Bobesich, Edward Jackson, Kaleb Rich-Harris, Mike Carano, Robin S. Roth, Laurence Scott Murphy, and Travis Lee Elder.
Orin (Pudles) is a high school student who is dealing with what has become unfortunately an all too common occurrence in schools and colleges today. He is a young person who faces ridicule and bullying because he is gay. The source of the majority of this harassment are two of his fellow students, best friends Brad (Mayer-Klepchick) and Dylan (Duckett). Fast forward to a night when Brad and Dylan decide roll with their over-inflated egos make the rounds at a bar or two and engage in some underage drinking and attempt to impress a fellow female patron or two. Just as the two jocks are beginning to get plastered they’re approached by Meg (Dambro). It doesn’t take much convincing at this point, Meg invites them to come with her and somehow they manage to follow her out of the back of the bar where they are more or less thrown into the back of a van (they pretty much threw themselves in the van). Already this is turning into something that sound like a ‘scary urban legend kind of movie’ right? Not even fully grasping the situation they’re in, Brad and Dylan get psyched up at the supposed prospect of engaging in unnatural activities when fumes engulf the inside of the van and the two jocks are knocked out cold. Several hours later, Brad and Dylan regain consciousness to find themselves restrained at the bottom of an empty pool. Meg, the girl from the bar, is actually a grad student and explains that the two of them are now part of a social experiment and implies that their lives depend on participating in the experiment regardless of the results. What follows is a downward spiral of lies, revenge, more than one close call with death, and an unforeseen series unforeseen guests that turn the tables on the participants in the experiment but each other as well.
The as the film progresses, it becomes vendetta driven. The seriously comedic aspects don’t start until at least a third of the way in unless you count the idiotic behavior of Brad and Dylan. At that point, the humor is driven by the unforeseen circumstances that Meg could not possibly have anticipated nor would anyone who appeared to prepare for this so thoroughly. The fact is the experiment should have progressed as she planned regardless of the outcome. All in all, this is one of the best films I’ve seen all year. I’d actually go so far as to say it’s in the top 5 and will remain there I can guarantee that. The film is similar to that of movies like ‘Pulp Fiction’ in the sense that it progresses backwards in relation to certain events and then jumps back into the present. It is NOT difficult to follow though. The premise of the film is one of the most original I’ve seen in a while. Note how the cast managed to make such an awesome film considering most of it takes place in a derelict house with an empty pool. Nothing is overshadowed in the film either. You have a movie that manages to encompass serious subject matter one minute and the next minute you can’t help but laugh and again neither overshadows the other. The cast? Absolutely awesome! They should be absolutely proud of this film and what they’ve accomplished with it. They should certainly consider ‘getting the band back together’ for other projects too. I’d go so far as to say the film deserves a theater release for sure. Nicole Dambro ‘Meg’ is most certainly a talent movie viewers should look out for. Her character’s presence commands such attention from the other characters while she herself commands the attention of the audience. The film has drugs and alcohol plus questionable dialogue and language plus some nudity so definitely NOT one for young folks. As I mention earlier, it’s a bit long on the tooth timewise at 1 hour and 49 minutes but it’s SO worth it. Just make sure you get drinks and snacks prior to the movie. I’m going to go ahead and rate this one 5 out of 5 stars. Give some real thought to seeing ‘Groupers’ . Trust me on this one
It’s not often I see a film that is so good in my opinion, I actually look forward to writing about it and letting you folks know what’s what. In all honesty though, I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m the last person to see it. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that I have not heard or read anything about this movie already. How they managed to put everything together and create a film like this where the runtime is just a 1 hour and 49 minutes is beyond my comprehension. Yes, I said JUST and 1 and 49 minutes. Now that might seem a tad long on the tooth as far as movies go but once you watch it, I think you’ll understand my perception of it. I don’t think my review will do the movie justice but I want to tell you folks about in the hopes that you’ll immediately seek out a means of watching it.
‘Groupers’ is a dramatic comedy film written/directed by Anderson Cowan and stars Nicole Dambro, Jesse Pudles, Cameron Duckett, Peter Mayer-Klepchick, Max Reed III, Brian Loakimedes, Terrance Wentz, Travis Stanberry, Marqus Bobesich, Edward Jackson, Kaleb Rich-Harris, Mike Carano, Robin S. Roth, Laurence Scott Murphy, and Travis Lee Elder.
Orin (Pudles) is a high school student who is dealing with what has become unfortunately an all too common occurrence in schools and colleges today. He is a young person who faces ridicule and bullying because he is gay. The source of the majority of this harassment are two of his fellow students, best friends Brad (Mayer-Klepchick) and Dylan (Duckett). Fast forward to a night when Brad and Dylan decide roll with their over-inflated egos make the rounds at a bar or two and engage in some underage drinking and attempt to impress a fellow female patron or two. Just as the two jocks are beginning to get plastered they’re approached by Meg (Dambro). It doesn’t take much convincing at this point, Meg invites them to come with her and somehow they manage to follow her out of the back of the bar where they are more or less thrown into the back of a van (they pretty much threw themselves in the van). Already this is turning into something that sound like a ‘scary urban legend kind of movie’ right? Not even fully grasping the situation they’re in, Brad and Dylan get psyched up at the supposed prospect of engaging in unnatural activities when fumes engulf the inside of the van and the two jocks are knocked out cold. Several hours later, Brad and Dylan regain consciousness to find themselves restrained at the bottom of an empty pool. Meg, the girl from the bar, is actually a grad student and explains that the two of them are now part of a social experiment and implies that their lives depend on participating in the experiment regardless of the results. What follows is a downward spiral of lies, revenge, more than one close call with death, and an unforeseen series unforeseen guests that turn the tables on the participants in the experiment but each other as well.
