Search
Search results
Bodies of Desire and Bodies in Distress: The Golden Age of Italian Cult Cinema, 1970-1985
Book
In recent years, there has been an explosion of critical interest in the icons, genres and...
KyleQ (267 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Jul 20, 2020
Intense and excessive
Before watching this I had become a fan of both House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects, so I did appreciate Rob Zombie as a filmmaker. But it still seemed like a strange idea to have him direct the remake of Halloween.
This remake is 2 hours long, it's mostly stretched to that length due to the scenes involving 10-year-old Michael.
Daeg Faerch plays the young Mikey, and does well, he's creepy and disturbing. Rob's wife Sheri Moon Zombie of course has a role, here as Mikey's mom, she's fine here as the role fits her well. The problem is everyone else, William Forsythe plays Mike's stepdad who happens to be a disgusting excuse for a human being, as is the bully played by Daryl Sabara. The movie then shifts to events at the asylum. Malcolm Mcdowell plays Dr. Sam Loomis. Mcdowell is a good actor, and he gives a pretty good performance here. But he still pales in comparison to the great Donald Pleasence. The movie than movies to 15-years later.
Scout Taylor Compton plays Laurie Strode, she does good, but I was disappointed that she was introduced making a sex joke. Rob couldn't even let the nerdy final girl be sweet and innocent. Needless to say, others are worse.
The movie has LOTS of profanity which honestly drags down any attempts at actually making characters likable. The sex and nudity have also been ramped up.
The violence is definitely brutal, but that's Zombie's style, I felt that Michael was quite terrifying here. Tyler Mane plays Michael, and his 7-foot tall stature is so intimidating.
Overall, Rob Zombie does a good job at developing the story of Michael Myers, and at making some really intense and brutal death scenes. But he does so at the expense of having likable characters and good dialog. I still like it, but I can understand why others wouldn't.
This remake is 2 hours long, it's mostly stretched to that length due to the scenes involving 10-year-old Michael.
Daeg Faerch plays the young Mikey, and does well, he's creepy and disturbing. Rob's wife Sheri Moon Zombie of course has a role, here as Mikey's mom, she's fine here as the role fits her well. The problem is everyone else, William Forsythe plays Mike's stepdad who happens to be a disgusting excuse for a human being, as is the bully played by Daryl Sabara. The movie then shifts to events at the asylum. Malcolm Mcdowell plays Dr. Sam Loomis. Mcdowell is a good actor, and he gives a pretty good performance here. But he still pales in comparison to the great Donald Pleasence. The movie than movies to 15-years later.
Scout Taylor Compton plays Laurie Strode, she does good, but I was disappointed that she was introduced making a sex joke. Rob couldn't even let the nerdy final girl be sweet and innocent. Needless to say, others are worse.
The movie has LOTS of profanity which honestly drags down any attempts at actually making characters likable. The sex and nudity have also been ramped up.
The violence is definitely brutal, but that's Zombie's style, I felt that Michael was quite terrifying here. Tyler Mane plays Michael, and his 7-foot tall stature is so intimidating.
Overall, Rob Zombie does a good job at developing the story of Michael Myers, and at making some really intense and brutal death scenes. But he does so at the expense of having likable characters and good dialog. I still like it, but I can understand why others wouldn't.
Queering Families: The Postmodern Partnerships of Cisgender Women and Transgender Men
Book
Ozzie and Harriet, move over. A new couple is moving into the neighborhood. In the postmodern era,...
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated When Will I Be Loved (2004) in Movies
Jul 4, 2021 (Updated Jul 4, 2021)
"๐ ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ณ๐ช๐ค๐ฉ ๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐ต๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐บ'๐ด ๐จ๐ช๐ณ๐ญ, ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ง๐ถ๐ค๐ฌ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ? ๐๐ฐ๐ธ ๐ฅ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ท๐ฐ๐ฌ๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ช๐ฌ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ด!"
