Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated We're The Millers (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Life for petty drug dealer David Clark (Jason Sudeikes) is a fairly routine existence. He has his regular customers and makes his living selling small quantities of marijuana to his regulars while maintaining his ethical standards not to sell to children. David had fallen into this line of work in college and is managed to get by and save $20,000 for himself. David’s former college cohort Brad (Ed Helms) is his major supplier and unlike David, Brad has grown extremely wealthy and powerful through letting people like David do the dirty work.
David has long held a torch for his neighbor Rose (Jennifer Aniston), a stripper with a heart of gold who seems only successful at attracting loser boyfriends and maintaining her disdain for David.
When a local homeless girl named Casey (Emma Roberts), is accosted in front of his apartment building, David reluctantly comes to the aid of a well-intentioned dork named Kenny (Will Poulter), who has a habit of acting without thinking. Since Kenny is one of David’s neighbors and despite his geeky nature a good kid, David reluctantly becomes involved and soon finds himself the target of the assailants. Adding insult to injury, the robbers take all his money and drug supplies, including his savings.
Unable to pay Brad for what was taken, David reluctantly enters into an agreement where he traveled to Mexico and return a quantity of marijuana for Brad who in turn will wipe his debts clean and pay him for his efforts. Not wanting to end up in jail but seeing no other way out of his predicament, David enlists Casey, Kenny, and a reluctant but desperate Rose to pose as his all-American family for the trip in an effort to throw off any customs or law enforcement officials would be suspicious of David traveling alone.
Things seem to go smoothly at first despite tensions amongst the ad hoc family and despite a rendezvous with some scary individuals; they soon find their R.V. loaded to the max with bundles of drugs. This development panics David as he was expecting to transport only a modest amount across the border and realizes that being discovered with the quantities he’s attempting to smuggle into the country would result in some serious jail time.
Undaunted, the family who dubbed themselves the Miller’s continue with the plan which results in a series of humorous misfortunes along the way him including an overzealous RV couple (Nick Offerman and Katheryn Hahn), who just happens to be an active DEA agent with a knack for showing up no matter where the Miller’s go. You race against time with some serious bad guys in pursuit; the Miller’s must come together and put aside their dysfunctions to accomplish their bizarre and wacky mission.
While most people will be able to see the romantic subplots from a mile away what really makes this film shine is the outrageous comedy that is persistent throughout. The best laughs have not been wasted in the trailers which is unfortunately all too common for films of this type and the supporting work of Offerman and Poulter nearly steal the movie. Aniston is essentially playing the same character she plays in almost every one of her performances but at least she gets to take a little bit wilder edge that she teased in last year’s “Horrible Bosses”. Her repair shop striptease is definitely one of the more memorable scenes in the film that has nothing on the tender yet humorous scene or she decides to help Kenny out in regard to his awkwardness with women.
Sudeikes has really been on a roll of late as he not only had a hit with the previously mentioned “Horrible Bosses”, but has done solid work in the interim not the least of which is his outing as the sympathetic Dave. One would think film about drug smugglers, strippers, and other social undesirables would not be so enjoyable nor would characters come across is so endearing and sympathetic. That being said the film was definitely very pleasant supriserites and if you set your expectations accordingly you may find yourself not only laughing along at the outrageous antics but looking forward to spending more time with this crazy group in the future.
http://sknr.net/2013/08/07/were-the-millers/
David has long held a torch for his neighbor Rose (Jennifer Aniston), a stripper with a heart of gold who seems only successful at attracting loser boyfriends and maintaining her disdain for David.
When a local homeless girl named Casey (Emma Roberts), is accosted in front of his apartment building, David reluctantly comes to the aid of a well-intentioned dork named Kenny (Will Poulter), who has a habit of acting without thinking. Since Kenny is one of David’s neighbors and despite his geeky nature a good kid, David reluctantly becomes involved and soon finds himself the target of the assailants. Adding insult to injury, the robbers take all his money and drug supplies, including his savings.
Unable to pay Brad for what was taken, David reluctantly enters into an agreement where he traveled to Mexico and return a quantity of marijuana for Brad who in turn will wipe his debts clean and pay him for his efforts. Not wanting to end up in jail but seeing no other way out of his predicament, David enlists Casey, Kenny, and a reluctant but desperate Rose to pose as his all-American family for the trip in an effort to throw off any customs or law enforcement officials would be suspicious of David traveling alone.
Things seem to go smoothly at first despite tensions amongst the ad hoc family and despite a rendezvous with some scary individuals; they soon find their R.V. loaded to the max with bundles of drugs. This development panics David as he was expecting to transport only a modest amount across the border and realizes that being discovered with the quantities he’s attempting to smuggle into the country would result in some serious jail time.
Undaunted, the family who dubbed themselves the Miller’s continue with the plan which results in a series of humorous misfortunes along the way him including an overzealous RV couple (Nick Offerman and Katheryn Hahn), who just happens to be an active DEA agent with a knack for showing up no matter where the Miller’s go. You race against time with some serious bad guys in pursuit; the Miller’s must come together and put aside their dysfunctions to accomplish their bizarre and wacky mission.
While most people will be able to see the romantic subplots from a mile away what really makes this film shine is the outrageous comedy that is persistent throughout. The best laughs have not been wasted in the trailers which is unfortunately all too common for films of this type and the supporting work of Offerman and Poulter nearly steal the movie. Aniston is essentially playing the same character she plays in almost every one of her performances but at least she gets to take a little bit wilder edge that she teased in last year’s “Horrible Bosses”. Her repair shop striptease is definitely one of the more memorable scenes in the film that has nothing on the tender yet humorous scene or she decides to help Kenny out in regard to his awkwardness with women.
Sudeikes has really been on a roll of late as he not only had a hit with the previously mentioned “Horrible Bosses”, but has done solid work in the interim not the least of which is his outing as the sympathetic Dave. One would think film about drug smugglers, strippers, and other social undesirables would not be so enjoyable nor would characters come across is so endearing and sympathetic. That being said the film was definitely very pleasant supriserites and if you set your expectations accordingly you may find yourself not only laughing along at the outrageous antics but looking forward to spending more time with this crazy group in the future.
http://sknr.net/2013/08/07/were-the-millers/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Karma (2021) in Movies
Sep 6, 2021
Neat idea for a movie (1 more)
Samantha Belle
Script is rambling and needs much tightening up (1 more)
Acting is often sub-par
You’ve got to admire the effort here.
Positives:
- There’s a quirky joy behind the story and it did keep me watching until the end to find out how it turned out.
- I enjoyed Samantha Belle’s performance. Whilst she has a few rough acting edges, she channelled a sort of cross between Ally Sheedy and Geena Davis that was cute. Elsewhere in the cast, Karl Haas (as Harry, the homeless guy) and Keegan Luther as the luckless Emilio gave, for me, the most naturalistic (and therefore best) performances.
- There’s an ending that, while feeling inconclusive and circuitous, did at least leave me with a smile on my face. (I hope permission was gained for the use of the name in the end titles!).
Negatives:
- If you watch, for example, “The Father” you quickly appreciate that the reason Anthony Hopkins and Olivia Colman are so GREAT in the movie is you NEVER get the feeling that they are acting. Unfortunately, in “Instant Karma”, while I appreciate that all of the cast are giving of their best, almost EVERYONE appears to be acting. While it’s seldom ‘hold your head in your hands’ terrible, the chasm of skill between this cast and the top-flight is vast. - - The script doesn’t help this by introducing a torrent of different ‘rider’ cast, many of whom should never have been put in front of a camera to deliver lines.