The as the film progresses, it becomes vendetta driven. The seriously comedic aspects don’t start until at least a third of the way in unless you count the idiotic behavior of Brad and Dylan. At that point, the humor is driven by the unforeseen circumstances that Meg could not possibly have anticipated nor would anyone who appeared to prepare for this so thoroughly. The fact is the experiment should have progressed as she planned regardless of the outcome. All in all, this is one of the best films I’ve seen all year. I’d actually go so far as to say it’s in the top 5 and will remain there I can guarantee that. The film is similar to that of movies like ‘Pulp Fiction’ in the sense that it progresses backwards in relation to certain events and then jumps back into the present. It is NOT difficult to follow though. The premise of the film is one of the most original I’ve seen in a while. Note how the cast managed to make such an awesome film considering most of it takes place in a derelict house with an empty pool. Nothing is overshadowed in the film either. You have a movie that manages to encompass serious subject matter one minute and the next minute you can’t help but laugh and again neither overshadows the other. The cast? Absolutely awesome! They should be absolutely proud of this film and what they’ve accomplished with it. They should certainly consider ‘getting the band back together’ for other projects too. I’d go so far as to say the film deserves a theater release for sure. Nicole Dambro ‘Meg’ is most certainly a talent movie viewers should look out for. Her character’s presence commands such attention from the other characters while she herself commands the attention of the audience. The film has drugs and alcohol plus questionable dialogue and language plus some nudity so definitely NOT one for young folks. As I mention earlier, it’s a bit long on the tooth timewise at 1 hour and 49 minutes but it’s SO worth it. Just make sure you get drinks and snacks prior to the movie. I’m going to go ahead and rate this one 5 out of 5 stars. Give some real thought to seeing ‘Groupers’ . Trust me on this one
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Little Miss Sunshine (2006) in Movies
Mar 24, 2021
Adorably heartwarming
Film #17 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Little Miss Sunshine
Little Miss Sunshine is a quirky gem of an indie film from 2006 that whilst a favourite of mine and Oscar nominated, has likely flown below the radar for many mainstream viewers. Which is a huge shame as this is such a fun, heartwarming and enjoyable film
Directed by husband and wife team Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, Little Miss Sunshine follows the life of the dysfunctional Hoover family from New Mexico. The Hoovers are a family of unfortunates, misfits and losers, and probably one of the most realistic family depictions you’ll ever seen on screen outside of reality TV. There’s Sheryl (Toni Collette), the harassed mum who keeps her family fed on fast food. Dad Richard (Greg Kinnear) who’s trying to peddle a failing business that focuses on teaching others the secrets to success. Grandpa Edwin (Alan Arkin), an ageing hippie with a drug habit that has been kicked out of his retirement home. Sheryl’s brother Frank (Steve Carell), a gay man currently recovering from a suicide attempt after his partner left him. Son Duane (Paul Dano) who’s goal to get into flight school has led him to take a vow of silence. And finally there’s young daughter Olive (Abigail Breslin), who’s obsession with beauty pageants leads the family to take a cross country trip in an ageing VW van to help her compete in the Little Miss Sunshine pageant. Along the way, the family encounter a variety of mishaps and events that can potentially change their lives.
The Hoover family for the most part are ridiculously lovable and this is entirely down to their flaws that they are so likeable. Aside from Dad Richard who has a number of questionable ethics and morals that demean others, the family and their unique quirky personalities are the main reason why this film is so enjoyable. And the fact that the entire family are all brought together by young Olive across the span of the film makes this incredibly heartwarming. Olive is an underdog and being realistic, not the type of girl who you’d see in your typical American beauty pageant, but you still find yourself rooting for her all the same.
The cast are fantastic and while you can always rely on Toni Collette, Alan Arkin and Greg Kinnear, it’s Steve Carell and Abigail Breslin that shine brightest. Until this, I didn’t think Steve Carell could do serious and especially not a role that like. But he excels, bringing a sad, intelligent air to Frank and personally I think this is his best role to date. And then there’s Abigail Breslin, a 9 year old who steals the show and pulls the entire cast and film together. Together with a clever, well written script, the cast pull together a heartwarming and surprisingly funny film where emotions and family are key to an eventful road trip.
What I enjoyed the most about Little Miss Sunshine is that while the journey the family take is obviously most important, we do at least get the joy of seeing Olive enter the beauty pageant and this is such a fitting end to the story. There may be some slightly unbelievable or predictable events that occur across the journey (the police traffic stop being one), but ultimately you come out of this feeling incredibly satisfied and rather warm and fuzzy inside. One of the most enjoyable family road trip movies I’ve ever seen.
Little Miss Sunshine is a quirky gem of an indie film from 2006 that whilst a favourite of mine and Oscar nominated, has likely flown below the radar for many mainstream viewers. Which is a huge shame as this is such a fun, heartwarming and enjoyable film
Directed by husband and wife team Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, Little Miss Sunshine follows the life of the dysfunctional Hoover family from New Mexico. The Hoovers are a family of unfortunates, misfits and losers, and probably one of the most realistic family depictions you’ll ever seen on screen outside of reality TV. There’s Sheryl (Toni Collette), the harassed mum who keeps her family fed on fast food. Dad Richard (Greg Kinnear) who’s trying to peddle a failing business that focuses on teaching others the secrets to success. Grandpa Edwin (Alan Arkin), an ageing hippie with a drug habit that has been kicked out of his retirement home. Sheryl’s brother Frank (Steve Carell), a gay man currently recovering from a suicide attempt after his partner left him. Son Duane (Paul Dano) who’s goal to get into flight school has led him to take a vow of silence. And finally there’s young daughter Olive (Abigail Breslin), who’s obsession with beauty pageants leads the family to take a cross country trip in an ageing VW van to help her compete in the Little Miss Sunshine pageant. Along the way, the family encounter a variety of mishaps and events that can potentially change their lives.
