Search
Search results
Dean (6921 KP) rated A Confession in TV
Oct 7, 2019
Interesting True crime drama
A good drama based on a true story. A detective makes a decision to try and find a missing girl that will have repercussions for the case. The first few episodes were good as the police do the detective work to try and find a missing girl. They establish a suspect and try their best to find out where she is and what happened to her. The latter episodes deal with the court case and legal disputes over certain evidence. The beginning is like many other crime dramas, very tense trying to find a suspect and build up evidence. However the 2nd half of the series is bogged down by the legal red tape over the law of questioning suspects. Hard to believe that the law still hasn't been changed yet around this ruling. It is more interesting as it's a true crime drama though.
21st century remake of the cult post-apocalyptic drama is supposedly based on the novelisation of the 70s show, not the show itself, but one gets the impression this claim is just there as a legal requirement: in the early episodes, at least, this is recognisably the same story.
That said, New Survivors is notably more suburban and less concerned with the realities of post-apocalyptic survival than with making grand statements about family and love through the medium of slightly soapy and soft-centred drama. It's a BBC genre drama from the late 2000s, so the characters are more diverse, everything is rather sentimental, and supplies of subtlety do not appear to have made it through the catastrophe. Still, it's kind of watchable, especially if you can put the original show out of your mind, and in the second series in particular one can discern an interesting subtext suggesting the programme is partly motivated by anger aimed at the culprits of the financial disaster of 2008. Second series concludes on a cliffhanger of sorts, so you can have fun making up your own ending for the story.
That said, New Survivors is notably more suburban and less concerned with the realities of post-apocalyptic survival than with making grand statements about family and love through the medium of slightly soapy and soft-centred drama. It's a BBC genre drama from the late 2000s, so the characters are more diverse, everything is rather sentimental, and supplies of subtlety do not appear to have made it through the catastrophe. Still, it's kind of watchable, especially if you can put the original show out of your mind, and in the second series in particular one can discern an interesting subtext suggesting the programme is partly motivated by anger aimed at the culprits of the financial disaster of 2008. Second series concludes on a cliffhanger of sorts, so you can have fun making up your own ending for the story.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Just Mercy (2019) in Movies
Jan 21, 2020
Fact-based courtroom drama. Idealistic young lawyer Bryan Stevenson (Jordan), fresh out of Harvard, heads down to Alabama and sets up an agency to provide legal support to people with no other recourse. He comes across the case of convicted murderer Walter McMillian (Foxx), which strikes him as deeply compromised. But can he overcome a prejudiced system and win his client justice?
I was all set to be very glib and cynical about what looks like - from the trailer at least - another box-ticking exercise in liberal angst about the Plight of Black America, calculated to have a presence during awards season. Well, to some extent this is that kind of a movie, but it is also a genuinely involving, powerful and moving drama - it's the kind of film that gets past your defences and forces you to care, thanks to basic film-making virtues, a compelling story, and strong performances. Anyone doubting that Michael B Jordan is now a significant leading man should check out his performance here: he brings strength, dignity, and nobility, as you would expect, but there is also a willingness to show naivety and vulnerability. Obviously this is part of a tradition of films about racism in America that includes To Kill a Mockingbird and In the Heat of the Night, but by focusing mainly on the legal plotline and saving its political points until near the end, it makes them all the more impactful when they land. Jordan gets stuck with a bit too much speechifying as the film goes on, and a couple of the supporting performances are arguably overcooked, but otherwise this is an extremely accomplished film.
I was all set to be very glib and cynical about what looks like - from the trailer at least - another box-ticking exercise in liberal angst about the Plight of Black America, calculated to have a presence during awards season. Well, to some extent this is that kind of a movie, but it is also a genuinely involving, powerful and moving drama - it's the kind of film that gets past your defences and forces you to care, thanks to basic film-making virtues, a compelling story, and strong performances. Anyone doubting that Michael B Jordan is now a significant leading man should check out his performance here: he brings strength, dignity, and nobility, as you would expect, but there is also a willingness to show naivety and vulnerability. Obviously this is part of a tradition of films about racism in America that includes To Kill a Mockingbird and In the Heat of the Night, but by focusing mainly on the legal plotline and saving its political points until near the end, it makes them all the more impactful when they land. Jordan gets stuck with a bit too much speechifying as the film goes on, and a couple of the supporting performances are arguably overcooked, but otherwise this is an extremely accomplished film.