- While the story has potential, the script rambles around and never quite decides what genre it’s going for. Drama? It’s not dramatic enough. Thriller? It tries to go that way in the final reel, but never convincingly (and WHATEVER HAPPENED TO POOR EMILIO????). Comedy? Humourous at times maybe, but never laugh-out-loud funny. (It actually might have made a pretty good comedy – a variant on the “Do you think I asked for a million ducks?” bar joke! This idea (C) Bob Mann 2021!).
- The script is also incomplete and tonally inconsistent. There are sub-plots (e.g. Emilio’s request for the money) that are never fleshed out. And Samantha seems to veer from excitable and supportive sexy wife to full-on psycho-bitch-marital-nightmare from scene to scene.
- When you’ve got a loose script, and a cast with limited experience, don’t over-egg the pudding! The movie is 115 minutes long: I would personally have gone to town in the editing room and got it down to sub-90 minutes. The overall concoction would have been much better. As it is, we have far too many instances of “Karma” in the first half of the film and some ‘filler’ scenes that go on and on (and on and on) without adding anything to the story. For example, there is a ‘spending spree’ montage that, while very nicely put together, goes on for almost two whole minutes. Chop, chop, chop!
- Technically, the sound needs more work. There’s a lot of noise on the soundtrack and some poorly mixed music cues. Lighting inside the car was also an issue in some scenes.
Summary Thoughts on “Instant Karma”: I enjoyed watching this one more than my long list of “suggested improvements” might suggest.
I remain in awe of a team, with a limited budget, being able to project manage a movie like this to completion. And especially since this was filmed during the pandemic and in the searing heat of an Arizona summer, with the temperature rising to 117 degrees. As such, I hate to fire as many negatives at the film as I have, but I have to review things on a level playing field. With so many rough edges, I can’t give it a better rating than I have, but it gets an A+ for effort, and it’s far from being the worst film I’ve seen so far in 2021.
(For the full graphical review, check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks)
- There’s a quirky joy behind the story and it did keep me watching until the end to find out how it turned out.
- I enjoyed Samantha Belle’s performance. Whilst she has a few rough acting edges, she channelled a sort of cross between Ally Sheedy and Geena Davis that was cute. Elsewhere in the cast, Karl Haas (as Harry, the homeless guy) and Keegan Luther as the luckless Emilio gave, for me, the most naturalistic (and therefore best) performances.
- There’s an ending that, while feeling inconclusive and circuitous, did at least leave me with a smile on my face. (I hope permission was gained for the use of the name in the end titles!).
Negatives:
- If you watch, for example, “The Father” you quickly appreciate that the reason Anthony Hopkins and Olivia Colman are so GREAT in the movie is you NEVER get the feeling that they are acting. Unfortunately, in “Instant Karma”, while I appreciate that all of the cast are giving of their best, almost EVERYONE appears to be acting. While it’s seldom ‘hold your head in your hands’ terrible, the chasm of skill between this cast and the top-flight is vast. - - The script doesn’t help this by introducing a torrent of different ‘rider’ cast, many of whom should never have been put in front of a camera to deliver lines.
- While the story has potential, the script rambles around and never quite decides what genre it’s going for. Drama? It’s not dramatic enough. Thriller? It tries to go that way in the final reel, but never convincingly (and WHATEVER HAPPENED TO POOR EMILIO????). Comedy? Humourous at times maybe, but never laugh-out-loud funny. (It actually might have made a pretty good comedy – a variant on the “Do you think I asked for a million ducks?” bar joke! This idea (C) Bob Mann 2021!).
- The script is also incomplete and tonally inconsistent. There are sub-plots (e.g. Emilio’s request for the money) that are never fleshed out. And Samantha seems to veer from excitable and supportive sexy wife to full-on psycho-bitch-marital-nightmare from scene to scene.
- When you’ve got a loose script, and a cast with limited experience, don’t over-egg the pudding! The movie is 115 minutes long: I would personally have gone to town in the editing room and got it down to sub-90 minutes. The overall concoction would have been much better. As it is, we have far too many instances of “Karma” in the first half of the film and some ‘filler’ scenes that go on and on (and on and on) without adding anything to the story. For example, there is a ‘spending spree’ montage that, while very nicely put together, goes on for almost two whole minutes. Chop, chop, chop!
- Technically, the sound needs more work. There’s a lot of noise on the soundtrack and some poorly mixed music cues. Lighting inside the car was also an issue in some scenes.
Summary Thoughts on “Instant Karma”: I enjoyed watching this one more than my long list of “suggested improvements” might suggest.
I remain in awe of a team, with a limited budget, being able to project manage a movie like this to completion. And especially since this was filmed during the pandemic and in the searing heat of an Arizona summer, with the temperature rising to 117 degrees. As such, I hate to fire as many negatives at the film as I have, but I have to review things on a level playing field. With so many rough edges, I can’t give it a better rating than I have, but it gets an A+ for effort, and it’s far from being the worst film I’ve seen so far in 2021.
(For the full graphical review, check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mother! (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Welcome to the Crystal Maze.
Darren Aronosfsky’s mother! is like no other film you’ll see this year: guaranteed. As a film lover, an Aronosfsky film is a bit like root canal at the dentist: you know you really need to go ahead and do it, but you know you’re not going to be very comfortable in the process.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Kitchen (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Times are tough in Hells Kitchen, people need to diversify to stay on top. Three gangsters decide to do just that but manage to fall on the wrong side of the law on their first outing. As they are locked up their wives are left to pick up the pieces. They'll be looked after, that's the promise they hear but the money they get won't even cover their rent.
The three women are desperate but see an opportunity in the gap their imprisoned husbands have left. What the mob needs is a woman's touch.
Melissa McCarthy amuses me, her comedy really hits the spot, then she appeared in Can You Ever Forgive Me? and I was so happy to see she could do drama too. Tiffany Haddish was much the same, I've seen her in lots of comedy and find her to be entertaining (if a little over played) so when her name popped up on this I was interested to see how she handled "sensible". I was very pleased with the result, but we'll get there.
The look of everything in The Kitchen felt spot on. All the little touches really pulled the 70's feel together and gace each character their own vibe that lined up perfectly with their development through the film.
Music certainly helped on this front, though part of me was sad that they used "It's A Man's Man's Man's World." I know it fits perfectly with the tone and the subject but it felt so cliché for that to be the first thing we go and I actually sighed when it came on.
Our three wives make an interesting mix as a team, a collection that you couldn't see being friends under normal circumstances but they've been brought together out of necessity. I liked the way we got to see their lives unfold from the beginning. Their home life with their husbands and then their reactions as the men are charged. Kathy looking upset, Ruby with a look of disappointment that he should have been smarter, and Claire's smile as the court gives her a reprieve from his violence.
We see their progression to becoming a success in town happen quite quickly on screen and I thought that worked well. It left all the internal politics out until there was something bigger at stake to deal with.
The women all take on a path of their own, it diversifies their abilities but you know that something has to give. Every little piece that's added to their story felt like it was right to be there, nothing was unnecessary.
There's a certain amount of stereotype acting in The Kitchen but it works well when it comes to the gangs and their interactions together. Both Kathy (McCarthy) and Ruby (Haddish) have that in them too at one point or another but it's a little less evident in general.
As I said at the beginning, Melissa McCarthy's step into drama had been a hit with me and her portrayal of Kathy was no different. She went from an attentive wife and mother who minds her own business to a mob boss and entrepeneur, it's such a smooth transition that you'd wonder if she was doing something fishy on the side already.