The Hoover family for the most part are ridiculously lovable and this is entirely down to their flaws that they are so likeable. Aside from Dad Richard who has a number of questionable ethics and morals that demean others, the family and their unique quirky personalities are the main reason why this film is so enjoyable. And the fact that the entire family are all brought together by young Olive across the span of the film makes this incredibly heartwarming. Olive is an underdog and being realistic, not the type of girl who you’d see in your typical American beauty pageant, but you still find yourself rooting for her all the same.
The cast are fantastic and while you can always rely on Toni Collette, Alan Arkin and Greg Kinnear, it’s Steve Carell and Abigail Breslin that shine brightest. Until this, I didn’t think Steve Carell could do serious and especially not a role that like. But he excels, bringing a sad, intelligent air to Frank and personally I think this is his best role to date. And then there’s Abigail Breslin, a 9 year old who steals the show and pulls the entire cast and film together. Together with a clever, well written script, the cast pull together a heartwarming and surprisingly funny film where emotions and family are key to an eventful road trip.
What I enjoyed the most about Little Miss Sunshine is that while the journey the family take is obviously most important, we do at least get the joy of seeing Olive enter the beauty pageant and this is such a fitting end to the story. There may be some slightly unbelievable or predictable events that occur across the journey (the police traffic stop being one), but ultimately you come out of this feeling incredibly satisfied and rather warm and fuzzy inside. One of the most enjoyable family road trip movies I’ve ever seen.
HerCrazyReviews (247 KP) rated Rent: The Complete Book and Lyrics of the Broadway Musical in Books
Aug 24, 2019
AIDs Representation (1 more)
LGBTQIA+ Representation
Great Representation, Horrible Characters
I have never seen the musical Rent nor have I ever seen the movie (though I heard it is not as good and different from the musical). Therefore, my rating is based solely on this book and because of that, I may not be able to understand or enjoy it as much as I would have if I had watched the movie or musical first.
First off, I loved that the book (or rather, musical) was set during the AIDS crisis and showed LGBTQIA+ representation. I think that is fantastic because (a.) we are lacking in our current day representation of LGBTQIA+ characters (though, we are slowly beginning to have this become the norm.) and (b.) the AIDS crisis was not a good time in history. The American government was not doing much to help with this crisis and seemed to sort of sweep it aside. Now, I was not alive during the beginning of this crisis and therefore have learned from sources and not with my own experiences, but not much was being done and this was mostly because this was originally considered a “gay disease” and, sadly, people in the past have not treated the LGBTQIA+ community with the respect they deserve. Instead, because this was considered a “gay disease” it was considered unimportant and therefore the AIDS epidemic was ignored. Luckily, today we have better people who are trying their best to find a cure.
Second, while I extremely enjoyed the representation and awareness this book (or musical) brought I did not enjoy most of the characters. While I do believe that characters should have flaws (after all no one is perfect and that is part of what make us human) I did not appreciate the way the characters in the book seemed to make excuses. Especially the fact that they used others difficulties to try and better themselves. Not to mention, most of the characters seemed to accentuate their poorness and use it as a way to better themselves. One scene that really got to me was when Mark was starting to film a homeless person. He did save them from the police but even they said “My life’s not for you to make a name for yourself on” and “Hey artist you gotta dollar? I thought not,” (Pg.38). It literally stated that these people who claim themselves to be “artists” use this as an excuse to exploit others.
Another huge part of what I did not appreciate about this book would be the harmful relationship that most of the characters seem to be in. Most of these relationships seemed too toxic and seemed to revolve around awful and sometimes disgusting circumstances.
Maureen (Cheater) + Joanne = 💔
Maureen and Joanne were repeatedly arguing, breaking it off, then getting back together. Now, that alone already seems like it’s not a healthy foundation for any relationship but then we find out that Maureen is a HUGE cheater. Mark himself told Joanne that she used to cheat on him when they were together and even had a bit of evidence that she was doing it again.
Roger (Past Drug Addict) + Mimi (Drug User) = 💔
Now, Roger is one of the many characters in this musical to have AIDS and because he is a past drug user we can infer that he got AIDS from drugs, or from his ex-girlfriend. Anyway, his goal before he dies from AIDS is to write one last song so that his life could mean something. To make sure that his life was worth it (to have glory), and I actually admire him for that. Lots of people would give up and I think it’s amazing that he wants to continue to try to make his life worth living. However, Mimi comes in and started to spark a flame (or light a candle) with Roger. There’s just one problem. Mimi is a drug user. Plus, it seems like she is trying to get Roger to get back on drugs. Definitely not something a healthy and loving relationship would have.
Benny (At least 30yrs.) + Mimi (Younger than 19) = 💔
Now, this has to be the most disgusting relationship in the book. While I don’t mind couples having age differences I am one-hundred percent NOT behind underage people dating men who are at least thirty, if not forty, years old. This was revealed when we got told that Mimi use to date Benny before she met Roger. Mimi was nineteen when she met Roger and if she had a prior relationship with Benny she was most likely eighteen or under.
Finally, I wasn’t very happy with the ending of the book. Mimi’s sort-of “death” scene just wasn’t my thing. It seemed to be that the situation as a whole seemed too excessive. She was dead, then she was back, then she was dead again, and she managed to come back because Angel told her too. While Mimi is a main character and main character deaths are extremely sad this story was supposed to make people more aware of AIDS and it just seemed to be too fanciful for me. This is an extremely deadly disease and just because someone told you that it was not your time to die yet does not mean that you are not going to yet pass. However, this is fiction and this does happen.
Would I Recommend? No. I really enjoyed the representation this showed within the LGBTQIA+ community and the awareness it would bring to people about the AIDS crisis, but I thought the story itself was bad. The characters, in my opinion, were not written well and I especially did not enjoy their actions or choices.