A deeply, *deeply* misogynistic, artsy-fartsy disaster of stratospheric proportions where every slimebag man has some idiotic 'philosophical' defense as to why they need to manipulate this woman into letting them fuck her - made by a known serial sexual predator. I felt complicit for even entertaining the idea to watch such dogshit, like I needed a military-grade chemical shower after seeing it. Or to at least bleach my eyes. Might be the worst movie I've ever seen, if not then certainly somewhere down in the bottom 5 or 10. Written, edited, and shot like a bad high school student project with this unbearable non-story which rips off - of all movies - ๐๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ค๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ด๐ข๐ญ (by name, in fact)? Neve Campbell has sex with another women (without showing any skin of course) behind a transparent mesh curtain scored to a shitty Bach cover - imagine if that episode from "South Park" where the people smelled their own farts was real and you'd get this depth-free piece of shit. As cynical, uninvolved, and up-its-own-ass as ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด is, at least that one actually went through with its promise of provocation. ๐๐ช๐ง๐ต๐บ ๐๐ฉ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ณ๐ฆ๐บ is unironically more provocative than this. Effectively just a series of bullshit conversations that go nowhere and shit-tier sex scenes more poorly thrown together than that one from Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part I. And then it also features horrible ass songs on the soundtrack because of course it does. One of the rare movies to bag Roger Ebert's highest rating... which was also 'earned' by fellow turds ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฐ๐ญ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ข๐ด๐ด and ๐๐ฉ๐ช๐ณ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด ๐๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐๐ฏ๐ฆ ๐๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ (which - awful as they are - are masterpieces compared to this) so it shows how much that distinction is worth lmao. Shoot me now.
A deeply, *deeply* misogynistic, artsy-fartsy disaster of stratospheric proportions where every slimebag man has some idiotic 'philosophical' defense as to why they need to manipulate this woman into letting them fuck her - made by a known serial sexual predator. I felt complicit for even entertaining the idea to watch such dogshit, like I needed a military-grade chemical shower after seeing it. Or to at least bleach my eyes. Might be the worst movie I've ever seen, if not then certainly somewhere down in the bottom 5 or 10. Written, edited, and shot like a bad high school student project with this unbearable non-story which rips off - of all movies - ๐๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ค๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ด๐ข๐ญ (by name, in fact)? Neve Campbell has sex with another women (without showing any skin of course) behind a transparent mesh curtain scored to a shitty Bach cover - imagine if that episode from "South Park" where the people smelled their own farts was real and you'd get this depth-free piece of shit. As cynical, uninvolved, and up-its-own-ass as ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด is, at least that one actually went through with its promise of provocation. ๐๐ช๐ง๐ต๐บ ๐๐ฉ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ณ๐ฆ๐บ is unironically more provocative than this. Effectively just a series of bullshit conversations that go nowhere and shit-tier sex scenes more poorly thrown together than that one from Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part I. And then it also features horrible ass songs on the soundtrack because of course it does. One of the rare movies to bag Roger Ebert's highest rating... which was also 'earned' by fellow turds ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฐ๐ญ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ข๐ด๐ด and ๐๐ฉ๐ช๐ณ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด ๐๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ต ๐๐ฏ๐ฆ ๐๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ (which - awful as they are - are masterpieces compared to this) so it shows how much that distinction is worth lmao. Shoot me now.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated The Dreamers (2003) in Movies
Dec 3, 2020 (Updated Dec 3, 2020)
Actual lines of dialogue from this movie:
"๐ ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ฏ'๐ต ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ. ๐๐ถ๐ต ๐ช๐ง ๐ ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฅ, ๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ข ๐ฃ๐ญ๐ข๐ค๐ฌ, ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ง๐ต-๐ฉ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐จ๐ถ๐ช๐ต๐ข๐ณ๐ช๐ด๐ต."
"๐'๐ฎ ๐ต๐ฐ๐ฐ ๐ธ๐ฆ๐ต ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ด๐ธ๐ฆ๐ณ [๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฑ๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ฆ]."
"๐ ๐ฐ๐ถ'๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ข ๐ฃ๐ช๐จ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ท๐ช๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ถ๐ง๐ง, ๐ณ๐ช๐จ๐ฉ๐ต? ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ธ๐ฉ๐บ ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ฏ'๐ต ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ข๐ฐ ๐ข๐ด ๐ข ๐จ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ต ๐ฅ๐ช๐ณ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ฐ๐ณ... ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฌ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ข ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ท๐ช๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ช๐ต๐ฉ ๐ข ๐ค๐ข๐ด๐ต ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฎ๐ช๐ญ๐ญ๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด."