Tiffany Haddish was amazing too, her dramatic skills really brought Ruby to life and it was a wonderfully believable performance.
Then there's Claire played by Elisabeth Moss. She's had great success in The Handmaid's Tale and I do binge watch that once the series is out, but truth be told I don't really like they way she brings her character in either to life. Claire is a woman abused by her husband, she's attacked by a homeless man and then "rescued" by Gabriel, a hitman who has skills that become and obsession for her. Her transition is the only one that doesn't sit right, yes I believe she'd try to take back her power wherever she could but her whole arc seems a little crazy.
As a crime drama it's probably missing something to take it over the line into an amazing effort but I enjoyed it for the most part. It didn't leave things unanswered and with so many different strands going on that was entirely possible.
Passing comment... I love Common, he needs to be in all the things.
What you should do
It's worth a watch when it hits streaming sites.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some quality retro clothing.
The three women are desperate but see an opportunity in the gap their imprisoned husbands have left. What the mob needs is a woman's touch.
Melissa McCarthy amuses me, her comedy really hits the spot, then she appeared in Can You Ever Forgive Me? and I was so happy to see she could do drama too. Tiffany Haddish was much the same, I've seen her in lots of comedy and find her to be entertaining (if a little over played) so when her name popped up on this I was interested to see how she handled "sensible". I was very pleased with the result, but we'll get there.
The look of everything in The Kitchen felt spot on. All the little touches really pulled the 70's feel together and gace each character their own vibe that lined up perfectly with their development through the film.
Music certainly helped on this front, though part of me was sad that they used "It's A Man's Man's Man's World." I know it fits perfectly with the tone and the subject but it felt so cliché for that to be the first thing we go and I actually sighed when it came on.
Our three wives make an interesting mix as a team, a collection that you couldn't see being friends under normal circumstances but they've been brought together out of necessity. I liked the way we got to see their lives unfold from the beginning. Their home life with their husbands and then their reactions as the men are charged. Kathy looking upset, Ruby with a look of disappointment that he should have been smarter, and Claire's smile as the court gives her a reprieve from his violence.
We see their progression to becoming a success in town happen quite quickly on screen and I thought that worked well. It left all the internal politics out until there was something bigger at stake to deal with.
The women all take on a path of their own, it diversifies their abilities but you know that something has to give. Every little piece that's added to their story felt like it was right to be there, nothing was unnecessary.
There's a certain amount of stereotype acting in The Kitchen but it works well when it comes to the gangs and their interactions together. Both Kathy (McCarthy) and Ruby (Haddish) have that in them too at one point or another but it's a little less evident in general.
As I said at the beginning, Melissa McCarthy's step into drama had been a hit with me and her portrayal of Kathy was no different. She went from an attentive wife and mother who minds her own business to a mob boss and entrepeneur, it's such a smooth transition that you'd wonder if she was doing something fishy on the side already.
Tiffany Haddish was amazing too, her dramatic skills really brought Ruby to life and it was a wonderfully believable performance.
Then there's Claire played by Elisabeth Moss. She's had great success in The Handmaid's Tale and I do binge watch that once the series is out, but truth be told I don't really like they way she brings her character in either to life. Claire is a woman abused by her husband, she's attacked by a homeless man and then "rescued" by Gabriel, a hitman who has skills that become and obsession for her. Her transition is the only one that doesn't sit right, yes I believe she'd try to take back her power wherever she could but her whole arc seems a little crazy.
As a crime drama it's probably missing something to take it over the line into an amazing effort but I enjoyed it for the most part. It didn't leave things unanswered and with so many different strands going on that was entirely possible.
Passing comment... I love Common, he needs to be in all the things.
What you should do
It's worth a watch when it hits streaming sites.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some quality retro clothing.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Comedian (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Welcome to the year 2017 …. Another year which promises to bring you HUGE blockbuster theatrical releases including long awaited sequels, groundbreaking independent films, and breakout performances from some of cinemas great veterans as well as its rookie newcomers!
Alright … alright … that’s your standard P.R. HYPE. Not that it’s entirely untrue but let’s face it, we all have a pretty good idea as to what’s in store for us this year am I right?
Today’s film is amongst 2016s ‘leftovers’ if you will. No that that’s a bad thing. Example … leftover pizza. I don’t know one individual who doesn’t like leftover pizza. You can think of this film as such.
The selection we present to you is the dramatic comedy ‘The Comedians’. The latest from film legend Robert De Niro. The film premiered at the AFI Fest on November 11th and will be released in theaters on February 3rd. Directed by Taylor Hackford (An Officer And A Gentleman, RAY) and written by Lewis Friedman, comedian Jeff Ross, Art Linson, and Richard LaGravenese (The Fisher King) the film features an all star cast including Robert DeNiro, Leslie Mann, Harvey Keitel, Danny DeVito, Veronica Ferres, Patti LuPone, Edie Falco, Cloris Leachman, Charles Gordin, Jim Norton, Gilbert Gottfried, Jimmie Walker, Brett Butler, Lois Smith, Happy Anderson, Hannibal Buress, and an appearance by Billy Crystal.
DeNiro is Jack ‘Jackie’ Burke. A comedic legend best known for his iconic T.V. role decades before who has spent the years since then attempting to reinvent himself as an ‘insult’ comic. Despite rave performances and praise from fans and his fellow comedians, he is still frustrated that he cannot escape from the shadow of his television career and the mistakes he made during those years as a husband, father, and brother. During a performance at a comedy club on the outskirts of New York City he berates a husband and wife in the audience who are filming him for their internet show without his permission and later attacks the husband. At his court hearing, he is offered a plea deal but upon learning that part of the plea involves apologizing to the husband and wife he openly berates them in the courtroom and is sentenced to 30 days in jail plus community service. Once out of jail, Jackie begins his community service serving meals to the homeless while fine tuning his act at a local church. However, since he has not worked and has no money he pays a call upon his estranged brother whom he has not visited in ages to ask for a loan.
Jackie’s brother agrees but only if Jackie will appear at his niece’s wedding. Late one evening at the church he meets Harmony (Mann) whom is also serving community service for assault and battery. Shortly after, Harmony and Jackie make the rounds at some of the New York comedy clubs where Jackie is still ‘welcome’ after which Jackie proposes a trade of sorts, Harmony will be Jackie’s date to his niece’s wedding if Jackie will appear at the dinner to celebrate the birthday of Harmony’s father (Keitel) who is a huge fan of Jackie’s television persona. At the wedding, Jackie performed a variation of his stand-up act to the delight of his niece and her fiancé while simultaneously offending the majority of the other family members. A few days later, Jackie accompanies Harmony to her father’s birthday dinner only to become aggravated when Harmony’s father insists Jackie reenact his T.V. character’s. Jackie responds by sarcastically professing his intentions to sleep with Harmony. Without giving everything away, what follows is a re-awakening of sorts in which Jackie comes to terms with the inevitability that he will always be known for the one role he tries so desperately to get away from and realizes that if he wants to distances himself from it, he’s going to have to embrace the character.
Despite the all star cast and the fact there were indeed many laughs in the film, it was honestly a waste at the end. This could’ve been an amazing film but it was lacking in its story. The script just didn’t have the ‘heart’ to combine with the premise and the great performances given by the actors. It’s not that they didn’t try, the film just failed to measure up. The acting was great, the directing was good, and there were indeed a few laughs here and there …. it just didn’t have any life to it. Heaven forbid I criticize a DeNiro film, but I can’t give this one more than two out of five stars. I REALLY wanted to like the film, I just didn’t. If it shows up in your digital cable package, go ahead and give it a try. Rent it on iTunes even. Honestly though, I can’t see myself buying the movie.