First off, I loved that the book (or rather, musical) was set during the AIDS crisis and showed LGBTQIA+ representation. I think that is fantastic because (a.) we are lacking in our current day representation of LGBTQIA+ characters (though, we are slowly beginning to have this become the norm.) and (b.) the AIDS crisis was not a good time in history. The American government was not doing much to help with this crisis and seemed to sort of sweep it aside. Now, I was not alive during the beginning of this crisis and therefore have learned from sources and not with my own experiences, but not much was being done and this was mostly because this was originally considered a “gay disease” and, sadly, people in the past have not treated the LGBTQIA+ community with the respect they deserve. Instead, because this was considered a “gay disease” it was considered unimportant and therefore the AIDS epidemic was ignored. Luckily, today we have better people who are trying their best to find a cure.
Second, while I extremely enjoyed the representation and awareness this book (or musical) brought I did not enjoy most of the characters. While I do believe that characters should have flaws (after all no one is perfect and that is part of what make us human) I did not appreciate the way the characters in the book seemed to make excuses. Especially the fact that they used others difficulties to try and better themselves. Not to mention, most of the characters seemed to accentuate their poorness and use it as a way to better themselves. One scene that really got to me was when Mark was starting to film a homeless person. He did save them from the police but even they said “My life’s not for you to make a name for yourself on” and “Hey artist you gotta dollar? I thought not,” (Pg.38). It literally stated that these people who claim themselves to be “artists” use this as an excuse to exploit others.
Another huge part of what I did not appreciate about this book would be the harmful relationship that most of the characters seem to be in. Most of these relationships seemed too toxic and seemed to revolve around awful and sometimes disgusting circumstances.
Maureen (Cheater) + Joanne = 💔
Maureen and Joanne were repeatedly arguing, breaking it off, then getting back together. Now, that alone already seems like it’s not a healthy foundation for any relationship but then we find out that Maureen is a HUGE cheater. Mark himself told Joanne that she used to cheat on him when they were together and even had a bit of evidence that she was doing it again.
Roger (Past Drug Addict) + Mimi (Drug User) = 💔
Now, Roger is one of the many characters in this musical to have AIDS and because he is a past drug user we can infer that he got AIDS from drugs, or from his ex-girlfriend. Anyway, his goal before he dies from AIDS is to write one last song so that his life could mean something. To make sure that his life was worth it (to have glory), and I actually admire him for that. Lots of people would give up and I think it’s amazing that he wants to continue to try to make his life worth living. However, Mimi comes in and started to spark a flame (or light a candle) with Roger. There’s just one problem. Mimi is a drug user. Plus, it seems like she is trying to get Roger to get back on drugs. Definitely not something a healthy and loving relationship would have.
Benny (At least 30yrs.) + Mimi (Younger than 19) = 💔
Now, this has to be the most disgusting relationship in the book. While I don’t mind couples having age differences I am one-hundred percent NOT behind underage people dating men who are at least thirty, if not forty, years old. This was revealed when we got told that Mimi use to date Benny before she met Roger. Mimi was nineteen when she met Roger and if she had a prior relationship with Benny she was most likely eighteen or under.
Finally, I wasn’t very happy with the ending of the book. Mimi’s sort-of “death” scene just wasn’t my thing. It seemed to be that the situation as a whole seemed too excessive. She was dead, then she was back, then she was dead again, and she managed to come back because Angel told her too. While Mimi is a main character and main character deaths are extremely sad this story was supposed to make people more aware of AIDS and it just seemed to be too fanciful for me. This is an extremely deadly disease and just because someone told you that it was not your time to die yet does not mean that you are not going to yet pass. However, this is fiction and this does happen.
Would I Recommend? No. I really enjoyed the representation this showed within the LGBTQIA+ community and the awareness it would bring to people about the AIDS crisis, but I thought the story itself was bad. The characters, in my opinion, were not written well and I especially did not enjoy their actions or choices.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Wound (2017) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Story: The Wound starts when factory worker Xolani (Toure) returns to his community outside of Joburg to help with the initiation process of the teenage boys to manhood, he teenager Kwanda (Jay) is a family friend, which is meant to help the process for the teenager.
Xolani gets to see his own secret lover Vija (Mantsai) who is also performing an initiation, but the two men get to return to their forbidden ways. As the initiation continues Kwanda must learn just what this means to the other young men, as Xolani must keep his own secret from everybody else.
Thoughts on The Wound
Characters – Xolani is a factory worker who knows his roots through an initiation process for teenagers to become men, he has returned to be a ‘caregiver’ to his initiate, he gets to rekindle a forbidden love with a married man, which they must keep secret, even if this is the highlight of his life. Vija is a married man who is also a ‘caregiver’, he is much stricter than Xolani and is a lover of his, he knows just how forbidden their love is and will go after anyone who gets in their way. Kwanda is a rich kid that is going through this initiation, he does question the process which puts his position in danger.
Performances – Nakhane Toure is wonderful in the leading role, showing us the commitment to his character has for this love. Bongile Mantsai and Niza Jay in the supporting roles are both brilliant too, which is a completely well acted film throughout.
Story – The story here shows an initiation being performed on teenager boys as they become young men, it takes them away from their family’s and leaves them in the care of a man known as a ‘caregiver’ who helps heal the wound, we have two caregivers that are involved in a gay relationship, which they can only have on these events who have very different lives away from the initiation. This does show us how a culture treats their young men, which shouldn’t be a practised in this modern world. we do get to deal with forbidden romance, in a culture that doesn’t accept homosexual relationships. By having two major world issues going on, it shows us how the country is just as happy to sweep them under the rug, rather than learn to accept them, which is interesting to see,
Romance – The romance side of the story shows the love two men can have, only for a short time, only if nobody else knows, in a culture that isn’t ready to accept them.
