Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Dec 15, 2019
Verdict: Zellweger Shines
Story: Judy starts in the late 1960’s where screen legend Judy Garland (Zellweger) has been running low on money, struggling to keep a roof over her children’s heads, she must let her ex-husband Sidney Luft (Sewell) look after them, while she travels to London, where she has a fan base dying to see her in sell-out concerts.
In London Judy is managed by Rosalyn Wilder (Buckley) who must make sure she makes the shows, Judy is trying to make the money, while experiencing the flashbacks of her time working on the Wizard of Oz, being order into certain diets, being controlled. She does make new friends and learns about her own personal problems.
Thoughts on Judy
Characters – Judy Garland is the screen legend, she has been struggling in the mid-40s with a reputation that claims she is difficult, needing to find a way to have an income, she moves to London for a string of shows, which soon sell out, giving her a chance at recovering her career, only her demons will continue to haunt her. Sidney Luft is the ex-husband that wants to have custody of their children back in America. Rosalyn Wilder is trying to manage Judy on the London, she does what she can, getting the most out of her. Bernard Delfont is financing the concerts, he is left disappointed with Judy, echoing what it was like for her as a child star. Most of the supporting characters don’t get much to do, while we focus a lot more on Judy’s life.
Performances – Renee Zellweger is fantastic in this leading role, completely controlling the scenes, making us feel every emotion that Judy would go through. Rufus Sewell, Jessie Buckley and Michael Gambon are all strong, though they don’t get much to work with.
Story – The story here follows Judy Garland’s arrival in London for a set of concerts, hoping to revive her career, only her past demons and reputation come back to haunt her once again. The story might show more of her time on the big stage in London which is all fine, but the tragic side of her story only comes in small flashbacks, these scenes are filled with pain and would have been a lot more interesting to see, just how badly she was treated at a young age by the blossoming Hollywood system. We don’t see much between The Wizard of Oz and 1968 either, which is where her bad reputation comes from, this would have also been nice to see, what caused this reputation, was it fair etc. we just seem to skip a lot, despite how interesting the loneliness Judy is experiencing in London would be.
Biopic – We only get to see a couple of moments from Judy’s life, part of the making of Wizard of Oz and then her 1968 concert tour in London, different stages of her career, different problems in her life.
Settings – The film has a couple of main settings, the set of Wizard of Oz, the stage in London and the hotel where she was staying in her time in London, they show her strength, her weakness and the place that broke her early in her life.
Scene of the Movie – Somewhere Over the Rainbow.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not learning enough about why Judy became difficult to work with.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting biopic, where we get to see a difficult stage of her career, Zellweger is fantastic and elevates this film to new levels.
Overall: Nice Biopic, With Something Missing.
Story: Judy starts in the late 1960’s where screen legend Judy Garland (Zellweger) has been running low on money, struggling to keep a roof over her children’s heads, she must let her ex-husband Sidney Luft (Sewell) look after them, while she travels to London, where she has a fan base dying to see her in sell-out concerts.
In London Judy is managed by Rosalyn Wilder (Buckley) who must make sure she makes the shows, Judy is trying to make the money, while experiencing the flashbacks of her time working on the Wizard of Oz, being order into certain diets, being controlled. She does make new friends and learns about her own personal problems.
Thoughts on Judy
Characters – Judy Garland is the screen legend, she has been struggling in the mid-40s with a reputation that claims she is difficult, needing to find a way to have an income, she moves to London for a string of shows, which soon sell out, giving her a chance at recovering her career, only her demons will continue to haunt her. Sidney Luft is the ex-husband that wants to have custody of their children back in America. Rosalyn Wilder is trying to manage Judy on the London, she does what she can, getting the most out of her. Bernard Delfont is financing the concerts, he is left disappointed with Judy, echoing what it was like for her as a child star. Most of the supporting characters don’t get much to do, while we focus a lot more on Judy’s life.
Performances – Renee Zellweger is fantastic in this leading role, completely controlling the scenes, making us feel every emotion that Judy would go through. Rufus Sewell, Jessie Buckley and Michael Gambon are all strong, though they don’t get much to work with.