Alright … alright … that’s your standard P.R. HYPE. Not that it’s entirely untrue but let’s face it, we all have a pretty good idea as to what’s in store for us this year am I right?
Today’s film is amongst 2016s ‘leftovers’ if you will. No that that’s a bad thing. Example … leftover pizza. I don’t know one individual who doesn’t like leftover pizza. You can think of this film as such.
The selection we present to you is the dramatic comedy ‘The Comedians’. The latest from film legend Robert De Niro. The film premiered at the AFI Fest on November 11th and will be released in theaters on February 3rd. Directed by Taylor Hackford (An Officer And A Gentleman, RAY) and written by Lewis Friedman, comedian Jeff Ross, Art Linson, and Richard LaGravenese (The Fisher King) the film features an all star cast including Robert DeNiro, Leslie Mann, Harvey Keitel, Danny DeVito, Veronica Ferres, Patti LuPone, Edie Falco, Cloris Leachman, Charles Gordin, Jim Norton, Gilbert Gottfried, Jimmie Walker, Brett Butler, Lois Smith, Happy Anderson, Hannibal Buress, and an appearance by Billy Crystal.
DeNiro is Jack ‘Jackie’ Burke. A comedic legend best known for his iconic T.V. role decades before who has spent the years since then attempting to reinvent himself as an ‘insult’ comic. Despite rave performances and praise from fans and his fellow comedians, he is still frustrated that he cannot escape from the shadow of his television career and the mistakes he made during those years as a husband, father, and brother. During a performance at a comedy club on the outskirts of New York City he berates a husband and wife in the audience who are filming him for their internet show without his permission and later attacks the husband. At his court hearing, he is offered a plea deal but upon learning that part of the plea involves apologizing to the husband and wife he openly berates them in the courtroom and is sentenced to 30 days in jail plus community service. Once out of jail, Jackie begins his community service serving meals to the homeless while fine tuning his act at a local church. However, since he has not worked and has no money he pays a call upon his estranged brother whom he has not visited in ages to ask for a loan.
Jackie’s brother agrees but only if Jackie will appear at his niece’s wedding. Late one evening at the church he meets Harmony (Mann) whom is also serving community service for assault and battery. Shortly after, Harmony and Jackie make the rounds at some of the New York comedy clubs where Jackie is still ‘welcome’ after which Jackie proposes a trade of sorts, Harmony will be Jackie’s date to his niece’s wedding if Jackie will appear at the dinner to celebrate the birthday of Harmony’s father (Keitel) who is a huge fan of Jackie’s television persona. At the wedding, Jackie performed a variation of his stand-up act to the delight of his niece and her fiancé while simultaneously offending the majority of the other family members. A few days later, Jackie accompanies Harmony to her father’s birthday dinner only to become aggravated when Harmony’s father insists Jackie reenact his T.V. character’s. Jackie responds by sarcastically professing his intentions to sleep with Harmony. Without giving everything away, what follows is a re-awakening of sorts in which Jackie comes to terms with the inevitability that he will always be known for the one role he tries so desperately to get away from and realizes that if he wants to distances himself from it, he’s going to have to embrace the character.
Despite the all star cast and the fact there were indeed many laughs in the film, it was honestly a waste at the end. This could’ve been an amazing film but it was lacking in its story. The script just didn’t have the ‘heart’ to combine with the premise and the great performances given by the actors. It’s not that they didn’t try, the film just failed to measure up. The acting was great, the directing was good, and there were indeed a few laughs here and there …. it just didn’t have any life to it. Heaven forbid I criticize a DeNiro film, but I can’t give this one more than two out of five stars. I REALLY wanted to like the film, I just didn’t. If it shows up in your digital cable package, go ahead and give it a try. Rent it on iTunes even. Honestly though, I can’t see myself buying the movie.
KittyMiku (138 KP) rated Flowers for Algernon in Books
Mar 24, 2019
A must read
Contains spoilers, click to show
Flowers for Algernon is an amazing journey that makes you take a step back and rethink things. It brings up a lot of issues that, no matter what time we are in, always seem to be around us, whether we notice or not. I found this story to be touching and in ways a bit disturbing. The journey in which this book takes you on, definitely makes you rethink things you may have done or witnessed in the past. It will have you thinking differently about those with learning disabilities and other mental issues. To see it from the point of view of someone who would go through these hardships, you are able to get the feel and understanding of things that you may not have had before.
Charlie is mentally retarded and it shows in his progress reports, which is where the whole story lies in. His grammar is horrible and his spelling can make it hard to read at first. It was hard to remind myself over the first few pages that the way it was written is exactly how someone like Charlie would write. However, it is very clear from the beginning he wants to "get smart." However, his reasoning behind it makes me shudder. I don't shudder because it makes me scared, but because of the disgust I feel towards how people treat him. He states he wants to please his teacher and be able to join in on conversations with his co-workers. He feels isolated and wants to be more than he is. Even though its clear people are making fun of him, he doesn't see it that way because they are laughing and smiling. To him, that means they are his friends. It isn't until later her realizes they are laughing at him that he begins to understand things.
I really liked how as Charlie learned new things and became more intelligent than he was, his progress reports became clearer and easier to read. But with his intelligence growing, he noticed other areas of his life were lacking. He no longer acted the way he had before, began to think very differently and still had the emotions of a child but in a whole new aspect. He was smart, but it was clear he was happier before the operation and the rise in his I.Q. It kind of goes to show that being smart doesn't always means you will be happy. He had to suffer to understand that the way his mind was changing wasn't exactly what he wanted. He wanted so much and even though he got smarter like he wanted, he lost the motivating factors behind it. He ended up losing his job and a lot of the people who surrounded him because of how his personality changed. It was heartbreaking to see him go through the hardships and feel so alone.
I found myself enjoying the fact that even during these hardships, he remained close with Algernon, the mouse who proved the operation worked. Charlie spoke fondly of the mouse, even though at first he hated him. It was pleasant to see that Charlie still had a friend, even if it was just a mouse. Especially with his memories torturing him whenever they decided to pop up. I found Charlie's childhood heartbreaking and exceptionally disturbing. His mother's ideals seemed to be wrong in my opinion. I don't know what she went through, but to be so harsh on a child and to not believe anyone because of how it might make her look to her neighbors and other people, was quite disturbing to me. I found myself hating the woman, and yet I know there are plenty of people who would do the same to their child, even in this day and age.
I have to say the ending was the most heartbreaking thing I have ever read. I understand there will always be risks to experiments that mess with ones brain, but I had really hoped for the best for Charlie. I wasn't fond of his intellectual self because of how he acted towards others and how he thought, but at the same time, to have him lose everything made me tear up and cry. It was truly not a desirable ending. However, seeing him put others first again was heartwarming. It goes to show you, sometimes it those who don't really understand things that are the kindest of people out there. It makes me think of those social studies of people asking others for money and it is the homeless who will try to help out versus those who have a lot they could give. I firmly believe that this book was created to show just how things can appear to be okay and its really not.