Settings – The film is set in a mountain range in South Africa, this location is where the people go every year for the initiation.
Scene of the Movie – Mountain top.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Its not an easy subject matter when you look at the initiation process.
Final Thoughts – This is a very interesting movie showing us how forbidden love between two men can be in a culture that still practises a form of gender mutilation.
Overall: Culture shock.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/24/abc-film-challenge-world-cinema-x-the-wound-2017/
Xolani gets to see his own secret lover Vija (Mantsai) who is also performing an initiation, but the two men get to return to their forbidden ways. As the initiation continues Kwanda must learn just what this means to the other young men, as Xolani must keep his own secret from everybody else.
Thoughts on The Wound
Characters – Xolani is a factory worker who knows his roots through an initiation process for teenagers to become men, he has returned to be a ‘caregiver’ to his initiate, he gets to rekindle a forbidden love with a married man, which they must keep secret, even if this is the highlight of his life. Vija is a married man who is also a ‘caregiver’, he is much stricter than Xolani and is a lover of his, he knows just how forbidden their love is and will go after anyone who gets in their way. Kwanda is a rich kid that is going through this initiation, he does question the process which puts his position in danger.
Performances – Nakhane Toure is wonderful in the leading role, showing us the commitment to his character has for this love. Bongile Mantsai and Niza Jay in the supporting roles are both brilliant too, which is a completely well acted film throughout.
Story – The story here shows an initiation being performed on teenager boys as they become young men, it takes them away from their family’s and leaves them in the care of a man known as a ‘caregiver’ who helps heal the wound, we have two caregivers that are involved in a gay relationship, which they can only have on these events who have very different lives away from the initiation. This does show us how a culture treats their young men, which shouldn’t be a practised in this modern world. we do get to deal with forbidden romance, in a culture that doesn’t accept homosexual relationships. By having two major world issues going on, it shows us how the country is just as happy to sweep them under the rug, rather than learn to accept them, which is interesting to see,
Romance – The romance side of the story shows the love two men can have, only for a short time, only if nobody else knows, in a culture that isn’t ready to accept them.
Settings – The film is set in a mountain range in South Africa, this location is where the people go every year for the initiation.
Scene of the Movie – Mountain top.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Its not an easy subject matter when you look at the initiation process.
Final Thoughts – This is a very interesting movie showing us how forbidden love between two men can be in a culture that still practises a form of gender mutilation.
Overall: Culture shock.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/24/abc-film-challenge-world-cinema-x-the-wound-2017/
ClareR (5879 KP) rated The Intoxicating Mr Lavelle in Books
Apr 9, 2021
The Intoxicating Mr Lavelle rather intoxicated me, if I’m honest. It’s one of those witty yet heart-rending books that I didn’t want to stop listening to.
Ben Aldridge, the narrator, did his part so well. I believed that he was each of the separate characters - he made each of them sound so different, and he especially made Lavelle sound just how I would have imagined him to.
Two brothers, Benjamin and Edgar are on what is probably the most exciting and daunting trip of their young lives - a Grand Tour of Europe. It was what all the well-heeled young men and women would do at the time, in the hope that they’d make good business and, you never know, romantic connections. However, it quickly becomes apparent that the Bowen brothers are looked down on as being of the mercantile class. This horrified me as a modern day reader. Firstly, that two sheltered, innocent boys should be sent out to travel across Europe alone (must be the ‘Mother of Sons’ in me), secondly, that the upper classes were so bloody rude! They had the power to destroy someone with just a word. I could have scooped these boys up and taken them home, just to remove them from these horrendous people.
This is also the story of Benjamin’s self discovery. He meets and falls in love with Horace Lavelle at a time when men could be hanged as a ‘sodomite’. The author is upfront at the start that he had taken some liberties with this book. Homosexuality was illegal. No-one would take a chance of showing that they were gay. And there is that element of danger, of being found out, in this book despite those liberties.
But it’s such a lovely book - I wanted Benjamin to be happy, and I could see the potential for a train wreck ahead. And that’s all I’ll say! What I will say, is that this is a novel well worth your time!
Ben Aldridge, the narrator, did his part so well. I believed that he was each of the separate characters - he made each of them sound so different, and he especially made Lavelle sound just how I would have imagined him to.
Two brothers, Benjamin and Edgar are on what is probably the most exciting and daunting trip of their young lives - a Grand Tour of Europe. It was what all the well-heeled young men and women would do at the time, in the hope that they’d make good business and, you never know, romantic connections. However, it quickly becomes apparent that the Bowen brothers are looked down on as being of the mercantile class. This horrified me as a modern day reader. Firstly, that two sheltered, innocent boys should be sent out to travel across Europe alone (must be the ‘Mother of Sons’ in me), secondly, that the upper classes were so bloody rude! They had the power to destroy someone with just a word. I could have scooped these boys up and taken them home, just to remove them from these horrendous people.
This is also the story of Benjamin’s self discovery. He meets and falls in love with Horace Lavelle at a time when men could be hanged as a ‘sodomite’. The author is upfront at the start that he had taken some liberties with this book. Homosexuality was illegal. No-one would take a chance of showing that they were gay. And there is that element of danger, of being found out, in this book despite those liberties.
But it’s such a lovely book - I wanted Benjamin to be happy, and I could see the potential for a train wreck ahead. And that’s all I’ll say! What I will say, is that this is a novel well worth your time!
Debbiereadsbook (1441 KP) rated Married to the Vampire King (Blood Bonded Mates #2) in Books
May 6, 2024
longer, but so much better than book one!!