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Anatomy of a Scandal in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Anatomy of a Scandal is based around three central characters. First there’s James, the suave, charismatic family man and politician who is also good friends with the Prime Minister. He’s wealthy and over-privileged. Then we meet Kate, the young, ruthlessly ambitious prosecutor, who’s determined to see James get the guilty verdict he deserves. She’s also good at her job and made her name prosecuting the very worst sexual assault cases. Finally we meet Sophie, James’ wife who has been dating James since college and knows him better than anyone else. All have a vital part to play in this psychological, legal drama, which starts with a shocking scandal being revealed, which is then dissected in court.
James is accused of rape one of his assistants, but did he do it? While his wife Sophie is seemingly supportive on the outside, on the inside her mind is going crazy thinking about his alleged crimes and what he could in fact be capable of. Just how long can she remain loyal as the story unfolds?
We travel from the court case, back in time to Oxford in the 90s and into the current murky goings on within the privileged political world, where money, corruption and power rule the day.
This is an extremely well written and cleverly plotted, insightful story, which I can easily see adapted into a BBC drama, very much like Louise Doughty’s Apple Tree Yard.
Sarah Vaughan has mastered a treat for us with Anatomy of a Scandal, a sharp, engrossing and poignant political drama, which highlights some shocking hard-hitting facts with sensitivity and realism. Terrific!
James is accused of rape one of his assistants, but did he do it? While his wife Sophie is seemingly supportive on the outside, on the inside her mind is going crazy thinking about his alleged crimes and what he could in fact be capable of. Just how long can she remain loyal as the story unfolds?
We travel from the court case, back in time to Oxford in the 90s and into the current murky goings on within the privileged political world, where money, corruption and power rule the day.
This is an extremely well written and cleverly plotted, insightful story, which I can easily see adapted into a BBC drama, very much like Louise Doughty’s Apple Tree Yard.
Sarah Vaughan has mastered a treat for us with Anatomy of a Scandal, a sharp, engrossing and poignant political drama, which highlights some shocking hard-hitting facts with sensitivity and realism. Terrific!
Sarah (7798 KP) rated A Few Good Men (1992) in Movies
Aug 1, 2020
Brilliantly done
I'm ashamed to say that until tonight, I'd never seen this film. I had thought it was just another monotonous and dull courtroom drama (despite knowing most people refer to it as a classic), however had I known this was written by Aaron Sorkin I would've watched it a long time ago!
The star of this film is by far Sorkin's script and writing. It isn't just a dreary by the bools legal drama, the script is spot on - it's whip sharp, witty and surprisingly funny at parts. This film keeps you hanging on every minute and guessing about the outcome. This paired with a truly phenomenal cast makes the movie a must see. I'm not the biggest fan of Tom Cruise, but he's an absolute star in this and displays a range I never thought possible from him. And then of course there's Jack Nicholson who manages to almost steal the show with his iconic line and speech, despite it really only being a minor part. And the rest of the cast too are really great, even Demi Moore who I've never thought much of either.
My only criticism of this film is that it may be overly long. Not massively, but at 2h15 I feel like it could've been cut down a little to around 2 hours without any real detriment to the story. But that said, this did pretty much hold my attention throughout and this is mainly due to Tom Cruise's performance and Sorkin's unbelievably brilliant script. If you're looking for a shining example of a courtroom drama, you can do no better than this.
The star of this film is by far Sorkin's script and writing. It isn't just a dreary by the bools legal drama, the script is spot on - it's whip sharp, witty and surprisingly funny at parts. This film keeps you hanging on every minute and guessing about the outcome. This paired with a truly phenomenal cast makes the movie a must see. I'm not the biggest fan of Tom Cruise, but he's an absolute star in this and displays a range I never thought possible from him. And then of course there's Jack Nicholson who manages to almost steal the show with his iconic line and speech, despite it really only being a minor part. And the rest of the cast too are really great, even Demi Moore who I've never thought much of either.