I would recommend this book to anyone and everyone who is in 9th grade or higher. I think we all need a reality check from time to time. I have read this book in high school for a book report and even though I am a decade older, rereading it reminded me of how much I loved this book. It has a bunch of underlying meanings and not just on intelligence. I loved the little hidden lessons and thoughts behind this book. It definitely gets your brain working and really puts our society in a truthful light. Even though its based on mental retardation, you can easily apply a lot of what is discussed in Charlie's progress reports and the things it hints at to other sources of discrimination . I would ultimately rate this book 5 stars out of stars. Though the book seems simple to read, it touches base on things in our everyday world that we normally wouldn't think twice about, and probably should. Flowers for Algernon is truly an amazing read.
Charlie is mentally retarded and it shows in his progress reports, which is where the whole story lies in. His grammar is horrible and his spelling can make it hard to read at first. It was hard to remind myself over the first few pages that the way it was written is exactly how someone like Charlie would write. However, it is very clear from the beginning he wants to "get smart." However, his reasoning behind it makes me shudder. I don't shudder because it makes me scared, but because of the disgust I feel towards how people treat him. He states he wants to please his teacher and be able to join in on conversations with his co-workers. He feels isolated and wants to be more than he is. Even though its clear people are making fun of him, he doesn't see it that way because they are laughing and smiling. To him, that means they are his friends. It isn't until later her realizes they are laughing at him that he begins to understand things.
I really liked how as Charlie learned new things and became more intelligent than he was, his progress reports became clearer and easier to read. But with his intelligence growing, he noticed other areas of his life were lacking. He no longer acted the way he had before, began to think very differently and still had the emotions of a child but in a whole new aspect. He was smart, but it was clear he was happier before the operation and the rise in his I.Q. It kind of goes to show that being smart doesn't always means you will be happy. He had to suffer to understand that the way his mind was changing wasn't exactly what he wanted. He wanted so much and even though he got smarter like he wanted, he lost the motivating factors behind it. He ended up losing his job and a lot of the people who surrounded him because of how his personality changed. It was heartbreaking to see him go through the hardships and feel so alone.
I found myself enjoying the fact that even during these hardships, he remained close with Algernon, the mouse who proved the operation worked. Charlie spoke fondly of the mouse, even though at first he hated him. It was pleasant to see that Charlie still had a friend, even if it was just a mouse. Especially with his memories torturing him whenever they decided to pop up. I found Charlie's childhood heartbreaking and exceptionally disturbing. His mother's ideals seemed to be wrong in my opinion. I don't know what she went through, but to be so harsh on a child and to not believe anyone because of how it might make her look to her neighbors and other people, was quite disturbing to me. I found myself hating the woman, and yet I know there are plenty of people who would do the same to their child, even in this day and age.
I have to say the ending was the most heartbreaking thing I have ever read. I understand there will always be risks to experiments that mess with ones brain, but I had really hoped for the best for Charlie. I wasn't fond of his intellectual self because of how he acted towards others and how he thought, but at the same time, to have him lose everything made me tear up and cry. It was truly not a desirable ending. However, seeing him put others first again was heartwarming. It goes to show you, sometimes it those who don't really understand things that are the kindest of people out there. It makes me think of those social studies of people asking others for money and it is the homeless who will try to help out versus those who have a lot they could give. I firmly believe that this book was created to show just how things can appear to be okay and its really not.
I would recommend this book to anyone and everyone who is in 9th grade or higher. I think we all need a reality check from time to time. I have read this book in high school for a book report and even though I am a decade older, rereading it reminded me of how much I loved this book. It has a bunch of underlying meanings and not just on intelligence. I loved the little hidden lessons and thoughts behind this book. It definitely gets your brain working and really puts our society in a truthful light. Even though its based on mental retardation, you can easily apply a lot of what is discussed in Charlie's progress reports and the things it hints at to other sources of discrimination . I would ultimately rate this book 5 stars out of stars. Though the book seems simple to read, it touches base on things in our everyday world that we normally wouldn't think twice about, and probably should. Flowers for Algernon is truly an amazing read.
Sass Perilla (36 KP) rated The Master and Margarita in Books
Aug 9, 2019
Worth a read? Yes. Worth a reread? Maybe not.
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Master and Magarita: Mikhail Bulgakov
Firstly, I didn’t intend to write an essay on this novel. However, once started I found I had a lot to say, and the more I thought about the plot and characters, the more ideas and parallels were sparked, so I am hopeful that the verbosity of this review can be forgiven.
At the risk of sounding both ignorant and uncultured, I found this novel (at least at first) bloody hard slog; not least because the Russian characters have three names, plus a nickname, plus a pun on their name (none of which work particularly well in translation and all of which sound rather similar to the English untrained ear). As an example- Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev (who seems to be referred to by any and all of these names) is also known as “Homeless” and “the poet” is a key character in the opening section of the novel. To further demonstrate: there are 17 different names that start with A that are used to refer to 15 different characters with Andreyevich used as the middle name of a bereaved uncle, who makes a journey from Kiev after his nephew is beheaded in a freak tram accident- and Andrey the buffet manager at a Moscow theatre. Clear as mud right? And that is before starting on similarly named characters with the initials M, P, L and S! At my last count there were 45 distinct characters, and I am fairly sure there will be some that I have missed. Hence, I did a lot of re-reading to work out exactly who was doing what to whom.
Additionally, I would suggest you need to be wary of the different translations. The distinct changes in meaning are subtle but important. To triangulate I had three versions at my disposal: Hugh Aplin’s translation (available for free on Kindle), the audiobook version translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (which I listened to simultaneously when reading the book to come to my own interpretation, and the subtitles for the Russian TV miniseries from 2005 when I gave up trying to work out who was who from name alone!
So those were my “technical” issues (if you like) with engaging with this novel, and this lack of clarity and understanding (and my own lack of contextual knowledge of Stalinist Russia) meant I missed many of the (what I am sure are hysterically funny to those in the know) satirical jokes in the opening section. That said, the random action and quick changes of focus, undercurrent of chaos in Moscow despite entrenched hierarchal structures and clear threat that (any) one could go missing at any time, for an unclear reason gave a clear insight into the mind and fears of a 1930s Russian citizen. No wonder it was available only in censored form for so long.
Despite these hardships, there were some genuinely laugh out loud moments in the first Moscow based part of the novel. The citizens have not lost their individuality, as they scrabble and fight for bank notes in the theatre, which are later revealed to be worthless. Nor have they lost their sense of pride and vanity, which we see in the female theatre goers, so desperate to attain the fashionable French couture (which later literally disappears from their bodies leaving semi-naked citizenesses desperately trying to cover themselves in a scene reminiscent of “Allo Allo” meets “Benny Hill”). When Professor Woland says his show will “expose” what the locals have failed to realise is that it is their (moral) shortcomings that are about to be revealed. The message is clearly, that no government can successfully legislate against human nature.
Oooh- and another fun fact, apparently Woland (later revealed- or perhaps is implied- to be Satan) was the inspiration to the Rolling Stones 1968 hit “Sympathy for the Devil”, well at least that is what my Google-Fu tells me.
Obviously, there were substantial hurdles to leap, however, I found by the second half of the novel, when we finally meet the eponymous characters, I had got in to the swing of things and begun to embrace the farcical surrealism of the novel.
The second “book” marks a change in tone, although it continues to cut away to scenes of Jesus’ sentencing by Pilate and execution (here known in the Aramaic form Yeshua). Ironically it is these scenes that are the most “real” and substantially human, as Pilate’s decision weighs head achingly heavily on him throughout. The Master and Margarita seem to be the only two characters fully invested in the authenticity of literature, and serve as a counterpoint to the heavily censored “monstrous” writing of Ivan and the rest of the writers’ union Massolit, more interested in fine dining and what their positions can do for them then the production of quality writing.