The far less entertaining ๐๐ณ๐ถ๐ฆ๐ญ ๐๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด meets... idek, the really long talky parts from ๐๐ฆ๐ต๐ณ๐ฐ? A woeful experience - uses a ton of intellectual jargon but says next to nothing. On the one hand, perfectly emulates this sort of 20-something who thinks they're the most original being on the planet despite being another clichรฉd story no one wants to be around... but on the other, at what cost? These people seem beyond insufferable to be around - three pretentious, odious fucks sit around drinking wine and smoking while spewing superficial first-year-film-major histrionics, jerking off, and smelling each others' underwear. Every bit as lumbering, surface-level, and pompous as that sounds. Usually I'm all for these conceited combinations of toxic people, self-destruction, and explicit sex but this is virtual parody levels of this sort of "wants to be a 70s movie really bad" cinema. Has a few good scenes that actually find a palpable mood but otherwise exists almost solely to brag about how many old movies it's seen, uses both those aforementioned films and the real life 1968 Paris riots as not much more than mere window dressing while failing to confront whatever shred of an idea it briefly poses for a scene or two. Eva Green and the dad are the only two tolerable performances. All but begs you to find it audacious and daring with a shit-eating sneer while simultaneously gutting the homosexuality from the original text so this won't steer *too* far off the hetero curve. And then it ends with a total "who cares?". Pretty but dumb. The sex stuff is kind of decent, though.
"๐ ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ฏ'๐ต ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ. ๐๐ถ๐ต ๐ช๐ง ๐ ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฅ, ๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ข ๐ฃ๐ญ๐ข๐ค๐ฌ, ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ง๐ต-๐ฉ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐จ๐ถ๐ช๐ต๐ข๐ณ๐ช๐ด๐ต."
"๐'๐ฎ ๐ต๐ฐ๐ฐ ๐ธ๐ฆ๐ต ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ด๐ธ๐ฆ๐ณ [๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฑ๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ฆ]."
"๐ ๐ฐ๐ถ'๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ข ๐ฃ๐ช๐จ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ท๐ช๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ถ๐ง๐ง, ๐ณ๐ช๐จ๐ฉ๐ต? ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ธ๐ฉ๐บ ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ฏ'๐ต ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ข๐ฐ ๐ข๐ด ๐ข ๐จ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ต ๐ฅ๐ช๐ณ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ฐ๐ณ... ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฌ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ข ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ท๐ช๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ช๐ต๐ฉ ๐ข ๐ค๐ข๐ด๐ต ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฎ๐ช๐ญ๐ญ๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด."
The far less entertaining ๐๐ณ๐ถ๐ฆ๐ญ ๐๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด meets... idek, the really long talky parts from ๐๐ฆ๐ต๐ณ๐ฐ? A woeful experience - uses a ton of intellectual jargon but says next to nothing. On the one hand, perfectly emulates this sort of 20-something who thinks they're the most original being on the planet despite being another clichรฉd story no one wants to be around... but on the other, at what cost? These people seem beyond insufferable to be around - three pretentious, odious fucks sit around drinking wine and smoking while spewing superficial first-year-film-major histrionics, jerking off, and smelling each others' underwear. Every bit as lumbering, surface-level, and pompous as that sounds. Usually I'm all for these conceited combinations of toxic people, self-destruction, and explicit sex but this is virtual parody levels of this sort of "wants to be a 70s movie really bad" cinema. Has a few good scenes that actually find a palpable mood but otherwise exists almost solely to brag about how many old movies it's seen, uses both those aforementioned films and the real life 1968 Paris riots as not much more than mere window dressing while failing to confront whatever shred of an idea it briefly poses for a scene or two. Eva Green and the dad are the only two tolerable performances. All but begs you to find it audacious and daring with a shit-eating sneer while simultaneously gutting the homosexuality from the original text so this won't steer *too* far off the hetero curve. And then it ends with a total "who cares?". Pretty but dumb. The sex stuff is kind of decent, though.
Leanne Crabtree (480 KP) rated Beauty from Pain (Beauty, #1) in Books
Oct 14, 2019
Well this is a backburner book (#1 on my to-read on Goodreads), having been on my Kindle since some time in January 2014 when it was released. I think I've put off reading it simply because of the "erotica" label it had on Goodreads. It wasn't exactly erotica, though. Yeah, they had quite a lot of sex but there was a romance to it, too.
So this starts with Laurelyn arriving in Australia with her best friend to spend time with her best friends brother for three months as he studies wine making there. On the first night they head out to a bar and take part in an...open mic night? Laurelyn sings and plays the guitar (I think) and attracts the attention of Jack, a man looking for his next lover. Instead of the usual week/month, he plans to spend three months with his next bed fellow, giving her whatever she wishes for and making her feel special. Laurelyn catches his attention and he plans to seduce her into agreeing to his arrangement.