My only criticism of this film is that it may be overly long. Not massively, but at 2h15 I feel like it could've been cut down a little to around 2 hours without any real detriment to the story. But that said, this did pretty much hold my attention throughout and this is mainly due to Tom Cruise's performance and Sorkin's unbelievably brilliant script. If you're looking for a shining example of a courtroom drama, you can do no better than this.
Ross (3282 KP) rated Just Mercy (2019) in Movies
Jun 15, 2020
Superb legal drama
A very topical film at the moment, telling the true story of a man ending up on death row after a dubious murder trial with negligible evidence weighed up against copious amounts of evidence of his innocence. As usual, it is the story of the police and DA being under pressure to convict someone of the crime and finding an easy target.
Jordan plays young lawyer Bryan Stevenson who moves to Alabama to fight for justice for death row convicts. Among many cases he meets Jonny D (Foxx), who initially refuses to fight any more despite the paper-thin conviction he received. Persuaded, the pair start their fight against the system, met time and time again with prejudice, injustice and an unfair system that is unwilling to review past cases.
The irony of this unfolding in the town that is so proud to have been where Harper Lee wrote To Kill a Mockingbird, the story of a black man facing an unfair trial accused of crime against a young white female, was not lost on me. This wasn't made much of in the film, I would guess out of respect for the family of the actual murder victim here, and not wanting to suggest a parallel with the false crime in the book.
The film does well to portray the racial injustice, unbalanced legal system and prejudice experienced by the authorities and smalltown America, but not overdo it. This leaves the viewer to mull it on their own, which is especially important to do in the current climate.
An excellent film that gets the balance right between story, faithfulness to the facts and sewing thoughts and parallels with modern day life.
Jordan plays young lawyer Bryan Stevenson who moves to Alabama to fight for justice for death row convicts. Among many cases he meets Jonny D (Foxx), who initially refuses to fight any more despite the paper-thin conviction he received. Persuaded, the pair start their fight against the system, met time and time again with prejudice, injustice and an unfair system that is unwilling to review past cases.
The irony of this unfolding in the town that is so proud to have been where Harper Lee wrote To Kill a Mockingbird, the story of a black man facing an unfair trial accused of crime against a young white female, was not lost on me. This wasn't made much of in the film, I would guess out of respect for the family of the actual murder victim here, and not wanting to suggest a parallel with the false crime in the book.
The film does well to portray the racial injustice, unbalanced legal system and prejudice experienced by the authorities and smalltown America, but not overdo it. This leaves the viewer to mull it on their own, which is especially important to do in the current climate.
An excellent film that gets the balance right between story, faithfulness to the facts and sewing thoughts and parallels with modern day life.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mauritanian (2021) in Movies
Apr 14, 2021
Great acting from all four leads, especially Tahar Rahim (2 more)
Great use of screen ratios for flashbacks
Very thought provoking
War crimes don't just happen on the battlefield
It’s 2001. Bush and Rumsfeld seek vengeance on the perpetrators of 9/11. Quite right too. But rounding up hundreds of suspects and incarcerating them for years, without charge, in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba was an appalling act for a supposedly first-world country.
“The Mauritanian” then is the true story of one such unfortunate – Mohamedou Ould Slahi, played by Tahar Rahim. We first join Slahi at a family wedding in Nouakchott (good “Pointless” answer for the capital of Mauritania people!). ‘Invited for questioning’ by the American authorities, we next see Slahi in the Cuban stronghold.
Pro-bono lawyer Nancy Hollander (Jodie Foster) becomes a pariah by picking up his defence. Supporting her is assistant Teri Duncan (Shailene Woodley). Hollander is very formal and professionally aloof, not assuming his guilt or innocence. After meeting the man, and assuming his innocence, Duncan though is more emotionally involved. The man opposing them at trial is US Army prosecutor Stuart Couch (Benedict Cumberbatch). Couch, having lost one of his best friends aboard the South Tower plane, has an axe to grind.