And it is Margarita’s journey of discovery and liberation from the stodgy, miserable societal expectations of that leads her back to her Master. Bulgakov mixes classical myth, Russian folklore and Bible stories to give us an impression of the timelessness of the central romance. As the worlds of communist Moscow and the inner worlds of the Master and Margarita collide, we are informed of the former’s desire to excuse all magic (and mischief) as the product of mass hypnosis, when the latter (and the reader) are fully aware of the spiritual significance and dimension of the events.
Clever, astute and in places laugh out loud funny, this novel none-the-less requires a level of dedication from the non-Russian speaking reader. Worth a read? Yes. Worth a re-read? Maybe not.
Firstly, I didn’t intend to write an essay on this novel. However, once started I found I had a lot to say, and the more I thought about the plot and characters, the more ideas and parallels were sparked, so I am hopeful that the verbosity of this review can be forgiven.
At the risk of sounding both ignorant and uncultured, I found this novel (at least at first) bloody hard slog; not least because the Russian characters have three names, plus a nickname, plus a pun on their name (none of which work particularly well in translation and all of which sound rather similar to the English untrained ear). As an example- Ivan Nikolaevich Ponyrev (who seems to be referred to by any and all of these names) is also known as “Homeless” and “the poet” is a key character in the opening section of the novel. To further demonstrate: there are 17 different names that start with A that are used to refer to 15 different characters with Andreyevich used as the middle name of a bereaved uncle, who makes a journey from Kiev after his nephew is beheaded in a freak tram accident- and Andrey the buffet manager at a Moscow theatre. Clear as mud right? And that is before starting on similarly named characters with the initials M, P, L and S! At my last count there were 45 distinct characters, and I am fairly sure there will be some that I have missed. Hence, I did a lot of re-reading to work out exactly who was doing what to whom.
Additionally, I would suggest you need to be wary of the different translations. The distinct changes in meaning are subtle but important. To triangulate I had three versions at my disposal: Hugh Aplin’s translation (available for free on Kindle), the audiobook version translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (which I listened to simultaneously when reading the book to come to my own interpretation, and the subtitles for the Russian TV miniseries from 2005 when I gave up trying to work out who was who from name alone!
So those were my “technical” issues (if you like) with engaging with this novel, and this lack of clarity and understanding (and my own lack of contextual knowledge of Stalinist Russia) meant I missed many of the (what I am sure are hysterically funny to those in the know) satirical jokes in the opening section. That said, the random action and quick changes of focus, undercurrent of chaos in Moscow despite entrenched hierarchal structures and clear threat that (any) one could go missing at any time, for an unclear reason gave a clear insight into the mind and fears of a 1930s Russian citizen. No wonder it was available only in censored form for so long.
Despite these hardships, there were some genuinely laugh out loud moments in the first Moscow based part of the novel. The citizens have not lost their individuality, as they scrabble and fight for bank notes in the theatre, which are later revealed to be worthless. Nor have they lost their sense of pride and vanity, which we see in the female theatre goers, so desperate to attain the fashionable French couture (which later literally disappears from their bodies leaving semi-naked citizenesses desperately trying to cover themselves in a scene reminiscent of “Allo Allo” meets “Benny Hill”). When Professor Woland says his show will “expose” what the locals have failed to realise is that it is their (moral) shortcomings that are about to be revealed. The message is clearly, that no government can successfully legislate against human nature.
Oooh- and another fun fact, apparently Woland (later revealed- or perhaps is implied- to be Satan) was the inspiration to the Rolling Stones 1968 hit “Sympathy for the Devil”, well at least that is what my Google-Fu tells me.
Obviously, there were substantial hurdles to leap, however, I found by the second half of the novel, when we finally meet the eponymous characters, I had got in to the swing of things and begun to embrace the farcical surrealism of the novel.
The second “book” marks a change in tone, although it continues to cut away to scenes of Jesus’ sentencing by Pilate and execution (here known in the Aramaic form Yeshua). Ironically it is these scenes that are the most “real” and substantially human, as Pilate’s decision weighs head achingly heavily on him throughout. The Master and Margarita seem to be the only two characters fully invested in the authenticity of literature, and serve as a counterpoint to the heavily censored “monstrous” writing of Ivan and the rest of the writers’ union Massolit, more interested in fine dining and what their positions can do for them then the production of quality writing.
And it is Margarita’s journey of discovery and liberation from the stodgy, miserable societal expectations of that leads her back to her Master. Bulgakov mixes classical myth, Russian folklore and Bible stories to give us an impression of the timelessness of the central romance. As the worlds of communist Moscow and the inner worlds of the Master and Margarita collide, we are informed of the former’s desire to excuse all magic (and mischief) as the product of mass hypnosis, when the latter (and the reader) are fully aware of the spiritual significance and dimension of the events.
Clever, astute and in places laugh out loud funny, this novel none-the-less requires a level of dedication from the non-Russian speaking reader. Worth a read? Yes. Worth a re-read? Maybe not.
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.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Kids of Appetite in Books
Dec 14, 2018
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good.</i>
<i>Mosquitoland </i>was the best book I read last year (2015) and I was excited to discover what David Arnold would write next. I approached<i> Kids of Appetite</i> with mild trepidation; what if it did not live up to my expectations? Need not have worried – it was brilliant. Dubbed a “tragicomedy” <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a combination of realistic, heartbreaking experiences with intellectual humour.
The book opens mid interview at a local police station where two teenagers, Vic and Mad, are being questioned about a murder their friend has supposedly committed. From there, the story backtracks a week and proceeds to bring the reader up to date. It all begins with Vic running away from home, distancing himself from his mother and her new partner. By chance, a coincidence – a bump, Vic would say – he is found by Mad who introduces him to a small group of homeless friends. Vic may not have packed in preparation for life on the streets – or in a greenhouse as it turns out – however he did grab the urn containing his late father’s ashes before racing out of the house. Along with the urn is a letter containing cryptic clues that lead to various locations that Vic’s father wished for his ashes to be scattered. He, along with his new found friends; make it a mission to put his father to rest.
It is not possible to label the general theme of the book. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a story full of stories. Each character has their own past, something that led them to the situation they find themselves in now. The group consists of five members – once Vic has been accepted. Baz, at age twenty-seven, is clearly the leader: responsible, caring, and fatherly – until accused of murder. Seven years younger is Zuz, Baz’s mute brother, and finally Coco, an eleven year old with the mouth of a foul old lady. It is Coco, amongst all her swearing and hilarious misuse of words, that coins the name <i>Kids of Appetite, KOA</i> for short, a play on words: they are not solely in want of food, they hunger for life.
Initially it would appear that the main focus will be on Vic: his father’s death, his mother’s new partner, Moebius (facial paralysis) – a syndrome that results in a lot of bullying and discrimination – and, of course, his flight from home. However the remaining members of <i>KOA </i>equally contribute to the overall narrative. Mad, like Vic, knows what it is like to lose a father. Unfortunately she also knows what it is like to lose a mother. Her life since the fateful car crash that left her and orphan has been full of abuse and uncertainty. Baz and Zuz, on the other hand, have escaped a traumatizing childhood in the midst of the Congo Civil War.
Similarly with <i>Mosquitoland</i>, Arnold’s second book is full of intellectual knowledge and humour complete with references to highbrow material. Vic is obsessed with an operatic song and deeply interested in abstract art, particularly Matisse. He pulls the artist’s work apart in search of meaning and relatable truths of life. Like Vic, Mad has a particular song she draws comfort from. The lyrics help her make sense of the world around her, and produce her own manifesto – Madifesto, rather. She is particularly fascinated by S E Hinton’s <i>The Outsiders</i> – a book I have not read, but am obviously going to now. With in-depth theories purloined from her favourite novel, she encourages and advises those around her.