Story – The story here follows Judy Garland’s arrival in London for a set of concerts, hoping to revive her career, only her past demons and reputation come back to haunt her once again. The story might show more of her time on the big stage in London which is all fine, but the tragic side of her story only comes in small flashbacks, these scenes are filled with pain and would have been a lot more interesting to see, just how badly she was treated at a young age by the blossoming Hollywood system. We don’t see much between The Wizard of Oz and 1968 either, which is where her bad reputation comes from, this would have also been nice to see, what caused this reputation, was it fair etc. we just seem to skip a lot, despite how interesting the loneliness Judy is experiencing in London would be.
Biopic – We only get to see a couple of moments from Judy’s life, part of the making of Wizard of Oz and then her 1968 concert tour in London, different stages of her career, different problems in her life.
Settings – The film has a couple of main settings, the set of Wizard of Oz, the stage in London and the hotel where she was staying in her time in London, they show her strength, her weakness and the place that broke her early in her life.
Scene of the Movie – Somewhere Over the Rainbow.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not learning enough about why Judy became difficult to work with.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting biopic, where we get to see a difficult stage of her career, Zellweger is fantastic and elevates this film to new levels.
Overall: Nice Biopic, With Something Missing.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020
More classic literature retold for the modern audience, this time with a very distinctive and chaotic style.
Young David Copperfield is sent off into the world by his step-father. Unaware of the real woes of the world he must keep his spirits up as his surroundings changes to a much harsher nature. As he grows he's still a creative and happy-go-lucky young man but has he found himself in the place he truly wants to be?
I had to keep reminding myself that the film we were watching was being told to us by David himself, the chaotic nature throughout would have been, in part, down to his natural chaotic energy. It did become overwhelming at times though and starting the film with so many transitions was quite off putting.
I don't remember the last time I saw a cast this diverse, and that's a great thing but the cynical side of me did briefly wonder if it was diversity for the sake of that bit of recognition. Ugh, I hate thinking that, and it's in no way a reflection on the cast as they're all excellent actors, but I didn't feel like some of the character dynamics worked together. That may also have something to do with the frantic nature of everything else going on though.
There's definite theatre in this, each scene feels like it takes place in a confined space, like that of a stage, until it opens up at the end to its infinite future and possibilities.
Everything in this period drama feels wrong for a traditional period drama. The cities would normally be drab and dank but everything has a surprisingly light and airy nature to it, a quirk of David's optimism maybe? Each location was stunning though and designed perfectly for its needs. The Micawber's home being accessible from almost every angle to allow for the tussles with the creditors, and Mr Dick's room as a reflection of the chaos in his head. There was much to marvel at but so little time to see it as it fought for attention with the constantly moving script.
Dev Patel feels like the perfect choice for the role of Copperfield, the excitement and optimism in it is not that far off his portrayal of Sonny Kapoor in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. He brought the energy needed to keep up with the pace and it made for an entertaining lead.
Was this just too much though? So much story crammed into just 2 hours of screen time. Too many great actors never really getting a chance to make an impact [a very similar feeling to the Knives Out's roster]. A pace that was akin to a 2 hour version of Clue's multiple endings. Too much, I was exhausted after seeing it.
Having only seen Iannucci's directing before in Death Of Stalin I'm unsure as to whether this pacing issue is something common to him, I genuinely don't remember that being quite this chaotic, but that alone was enough to put me off. The experience felt rushed and that's never how I want to feel when I watch a film.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-personal-history-of-david.html
Young David Copperfield is sent off into the world by his step-father. Unaware of the real woes of the world he must keep his spirits up as his surroundings changes to a much harsher nature. As he grows he's still a creative and happy-go-lucky young man but has he found himself in the place he truly wants to be?
I had to keep reminding myself that the film we were watching was being told to us by David himself, the chaotic nature throughout would have been, in part, down to his natural chaotic energy. It did become overwhelming at times though and starting the film with so many transitions was quite off putting.
I don't remember the last time I saw a cast this diverse, and that's a great thing but the cynical side of me did briefly wonder if it was diversity for the sake of that bit of recognition. Ugh, I hate thinking that, and it's in no way a reflection on the cast as they're all excellent actors, but I didn't feel like some of the character dynamics worked together. That may also have something to do with the frantic nature of everything else going on though.