As the pair battle unseen forces for access to documentation, they uncover more and more of the truth about life in Guantánamo Bay.
Positives:
- I've not read the book so I found the story gripping. As the related legal information is divulged, the movie drip-feeds flashbacks of Slahia's story, which is clever.
- Acting wise, "The Mauritanian" has top notch stuff. Tahir Rahim is excellent as Slahia. He portrays charismatic and confident businessman, brought down to earth with a bump. Not recognizing him with an Oscar nomination feels like a minor crime. He will have to make do with the BAFTA nomination. Also brilliant is Jodie Foster. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man pointed out, it's so nice to see an actress acting her age with confidence. The ever-watchable Shailene Woodley is also great, especially in a dramatic 'dismissal' scene. She adds some much needed warmth to the legal team. The southern drawl from Cumberbatch is a bit of a surprise and takes some getting used to. But it's still a strong performance from him.
- After ranting on last time at Zack Snyder's use of 4:3 screen ratios in "Justice League", here is an intelligent use of the technique. The film is in 16:9 ratio, but then pivots to 4:3 for all of the Guantanamo flashback scenes, reflecting the claustrophobia of Slahia's position.
- Real-life footage over the closing titles is absolutely fascinating.
Negatives:
- I personally didn't find this a particular negative, but I went into the film knowing it to be a "legal drama". So there would be lots of scenes, as in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", with courtroom debate and gavel-banging, right? Actually, there is almost none of that. Most of the legal action is in terms of the preparation of the case and the paperwork involved. (If this makes the movie sound excruciatingly dull... think again!)
- The Guantanamo story ends quite abruptly (with the above-mentioned jolt), and left me wanting to see more of the intervening time. It's not often that I complain about a film running too short, but here is one where just a little of "the Snyder treatment" might have been welcomed!
Additional Note for the squeamish: For those worried about seeing distressing scenes of torture (e.g. Fingernail extraction, etc), these are - although disturbing - more of the "psychological torment" type. So those of a squeamish disposition can still watch this one.
Summary Thoughts:
The fact that "The Mauritanian" is a true story hammers home just what the US has been up to over the last 20 years. War crimes are not only committed on the battlefield.
Director Kevin Macdonald is no stranger to documentaries ("Touching the Void", "Whitney"). He's also proved adept at bringing gripping true stories to the screen (having previously given us "The Last King of Scotland"). Here, the emotional journeys of the key characters are well observed making the movie 'highly recommended'.
For the full One Mann's Movies review see here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/09/the-mauritanian-america-are-you-squirming-with-embarrassment/
“The Mauritanian” then is the true story of one such unfortunate – Mohamedou Ould Slahi, played by Tahar Rahim. We first join Slahi at a family wedding in Nouakchott (good “Pointless” answer for the capital of Mauritania people!). ‘Invited for questioning’ by the American authorities, we next see Slahi in the Cuban stronghold.
Pro-bono lawyer Nancy Hollander (Jodie Foster) becomes a pariah by picking up his defence. Supporting her is assistant Teri Duncan (Shailene Woodley). Hollander is very formal and professionally aloof, not assuming his guilt or innocence. After meeting the man, and assuming his innocence, Duncan though is more emotionally involved. The man opposing them at trial is US Army prosecutor Stuart Couch (Benedict Cumberbatch). Couch, having lost one of his best friends aboard the South Tower plane, has an axe to grind.
As the pair battle unseen forces for access to documentation, they uncover more and more of the truth about life in Guantánamo Bay.
Positives:
- I've not read the book so I found the story gripping. As the related legal information is divulged, the movie drip-feeds flashbacks of Slahia's story, which is clever.