I guess if I was on the receiving end of an attractive rich guy wanting to spend three months with me, getting to know me and spending a lot of that time in bed, I'd enjoy it, too, but I have to admit I got a little bored with this. It was taking a little too long to get where it was going and I skipped entire sex scenes. The books 271 pages felt more like 500.
It had a rather promising start, apart from the slightly stalkerish behaviour of Jack as he tried to meet Laurelyn again, and I enjoyed the slow seduction and how he treated her. But then I didn't really see the relationship grow as such. It didn't work for me, personally.
By the end, I wasn't all that bothered about what was going to happen next with the characters so I won't be continuing the series.
So this starts with Laurelyn arriving in Australia with her best friend to spend time with her best friends brother for three months as he studies wine making there. On the first night they head out to a bar and take part in an...open mic night? Laurelyn sings and plays the guitar (I think) and attracts the attention of Jack, a man looking for his next lover. Instead of the usual week/month, he plans to spend three months with his next bed fellow, giving her whatever she wishes for and making her feel special. Laurelyn catches his attention and he plans to seduce her into agreeing to his arrangement.
I guess if I was on the receiving end of an attractive rich guy wanting to spend three months with me, getting to know me and spending a lot of that time in bed, I'd enjoy it, too, but I have to admit I got a little bored with this. It was taking a little too long to get where it was going and I skipped entire sex scenes. The books 271 pages felt more like 500.
It had a rather promising start, apart from the slightly stalkerish behaviour of Jack as he tried to meet Laurelyn again, and I enjoyed the slow seduction and how he treated her. But then I didn't really see the relationship grow as such. It didn't work for me, personally.
By the end, I wasn't all that bothered about what was going to happen next with the characters so I won't be continuing the series.
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2352 KP) rated Fake Truth in Books
Jun 5, 2020
The Truth is I Wish More of This Book Were Fake
Writer Ian Ludlow is stuck. Despite his most recent exploits as an off the books CIA agent, he canโt come up with anything worthy of his next book. So when his CIA partner, Margo French, throws a newspaper at him, he picks a couple of articles at random and they begin to investigate as if Ianโs writerโs imagination was right and there is a connection between them. The scary thing is, they might have stumbled upon something that way, with tentacles that spread from Russia to the US-Mexico border with the news media in between. But what exactly have they found?
Iโve enjoyed the first two books in this series, but this one was a disappointment. While we see the various threads involved in this plot early on, the story still moves too slowly for the first half. Once it does start, we get plenty of action and a great climax. Since this is a loving spoof of the spy genre, I definitely enjoyed some laughs. The characters can be a bit thin, but thatโs part of the genre. Unfortunately, so is sex, and there are several sex scenes I really could have done without. The author stages his story in such a way that very thinly disguises his politics, which really pulled me out of the story. I pick up fiction to escape politics, not to have one point of view shoved down my throat. I realize both of the things that bothered me might be selling points to others, but to me, they kept me from fully enjoying the book. I enjoyed the first two books in this series (and the books should be read in order since this one has some spoilers for previous adventures), so hopefully the series will be back to entertaining for the next in the series.
Iโve enjoyed the first two books in this series, but this one was a disappointment. While we see the various threads involved in this plot early on, the story still moves too slowly for the first half. Once it does start, we get plenty of action and a great climax. Since this is a loving spoof of the spy genre, I definitely enjoyed some laughs. The characters can be a bit thin, but thatโs part of the genre. Unfortunately, so is sex, and there are several sex scenes I really could have done without. The author stages his story in such a way that very thinly disguises his politics, which really pulled me out of the story. I pick up fiction to escape politics, not to have one point of view shoved down my throat. I realize both of the things that bothered me might be selling points to others, but to me, they kept me from fully enjoying the book. I enjoyed the first two books in this series (and the books should be read in order since this one has some spoilers for previous adventures), so hopefully the series will be back to entertaining for the next in the series.
No Limits (No Shame #2)
10.0
Rate It
Book
Josh is convinced heโll never find someone whoโll love him the way he is. Heโs not exactly a...
M_M Contemporary Romance
Merissa (12919 KP) rated Dark Indiscretions (Dark Indiscretions #1) in Books
Apr 10, 2023
This is the fast-paced tale of Jennifer Johnston, a Mystic (that's part vampire, part shape-shifting witch to you and me). Now Mystics have a bad reputation and for the most part, that's well deserved. Jennifer, however, is the anomaly. She's the one who doesn't want to be bad, who has gotten on with her life and is doing just dandy. That is until her daughter finds her mates.