The murder investigation is evidently another key point of the book. I do not want to say too much on the matter as it would not be fair to give the ending away. Be reassured that<i> Kids of Appetite</i> is not a thriller, crime or horror novel; it is the events and dialogue leading up to the conclusion that make up the greatest parts of the story.
It is essentially the characters that make <i>Kids of Appetite</i> such a fantastic work of fiction. Their background stories are all based on real life experiences of many people throughout the world, but it is their opinion of life, their terminology, and their reckless enthusiasm that really impacts the reader. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book to be read over and over again. So many phrases can be lifted and quoted to explain our own lives and feelings. In fact, the entire novel is one big quote to sum up life itself. Although there are so many themes, stories and ideas, there is one clear message. Let go. Let go of the past. Let go of the things that hold you back. For Vic and Mad it is the death of their parents; for Coco it is abandonment; and Baz and Zuz learn to let go of their violent childhood.
David Arnold is an extremely talented author, seamlessly flowing from one notion to another, whilst sweeping the reader into a sea of pure emotion. He may over use the word “ergo” and have an unconventional penchant for ellipses, but that only adds to the uniqueness of the writing. There may be an excessive amount of expletives, however that is overshadowed by the pure genius of the story itself. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book I want to recommend to all. The blurb likens it to authors Rainbow Rowell and Jennifer Niven – I would like to throw John Green into the mix – and should appeal to many Young Adult readers. I could write forever about this book, but I would rather you go and read it yourself. And whilst you read, remember:
<i>They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good. </i>
They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good.</i>
<i>Mosquitoland </i>was the best book I read last year (2015) and I was excited to discover what David Arnold would write next. I approached<i> Kids of Appetite</i> with mild trepidation; what if it did not live up to my expectations? Need not have worried – it was brilliant. Dubbed a “tragicomedy” <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a combination of realistic, heartbreaking experiences with intellectual humour.
The book opens mid interview at a local police station where two teenagers, Vic and Mad, are being questioned about a murder their friend has supposedly committed. From there, the story backtracks a week and proceeds to bring the reader up to date. It all begins with Vic running away from home, distancing himself from his mother and her new partner. By chance, a coincidence – a bump, Vic would say – he is found by Mad who introduces him to a small group of homeless friends. Vic may not have packed in preparation for life on the streets – or in a greenhouse as it turns out – however he did grab the urn containing his late father’s ashes before racing out of the house. Along with the urn is a letter containing cryptic clues that lead to various locations that Vic’s father wished for his ashes to be scattered. He, along with his new found friends; make it a mission to put his father to rest.
It is not possible to label the general theme of the book. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a story full of stories. Each character has their own past, something that led them to the situation they find themselves in now. The group consists of five members – once Vic has been accepted. Baz, at age twenty-seven, is clearly the leader: responsible, caring, and fatherly – until accused of murder. Seven years younger is Zuz, Baz’s mute brother, and finally Coco, an eleven year old with the mouth of a foul old lady. It is Coco, amongst all her swearing and hilarious misuse of words, that coins the name <i>Kids of Appetite, KOA</i> for short, a play on words: they are not solely in want of food, they hunger for life.
Initially it would appear that the main focus will be on Vic: his father’s death, his mother’s new partner, Moebius (facial paralysis) – a syndrome that results in a lot of bullying and discrimination – and, of course, his flight from home. However the remaining members of <i>KOA </i>equally contribute to the overall narrative. Mad, like Vic, knows what it is like to lose a father. Unfortunately she also knows what it is like to lose a mother. Her life since the fateful car crash that left her and orphan has been full of abuse and uncertainty. Baz and Zuz, on the other hand, have escaped a traumatizing childhood in the midst of the Congo Civil War.
Similarly with <i>Mosquitoland</i>, Arnold’s second book is full of intellectual knowledge and humour complete with references to highbrow material. Vic is obsessed with an operatic song and deeply interested in abstract art, particularly Matisse. He pulls the artist’s work apart in search of meaning and relatable truths of life. Like Vic, Mad has a particular song she draws comfort from. The lyrics help her make sense of the world around her, and produce her own manifesto – Madifesto, rather. She is particularly fascinated by S E Hinton’s <i>The Outsiders</i> – a book I have not read, but am obviously going to now. With in-depth theories purloined from her favourite novel, she encourages and advises those around her.
The murder investigation is evidently another key point of the book. I do not want to say too much on the matter as it would not be fair to give the ending away. Be reassured that<i> Kids of Appetite</i> is not a thriller, crime or horror novel; it is the events and dialogue leading up to the conclusion that make up the greatest parts of the story.
It is essentially the characters that make <i>Kids of Appetite</i> such a fantastic work of fiction. Their background stories are all based on real life experiences of many people throughout the world, but it is their opinion of life, their terminology, and their reckless enthusiasm that really impacts the reader. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book to be read over and over again. So many phrases can be lifted and quoted to explain our own lives and feelings. In fact, the entire novel is one big quote to sum up life itself. Although there are so many themes, stories and ideas, there is one clear message. Let go. Let go of the past. Let go of the things that hold you back. For Vic and Mad it is the death of their parents; for Coco it is abandonment; and Baz and Zuz learn to let go of their violent childhood.
David Arnold is an extremely talented author, seamlessly flowing from one notion to another, whilst sweeping the reader into a sea of pure emotion. He may over use the word “ergo” and have an unconventional penchant for ellipses, but that only adds to the uniqueness of the writing. There may be an excessive amount of expletives, however that is overshadowed by the pure genius of the story itself. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book I want to recommend to all. The blurb likens it to authors Rainbow Rowell and Jennifer Niven – I would like to throw John Green into the mix – and should appeal to many Young Adult readers. I could write forever about this book, but I would rather you go and read it yourself. And whilst you read, remember:
<i>They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good. </i>
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Cruel Beauty in Books
Jan 23, 2020
I'm a sucker for fairy tales. I love retellings, myths, anything that's a complete spin from a well-known tale. I'm curious as to what authors come up with – problem is, Sleeping Beauty and Snow White needs a major upgrade or I might mentally blow a gasket one day. I promise it won't be pretty. No rants involved. Maybe a post about diversity in fairy tales instead (don't you take that post idea if no one's come up with it before o_o).
Well, Cruel Beauty is the cruel version of our beloved Disney characters. At least, that's what I thought at the very end. It's also got mythology, in which some I researched and learned new things (verification purposes). About time I'm not staring at what I learned in middle school/early high school over and over again.
Truth is, I enjoyed the concept of Cruel Beauty, but I didn't really enjoy the story... not too much. What originally caught my attention was the very fact that "Belle" is destined to marry the "Beast" ever since she was young due to a bargain her father made (reminds me of another story I can't think of currently). What I thought was even more interesting is how Rosamund Hodge bases the novel on ancient civilizations and mythology, particularly Pandora's box. Actually, I thought it was genius. I also think I've spoken too much about the book with those two words.
What started to lose my attention was this particular sentence... when Nyx – "Belle" of the story – is first married to the Gentle Lord – "Beast" of the story – and makes her entrance into his castle.