- Acting wise, "The Mauritanian" has top notch stuff. Tahir Rahim is excellent as Slahia. He portrays charismatic and confident businessman, brought down to earth with a bump. Not recognizing him with an Oscar nomination feels like a minor crime. He will have to make do with the BAFTA nomination. Also brilliant is Jodie Foster. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man pointed out, it's so nice to see an actress acting her age with confidence. The ever-watchable Shailene Woodley is also great, especially in a dramatic 'dismissal' scene. She adds some much needed warmth to the legal team. The southern drawl from Cumberbatch is a bit of a surprise and takes some getting used to. But it's still a strong performance from him.
- After ranting on last time at Zack Snyder's use of 4:3 screen ratios in "Justice League", here is an intelligent use of the technique. The film is in 16:9 ratio, but then pivots to 4:3 for all of the Guantanamo flashback scenes, reflecting the claustrophobia of Slahia's position.
- Real-life footage over the closing titles is absolutely fascinating.
Negatives:
- I personally didn't find this a particular negative, but I went into the film knowing it to be a "legal drama". So there would be lots of scenes, as in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", with courtroom debate and gavel-banging, right? Actually, there is almost none of that. Most of the legal action is in terms of the preparation of the case and the paperwork involved. (If this makes the movie sound excruciatingly dull... think again!)
- The Guantanamo story ends quite abruptly (with the above-mentioned jolt), and left me wanting to see more of the intervening time. It's not often that I complain about a film running too short, but here is one where just a little of "the Snyder treatment" might have been welcomed!
Additional Note for the squeamish: For those worried about seeing distressing scenes of torture (e.g. Fingernail extraction, etc), these are - although disturbing - more of the "psychological torment" type. So those of a squeamish disposition can still watch this one.
Summary Thoughts:
The fact that "The Mauritanian" is a true story hammers home just what the US has been up to over the last 20 years. War crimes are not only committed on the battlefield.
Director Kevin Macdonald is no stranger to documentaries ("Touching the Void", "Whitney"). He's also proved adept at bringing gripping true stories to the screen (having previously given us "The Last King of Scotland"). Here, the emotional journeys of the key characters are well observed making the movie 'highly recommended'.
For the full One Mann's Movies review see here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/09/the-mauritanian-america-are-you-squirming-with-embarrassment/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Roman J. Israel, Esq. (2018) in Movies
Feb 23, 2018
Come for Denzel, stay for...well...there isn't much else to stay for
Denzel Washington is one of the finest actors of his generation. A charismatic screen presence, he commands the viewer's attention whether he is performing a comedy, drama or action film. He has won 2 Oscars as a performer and has been nominated for his acting 6 other times - including (rightfully so) for his performance as the titular character in ROMAN J ISRAEL, ESQ.
And thank goodness he is in this film for I found precious little else to recommend in this movie.
ROMAN J. ISRAEL, ESQ. tells the story of...ahem...Roman J. Israel, Esq, a "savant" legal attorney (some would call him autistic) who has spent the past many, many years as the behind the scenes lawyer in a rundown 2 person law firm that specializes in defending "the little guy". When his partner unexpectedly dies, Roman is thrust into the world of big time, big business and big MONEY law and when Roman is sucked into this world he suffers a crisis of conscience and must decide between the luxuries that this new, rich life affords and the idealism that has driven him for all these many years.
In lesser hands, this character could have been maudlin or cloying - but in Washington's seasoned hands, this character jumps off the page as a quirky and different sort of person - a genius to be sure - but a troubled genius. One that is more comfortable alone, in his library with his books and legal briefs than with people. Washington threads the needle very well in his portrayal making Roman J. Israel seem like a real person and not just a character.
Also strong is Colin Farrell as the head of the Big Business Law Firm that Roman ends up working for. Farrell has grown as an actor in my eyes - and his portrayal of George Pierce shows a another real person behind the suit and not just a 2 dimensional caricature. Also along for the ride is Carmen Ejogo in an underwritten part as a young idealistic lawyer - and potential love interest for Roman - who reminds Roman of his younger self.
But, despite these performances, the film falls flat because - besides Roman's crisis of conscience - nothing else really happens.