There's definite theatre in this, each scene feels like it takes place in a confined space, like that of a stage, until it opens up at the end to its infinite future and possibilities.
Everything in this period drama feels wrong for a traditional period drama. The cities would normally be drab and dank but everything has a surprisingly light and airy nature to it, a quirk of David's optimism maybe? Each location was stunning though and designed perfectly for its needs. The Micawber's home being accessible from almost every angle to allow for the tussles with the creditors, and Mr Dick's room as a reflection of the chaos in his head. There was much to marvel at but so little time to see it as it fought for attention with the constantly moving script.
Dev Patel feels like the perfect choice for the role of Copperfield, the excitement and optimism in it is not that far off his portrayal of Sonny Kapoor in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. He brought the energy needed to keep up with the pace and it made for an entertaining lead.
Was this just too much though? So much story crammed into just 2 hours of screen time. Too many great actors never really getting a chance to make an impact [a very similar feeling to the Knives Out's roster]. A pace that was akin to a 2 hour version of Clue's multiple endings. Too much, I was exhausted after seeing it.
Having only seen Iannucci's directing before in Death Of Stalin I'm unsure as to whether this pacing issue is something common to him, I genuinely don't remember that being quite this chaotic, but that alone was enough to put me off. The experience felt rushed and that's never how I want to feel when I watch a film.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-personal-history-of-david.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Man Who Knew Infinity (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In 1914, Srinivasa Ramanujan (Dev Patel) traveled from his poverty-stricken existence in Madras, India to Trinity College, Cambridge in the hope that he would have his theories published and be recognized for the mathematical genius he was. While there, despite facing racism, hostility and severe illness, he formed an important relationship with G.H. Hardy (Jeremy Irons) that would lead to breakthroughs in mathematics that are still relevant today.
It would be easy to prattle on about the tremendous talent onscreen in The Man Who Knew Infinity and with a supporting cast that features some of Britain’s best; we get exactly what we’d expect from the likes of Jeremy Irons, Toby Jones and Kevin McNally. All at the top of their game, they serve the story well with nuanced and well-rounded performances, and I’m certainly not going to take anything away from the exceptional jobs they’ve all done here. All the praise this film deserves however, needs to be directed at Dev Patel. In his role as Ramanujan, he’s completely stepped out of the shadow of his big-screen debut in Slumdog Millionaire and has proved his worth as a leading man capable of carrying the weight of an entire feature. Distancing himself also from the lovable, bumbling hotel owner in The Best Exotic Marigold movies, with Ramanujan he is allowed the room to display an incredible range, from quiet intensity to outspoken, unbridled passion and determination. Kudos also to the writers for not going The Big Short route (e.g. talking down to the uninitiated with ridiculous cutaways), but by using simple logic and examples to help convey complex information relevant to the plot.
For the performances alone, this is a solid entry in the biopic genre, but structurally speaking, it’s the editing that lets the film down. This very easily could have emerged as the next A Beautiful Mind, but between a bloated first act, a middling and wandering second act and a truncated final third, The Man Who Knew Infinity falls just short of greatness. Not only is no attention paid to Ramanujan’s achievements as a child, but too much time is given to details and subplots that are arguably inconsequential to the main narrative. This is especially evident in the inclusion of Bertrand Russell (who lived such a rich and fascinating life himself, it would take several films to do that story justice) and his being here feels like just a hollow excuse to include a cameo from another figure of historical importance. The biggest disservice though comes with the ending where we are denied a much needed catharsis and are left to suffer through a slap-dash, halfhearted montage. A restructuring from a more seasoned hand would have undoubtedly led to stronger word-of-mouth and perhaps a wider release. I also wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this is a case of “too many cooks” as the film has a staggering 43 credited producers. I get that independent features can be forced to source their funding from many places, but you can’t tell me that with all those opinions flying about that some of the original intent didn’t get lost in the noise.
As an aside, what Stephen Fry is doing here is beyond me. He’s given two scenes with perhaps a half a dozen lines, leaving his incomparable persona entirely wasted on a completely throwaway character. It’s a pity he wasn’t given a meatier role as one of Ramanujan’s antagonists.