I liked the idea of this book but have to say that I had some problems with it in reality. The thing for me is that there is no build-up, no impact, and no time to process. It is all done quite matter-of-factly and almost unemotionally. And I'm saying that for parts of the story that really, really should have had more of an impact.
I will give one example which is not Jennifer's story but is to do with her. She has met her mates - Yey! One of them rejects her because she is a Mystic - Boo! But instead of this building up and finding out how it would affect the trio with one of them so against the idea, this is what happens. He has a temper tantrum, she goes upstairs. The second male gives the first one a dirty look and follows her upstairs. They then have sex (!), first male joins in, everything's fine, let's carry on with the story. Nothing was resolved, no questions answered, just let's have sex and that will sort it.
It's the same throughout the book, even at the ending. Now I like a fast-paced book that doesn't drag but I would still like to have had 'more'. I liked the concept but struggled with the reality.
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
August 27, 2016
I liked the idea of this book but have to say that I had some problems with it in reality. The thing for me is that there is no build-up, no impact, and no time to process. It is all done quite matter-of-factly and almost unemotionally. And I'm saying that for parts of the story that really, really should have had more of an impact.
I will give one example which is not Jennifer's story but is to do with her. She has met her mates - Yey! One of them rejects her because she is a Mystic - Boo! But instead of this building up and finding out how it would affect the trio with one of them so against the idea, this is what happens. He has a temper tantrum, she goes upstairs. The second male gives the first one a dirty look and follows her upstairs. They then have sex (!), first male joins in, everything's fine, let's carry on with the story. Nothing was resolved, no questions answered, just let's have sex and that will sort it.
It's the same throughout the book, even at the ending. Now I like a fast-paced book that doesn't drag but I would still like to have had 'more'. I liked the concept but struggled with the reality.
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
August 27, 2016
ClareR (5879 KP) rated The Ophelia Girls in Books
Jan 18, 2022 (Updated Jan 18, 2022)
There is no denying that The Ophelia Girls is a beautifully written, all-consuming novel. The main characters of Ruth and her daughter Maeve, are similar, in that they are both still searching for their place in the world. Ruth seems to feel uncomfortable back in her childhood home, where memories of the summer of 1973 seem to still consume her. Maeve on the other hand, is at the start of being able to make good memories, after being officially told that sheโs in remission from leukaemia. But she still feels like a child - and she doesnโt want to be.
And then along comes Stuart: her motherโs childhood friend, and a friend of her fathers as well. Stuart makes Maeve feel seen. And this is where my internal klaxon went off. Stuart comes across as a predator. He notices Maeveโs infatuation and revels in it, finally taking advantage of her feelings. At least this is how I interpreted it.
Maeve is a girl who has led a sheltered life - a life mainly in hospital. She hasnโt had the opportunity to mix with other children, boys specifically, and has little life experience with the opposite sex. Regardless of that, Stuartโs character truly made me see red. I know, I know, itโs a book, but if I could have reached in, pulled him out and disposed of him (not thought that through properly, obviously), I would have. I will say that the sex scenes between Maeve and Stuart arenโt written in a titillating way. Itโs seen through Maeveโs eyes, and she truly believes that he loves her. All the same, if this doesnโt appeal to you, you might want to steer clear.
In contrast to her mother, Maeve does follow her heart, and the reader is left to decide whether she was actually any better off.
Do I recommend it? Yes, of course. Itโs written with gorgeous, lyrical prose, and really makes you empathise with the characters. Iโm glad I read it.
And then along comes Stuart: her motherโs childhood friend, and a friend of her fathers as well. Stuart makes Maeve feel seen. And this is where my internal klaxon went off. Stuart comes across as a predator. He notices Maeveโs infatuation and revels in it, finally taking advantage of her feelings. At least this is how I interpreted it.
Maeve is a girl who has led a sheltered life - a life mainly in hospital. She hasnโt had the opportunity to mix with other children, boys specifically, and has little life experience with the opposite sex. Regardless of that, Stuartโs character truly made me see red. I know, I know, itโs a book, but if I could have reached in, pulled him out and disposed of him (not thought that through properly, obviously), I would have. I will say that the sex scenes between Maeve and Stuart arenโt written in a titillating way. Itโs seen through Maeveโs eyes, and she truly believes that he loves her. All the same, if this doesnโt appeal to you, you might want to steer clear.
In contrast to her mother, Maeve does follow her heart, and the reader is left to decide whether she was actually any better off.
Do I recommend it? Yes, of course. Itโs written with gorgeous, lyrical prose, and really makes you empathise with the characters. Iโm glad I read it.