The blame for this has to lie at the hands of screenwriter and director Dan Gilroy (the wonderful, underrated - and underseen - NIGHTCRAWLER). He is fascinated by the intricacies of Roman's world but fails to flesh it out. It's almost as if he was so interested in creating the trees, he never created a forest interesting enough for these trees to live in - or for us to visit.
So come for Denzel, but be warned, if you stay there's not much else to stay for.
Letter Grade B- (because of Denzel's performance)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And thank goodness he is in this film for I found precious little else to recommend in this movie.
ROMAN J. ISRAEL, ESQ. tells the story of...ahem...Roman J. Israel, Esq, a "savant" legal attorney (some would call him autistic) who has spent the past many, many years as the behind the scenes lawyer in a rundown 2 person law firm that specializes in defending "the little guy". When his partner unexpectedly dies, Roman is thrust into the world of big time, big business and big MONEY law and when Roman is sucked into this world he suffers a crisis of conscience and must decide between the luxuries that this new, rich life affords and the idealism that has driven him for all these many years.
In lesser hands, this character could have been maudlin or cloying - but in Washington's seasoned hands, this character jumps off the page as a quirky and different sort of person - a genius to be sure - but a troubled genius. One that is more comfortable alone, in his library with his books and legal briefs than with people. Washington threads the needle very well in his portrayal making Roman J. Israel seem like a real person and not just a character.
Also strong is Colin Farrell as the head of the Big Business Law Firm that Roman ends up working for. Farrell has grown as an actor in my eyes - and his portrayal of George Pierce shows a another real person behind the suit and not just a 2 dimensional caricature. Also along for the ride is Carmen Ejogo in an underwritten part as a young idealistic lawyer - and potential love interest for Roman - who reminds Roman of his younger self.
But, despite these performances, the film falls flat because - besides Roman's crisis of conscience - nothing else really happens.
The blame for this has to lie at the hands of screenwriter and director Dan Gilroy (the wonderful, underrated - and underseen - NIGHTCRAWLER). He is fascinated by the intricacies of Roman's world but fails to flesh it out. It's almost as if he was so interested in creating the trees, he never created a forest interesting enough for these trees to live in - or for us to visit.
So come for Denzel, but be warned, if you stay there's not much else to stay for.
Letter Grade B- (because of Denzel's performance)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) created a post
Sep 15, 2021
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated A Nearly Normal Family in Books
May 14, 2019
Legal thrillers usually aren't my thing. In fact, I find them to be more a snooze fest than anything else. However, when I read the synopsis for A Nearly Normal Family by M.T. Edvardsson, I was intrigued. I just want to say that this book blew me away! It was that good!
The plot for A Nearly Normal Family is very intriguing indeed. Eighteen year old Stella becomes involved with an older man named Christopher. She's having the time of her life. When she learns more about her romantic interest, she's having a hard time believing the bad stuff is true. It's not long before Christopher is found murdered, and Stella is the main suspect. Told from the point of view from Stella's father, Stella, and Stella's mother, we learn what really happened that night, what led to all of this drama, and what happens afterwards. We also learn how far people will go to protect the ones they love. I found myself not wanting to guess what happened with this book. I wanted everything to be a complete surprise which it was. There are a few twists and turns throughout this novel which I did enjoy. I loved that this book tied up any loose ends by the end of the book, and nothing was left to speculation. I hate having to guess what happened after the main mystery has been solved, so I was thrilled when I had all my answers. I'm a stickler for closure!
The characters were all very well developed and fleshed out enough that they felt real. We are introduced to Adam, Stella's father, first. We see his relationship with his daughter, his wife, and with God since he's a pastor. He relies heavily on his faith to get him through things. He's an upstanding member of the community and very trustworthy. I found Adam to be the most interesting to read about. It was interesting to read about his response to his daughter being accused of murder. Next, we are introduced to Stella's point of view. Stella is accused of murdering her boyfriend, Christopher. She's eighteen and has a devil may care attitude when it comes to everything. Some points throughout the book, I felt she was innocent of the crime, but there were other times she seemed very guilty. I couldn't figure her out. It was interesting to read about what had happened throughout her young life to get to the predicament she was in. Finally, we learn the perspective from Ulrika, Stella's mother. I didn't think I would be able to connect with Ulrika right at first, but I found myself understanding her quickly. Ulrika is a criminal defense attorney, so it was interesting reading about her perspective on everything. I was happy that Ulrika didn't use legal jargon too often. Although we don't get to read things from her perspective, the character of Amina, Stella's best friend, was also intriguing. I loved reading about the girls' friendship throughout the years and how loyal they were to one another.