Independent reviewer for Gay Romance Reviews, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This is book 2 in the Blood Bonded Mates series. While not strictly necessary to read book one, Snowed In With The Vampire Prince, it will give you a better understanding of Pierce and James who play a huge part here. And you know, it was rather good! I thoroughly enjoyed that book. But this book??
Freaking LOVED this book!
Ethan is a with without any gifts. Nathaniel is the reigning Vampire King. The witches and vampires will kill each other, if Ethan doesn't do something, and that something is marry Nathaniel. The mirror told him so. What could possibly go wrong?? Well, turns out, feelings could get involved!
What I especially liked was how Ethan's secrets, and Nathaniel's, took time to come out, and they came out to each other slowly. I'm gonna be vague here, cos spoilers, but I loved this, I really did.
Nathaniel knew who Ethan was, right from the start, but he didn't know what would happen. He wanted to spring the idea at Ethan in good time, but things had a way of sending plans out the window!
I loved that we got to catch up with Pierce and James from book 1. They both play a huge part here and it was fab how they seamlessly slotted into this book. I hope they pop up in follwoing books too.
I loved how Ethan and Nathaniel surprised each other, at every turn. Me too, to be fair!! It's a lot longer than book one, some 300 odd pages, and I think this book needed those extra pages. The story was very multi layered.
There is romance and love, and betrayal of the highest order and I loved that I did not see who was the bad guy here! Totally sideswiped with that one, so well played there Mr castle, very well played.
I am loving wathcing these people develop and grow, and as the author puts out more stories, I wanna read them! I can't see who might be next, but I need, NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED to read it!
5 full and shiny stars!
*same worded review will appear elsewhere
This is book 2 in the Blood Bonded Mates series. While not strictly necessary to read book one, Snowed In With The Vampire Prince, it will give you a better understanding of Pierce and James who play a huge part here. And you know, it was rather good! I thoroughly enjoyed that book. But this book??
Freaking LOVED this book!
Ethan is a with without any gifts. Nathaniel is the reigning Vampire King. The witches and vampires will kill each other, if Ethan doesn't do something, and that something is marry Nathaniel. The mirror told him so. What could possibly go wrong?? Well, turns out, feelings could get involved!
What I especially liked was how Ethan's secrets, and Nathaniel's, took time to come out, and they came out to each other slowly. I'm gonna be vague here, cos spoilers, but I loved this, I really did.
Nathaniel knew who Ethan was, right from the start, but he didn't know what would happen. He wanted to spring the idea at Ethan in good time, but things had a way of sending plans out the window!
I loved that we got to catch up with Pierce and James from book 1. They both play a huge part here and it was fab how they seamlessly slotted into this book. I hope they pop up in follwoing books too.
I loved how Ethan and Nathaniel surprised each other, at every turn. Me too, to be fair!! It's a lot longer than book one, some 300 odd pages, and I think this book needed those extra pages. The story was very multi layered.
There is romance and love, and betrayal of the highest order and I loved that I did not see who was the bad guy here! Totally sideswiped with that one, so well played there Mr castle, very well played.
I am loving wathcing these people develop and grow, and as the author puts out more stories, I wanna read them! I can't see who might be next, but I need, NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED to read it!
5 full and shiny stars!
*same worded review will appear elsewhere
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
There's a definite fatigue now with films based on music stars and their works, I was already feeling it earlier in the year with Yesterday and Blinded By The Light. While I wasn't particularly enthusiastic about seeing Judy the trailer had me as soon as I heard "Somewhere over the rainbow".
Judy, once a household name, is short on money and her reputation is making it hard to get the work she needs. As her welcome at hotels is no longer guaranteed and her ex-husband's concern for what sort of life she's giving their children grows she realises she needs to find a way to make enough money to get them a proper home.
Her answer lies in England with nightly sellout performances to the crowds. But as the loneliness and isolation set in it might be that her not so glamorous lifestyle has caught up with her.
As with many real life depictions I came out wanting to know what was true to Garland's actual life and what was added with artistic license. Perhaps the worst thing about this film is just how accurate it is, the bullying, the abuse, the drugs, it shows a shocking side of Hollywood as it brought up its young stars. It was a little sad to find out that my two favourite bits of the film were probably the only bits in the whole thing that weren't based on actual events, but when you think about it that's not a bad statistic.
Renée Zellweger is outstanding. A year of vocal training before even getting to the set and being able to deliver such a stellar singing performance while simultaneously having to act like you're high on pills, exhaustion and drink... I'm genuinely amazed when I think back to some moments in the film.
I didn't get that same rush from listening to her singing in the film as I did in the trailer. She's wonderful performing the songs but I just felt that everything around the songs was too much of a distraction from it.
Yes, there are other people in Judy beyond Renée Zellweger but I'm not sure that there was anything to them that could shine as much as she did. Jessie Buckley felt underused, and after seeing Wild Rose earlier this year it was sad to see her so close to a stage without her getting to sing. I thought Andy Nyman made a good show as Dan, one half of the gay couple Judy befriends, the emotion that ran through his scenes with her had me wrecked.
I felt a little thrown by the flashbacks initially, but the drip feeding of scenes from her life as we progressed through the modern part of the story worked well. Each reveal would make you a little more heartbroken and concerned for adult Judy, the balance was perfect.
From the glamorous hotels to the dark night streets of London I thought all the settings were chosen well. The design overall with the costumes and sets felt spot on too. Seeing images of the cast against their real life counterparts really gives you pause to think about how hard everyone on that film worked to make the perfect shot.
There aren't all that many drawbacks here, apart from the fatigue for this sort of film that I mentioned earlier it felt very much like I've seen this film before. The recent biopic Stan & Ollie has so many similar features and scenarios that Judy ended up feeling like it wasn't such a new release. Despite that I did enjoy it, I just wish there had been more songs in it, I'm a sucker for a good tune.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/judy-movie-review.html
Judy, once a household name, is short on money and her reputation is making it hard to get the work she needs. As her welcome at hotels is no longer guaranteed and her ex-husband's concern for what sort of life she's giving their children grows she realises she needs to find a way to make enough money to get them a proper home.