It would be easy to prattle on about the tremendous talent onscreen in The Man Who Knew Infinity and with a supporting cast that features some of Britain’s best; we get exactly what we’d expect from the likes of Jeremy Irons, Toby Jones and Kevin McNally. All at the top of their game, they serve the story well with nuanced and well-rounded performances, and I’m certainly not going to take anything away from the exceptional jobs they’ve all done here. All the praise this film deserves however, needs to be directed at Dev Patel. In his role as Ramanujan, he’s completely stepped out of the shadow of his big-screen debut in Slumdog Millionaire and has proved his worth as a leading man capable of carrying the weight of an entire feature. Distancing himself also from the lovable, bumbling hotel owner in The Best Exotic Marigold movies, with Ramanujan he is allowed the room to display an incredible range, from quiet intensity to outspoken, unbridled passion and determination. Kudos also to the writers for not going The Big Short route (e.g. talking down to the uninitiated with ridiculous cutaways), but by using simple logic and examples to help convey complex information relevant to the plot.
For the performances alone, this is a solid entry in the biopic genre, but structurally speaking, it’s the editing that lets the film down. This very easily could have emerged as the next A Beautiful Mind, but between a bloated first act, a middling and wandering second act and a truncated final third, The Man Who Knew Infinity falls just short of greatness. Not only is no attention paid to Ramanujan’s achievements as a child, but too much time is given to details and subplots that are arguably inconsequential to the main narrative. This is especially evident in the inclusion of Bertrand Russell (who lived such a rich and fascinating life himself, it would take several films to do that story justice) and his being here feels like just a hollow excuse to include a cameo from another figure of historical importance. The biggest disservice though comes with the ending where we are denied a much needed catharsis and are left to suffer through a slap-dash, halfhearted montage. A restructuring from a more seasoned hand would have undoubtedly led to stronger word-of-mouth and perhaps a wider release. I also wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this is a case of “too many cooks” as the film has a staggering 43 credited producers. I get that independent features can be forced to source their funding from many places, but you can’t tell me that with all those opinions flying about that some of the original intent didn’t get lost in the noise.
As an aside, what Stephen Fry is doing here is beyond me. He’s given two scenes with perhaps a half a dozen lines, leaving his incomparable persona entirely wasted on a completely throwaway character. It’s a pity he wasn’t given a meatier role as one of Ramanujan’s antagonists.
PressReader
News and Magazines & Newspapers
App
Connecting you with the stories you love, from thousands of sources you trust. All you can read news...
Rodigan: My Life in Reggae
Book
'THE BOOK THAT EVERY REGGAE FAN SHOULD READ' John Masouri, Echoes 'Rodigan can still claim a...
VPN Shield - Proxy Wi-Fi Security & Unblock Sites
Business and Utilities
App
VPN Shield App guaranteed access to popular web sites, secure connection, protects your online...
LOOKMEUP – Dating in places of leisure near
Dating, Lifestyle and Social Networking
2.0
Rate It
App
LOOKMEUP - MEET HERE! MEET NOW! The existing dating apps use the same algorithms, which are in...
James Bagshaw recommended track Telstar by The Tornados in Ridin' the Wind: The Anthology by The Tornados in Music (curated)
Lenard (726 KP) rated One Night in Miami (2020) in Movies
Jan 9, 2021
One Night in Miami is from start to finish a frank examination on responsibility and acceptance. On February 25, 1964, four friends who happened to highly visible black men, Malcolm X, Cassius Clay, Sam Cooke, and Jim Brown, met in a hotel room after Cassius surprised the world in winning the heavyweight championship. But, before we get to that night, we are introduced to each man at a crossroads. Malcolm X is breaking away from the Nation of Islam after witnessing the corruption of its leadership. His actions would lead some members to view him as a direct threat. Cassius Clay is a great boxer, but his focus is waning. His brash style is alienating the audience and he has opinions about the way his brothers are being treated in the country. Sam Cooke is recognized as a great voice, but still not respected in the "white" world where success is gauged. He is looking for a way to crossover without betraying his roots. Jim Brown is the greatest football player, but even in his hometown he is still seen as inferior socially. In this dramatized version of the events of that night, each man must come to terms with the path he has chosen and the path forward.