<blockquote>“I’m here!” I shouted. “Your bride! Congratulations on your marriage!”</blockquote>
I was like, really? THAT'S how you would make your entrance inside a demon's castle? Me, I would actually start plotting ways OUT of the castle, ways to avoid the Gentle Lord, etc. etc. NOT announcing, "Oh hey! I'm here! Come and feast on me!" *waves big sign*
And the Gentle Lord, no matter how much I like his humor, made a very unimpressive entrance.
<blockquote>In one moment I realized that what tickled my neck was a tuft of black hair, the blankets were a warm body, and the Gentle Lord was draped over me like a lazy cat, his head resting on my shoulder.</blockquote>
His reason?
<blockquote>“I got so bored waiting that I fell asleep too."</blockquote>
And...
<blockquote>“You were a good pillow."</blockquote>
DUDE. Sleeping on your bride when you first meet her even though you're now married? What an impressive husband you make. He could have slept next to her and not on top of her. You know, if a stranger – homeless or not – slept on top of me, I may kick said person's butt until they get off and call it self defense. I suppose some are now worried about my future. I'm completely surprised Nyx didn't mention that he was heavy, sleeping on top of her like that. Instead, this is her response shortly after:
<blockquote>“I’m sorry ,” I said, staring at the floor. “I just, my father made me promise to bring a knife, and— and—” I stuttered, acutely aware that I was half-naked in front of him. “I’m your wife! I burn for your touch! I thirst for your love!”</blockquote>
No offense, but that was so cheesy, it was bleeping hilarious. It's really obvious later from the Gentle Lord's constant mocking that Nyx should just act like herself and not the way her family wants her to act, but Nyx is completely oblivious.
Nyx, in a nutshell, is just the darker version of Belle. The semi-evil twin of Belle I may say, and it's no wonder she's named after the Greek goddess of the Night.
<blockquote>But I was a girl who had broken her sister’s heart and— for a moment— liked it. I had left somebody in torment and liked it.</blockquote>
Rosamund Hodge also implies that Nyx is well... a bit indecisive. In a conflict is more accurate. She wants to please her family – to fit in and meet up to her father's expectations even though he prefers her sister Astraia. Yet at the same time, she doesn't want to kill Ignite or whatever the Gentle Lord calls himself (the book was an e-loan and I'm basing this review off of my notes because I'm too lazy to jump on the hold list yet again) because she's in love with him. I suppose it makes sense in a way, since she wants to go with her emotions yet she's been trained her entire life to kill this one evil guy who isn't actually evil...
<blockquote>“Of course he’s evil and unforgivable.” My voice felt like it was coming from the far end of a long tunnel. “But he is the only reason I ever honored Mother with a clean heart. And if I hadn’t learnt to be kind with him, I would never have come back to beg your forgiveness and choose you over him. So gloat all you want— you deserve to watch us both suffer— but don’t you dare say I will ever be free of him. Every kindness I show you, all the rest of your life, that’s because of him. And no matter how many times I betray him, I will love him still.” </blockquote>
I mean, Nyx is living with the Gentle Lord. She could have just made her decision to live with him always and never guess his name, right?
Cruel Beauty, as much as I like the entire idea behind it, is not one of those fairy tales I find very impressive. It's very much one of those books that I roll my eyes at, especially at how the romance played out (just because I never dated a soul doesn't mean I can't tell).
------------------------
Original Rating: 3.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/09/review-cruel-beauty-by-rosamund-hodge.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Well, Cruel Beauty is the cruel version of our beloved Disney characters. At least, that's what I thought at the very end. It's also got mythology, in which some I researched and learned new things (verification purposes). About time I'm not staring at what I learned in middle school/early high school over and over again.
Truth is, I enjoyed the concept of Cruel Beauty, but I didn't really enjoy the story... not too much. What originally caught my attention was the very fact that "Belle" is destined to marry the "Beast" ever since she was young due to a bargain her father made (reminds me of another story I can't think of currently). What I thought was even more interesting is how Rosamund Hodge bases the novel on ancient civilizations and mythology, particularly Pandora's box. Actually, I thought it was genius. I also think I've spoken too much about the book with those two words.
What started to lose my attention was this particular sentence... when Nyx – "Belle" of the story – is first married to the Gentle Lord – "Beast" of the story – and makes her entrance into his castle.
<blockquote>“I’m here!” I shouted. “Your bride! Congratulations on your marriage!”</blockquote>
I was like, really? THAT'S how you would make your entrance inside a demon's castle? Me, I would actually start plotting ways OUT of the castle, ways to avoid the Gentle Lord, etc. etc. NOT announcing, "Oh hey! I'm here! Come and feast on me!" *waves big sign*
And the Gentle Lord, no matter how much I like his humor, made a very unimpressive entrance.
<blockquote>In one moment I realized that what tickled my neck was a tuft of black hair, the blankets were a warm body, and the Gentle Lord was draped over me like a lazy cat, his head resting on my shoulder.</blockquote>
His reason?
<blockquote>“I got so bored waiting that I fell asleep too."</blockquote>
And...
<blockquote>“You were a good pillow."</blockquote>
DUDE. Sleeping on your bride when you first meet her even though you're now married? What an impressive husband you make. He could have slept next to her and not on top of her. You know, if a stranger – homeless or not – slept on top of me, I may kick said person's butt until they get off and call it self defense. I suppose some are now worried about my future. I'm completely surprised Nyx didn't mention that he was heavy, sleeping on top of her like that. Instead, this is her response shortly after:
<blockquote>“I’m sorry ,” I said, staring at the floor. “I just, my father made me promise to bring a knife, and— and—” I stuttered, acutely aware that I was half-naked in front of him. “I’m your wife! I burn for your touch! I thirst for your love!”</blockquote>
No offense, but that was so cheesy, it was bleeping hilarious. It's really obvious later from the Gentle Lord's constant mocking that Nyx should just act like herself and not the way her family wants her to act, but Nyx is completely oblivious.
Nyx, in a nutshell, is just the darker version of Belle. The semi-evil twin of Belle I may say, and it's no wonder she's named after the Greek goddess of the Night.
<blockquote>But I was a girl who had broken her sister’s heart and— for a moment— liked it. I had left somebody in torment and liked it.</blockquote>
Rosamund Hodge also implies that Nyx is well... a bit indecisive. In a conflict is more accurate. She wants to please her family – to fit in and meet up to her father's expectations even though he prefers her sister Astraia. Yet at the same time, she doesn't want to kill Ignite or whatever the Gentle Lord calls himself (the book was an e-loan and I'm basing this review off of my notes because I'm too lazy to jump on the hold list yet again) because she's in love with him. I suppose it makes sense in a way, since she wants to go with her emotions yet she's been trained her entire life to kill this one evil guy who isn't actually evil...
<blockquote>“Of course he’s evil and unforgivable.” My voice felt like it was coming from the far end of a long tunnel. “But he is the only reason I ever honored Mother with a clean heart. And if I hadn’t learnt to be kind with him, I would never have come back to beg your forgiveness and choose you over him. So gloat all you want— you deserve to watch us both suffer— but don’t you dare say I will ever be free of him. Every kindness I show you, all the rest of your life, that’s because of him. And no matter how many times I betray him, I will love him still.” </blockquote>
I mean, Nyx is living with the Gentle Lord. She could have just made her decision to live with him always and never guess his name, right?
Cruel Beauty, as much as I like the entire idea behind it, is not one of those fairy tales I find very impressive. It's very much one of those books that I roll my eyes at, especially at how the romance played out (just because I never dated a soul doesn't mean I can't tell).
------------------------
Original Rating: 3.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/09/review-cruel-beauty-by-rosamund-hodge.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>