Her answer lies in England with nightly sellout performances to the crowds. But as the loneliness and isolation set in it might be that her not so glamorous lifestyle has caught up with her.
As with many real life depictions I came out wanting to know what was true to Garland's actual life and what was added with artistic license. Perhaps the worst thing about this film is just how accurate it is, the bullying, the abuse, the drugs, it shows a shocking side of Hollywood as it brought up its young stars. It was a little sad to find out that my two favourite bits of the film were probably the only bits in the whole thing that weren't based on actual events, but when you think about it that's not a bad statistic.
Renée Zellweger is outstanding. A year of vocal training before even getting to the set and being able to deliver such a stellar singing performance while simultaneously having to act like you're high on pills, exhaustion and drink... I'm genuinely amazed when I think back to some moments in the film.
I didn't get that same rush from listening to her singing in the film as I did in the trailer. She's wonderful performing the songs but I just felt that everything around the songs was too much of a distraction from it.
Yes, there are other people in Judy beyond Renée Zellweger but I'm not sure that there was anything to them that could shine as much as she did. Jessie Buckley felt underused, and after seeing Wild Rose earlier this year it was sad to see her so close to a stage without her getting to sing. I thought Andy Nyman made a good show as Dan, one half of the gay couple Judy befriends, the emotion that ran through his scenes with her had me wrecked.
I felt a little thrown by the flashbacks initially, but the drip feeding of scenes from her life as we progressed through the modern part of the story worked well. Each reveal would make you a little more heartbroken and concerned for adult Judy, the balance was perfect.
From the glamorous hotels to the dark night streets of London I thought all the settings were chosen well. The design overall with the costumes and sets felt spot on too. Seeing images of the cast against their real life counterparts really gives you pause to think about how hard everyone on that film worked to make the perfect shot.
There aren't all that many drawbacks here, apart from the fatigue for this sort of film that I mentioned earlier it felt very much like I've seen this film before. The recent biopic Stan & Ollie has so many similar features and scenarios that Judy ended up feeling like it wasn't such a new release. Despite that I did enjoy it, I just wish there had been more songs in it, I'm a sucker for a good tune.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/judy-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tail as old as Kline.
With the Disney marketing machine in full swing, its hard to separate the hype from the movie reality in this latest live-action remake of one of their classic animated features from 1991. If you are lucky enough to have children you will know that each child tends to have “their” Disney feature: for my second daughter (then 4) that film would be “Beauty and the Beast”. With a VHS video tape worn down to the substrate, this is a film I know every line of dialogue to (“I’m especially good at expectorating”). So seeing this movie was always going to be a wander down Nostalgia Avenue and a left turn into Emotion Crescent, regardless of how good a film it was. And so it proved.
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Pilgrims Don't Wear Pink (Pilgrims, #1) in Books
Apr 27, 2018
I liked Pilgrims Don't Wear Pink. For the most part, it was a good read. There was only one thing that I didn't particularly like, but it was a pretty large part.
The good:
-The plot was fun. I enjoyed the storyline, the twists and turns, and the ending. Some of it I saw coming, some of it I didn't—but even when I expected it, I enjoyed seeing it work out.
-The characters: Dev (Libby's extremely gay friend) was fabulous in every sense of the word. If he were real, he'd be my buddy, even though he'd be constantly criticizing my shoes. Garrett, the reporter, is so nerd-tastic that I literally geeked out when he was introduced. Cam's romantic side was the hero every girl dreams about.
-The relationship progression: I knew from the get-go that Cam was going to be the greasy sleazy character that charms the girls but is really a jerk, and that Garrett was going to be the awesome-sauce hero. But when Libby first meets the characters, the reader perceives them just like she does: that Cam was a Shakespeare-quoting flower-throwing romantic, and Garrett was a nerd (again, I liked him more from the beginning anyway). The transition happened so slowly and flawlessly that I didn't see it happen, it just did.
-I've lead camps before. They're so much fun. Strohm nailed it! I loved the little girls! Ah for those scenes I totally wanted to be Libby.
-The writing was totally great. It felt like a teen's interior monologue, it was witty, fun, clear, and easy to read. It was perfect for the genre.
-The ending was pretty darn perfect. I liked what Libby learned, and how she changed. If the character hasn't changed from the beginning of the book to the end, nothing happened! The change was good. All in all the whole book was pretty cute.
The only not-so-good thing:
-I couldn't figure Libby out. Why doesn't she watch Battlestar Galactica or play Assassin's Creed? (That would totally be her thing. I bet after this story ends she turns into a total geek.) Libby was somewhat contradictory. She seemed to have a pretty clear view of right and wrong, and she was smart, but she didn't pick up on things that were blatantly obvious (trying to keep it spoiler-free here).
When there is only one not-so-good thing in the whole book, usually I'll rate it pretty high. But when the only not-so-good thing in the whole book is the main character? The whole way through reading this I kept thinking "Libby, what the heck are you thinking?" and she kind of annoyed me. I liked her, but again, her character seemed conflicting.
All in all, I enjoyed Pilgrims Don't Wear Pink, and would still recommend it for a fun quick light read.
Content/Recommendation: Little language, few references to sex. Ages 14+
The good:
-The plot was fun. I enjoyed the storyline, the twists and turns, and the ending. Some of it I saw coming, some of it I didn't—but even when I expected it, I enjoyed seeing it work out.
-The characters: Dev (Libby's extremely gay friend) was fabulous in every sense of the word. If he were real, he'd be my buddy, even though he'd be constantly criticizing my shoes. Garrett, the reporter, is so nerd-tastic that I literally geeked out when he was introduced. Cam's romantic side was the hero every girl dreams about.