Like another recent film, the path is a choice between making changes within the system, like Sam Cooke and Jim Brown have attempted, or to change the system from the outside, like Malcolm and Clay. Both paths have their advantages, and both are also deadly. Within a year, both Malcolm and Cooke would be dead. The movie based on a play finds ways from each character to learn from the others by pairing them off in various combinations (Malcolm-Cooke, Brown-Clay, Cooke-Clay, Malcolm-Brown, Malcolm-Clay, Cooke-Brown). The main antagonism takes place between Cooke and Malcolm. Cooke sees Malcolm as a militant who is creating sowing seeds of fear in the eyes of "America" and Malcolm sees Cooke as a Stepin Fetchit with a huge amount of talent wasted playing by the rules. Cooke shows Malcolm that he is quietly taking control while Malcolm gives Cooke the spark to sing for civil rights for the less fortunate members of black society. Malcolm also begins to see how his actions have hurt his brothers by grouping all members of one race together similar to the way whites do not distinguish between black individuals. The movie never shies away from shading each hero with flaws.
Malcolm may be paranoid as evidenced by a couple scenes where he sees people on his trail who may or may not be real. Under a lot of pressure to break from his organization, Malcolm sees his staff betraying him to the feds who have been investigating him since he first started speaking. The whole subplot humanizes a man who many view as dangerous to the world. Jim Brown is also seen as a hero to most. He broke records and is about to conquer the film industry. Maybe they are using him, but he is using them to shine a light on the inequality of the races.
Lastly, one scene in the movie is a highlight. It is not in Miami, but in Boston. It shows how one man can turn a riot into a celebration of joy. With the main road blocked, a man of great talent can turn adversity into victory using his wits and his voice.
Like another recent film, the path is a choice between making changes within the system, like Sam Cooke and Jim Brown have attempted, or to change the system from the outside, like Malcolm and Clay. Both paths have their advantages, and both are also deadly. Within a year, both Malcolm and Cooke would be dead. The movie based on a play finds ways from each character to learn from the others by pairing them off in various combinations (Malcolm-Cooke, Brown-Clay, Cooke-Clay, Malcolm-Brown, Malcolm-Clay, Cooke-Brown). The main antagonism takes place between Cooke and Malcolm. Cooke sees Malcolm as a militant who is creating sowing seeds of fear in the eyes of "America" and Malcolm sees Cooke as a Stepin Fetchit with a huge amount of talent wasted playing by the rules. Cooke shows Malcolm that he is quietly taking control while Malcolm gives Cooke the spark to sing for civil rights for the less fortunate members of black society. Malcolm also begins to see how his actions have hurt his brothers by grouping all members of one race together similar to the way whites do not distinguish between black individuals. The movie never shies away from shading each hero with flaws.
Malcolm may be paranoid as evidenced by a couple scenes where he sees people on his trail who may or may not be real. Under a lot of pressure to break from his organization, Malcolm sees his staff betraying him to the feds who have been investigating him since he first started speaking. The whole subplot humanizes a man who many view as dangerous to the world. Jim Brown is also seen as a hero to most. He broke records and is about to conquer the film industry. Maybe they are using him, but he is using them to shine a light on the inequality of the races.
Lastly, one scene in the movie is a highlight. It is not in Miami, but in Boston. It shows how one man can turn a riot into a celebration of joy. With the main road blocked, a man of great talent can turn adversity into victory using his wits and his voice.
Eleanor Luhar (47 KP) rated She Is Not Invisible in Books
Jun 24, 2019
This was not how I expected it to be. I liked the uniqueness of it, though, and how unpredictable it turned out to be.
It starts in an airport, with the protagonist and narrator (who's name we learn to be Laureth) and her little brother Benjamin. We soon discover that Laureth is blind, which provides us with a very interesting account of the events of this story. They are going to America, alone, to find their father. He's a writer, and holds his notebooks very dearly - so when Laureth gets an email about one being found in America when he's supposed to be in Switzerland (and then he fails to answer his phone) she immediately assumes something is very wrong.
This is told mostly chronologically, but with memories scattered throughout. Laureth also gives slight hints as to what will be happening later on, reinstating the fact that she is writing about past events. I quite liked this - we were told about certain memories and events that were relevant to the story at that time, nothing more, nothing less.