The pacing was spot on! Every time the story would change perspectives, I thought I'd get bored with the change of character, but I was sucked in right away same as before. I devoured page after page of A Nearly Normal Family. I couldn't wait to find out more and learn about motives and what would happen.
Trigger warnings include profanity, alcohol use, drug use, violence (not very graphic), rape (not very graphic, mentions of sex (not graphic), and murder.
Overall, A Nearly Normal Family is a very intriguing read that pulls you in from the very first page and doesn't let you go even after it ends. I would definitely recommend A Nearly Normal Family by M.T. Edvardsson to those aged 18+ who like to get lost in well written thrillers!
--
(A special thank you to the publisher for providing me with an ARC paperback of A Nearly Normal Family by M.T. Edvardsson in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
The plot for A Nearly Normal Family is very intriguing indeed. Eighteen year old Stella becomes involved with an older man named Christopher. She's having the time of her life. When she learns more about her romantic interest, she's having a hard time believing the bad stuff is true. It's not long before Christopher is found murdered, and Stella is the main suspect. Told from the point of view from Stella's father, Stella, and Stella's mother, we learn what really happened that night, what led to all of this drama, and what happens afterwards. We also learn how far people will go to protect the ones they love. I found myself not wanting to guess what happened with this book. I wanted everything to be a complete surprise which it was. There are a few twists and turns throughout this novel which I did enjoy. I loved that this book tied up any loose ends by the end of the book, and nothing was left to speculation. I hate having to guess what happened after the main mystery has been solved, so I was thrilled when I had all my answers. I'm a stickler for closure!
The characters were all very well developed and fleshed out enough that they felt real. We are introduced to Adam, Stella's father, first. We see his relationship with his daughter, his wife, and with God since he's a pastor. He relies heavily on his faith to get him through things. He's an upstanding member of the community and very trustworthy. I found Adam to be the most interesting to read about. It was interesting to read about his response to his daughter being accused of murder. Next, we are introduced to Stella's point of view. Stella is accused of murdering her boyfriend, Christopher. She's eighteen and has a devil may care attitude when it comes to everything. Some points throughout the book, I felt she was innocent of the crime, but there were other times she seemed very guilty. I couldn't figure her out. It was interesting to read about what had happened throughout her young life to get to the predicament she was in. Finally, we learn the perspective from Ulrika, Stella's mother. I didn't think I would be able to connect with Ulrika right at first, but I found myself understanding her quickly. Ulrika is a criminal defense attorney, so it was interesting reading about her perspective on everything. I was happy that Ulrika didn't use legal jargon too often. Although we don't get to read things from her perspective, the character of Amina, Stella's best friend, was also intriguing. I loved reading about the girls' friendship throughout the years and how loyal they were to one another.
The pacing was spot on! Every time the story would change perspectives, I thought I'd get bored with the change of character, but I was sucked in right away same as before. I devoured page after page of A Nearly Normal Family. I couldn't wait to find out more and learn about motives and what would happen.
Trigger warnings include profanity, alcohol use, drug use, violence (not very graphic), rape (not very graphic, mentions of sex (not graphic), and murder.
Overall, A Nearly Normal Family is a very intriguing read that pulls you in from the very first page and doesn't let you go even after it ends. I would definitely recommend A Nearly Normal Family by M.T. Edvardsson to those aged 18+ who like to get lost in well written thrillers!
--
(A special thank you to the publisher for providing me with an ARC paperback of A Nearly Normal Family by M.T. Edvardsson in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)