-The relationship progression: I knew from the get-go that Cam was going to be the greasy sleazy character that charms the girls but is really a jerk, and that Garrett was going to be the awesome-sauce hero. But when Libby first meets the characters, the reader perceives them just like she does: that Cam was a Shakespeare-quoting flower-throwing romantic, and Garrett was a nerd (again, I liked him more from the beginning anyway). The transition happened so slowly and flawlessly that I didn't see it happen, it just did.
-I've lead camps before. They're so much fun. Strohm nailed it! I loved the little girls! Ah for those scenes I totally wanted to be Libby.
-The writing was totally great. It felt like a teen's interior monologue, it was witty, fun, clear, and easy to read. It was perfect for the genre.
-The ending was pretty darn perfect. I liked what Libby learned, and how she changed. If the character hasn't changed from the beginning of the book to the end, nothing happened! The change was good. All in all the whole book was pretty cute.
The only not-so-good thing:
-I couldn't figure Libby out. Why doesn't she watch Battlestar Galactica or play Assassin's Creed? (That would totally be her thing. I bet after this story ends she turns into a total geek.) Libby was somewhat contradictory. She seemed to have a pretty clear view of right and wrong, and she was smart, but she didn't pick up on things that were blatantly obvious (trying to keep it spoiler-free here).
When there is only one not-so-good thing in the whole book, usually I'll rate it pretty high. But when the only not-so-good thing in the whole book is the main character? The whole way through reading this I kept thinking "Libby, what the heck are you thinking?" and she kind of annoyed me. I liked her, but again, her character seemed conflicting.
All in all, I enjoyed Pilgrims Don't Wear Pink, and would still recommend it for a fun quick light read.
Content/Recommendation: Little language, few references to sex. Ages 14+
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Bookish Life of Nina Hill in Books
Aug 5, 2019
Nina Hill has her life just how she wants it: a job at a bookstore, an apartment with a reading nook and her cat Phil, and her days scheduled around her organized planner. But her neatly designed life gets a big shock when the father she never knew suddenly dies, giving Nina newfound knowledge of a host of brothers, sisters, nieces, and nephews. Add on to that a crush on her trivia nemesis, Tom, and Nina's careful life is a mess.
I've been wanting to read this for a while, as it sounded totally up my alley, and it so was. It's a major ode to books and bookworms. I felt such an affinity to Nina, and I found the book to be witty and sweet. When I first started it, I was worried it might be a little too cute (the writing style is quirky and different), but Nina and the writing quickly grew on me.
There's so much to love and identify with in this one--about books and bookstores, trivia, family, love, and it deftly handles anxiety and introversion. I'm sure so many readers will find parts of themselves in Nina. I know I did.
"As an only child of a single mother, Nina's natural state was solitude. Growing up, she saw other people with fathers and brothers and sisters, and it looked like fun, but generally, she thought she was better of without a crowd."
I absolutely adored how Nina's finding her new family changed her--it was touching and funny. The cast of characters we meet is hilarious and yet poignant at times. Because Nina's (now late) father was older, she has brothers and sisters of a variety of ages, as well as a charming gay nephew. But watching her come out of her shell, meeting these people, is really lovely. (And brave.)
"Nina worried she liked being alone too much; it was the only time she ever fully relaxed. People were... exhausting. They made her anxious."
Honestly, I loved Nina. The way she interacted with the kids in the various book groups she ran at the bookstore. The way she handled falling for Tom. The way she loved her cat. The realistic way she presented her anxiety. The fact that she was introverted but friendly and kind. (Imagine that? Introverts can be fun, not just evil curmudgeons.) Her deep love of books and her desire to help other people love books, too. I could go on and on.
While you can see how some of this story will play out, it doesn't make it any less fun to read. It's really sweet, funny, and enjoyable. I totally fell for Nina and found it so easy to get caught up in her story and her life. This book was very touching, and I totally teared up at the end, which is rare for me. Definitely recommend this one. 4+ stars.
I've been wanting to read this for a while, as it sounded totally up my alley, and it so was. It's a major ode to books and bookworms. I felt such an affinity to Nina, and I found the book to be witty and sweet. When I first started it, I was worried it might be a little too cute (the writing style is quirky and different), but Nina and the writing quickly grew on me.
There's so much to love and identify with in this one--about books and bookstores, trivia, family, love, and it deftly handles anxiety and introversion. I'm sure so many readers will find parts of themselves in Nina. I know I did.
"As an only child of a single mother, Nina's natural state was solitude. Growing up, she saw other people with fathers and brothers and sisters, and it looked like fun, but generally, she thought she was better of without a crowd."
I absolutely adored how Nina's finding her new family changed her--it was touching and funny. The cast of characters we meet is hilarious and yet poignant at times. Because Nina's (now late) father was older, she has brothers and sisters of a variety of ages, as well as a charming gay nephew. But watching her come out of her shell, meeting these people, is really lovely. (And brave.)
"Nina worried she liked being alone too much; it was the only time she ever fully relaxed. People were... exhausting. They made her anxious."
Honestly, I loved Nina. The way she interacted with the kids in the various book groups she ran at the bookstore. The way she handled falling for Tom. The way she loved her cat. The realistic way she presented her anxiety. The fact that she was introverted but friendly and kind. (Imagine that? Introverts can be fun, not just evil curmudgeons.) Her deep love of books and her desire to help other people love books, too. I could go on and on.
While you can see how some of this story will play out, it doesn't make it any less fun to read. It's really sweet, funny, and enjoyable. I totally fell for Nina and found it so easy to get caught up in her story and her life. This book was very touching, and I totally teared up at the end, which is rare for me. Definitely recommend this one. 4+ stars.