It turns into quite a dark, suspenseful hunt. Laureth starts to fear that her father may even have taken his own life. The pair even get cornered by a man with a knife who claims to have seen her father. His partner later breaks into their hotel room, searching for some valuable contents of her father's safe. Coincidentally, they run in to her father just moments later.
The obsession of Laureth and Ben's father is coincidences; a very interesting topic. He goes into great detail in his notebook (which we are shown throughout the book), discussing theories and particular physicists' experiences. Bit by bit, he seems to be delving deeper and deeper into the mysteries of the universe. Laureth is caught up in this - she looks for clues in every page of her dad's notebook. But is she looking too hard? Is she finding signs that aren't really there?
Laureth relies on her brother to navigate the world, and although he is only going, he is superbly helpful to her. She is adamant on being an independent young lady, and even hides her impairment from most people she meets. As she is the narrator of this book, we are given an account that does not include any visual descriptions. Instead, the other senses are used far more - sounds and feelings especially. I really liked this.
The ending was wonderful. It was different - completely unexpected. I especially liked how her "coincidental" meeting with Sam turned out to mean nothing at all. And her father's account of what had happened, and his realisation that his obsession was pointless, was so ironic. Laureth and Ben had been on this massive journey, worried their father was so caught up in his obsession that his life was in danger. They began to find strange patterns and signs everywhere - only to find out how coindences are completely fake.
And the last page was so clever, too. It was numbered 354 which is clever in itself - this number holds a massive significance throughout this book - but then there's also the hidden message that's revealed. One of the last sentences prompts you to look closely at the book, and then you find a heartwarming little phrase. I really liked this idea - it seems a bit naff, but actually worked really well.
I did feel like this was maybe a little more for younger adults (I'm nearly 18) but it was really easy to follow and quick to read. It wasn't lengthy or tiresome at all. 4 stars.
It starts in an airport, with the protagonist and narrator (who's name we learn to be Laureth) and her little brother Benjamin. We soon discover that Laureth is blind, which provides us with a very interesting account of the events of this story. They are going to America, alone, to find their father. He's a writer, and holds his notebooks very dearly - so when Laureth gets an email about one being found in America when he's supposed to be in Switzerland (and then he fails to answer his phone) she immediately assumes something is very wrong.
This is told mostly chronologically, but with memories scattered throughout. Laureth also gives slight hints as to what will be happening later on, reinstating the fact that she is writing about past events. I quite liked this - we were told about certain memories and events that were relevant to the story at that time, nothing more, nothing less.
It turns into quite a dark, suspenseful hunt. Laureth starts to fear that her father may even have taken his own life. The pair even get cornered by a man with a knife who claims to have seen her father. His partner later breaks into their hotel room, searching for some valuable contents of her father's safe. Coincidentally, they run in to her father just moments later.
The obsession of Laureth and Ben's father is coincidences; a very interesting topic. He goes into great detail in his notebook (which we are shown throughout the book), discussing theories and particular physicists' experiences. Bit by bit, he seems to be delving deeper and deeper into the mysteries of the universe. Laureth is caught up in this - she looks for clues in every page of her dad's notebook. But is she looking too hard? Is she finding signs that aren't really there?
Laureth relies on her brother to navigate the world, and although he is only going, he is superbly helpful to her. She is adamant on being an independent young lady, and even hides her impairment from most people she meets. As she is the narrator of this book, we are given an account that does not include any visual descriptions. Instead, the other senses are used far more - sounds and feelings especially. I really liked this.
The ending was wonderful. It was different - completely unexpected. I especially liked how her "coincidental" meeting with Sam turned out to mean nothing at all. And her father's account of what had happened, and his realisation that his obsession was pointless, was so ironic. Laureth and Ben had been on this massive journey, worried their father was so caught up in his obsession that his life was in danger. They began to find strange patterns and signs everywhere - only to find out how coindences are completely fake.
And the last page was so clever, too. It was numbered 354 which is clever in itself - this number holds a massive significance throughout this book - but then there's also the hidden message that's revealed. One of the last sentences prompts you to look closely at the book, and then you find a heartwarming little phrase. I really liked this idea - it seems a bit naff, but actually worked really well.
I did feel like this was maybe a little more for younger adults (I'm nearly 18) but it was really easy to follow and quick to read. It wasn't lengthy or tiresome at all. 4 stars.